Second Drafts

Losing the Fight Over Love

My heart is heavy with all that is taking place right now concerning the debate over gay marriage. Apart from the issue itself, I lament the hostile rhetoric of it all and the way sides are being taken with so little nuance (see Facebook's pink equal signs and their "Christian" cross variations), not so much for a position but against someone else taking the opposite one.

With this in mind, I appreciate N.T. Wright's perspective on framing the discussion and would encourage you to give thought to it in terms of how Christians should engage:

As to the issue itself, I wrote about it here on the blog five years ago and you're welcome to agree or disagree. For a more recent treatise that I think worthy of your time, Voddie Baucham's article, "Gay Is Not the New Black," is an important piece that does a good job addressing the issues at hand in the context of the current rhetoric.

All that said, pray for our country, that regardless of whatever differences people have, we can show love to one another in our discussions of them.

On Teachers, Students, and Social Media

In yet another example of ridiculous government over-reach, the governor of my previous state of Missouri signed into law a bill banning public school students and teachers from communicating and being "friends" on Facebook. Here are some article excerpts:

"'Teachers cannot establish, maintain or use a work-related website unless it is available to school administrators and the child's legal custodian, physical custodian or legal guardian,' the law states. Teachers also cannot have a non work-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student. The law is not limited to Facebook and applies to any social networking site. Although Facebook fan pages will still be allowed, direct communicaton between teachers and students on the site will be banned."

And:

"Although some critics have said the concept sounds positive on the surface, they worry it may imply that teachers may not be trusted on the site without legal intervention. Others worry that restricting sites such as Facebook could hinder the educational process in the future."

And:

"In 2010, Lee County school district in Florida advised teachers not to friend students on social networking sites, claiming that teacher-student communication through this medium is 'inappropriate.' This was the first school district in the state of Florida, possibly even the country, to issue teacher-protocol guidelines for social media."

I have a hard time believing this last paragraph. 2010? Seriously? In 2008, my administration at Westminster Christian Academy, knowing that I used social media and was "friends" with several of my high school students, asked me to draft a document that later was adopted as part of the school's social media policy. Here's what I submitted:

• Never initiate the friend, wall-to-wall, inbox, birthday, or other functions; always be a responder to students, but even then, refrain from excess posting on their pages.

• Unless you have a pre-determined set of relationship criteria (i.e. males only, females only, etc.), do not discriminate among friend requests; accept all or accept none.

• Always maintain a degree of formality despite the informal medium; keep titles (Mr., Mrs., Miss) and try to relate with as similar a classroom tone as possible.

• Realize that conversations you may have in other networks may be privy to those in your network unless you set up different access levels. Use discretion, as you are exposing students to your college/post-college discussions and topics, which may or may not be helpful to your students.

• Use good punctuation and grammar whenever possible; avoid slang and model excellence as an educator in your communication.

• Do not post pictures of yourself that are questionable, sensual, or ridiculous; if other friends include you in such pictures on their profiles, ask to remove them or untag yourself from them.

• Do not delete inbox or wall-to-wall conversations; always keep a record.

These guidelines were helpful as I related to students online. Some teachers were more reticent than I was to be online "friends" with their students; others not so much. The school did not take a hard and fast stance on the issue; the point was that all of us were encouraged to think about what we were doing and to use common sense concerning our online interactions with students.

The problem, of course, is that common sense is not so common, and the American response to the ills of the few has increasingly become a legislative knee-jerk against the good of the many. Maybe I've just been fortunate enough to know and work with too many caring, dedicated teachers, but I don't know anyone (public or private school) who has abused or been accused of misusing Facebook with his or her students. (Actually, I've read a whole lot more in the past six months about congressmen sexting pictures of themselves to interns. Where's the "no social media" law against them?)

I'm sad for my public school teacher friends in Missouri who just lost a way to be an invested, influential voice among the milieu of madness that is a teenager's online world. And, I'm a little nervous where this kind of thing might go for my private school teacher friends, as some fearful parents, school boards, or administrations may over-react with their own knee-jerk policies in the wake of the new law.

Just today I got a Facebook message from one of my first students (now a college sophomore at Ball State University in Indiana) with whom I've been "friends" since his freshman year of high school. In reading his words, walking through high school with Daniel - even from a distance via Facebook as I was only his teacher for one year - obviously meant something to him.

I'm just glad I moved to Oklahoma so he could tell me.

On Death and Justice

My friend and colleague, Rev. Luke Davis, sent this out to all our WCA staff this morning. It's very much along the lines of my own heart and worth a read for its clarity of thought.

Today, I am certain that many of our students (and we ourselves) will be reacting to the reported death of Osama Bin Laden. I am not one to make sweeping gestures and proclamations on geopolitical news (blame that on my Gospel-first, politically independent status), but I do feel compelled to make a pastoral request regarding this historic moment.

1. Justice has been done. True, it may not feel like complete justice (that’s in God’s hands), but there is no doubt there is a spirit that we’ve cut off a major head of the Hydra. A mastermind of Islamic terror has fallen. While it would have been nice to see OBL regenerated and washed by the blood of Christ, it is also a great reminder that there are consequences for evil actions. Justice wins.

2. Remind our students to continue praying for our military. This fight is not over. There is a good chance this could release cells of terror that have waited for a moment of more independent spirit. One of the hallmarks of a terror network is the potential to bring someone even worse and more evil to a position of leadership once one chief has been snuffed out (To wit, read George Jonas’ Vengeance, the book that inspired Steven Spielberg’s 2005 film, Munich).

3. We all need to be reminded that this is not a time for us as a community to engage in conspiracy theories, “Is-he-really-dead?” questions, or battle over giving the credit to President Bush who set the fight against terror in motion or President Obama who has overseen this mission to this point.

Numbers 4 and 5 are somewhat hard things to say, but I need to say them:

4. One side of me recognizes that Osama Bin Laden has done an incredible amount of evil, and we remember with sober recall the events of 9/11, the bombing of the USS Cole, etc. However, I am somewhat surprised by the venom directed at Bin Laden in comparison to individuals like Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, and the Communist regimes of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The consistent destruction and erosion of the hope, freedom, and dignity of humanity in general and Christians in particular (plus the Jewish targets of Hitler’s “Final Solution”) get MUCH MORE BIBLICAL PRESS than what Bin Laden has coordinated. I’m not saying we should ignore this moment. I’m saying I’d hope we keep some perspective on what Scripture truly prizes in an impreccatory fashion. I doubt many of our celebrations over the last twelve hours have kept this in mind.

5. Finally, if we are truly followers of Christ, we should be marked by grace first and foremost. I’m not talking about speaking graciously here (though that can be part of it). I mean this: If we honestly thought about our sin, maybe we’d be more gratefully sober. Perhaps we need to have the solemn recognition and humility that, if God truly held even a whisker of a fraction of our sins against us, we would justly deserve much worse than what OBL got.

The good news is that justice will win because justice is ultimately from Yahweh. And it is also good news that Yahweh does not visit his righteous wrath on his children clothed in the blood of his Son, who endured worse than any terrorist strike.

Shalom, Luke

Review: Atlas Shrugged (Part 1)

Over the past several months, I've been working my way through Ayn Rand's seminal novel, Atlas Shrugged. While I'm usually a quick reader, Rand's 54-year-old, 1,088-page epic about the clash between laissez-faire capitalism and unbridled socialism has taken more time than usual to read, but not because it's poorly written; I'm a coach and it's baseball season (and books don't read themselves).

Fortunately, I'd read enough to cover the newly-released Atlas Shrugged (Part 1) movie, made for $10 million and filmed in 26 days. Megan and I saw it Sunday night and, though I confess I was skeptical as to how it would play for reasons of limited budget and potentially bad acting, my fears were relieved. This independently-produced film featured some capable actors (I liked both Taylor Schilling as Dagny Taggart and Grant Bowler as Henry Rearden), a good musical score (Elia Cmiral), and CGI that wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it'd be. In case you haven't seen it yet, here's a trailer to give you an idea of what I mean:

In a word, the film is plenty watchable as a movie, but the real reason to see it is for the storyline of the book. Conservative columnist Cal Thomas wrote a succinct summary at TownHall.com, noting its timeliness for our present-day economic situation:

"Atlas Shrugged is a novel, but its plot is anything but fiction. In it, successful businesswoman, Dagny Taggart, the head of one of the largest railroad companies in America, struggles to keep her company alive in challenging economic times. Searching for innovative ways to stay afloat, she teams with steel magnate Hank Rearden, the developer of an innovative metal alloy, thought to be the strongest metal in the world. Success seems assured. Then the federal government steps in. The government proclaims the Taggart-Rearden partnership 'unfair' to other steel producers and passes a law regulating how many businesses an individual can own. The law is euphemistically titled the 'Equalization of Opportunity' bill."

Thomas goes on to explain the significance of the book 54 years since its publication:

"Atlas Shrugged is about those who would penalize individual achievement and subsidize 'the collective.' It is the embodiment of Karl Marx's philosophy, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.' To put it another way, the collective believes that if you earn $2 dollars and I make $1 dollar, you owe me 50 cents to make things 'fair.' This is redistributionist or, to paraphrase the president (Obama), 'spreading the wealth around.'"

Not one to swoon (over anything), Thomas encourages folks to go see the movie. More liberal thinker Michael Shermer, writing at The Huffington Post, also liked the film, noting that "the choice to set the film in 2016 instead of the 1950s allowed the writers to tie in current events related to the recession and bailouts -- with truck transportation and the airlines financially restricted because of excessive fuel prices and America returning to railroads as the bloodline of commerce." For the uninitiated, he also explains Rand's overarching philosophy of objectivism and her ultimate hero, John Galt:

"Who is John Galt? He is the film's principle avatar for Ayn Rand, without her all-too-human flaws. Who is Ayn Rand? She is the mind behind the philosophy of Objectivism, which she once summarized while standing on one foot:

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism

In Objectivism, (1) reality exists independent of human thought, (2) reason is the only viable method for understanding it, (3) people should seek personal happiness and exist for their own sake and no one should sacrifice himself for or be sacrificed by others, and (4) laissez-faire capitalism is the best political-economic system to enable the first three conditions to flourish. This combination, said Rand, allows people to "deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit."

To American ears, this sounds positively patriotic...until one looks past Objectivism's ideals into its realities. In a recent Facebook exchange, Ryan Dykhouse, a former student of mine and now a junior political science major at Olivet Nazarene University, voiced his perspective on Rand's philosophy this way:

"Ayn Rand believed that charity was immoral, that individuals are solely themselves responsible for all circumstances, and utterly promoted the prominence of the elite. Reason, the rational individual, has been utterly debunked. All individuals are products of the relationships they have with others. If you ignore the communal nature of humanity, you ignore the function of morality. The overbearing individualism of Ayn Rand's objectivism destroys the communal nature of humanity, and therefore humanity itself. Jesus promoted community and the giving of oneself to others, not the self-promoted greed of John Galt and the elitist heroes of Ayn Rand. Even within conservatism, believing that the individual is the sum of all things is dangerous...at least I believe so."

As I told Ryan, I don't disagree. I'm not an objectivist, nor someone who believes that the individual is the sum of all things. I do, however, appreciate Rand's spot-on commentary on what happens when government over-reaches in the name of the state. In light of recent history of "too big to fail" initiatives, this aspect of her writing (and of the film) is uncanny and scarily prophetic. Ed Morrisey, writing at Hot Air, gets at the timing of everything below:

"It occurred to me last night that this film wouldn’t have resonated nearly as well three years ago, or ten years ago, or perhaps not any time in the 54 years since Rand published the novel. The sense of crisis in the movie would have seemed too far from the experience of most Americans; likewise, the sense of aggressive, populist redistributionism would have looked hyperbolic and contrived. If this isn’t the perfect moment for this film, then it’s as close as I’d like to see it in my lifetime."

Unfortunately, Christianity gets pulled both ways by well-intentioned Christians who believe that either unrestrained capitalism or compulsory socialism is the economy of the Kingdom; neither is correct. John Wesley's view of a healthy capitalism was to "make as much as you can, save as much as you can, give as much as you can" - all three had to be in play for capitalism to be biblical. And an understanding of Acts 2 does not read as New Testament Marxist theory when one understands that Communism saying, "What's yours is mine," is very different from Christianity saying, "What's mine is yours."

The extremes of pure capitalism or pure socialism are both evil, and there's plenty of evidence in the world to support this claim. Whichever extreme of the economic spectrum one may favor, Atlas Shrugged - in book or movie form - should serve as a nuanced critique of both rather than a simplistic rationale for either.

Good movie. Recommended.

A Pre-Election Thought

A fellow colleague sent the following email to our faculty last week:

"I heard this story on NPR this evening regarding skills the next generation needs in an increasingly competitive job market. Such skills include: 'Analytic and quantitative skills; social awareness (social IQ as I call it); creative problem-solving; the ability to be adaptable; language skills, foreign languages; and then of course, communications skills.'"

I wrote back:

"Whew. Looks I’m off the hook. No one’s calling for ethics (obviously)."

Folks, regardless of your preferred political party, say a prayer when you vote on Tuesday that, in the midst of all the politics and power grabs this fall, God would mercifully cause our elected leaders to grow and follow a conscience informed by a biblical ethic. I can't think of a more needed skill for Congressional-types and kids alike.

Lawn Mower Civics

Mowing the yard is one of my favorite ways to celebrate the Memorial Day weekend. I suppose caring for the tiny piece of land I own is my noble attempt at recognizing the American traditions of honoring soldiers' sacrifices and observing summer's arrival.

Perhaps like many, I don't always think about the freedoms we Americans enjoy, which is why Memorial Day (and what we do on Memorial Day) is important. As we've done in the past, we went to Jefferson Barracks today (here are some pics):

 

 

Mowing on Saturday and attending the Memorial Day service today got me thinking about ability - specifically, all I am able to do in the U.S. because I happen to live legally within her borders and laws. Here are just a few abilities I have as a U.S. citizen not necessarily guaranteed elsewhere in the world:

I'm able to have four children (all girls). In China, I could only have one child (and the government would want that one to be a boy, so any girls might get aborted).

I'm able to keep a blog or a write a new book without having to submit either to a censor for approval. In North Korea, neither is really an option (Internet and independent ideas don't jive too well with totalitarian government regimes).

I'm able to freely live and believe according to the Christian Scriptures. While ours is not (nor ever has been) a "Christian" nation, I rejoice at being able to live freely as a Christian within our nation (try testing day-to-day religious diversity in, oh, say, Iran or Saudi Arabia and see where and what that gets you).

Now, lest you think this is just a nice patriotic post on freedom (I've tried those a few times before - 1, 2, 3, 4 - but they never seem to end up too warm and fuzzy), let me talk honestly about some personal inabilities that I wrestle with in our fair democracy (for those of you with USA bumper stickers and T-shirts, you might want to stop reading now):

I'm unable to trust elected political leaders. It doesn't matter the level - national, state, local - nor the branch - executive, legislative, judicial - nor the political affiliation - Democrat, Republican, or Independent - politicians do not have the luxury of asking for my trust and assuming they have it. I am sick of the lack of integrity, of the abuse of power, of the CYA spin, and of the arrogance to think I do not understand enough to know what's really going on. As far as I'm concerned, politicians can save the rhetoric for their consciences (if they still have any left); their words no longer affect me.

I'm unable to trust government workers. Call it guilt by association, but I'm tired of hearing about those who work for a government agency who seem all too content to siphon off their part of my taxes with little to no thought as to for whom they're really working (example). I'm not saying there isn't a place for public service (and I'm not saying every government worker is like this), but there is a philosophical difference between earning a living and spending an apportionment, and most long-term government leaders and workers don't understand it.

I'm unable to trust the media as a true Fourth Estate. It's not as if I did before, but the more I read or watch supposed "trusted" news sources, the more the agendas (liberal, conservative, etc.) spill over. One can blame the Internet, I suppose, for severely crippling the budgets of most newspapers and magazines, but someone needs to explain to our media outlets that their job is not to sell stories but to tell them. I'm done with opinion columnists masquerading as reporters (are you listening, Newsweek?) and find myself incredibly skeptical of the phrase "Here's what's making news" when it should really be "Here's what WE'RE making news."

I'm unable to trust the American Dream. This has never been much of a motivator nor temptation for me, but if it were, it's become even less so in recent recession years. While cries of socialism/communism have found their way into the public conversation of late, pure laissez-faire capitalism is not the answer either. If the past ten years have taught us anything, I would hope it would be that life and meaning are bigger than an economic system, regardless of which system it is.

Jane Jacobs, in her 2005 book, Dark Age Ahead, argued that "we're stumbling into the same cultural decline that befell the Roman Empire." One of her overarching premises was that mass amnesia - not only forgetting something but forgetting that you have forgotten it - is the main cause of a Dark Age. "When the abyss of lost memory by a people becomes too deep and too old," she wrote, "attempts to plumb it are futile."

Jacobs went on to identify five pillars of society we need and have come to depend on:

• community and family
• higher education
• the effective practice of science and science-based technology
• taxes and governmental powers directly in touch with needs and possibilities
• accountability by the learned professions

She concluded that we in America "are dangerously close to the brink of lost memory and cultural uselessness" concerning these. I concur: We are suffering from mass amnesia these days about most things having to do with taxes, governmental powers, and accountability in the economic, scientific, technological, and (sadly) even religious sectors of our society. We have forgotten that we have forgotten. Memorial Day calls us to remember; interestingly, Deuteronomy does, too (fourteen times, as a matter of fact).

We in America are and always have been a country of ability, but are there others who sense a growing tide of inability washing away the sands of strength from our U.S. shores (at least the ones not covered in oil - thank you, BP)? Care to add to either list (ability or inability), or offer something you think we've forgotten that we've forgotten? I'd welcome your thoughts.

Until then, I may go mow some more...

Live-Blogging POTUS State of the Union Address

Megan, the half-pints, and I are watching President Obama and thought we'd live-blog as he goes. We're independent political hacks at best, so take it all with a grain of salt.

8:05
"Madame Speaker, the President of the United States of America."

8:13
First blame of former administration: "One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt."

8:17
"In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that matches their decency." Haven't we (unfortunately) got that already?

8:21
To Republicans: "I thought I'd get some applause on that one (tax cuts)." This statement seems out of place for a State of the Union address. Is this just a show?

8:24
Jobs replaces health care as lead issue.

8:26
Three phone calls in the last five minutes. Are we the only ones watching the speech?

8:30
TV signal lost due to passing train here in the 'hood. Hang with us (now you know why we only watch 24 and Lost on DVD).

8:34
Innovation and energy now taking the stage. Everyone's for "safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country," but nobody wants them in their backyards.

8:36
Why does the multiple use of the word "comprehensive" scare me?

8:40
Government - Democrat or Republican - is so lost on the topic of education. You can't build values into a society without teaching virtues.

8:42
Our 11-year-old: "Is he saying you don't have to pay for college?" Hmmm.

8:43
Now to health insurance reform (not health care anymore). Why the stand-up routine?

8:47
The problem is not that the government is walking away from the people on health care; it's that the people are walking away (or wanting to) from the government on health care. Can't believe the President is still pushing the exact same health care plan nobody wants.

8:50
Second blame of former administration before justifying own enormous increase of deficit.

8:51
Another train. Sigh.

8:56
"We have a deficit of trust of Washington...and we have to address it on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue." True on both accounts.

9:00
Like the calling out of political partisanship.

9:03
Security is the topic; Janet Napolitano is the enforcer. Personally, I wouldn't mess with her.

9:06
Attention, terrorists: We're leaving Iraq in August. Why broadcast for all the world to hear?

9:08
Invoking Kennedy and Reagan on topic of nuclear weapons. Works for me.

9:10
Sounds like we're doing everything for everyone in the world. Noble, but realistic?

9:13
Total non-response from all military generals during applause of gays in the military.

9:15
Institutions of America include "our corporations, our media, and, yes, our government," but not the Church. No surprise.

9:20
"Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America." Always wonder what God thinks of that benediction, regardless of who gives it.

Putting the Mental in Fundamentalist

The hubbub caused by President Obama's planned "Welcome Back" speech to school children on Tuesday is interesting to say the least. For those of you just tuning in to the debate, here's a helpful summary of arguments from all sides concerning the public school arena - not much I could or would add to any of that. However, as I haven't read much from a Christian private school perspective, let me get the conversation started.

On Friday, Westminster received several phone call from parents asking if the school was going to participate in watching the President's speech. The official WCA position for this and other such live presentations is that they are not to take the place of our own academic presentations - those prepared lessons that fit within the planned curriculum for the courses we teach; thus, as guided by our scope and sequence, there is no official planned showing of the President's live presentation in WCA classrooms on Tuesday.

Maybe because we've already had three weeks of school and the idea of a "Welcome Back" speech seems past the expiraton date, I didn't think too much about the email. While I always want to consider whether something like this applies to what we're talking about in Ethics, in light of the fact that my students are gearing up for their first major test next week (and Tuesday finishes up our discussion for that), I figured I'd watch the speech on YouTube and, if anything seemed to apply, bring it in to class afterward.

This idea might get complicated, however, as apparently we had parents (not a lot, but a vocal few) express that if WCA showed the speech, they would keep their kids home from school.

Seriously?

When I got home later in the day, I asked Megan what she had been reading in the blogosphere about President Obama's planned speech, and she told me there were several "sick out" campaigns being organized for Tuesday, mostly by parents whose kids were in public school (though homeschoolers seemed all too eager to jump on the bandwagon as well). When I told her about the phone calls at Westminster, her response was the same as mine.

Seriously?

Am I missing something here? If it's not in the home (and why a homeschooling family would not use this as an opportunity for discussion I have no idea - we are), I would think parents would at least want their kids engaging live presentations like President Obama's in a Christian school, where I as a teacher am going to ask questions like "What can we affirm?" (importance of education, faithful study, etc.) or "What needs to be challenged?" (ideas different from Scriptural truth, etc.). It shouldn't matter who the speaker is - these are the conversations I would think a parent would be PRAYING to take place. Why keep your kids home from them? This logic does not compute; after all, why are they/we here?

At some point, Christians have got to stop putting the mental in fundamentalist and start interacting with the world. Teaching our kids to stick their heads in the sand and ignore anyone they may not totally agree with is, in a word, unChristian. Folks, we can't counter the culture unless we encounter the culture, so let's take off the blinders, read through Acts 17 again, and be some salt and light around here for crying out loud.

Thoughts?

My Little Protesters

I sent Megan and the girls to do my protesting dirty work at the St. Louis Tea Party today (I came up with the slogans). They had a good (cold) time, even getting interviewed by various media as to why they were there (though few have really reported anything - sad).

Here are a few sites where the ladies have turned up:

• St. Louis Post-Dispatch - Megan got quoted in the paper (and gets the last word)
• WORLD Online - Megan's post, "Partying Like It's 1773," is up
• The Dana Show - Click "Homeschool mama! Best craft EVER."
• St. Louis Tea Party - here's a pool of pics from the day (the ladies are included)
• Doctor Bulldog & Ronin - a bit of a scary site, but you can see Megan in a crowd shot, as well as a shot of our youngest pouring tea into the Mississippi

At best, the girls were part of something that might help make a point further down the road; at the least, they made the most of a good local opportunity to experience our freedom to assemble.

Tea Party Coming to St. Louis This Friday

I'm seriously thinking about making my way down to the Arch on Friday to be part of the St. Louis Tea Party to protest the recently-passed stimulus package. Like most folks who pay their mortgages, I have to work on Friday, but I'm wondering if I can swing the lunch hour to join other common sense Midwesterners in protest. Anybody interested?

Audit Congress

Here's a link to a petition website to encourage the immediate and annual tax audit of our government leaders. I would have signed it a thousand times if they had let me.

Please, Call Me Comrade

Yes, change has come to Washington...a chunk of change, that is. In case anyone thinks the $820 billion stimulus package is a good idea, please consider these figures from The American Spectator:

• Only ten percent of the "stimulus" is to be spent on 2009.
• Close to half goes to entities that sponsor or employ or both members of the Service Employees International Union, federal, state, and municipal employee unions, or other Democrat-controlled unions.
• For the amount spent we could have given every unemployed person in the United States roughly $75,000.
• We could give every person who had lost a job and is now passing through long-term unemployment of six months or longer roughly $300,000.

In sum:

"This has been a punch in the solar plexus to the kind of responsible, far-seeing, mature government processes that are needed to protect America. This is more than the pork barrel. This is a coup for the constituencies of the party in power and against the idea of a responsible government itself. A bleak day."

I'm no listener nor fan of Rush Limbaugh, but I do like his bipartisan test idea, as printed Thursday in the Wall Street Journal:

"Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.

Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people's wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth."

Again, the problem is not Obama (remember, I like the guy); it's his ideology/idolatry of government-as-God that is. As David Brooks noted today in the New York Times:

"A stimulus package was always going to be controversial, because economists differ widely about whether or how a stimulus can work. But this bill also permanently alters the role of the federal government, thus guaranteeing a polarizing brawl at the very start of the Obama presidency."

I hate to say "I told you so" (well, not really) but I did. Welcome to the U.S.S.A.

Inauguration Pros and Cons

A few thoughts from the peanut gallery:

• The peaceful inauguration of an American President is an inspiring thing; the spectacle of it, unfortunately, caricatures itself. 
• Obama is trying way too hard to seem Abraham Lincoln-like; that said, better Abraham Lincoln than Jimmy Carter.
• 42,500 security agents working the event seems overkill; one successful assassin, however, is one too many.
• Racially speaking, swearing in Obama the day after MLK day is not irony; one could think of it as poetry.
• The song "At Last" for the First Couple's dance is a great choice; Beyonce singing it, not so much.
• Now is a good time to buy a new American flag; flying the Stars and Stripes becomes cool again on Tuesday.
• As a result of all the hype and expectation, we've made Obama so important that he can't fail; brace yourself, America - it's going to hurt the first time he does.

Let's do this.

Obamiconned

 

With the inauguration just a few days away, I thought I'd try to get in the spirit of all things Presidential. The picture is courtesy of Paste Magazine's Obamiconme; the slogan is all Megan's (I think she meant it as a compliment, but I've been wrong before).

Wendell Berry for Secretary of Agriculture

I don't know if anyone caught it in the midst of all the tomfoolery going on across our political system of late, but Wendell Berry penned an Op-Ed piece in Sunday's New York Times that's more worthy of reading than what Barack Obama thinks about our economy or what Roland Burris thinks about himself.

Along with a guy named Wes Jackson (plant geneticist and president of The Land Institute in Salina, KS), Berry (former professor at the University of Kentucky, farmer, and writer in Port Royal, KY), attempts to draw attention away from the headlines of the day to some realities that have been in place at least as far as the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s: that is, the loss of land at the hands of man. They write:

"Soil that is used and abused...is as nonrenewable as (and far more valuable than) oil. Unlike oil, it has no technological substitute — and no powerful friends in the halls of government."

My father owns and farms 600 acres of land and was Illinois' Soil and Water Conservation Farmer of the Year in 1995. Dad has often said a similar thing for as long as I can remember; his version, however, cuts to the chase with regard to God's green earth:

"They're not making any more of it."

Indeed, "they're" not, nor does it seem "they" have considered what will happen if/when we run out of good soil. According to Jackson and Berry, history gives us a clue:

"Civilizations have destroyed themselves by destroying their farmland. This irremediable loss, never enough noticed, has been made worse by the huge monocultures and continuous soil-exposure of the agriculture we now practice."

So who's to blame? Is it city folk who have no clue from where or how food shows up on their grocery store shelves? Perhaps, but it's unfair to lay all the blame on those who live in urban areas, especially when a majority of them don't know what they don't know about agriculture as a result of the urban migration of multiple generations during the past 60 years. Granted, I might recommend a field trip to a local family farm, but that suggestion becomes problematic in that there are so few family farms around to visit anymore.

Unfortunately, either out of financial desperation or personal preference, rural folk have bought into globalization's philosophy that bigger is better by consolidating small family farms into giant corporate ones, exploding the scale of agribusiness and exploiting land and livestock to do it; they've chanted industrialization's mantra that faster is cheaper, developing technology and pushing practices that almost seem to farm for them rather than require one to actually be a farmer.

So what? Aren't we growing food in a petri dish already? Perhaps, but who owns the petri dishes (and who gets to decide what grows in them - and how)? Say Jackson and Berry:

"Industrial agricultural...by substituting technological 'solutions' for human work and care, has virtually destroyed the cultures of husbandry (imperfect as they may have been) once indigenous to family farms and farming neighborhoods. Clearly, our present ways of agriculture are not sustainable, and so our food supply is not sustainable. We must restore ecological health to our agricultural landscapes, as well as economic and cultural stability to our rural communities."

We're in the middle (though some would say we haven't hit bottom yet) of a financial recession and crisis here in America, and indeed, the negative effects of incredibly unethical business practices continue to ripple out and affect millions on a daily basis. But it's one thing to be stuck in a stagnant economy with food on the shelves; it would be quite another to be in the same (or even a better) situation without something to eat.

"For 50 or 60 years, we have let ourselves believe that as long as we have money we will have food. That is a mistake. If we continue our offenses against the land and the labor by which we are fed, the food supply will decline, and we will have a problem far more complex than the failure of our paper economy. The government will bring forth no food by providing hundreds of billons of dollars to the agribusiness corporations."

I'm not one to advocate throwing money at problems, and the past few months have been incredibly difficult to stomach with everyone and their dog asking for a handout. But if our government continues doling out dinero and spending money like we've got it, then I'd encourage us to heed what Jackson and Berry call for, namely "a 50-year farm bill that addresses forthrightly the problems of soil loss and degradation, toxic pollution, fossil-fuel dependency and the destruction of rural communities." If nothing else, taking a longer-term approach on this issue at least seems biblical (numerically speaking, that is).

Until then, be sure to save those newspapers and magazines full of financial and constitutional crises, and hold on to those expired grocery coupons and circulars. The way things are going, we may need to eat them later.

Chicago Politics

Pot, meet Kettle. Let's talk about your blackness.

1-800-OPINION

With the recent slate of Presidential-elect appointees, it appears we're in for the Clinton Administration III for at least the next four years. I guess "Change" actually translates to "Rewind" in Obama-speak.

Just to keep things balanced, here's a note to Republicans: Sarah Palin is not your girl to rebuild the GOP. I know she's much more attractive and photogenic, but would someone please take another look at Ron Paul?

Democrats or Republicans, give me a call (1-800-OPINION) if I can help. Just remember, you get what you pay for, which in terms of taxes, is more than I can say.

A Prayer for Our Next President

Reading some on the monarchy of Israel this weekend, I came across Psalm 72, a coronation prayer for the heirs of King David's line (beginning with Solomon). Do yourself a favor and read the passage through in its entirety - it's both beautiful and bold in its request for success in the task of ruling God's people well.

Yes, I know we here in America are not a theocracy as Israel was then, but the humility and hope of this passage needs to apply to any leader, especially the one our democracy will elect President later this week. Regardless who wins, pray that God would bend his heart even now in the direction of Psalm 72, for as the first verse reminds us, justice and righteousness in our leaders can only come from God.

 1 Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to the royal son!  2 May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice!  3 Let the mountains bear prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness!  4 May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the children of the needy, and crush the oppressor!

 5 May they fear you while the sun endures, and as long as the moon, throughout all generations!  6 May he be like rain that falls on the mown grass, like showers that water the earth!  7 In his days may the righteous flourish, and peace abound, till the moon be no more!

 8 May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth!  9 May desert tribes bow down before him, and his enemies lick the dust! 10 May the kings of Tarshish and of the coastlands render him tribute; may the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts! 11 May all kings fall down before him, all nations serve him!

12 For he delivers the needy when he calls, the poor and him who has no helper. 13 He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. 14 From oppression and violence he redeems their life, and precious is their blood in his sight.

15 Long may he live; may gold of Sheba be given to him! May prayer be made for him continually, and blessings invoked for him all the day! 16 May there be abundance of grain in the land; on the tops of the mountains may it wave; may its fruit be like Lebanon; and may people blossom in the cities like the grass of the field! 17 May his name endure forever, his fame continue as long as the sun! May people be blessed in him, all nations call him blessed!

18 Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, who alone does wondrous things. 19 Blessed be his glorious name forever; may the whole earth be filled with his glory! Amen and Amen!

20 The prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are ended.

The What and Why of How I'm Voting on Tuesday

In response to my previous post about bonding with Barry, a friend emailed to ask how I see things differently from Obama. Here's his question:

"What do you disagree strongly about? I'm genuinely curious, meaning, your answers could shape my opinion because I value your insight. I'm probably going to vote for him, mostly because of how much I feel/think about McCain and I do not believe Palin would be qualified to take over the Presidency if need be. I'm still open to voting for a third option candidate though."

As I had planned to write an endorsement post anyway, here it is. Please understand: my attempt here is not to try to aggressively convince anybody one way or the other; I'm just responding honestly to the question. I'm honored some might actually care what I think, so for what it's worth, here's where I stand (note: if you're interested, here's where Megan stands).

Full disclosure: I consider myself a "little c" fiscal/social conservative with libertarian leanings. I'm registered as a Republican and I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. Reluctantly, I'm planning to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket on Tuesday, though if Ron Paul were running as a third-party candidate, I would vote for him again for the same reasons as before.

As mentioned in my previous post, I very much appreciate Obama's intellect and inspiration, not to mention his youth and energy. For me, the experience (or lack thereof) of either Obama as President or Sarah Palin as Vice- is a moot point; no candidate is ever ready to be President. Even for John McCain or Joe Biden, executive office will be very different from their legislative roles in the Senate, so we're going to get a novice regardless of who wins. Having said that, my biggest concerns in this election have less to do with the candidates' experience and more to do with their ideology on the following:

1. the size, function, and presence of government in our lives
2. the balance of power divided among the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives
3. the interpretive bias and make-up of the Supreme Court

Obama's governmental approach borders on (if not crosses over into) pure socialism, with the government playing an even larger, more active, and omnipresent role than even it is right now. Unfortunately, government grew enormously under George Bush in the past eight years, but not all growth was intentional; I think of 9/11, two wars (one of which we should never have entered), and huge natural disasters as surprises rather than strategies to grow government.

Obama's policies, however, call for calculated government expansion, which doesn't line up with my libertarian leanings. Would McCain do any better on the government question? I don't know, especially when I have rarely heard him talk much about cutting spending, which is a major key to keeping government small. I do believe, though, that McCain's default ideology as to the purpose of government lends itself to less government more than Obama's does, so on that basis, I have to vote for McCain.

With regard to the balance of power, the fact that an Obama win would most likely lead to a Democrat-led White House, Senate, and House of Representatives runs against what I understand the desires of the Founding Fathers to be when they framed the Constitution. Obama might be capable enough in the Oval Office, but the current leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in the Senate and House respectively has been atrocious in terms of partisanship played, meaningful legislation passed, and record-low ratings of Congress in general.

Would all this improve if all three leaders were of the same political party? One could argue it might by streamlining Congressional votes with no fear of Presidential vetoes, but again the ideology driving their thinking on moral issues like stem cell research, gay marriage, and continued protection of the unmitigated right to abortion (to name a few) becomes the bigger issue for me. Just because legislation might speed through the House, Senate, and White House does not make it good legislation. I can't do much to affect the House and Senate at this point, but I can cast a vote that might affect the White House; thus, I will be voting for McCain.

Legislation is one thing; legislation's interpretation in our highest courts is another. If you were to ask me who the ten most powerful people in our United States government were, my answer would be the President and our nine Supreme Court justices. Of these ten, the President (who serves a maximum of eight years) appoints members of the Court (who may serve as many as 30-40 years).

At this point in history, the next President may have the opportunity to appoint as many as three justices to life terms in the Supreme Court, which could significantly shift the ideological make-up of the court in an enormous way. The difference between justices who would interpret the law independent of their own views and those who would impose their own philosophies upon the document they are sworn to uphold is vitally important to the rule of law.

Why? Because the next decade is going to play host to an onslaught of judicial decisions on a myriad of ethical questions pertaining to definitions of life, death, marriage, human rights, and religious freedoms. I do not want judges jettisoning the concept of original authorial intent when interpreting the law; I want judges sensing their responsibility to it. Conservative Presidents tend to appoint candidates more constructionist than activist in their understanding of their Supreme Court role, so I will be voting for McCain.

In reading through this, some could argue I am voting against Obama rather than for McCain. The critique is valid, but not invalidating. We vote for and against all kinds of things in our daily lives - what authors to read (or not read), what talking heads to listen to (or not listen to), what principles to live by (or not live by) - and this Presidential vote is no different. We all must make decisions, and rare is the one that isn't comprised of a hybrid of reasons for and against.

Thus, for the ideological reasons listed above, I will be voting against Barack Obama and for John McCain for President of the United States of America on Tuesday. If you've yet to decide and are asking for my counsel, I would urge you to do the same.

(Note: It's been almost a year since I wrote Poli-Sigh: Political Views of the Younger Generation for byFaith magazine. It's interesting to read the piece a year later, days away from the election. If you didn't get a chance to read it the first time, take a look.)

Bonding with Barry

Anybody watch Obama's infomercial Wednesday night? It was a whole family kind of deal at our house. I thought it was well-done and engaging, and Obama was as eloquent as ever.

I really like Obama as a person (or perhaps more accurately, as a personality), and marvel at how someone to whom I so enjoy listening is also someone with whom I so strongly disagree (more on the "how than the "what," though that wouldn't be true for all issues).

I think we could be friends, Barry and me. We'd disagree, but we could be friends.

The Problem with Neo-Conservativism

David Brooks hits the nail on the head as to what's wrong with the neo-conservatism of the past decade (and why John McCain is going to lose the election in November):

"Once conservatives admired Churchill and Lincoln above all — men from wildly different backgrounds who prepared for leadership through constant reading, historical understanding and sophisticated thinking. Now those attributes bow down before the common touch."

I'm not trying to simplify this election into one big class warfare; the Republicans are already doing it. Who have McCain's "scare" ads targeted this fall? The under-educated audiences who will be afraid of them. Who is Sarah Palin recruiting to send her to Washington? The "Joe Sixpacks" and "hockey moms" of America.

"What had been a disdain for liberal intellectuals slipped into a disdain for the educated class as a whole. The liberals had coastal condescension, so the conservatives developed their own anti-elitism, with mirror-image categories and mirror-image resentments, but with the same corrosive effect. Republicans developed their own leadership style. If Democratic leaders prized deliberation and self-examination, then Republicans would govern from the gut."

Sure, I like the idea of so-called "normal" (or "more normal") people going to Washington on our behalf, but has conservatism come to this kind of intellectual-less existence? If so, let's vote and get the election over (though I think it's over already).

Conservative or Liberal, Republican or Democrat, populism can only go so far.

It's the ideas, stupid.

Thoughts from 4 Miles Away

It takes me about 12 minutes to drive from our house to Washington University, so it was semi-surreal watching the Vice-Presidential debate held here in St. Louis Thursday night. I thought both Joe Biden and Sarah Palin did well, but would give a slight edge to Palin for holding her own (though little more) on the issues and for better connecting personally with the viewer. Biden seemed much more distant and on the defensive (at least in the first half of the debate - he kicked it in toward the end), which seemed to play well to Palin's "pit bull" personality.

The frustrating thing about national debates for me is that FactCheck can't keep up in real-time as to the factuality of what each candidate is saying at every level of detail. While I consider myself a fairly informed citizen, I don't have time to sift through and memorize voting records. Facts aside, both candidates (Palin especially) came off too "politician-y" in dodging some questions, but when you consider all that they had to cover without making any major gaffes, I suppose that's to be expected.

That's my two cents. What did you think?

Bailing on the Bailout

I haven't written too much about the current financial crisis/bailout/circus of late, partly because I'm still trying to figure it all out, and partly because I've written before about the problem of big government handling anything. While I love being right, I hate being redundant.

I was not in favor of a bailout, yet assumed it was going to pass, only to be somewhat surprised it didn't (at least as of Monday). My mentality and situation mirror those of my friend, Clay, with whom I've exchanged an email or two about all this. He writes:

"I don't have a lot of capital in this game, so I can be pretty free and easy with my opinions. I could be labeled a constrained visionist (a la Sowell) and have a core belief, a faith, that the free market system (process belief) is better able to sort this out than Hank and Ben (unconstrained, result-oriented action).  If I have to bet my (lack of) wealth on anything, I'll take the market over Bush any time."

I've always thought of myself as a free-market guy, too, though Robert T. Miller's A Conservative Case for the Paulson Plan gave me pause to think on it a few days back:

"Are you an economic conservative who thinks that the government should intervene in the market only when markets fail and it is efficient for the government to act? Then you should support the bailout plan because what we are seeing in the credit markets is probably the most serious market failure that will occur in our lifetimes. Are you an economic conservative who thinks the government spends too much and the national debt is too high? Then you should support the bailout plan because the government will likely make money in the long run and so reduce the deficit. The intelligent conservative position here is to support the bailout."

Then this morning, I confess I almost drank the bailout Kool-Aid when my usual voice-of-reason hero, New York Times columnist David Brooks, criticized the Congress as being leaderless in their "no" decision regarding the proposed bailout:

"This generation of political leaders...have failed utterly and catastrophically to project any sense of authority, to give the world any reason to believe that this country is being governed. Instead, by rejecting the rescue package on Monday, they have made the psychological climate much worse....The only thing now is to try again - to rescue the rescue. There’s no time to find a brand-new package, so the Congressional plan should go up for another vote on Thursday, this time with additions that would change its political prospects."

Hmmm. Later this afternoon, however, I came across Jeffrey Miron, senior lecturer in economics at Harvard and one of 166 academic economists who signed a letter to congressional leaders last week opposing the bailout plan. In a special to CNN, he wrote a commentary titled "Bankruptcy, not bailout, is the right answer," saying:

"The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company. Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable."

At the end of the piece, Miron gets practical as to where we go from here:

"So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending...The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer."

That resonated with my gut sense. Why bail out a bad system? This again from Clay:

"All I know with respect to handing this Administration vast discretionary power over something of immense national importance is, 'Once bitten, twice shy...' The market abuses that went on came from a lack of information and transparency and a lack of timely-targeted regulation to mitigate the worst of unregenerate human nature."

In other words, we have met the enemy, and the enemy is us - now that's a concept I get (and a biblical one, too). True, the system was bad, but who created the system? Government leaders pandering to a constituency demanding cheap loans with little to no accountability.

I remember reading an intriguing book a few years ago by Jane Jacobs called Dark Age Ahead. Jacobs, an urbanist, argued that North American civilization showed signs of spiral decline comparable to the collapse of the Roman empire. Her thesis focused on “five pillars of our culture that we depend on to stand firm" (see the last one especially):

• the nuclear family
• education
• science
• representational government and taxes
• corporate and professional accountability

What do you think? Have we officially arrived at Jacobs' "dark age" in America? Are you for or against a government bailout?

From my perspective, It's time to own our mistakes and, while it might will be hard, reap what we've sown in the way we've handled our economy; God, after all, will not be mocked (Galatians 6:7-8). What say you and why?

Don and the Dems

Author Donald Miller has a new website and blog. Miller gave the benediction on the first night of the Democratic National Convention in Denver and, though I’m always a little leery when evangelicals cozy up to the Left (for the same reasons I get leery when evangelicals cozy up to the Right), I liked his prayer.

What I really liked, though, was Miller's email exchange with Barack Obama.

A Funeral I'd Rather Miss

In a comment on my previous post, Ed points out that, "Everything you’ve blogged about the political process has been ambivalent, indifferent, or mildly disgusted."

I'll own up to the observations. I'm weary of enduring two years of campaigning to get what we get in the end (and don't even get me started on the millions and millions of dollars wasted in the process of running for a job that pays $200K). Regardless of who gets in, my overarching concern is that, as the size of government has grown, we are never going to get it under control, let alone cut it back. It's the toothpaste-out-of-the-tube scenario - once it's out, it's out; there's no putting it back where it belongs. From my perspective, we in America are standing in front of a sink covered in toothpaste.

I've yet to hear either candidate talk about cutting spending; taxes, yes, but spending, no. Even then, I wouldn't mind spending as much if it were accompanied by head-on-the-chopping-block accountability, but that's not inherent to the size and ethos of our government (and really hasn't been for decades). We are drowning in debt and bureaucracy of our own making, and no one seems too intent on un-making it; we just add to it with each administration, regardless of which party is in power. At some point, however, it's going to be time to pay the piper (and that piper's name is China).

We are fast-approaching nanny-statedom in almost every area of our existence - international relations, national security, domestic affairs, state and local government. Why did we go into Iraq? Why are we putting up video cameras everywhere and wire-tapping anything that moves? Why is the federal government bailing out for-profit banks and businesses? Why is Congress investigating steroids in baseball? Why won't the city of Maplewood get their inspector out of our house so we can actually live here? Because government (Democrat or Republican - it makes no difference) has become too big and too important for its own good, and we citizens are the ones who have allowed it to become so, administration after administration after administration.

John Adams wrote in 1814:

"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."

If we don't use our democracy to humbly preserve itself in the name of governmental limits, we'll all be attending the grandest of funerals in the name of the State. Color me "ambivalent, indifferent, and mildly disgusted," but that's a funeral I'd rather miss.

On Sarah Palin

Like most of the country, I'm still trying to figure out what I think about John McCain's pick of Alaska governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate. While it's way too early to draw any real conclusions, here are a couple of thoughts on the matter:

Initially, I felt what Joseph Bottum at First Things called a "nervous joy" at the audacity of the Republicans deciding to forego playing it safe with Mitt Romney or some other stuffed shirt and choose a little-known (but likable and seemingly accomplished) woman in Palin. On the heels of the Democrats' big shindig in Denver, I couldn't believe the Republicans had a chance to keep the race even close (let alone interesting), nor did I think they would actually take it if they happened to think of one. But to come up with and take a chance implies risk, and as I processed the selection more, I confess some nervous doubts have surfaced.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has a good summary of rebuttals to many of the arguments the Left has already thrown at Palin, and I can go along with most of them easily enough. I do, however, find myself wondering with James Fallows on his Atlantic Monthly blog how long-term-looking McCain's choice really was:

"The image to have in mind is not Dan Quayle: a person with quite a bit of grounding in national issues who was added to the ticket in an attempt to jazz it up. Always and only the comparison should be with Clarence Thomas -- with this one interesting difference. Thomas was a shrewd choice not simply because his race made it more complicated for Democrats to oppose him but also because, once confirmed, all evidence suggested to conservatives that he'd be the kind of Justice they were looking for. In Palin's case, this seems to be a choice that looks forward to Election Day, and not one day beyond that."

Choosing Palin certainly makes McCain much more viable as a conservative candidate for the election, but it also highlights his age vulnerability as President. Maybe I've read one too many quotes about Palin being "one heartbeat away from the Presidency," but let's be honest: McCain at 72 in 2008 sure seems a lot more frail than McCain at 64 in 2000; if elected, I don't think he'll make it two terms, either due to a decision he makes or one his body makes for him. The result would be Palin becomes President, but it sure would be nice if she had at least a few years as Vice before that happens. This, in my mind, is the biggest risk of the gamble.

So far, at least, I like who Palin seems to be, as well as what she has seemed to get done in Alaska. It will be interesting to see what the media dig up on her (so far the worst seems to be the "TrooperGate" situation and a less-than-flattering basketball picture from the late-70s). I am interested as to if/how the whole "Sarah Palin is not the mother" rumor resolves, but since Palin seems as upright as she seems sharp, I find it hard to believe she would try to sneak that one by McCain and the national media.

Who will I vote for? My libertarian leanings (among other things) won't allow me to jump on the Obama/Biden train - too much smoke and socialism there. Will I vote for the McCain/Palin ticket? Probably. Will I do so confidently? Confidently enough, I suppose, assuming nothing significant changes between now and November. Rest assured, regardless of who wins the election, God is not going to be surprised by the outcome, and that's peace enough to avoid worrying about politics that will barely be a footnote in His story.

Thoughts?

Sobering Up

Maybe I'm just suffering from a DNC hangover, but apparently I'm not the only one. You have to read David Brooks' column in the New York Times today. It's a little cynical for him, but see if you can spot some truth in and among the overstatement. Here's his opening paragraph:

"My fellow Americans, it is an honor to address the Democratic National Convention at this defining moment in history. We stand at a crossroads at a pivot point, near a fork in the road on the edge of a precipice in the midst of the most consequential election since last year’s 'American Idol.'”

Read the rest here.

Summarizing on a Saturday

I recognize the past week has been less than impressive in terms of original content. Here's an attempt at righting that wrong:

1. As I see it, the selection of Joe Biden as Barack Obama's running mate makes a lot of sense...in the short term. Biden personifies age and diplomacy more than Obama does, and his infamous tongue will serve well in swatting away John McCain's attacks, thereby letting Obama do what he does best in focusing on the positive. Long term, though, the Democrats are going to be stuck after eight years, as no one's going to elect Biden because of his age, and I don't think even Hillary will be in the picture by then (though I still wouldn't count her out in this race - stranger things have happened).

2. If McCain chooses Mitt Romney, I think he's done. The two don't even like each other, and both bolster the "rich, white guy" stereotype that unfortunately marks the Republican party. Maybe this is why Romney is actually a VP possiblity - it sends a message to the conservative base that McCain really is one of them - but that's not going to be too motivating to moderates and undecideds weary of the stereotype. Picking Romney doesn't seem very much of a maverick move for the Maverick, but I'm not sure who else in the Republican party would be. How about Ron Paul?

3. With the Olympics finishing up tomorrow, I have mixed feelings about these Games in China. My hope is that, through all the interaction with other countries and greater exposure to democracy, something would stir in China that, down the road, would bring real change to the lives of her citizens. My fear, however, is that any such seed will be rooted out, no thanks to the softened stance of mainstream American journalists (particularly NBC, who patronizingly broadcasted the Games) and the IOC's UN-like oversight of the whole spectacle in general. It will be interesting to see what comes of the investigation of China's women's little girls' gymnastics team, and what the world's response will be to the verdict (if indeed any is given).

4. I register for fall classes at Covenant this coming week, and then start the following Tuesday. I wish I had a little more of a breather between my summer course and the beginning of five new hours this semester, but I don't get to vote. If all goes well, I should finish a master's in theological studies in May of 2009 (that's this coming spring!) and a master's in educational ministries in May of 2010. Neither is that far away, but it still feels like miles to go before I sleep, as these folks must similarly feel.

5. Speaking of sleep, I have an uncanny ability to get some. I swear I was asleep twenty seconds after my head hit the pillow every night this week. My co-teacher, Larry Hughes, says I must have a clear conscience; I assure him it's just that I'm tired.

6. I really like my classes at Westminster, and boy howdy, is it ever easier doing this the second time around. Whereas the first year seemed so much like walking in the dark and trying to teach something along the way, this year would seem to be the one in which I really figure out what exactly I'm teaching and the best way to teach it. I've got a great schedule, some cool kids (ones I've had and ones I haven't), and I'm pretty pumped about taking bigger steps this year toward being a great teacher.

7. The new header above is not final. My friend, Kent, is playing with a couple design ideas after some feedback I gave him on the one above, so I should have the final one up soon. Hang with me.

I've got pictures and smoke detectors to hang, a few books to finish, and some email to catch up on this weekend, so I'll wrap it up. If you're still around, thanks for reading.

Obama's Rainbow Tour

Barack Obama, who, as a "citizen," recently addressed 200,000 Germans (and the world) from the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, is the new (choose the best answer):

A) Ronald Reagan

B) Winston Churchill

C) John F. Kennedy

D) Eva Peron

I'm going with D. The buzz emanating from Obama's trip reminds me of the chorus from "Rainbow Tour" (re-written here for effect) from the musical Evita:

"Let's hear it for the Rainbow Tour 
It's been an incredible success 
We weren't quite sure, we had a few doubts
Would Obama win through? But the answer is yes"

Make no mistake: Obama is a rock star. Watching footage provided by his entourage (i.e. all major news network anchors), I couldn't help but feel sorry for John McCain, who, in follow-up stories to Obama's trip, seemed old and more out-of-touch with anyone under the age of 70 than I've seen him. What an image contrast, which - rather than international experience - is precisely what Obama is trying to highlight to the world in making his trip half-way around it.

Somebody in the Obama camp knows precisely what he or she is doing, positioning Obama as Churchill to McCain's Parliament; as Kennedy to McCain's Nixon; as Reagan to McCain's Bush. But all the positioning in the world doesn't work without a personality to position. Luckily for the Democrats, Obama - not Hillary Clinton - may turn out to be the real Eva Peron of the Party.

It's Hard to Soar Like an Eagle When You're a Turkey

In case you didn't know, Founding Father (sounds like a band name) Ben Franklin thought the turkey should be our national bird instead of the eagle. (I first learned this when I was doing the show 1776 - I played Richard Henry Lee - back in 1990 at the Jacksonville Theatre Guild.) Though Franklin argues his point with John Adams in the show, the actual documentation of his thought comes from a letter he wrote to his daughter 18 months after the Great Seal (featuring an eagle) was adopted by Congress on June 20, 1782. An excerpt:

"For my own part I wish the Bald Eagle had not been chosen the Representative of our Country. He is a Bird of bad moral Character. He does not get his Living honestly. You may have seen him perched on some dead Tree near the River, where, too lazy to fish for himself, he watches the Labour of the Fishing Hawk; and when that diligent Bird has at length taken a Fish, and is bearing it to his Nest for the Support of his Mate and young Ones, the Bald Eagle pursues him and takes it from him. ...For the Truth the Turkey is in Comparison a much more respectable Bird, and withal a true original Native of America...He is besides, though a little vain and silly, a Bird of Courage, and would not hesitate to attack a Grenadier of the British Guards who should presume to invade his Farm Yard with a red Coat on."

I'm with Franklin on this one, and I did my best imitation of said turkey - especially the "vain and silly" part - in response to my kids' desire insatiable and bloodthirsty lust to find and watch a fireworks show - any fireworks show - last night. Megan and I were tired (I'd taken the girls for a two-hour hike around Powder Valley conservation area in the afternoon, and we'd just had a nice meal and three-hour visit with our friends, the Sargents, in the evening, which was a perfect lead-in to an early bedtime). Thus, I tried to appease the ladies with a few televised versions of all things pyrotechnic from New York and Boston.

This seemed to work for a while, until someone in the neighborhood had the gall to shoot off a few live rounds two blocks over. The sound, of course, lured the girls outdoors, but unfortunately for them (and me - remember, it's all about me), they heard more than they saw, resulting in incessant begging and whining to go somewhere - anywhere - to see the fireworks. I knew then that any hope of ending the evening without conflict was over, as they'd already had their baths and Megan had already taken a catnap since we got home. Worse yet, Daddy was going to be the bad guy, and not even Will Smith would be able to save this Independence Day.

I know, I know: not only am I a terrible father, I am also a terrible American. I should be shot and hung and forced to watch C-Span. I get that. But I'm a turkey; I'm not an eagle. I don't relish the whole let's-blow-up-millions-of-dollars-worth-of-fireworks-to-prove-ourselves-a-great-nation mentality. It's too flashy; it's too easy.

Sure, I love the music and the marches that go with them, but I would love those anyway. I don't need fireworks to appreciate great music. I didn't wear red, white, and blue on the Fourth of July - not in protest, but because we're packing and trying to settle into a neighborhood to make a long-term investment in a local community. I'm lucky to find a fresh pair of whitie-tighties these days, let alone something red, white, and blue. I'm a turkey, I tell you; I'm not an eagle.

I don't need to be front row at a Live on the Levee (or what's left of it) concert or capitalize on any one of a jillion July 4th sales going on around the city to make the most of the holiday. Sure, we have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," but I seriously doubt Thomas Jefferson was thinking too specifically of over-done corporate sponsorships and blowout Fourth of July sales when he sat down to write King George to let us go.

I don't want to fight traffic and attend some big July 4th event. Instead, I very much like the idea of walking around the neighborhood mid-morning, noticing the lack of traffic, and being grateful that most folks get a day off and can be home. Not only is the freedom to do something a great thing, but freedom to not do something is often even better, especially if you can do (or not do) it with those closest to you. I'm a turkey, remember; I'm not an eagle.

Yes, I take pride in our country and am grateful for our freedoms (even when I wonder sometimes about what freedom protects). No, I'm not waiting for us to become a perfect nation to merit a "legitimate" celebration (though I recognize my idealist tendencies and how they can sometimes come across). And yes, we'll make things up to the girls today when we (in good American fashion) buy their affections by taking them to a movie this morning (courtesy of Megan's folks).

But I don't know if I'll ever change my turkey ways. I suppose you could cry fowl with regard to my thinking and tell me to hang it on my beak, but to do otherwise would just not be true to my inner bird.

Gobble, gobble.

Who Needs Curriculum When You've Got New York?

Last Monday, I started a unit with my ethics classes on the seventh commandment ("You shall not commit adultery"). For those watching the news cycle of late, you know that last Monday was the beginning of the whole Eliot Spitzer downfall and, as of yesterday, the disclosure of sexual dalliances by his replacement, David Patterson.

The events of the past ten days have made for some timely case studies with my students in our discussions of marriage. That said, I'll be interested to get their responses tomorrow to this article in today's New York Times that (once again) writes off such indiscretions as nothing more than naturalistic determinism.

Politics That Make You Go "Hmmm"

In light of the primaries tomorrow (supposedly a dead heat), two questions keep floating through my head. First, why has Clinton's campaign been so poorly run (especially since January)? The second is, in light of number one, why is Obama not set to run away with the primaries tomorrow (and the democratic nomination as a result)?

Any theories?

Ron Paul for President

In light of Super Tuesday this week (on my 37th birthday, no less), I feel compelled to own whatever influence I may have in the blogosphere and endorse the candidate I believe would be the best choice for America. After months of discussion and thought, the candidate I will be voting for (both this Tuesday and in November) will be Ron Paul.

In my analysis, Ron Paul best lines up with my understanding of what a democratic society organized under limited government for the defense of its citizens should be. I appreciate his commitment to the sanctity of life, affirm his support for greater parental rights in education (whether private, public, or homeschool), and say "yea and amen" to his principled Constitutional approach to lead by virtues instead of values.

If there's an issue on which I see things differently from Ron Paul, it is immigration, not because I am opposed to secure borders or visa enforcement, but because I do not see how, realistically and practically speaking, some degree of amnesty for those already in the country will not need to be part of a true solution.

That said (and despite my doubts he can actually win in the media-driven, money-grabbing extravaganza known as our democratic process), my hope in going out on a limb here is to simply share my perspective, encourage you to engage in your own process, and, if you're looking to align yourself with someone who's voting for Ron Paul, to be one to give you permission to do so.

Ron Paul for President in 2008.

My Concession Speech

On the heels of Florida (and as John Edwards and Rudy Guillani are in the process of doing), I've decided to end my candidacy for President of the United States of America.

Unlike my opponents', mine was a campaign almost exclusively of substance rather than style, of message rather than media circuses (or "circi," as they should be called). I'm proud to say I dealt with the issues put before me in as honest and straightforward way as I could. Even in conceding defeat, I believe this does and should mean something.

Granted, if I had to do it again, I would consider spending some money to actually get the word out about what I said, as well as have held a press conference (or at least written a press release), but all that's in the past now; I'm moving forward.

I trust that you, my faithful following, can move forward as well. Though I've been asked (at least by my wife) who I would endorse in the wake of my candidacy withdrawal, I feel it's too early to extend my support just yet. I need time to process all that's gone on this past year, to reconnect with my family, and to figure out who I'm for in the Super Bowl. Once those needs are met, I might have something for you.

As I close, let me just say thank you to those who believed the impossible - that is, that someone with no experience, no money, and no political affiliation could make a difference in this race. Thank you to those who dared to believe that our democratic process could work, that the grassroots of middle America could produce change, and that the privilege of serving in the public realm could be a privilege rather than a perk.

I heard you, friends - all six of you - and I believe that we as a nation have been the better for it. Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.

Debate of the Union

Well, we watched President Bush give his final State of the Union address tonight. I would agree with those pundits who called his speech "realistic" - not a lot of new stuff or language to complicate things, which is probably why he sounded confident this evening.

It's obvious Mr. Bush is staking any and all historical evaluation of his presidency on the outcome of things in Iraq, but it's going to take years for clarity to come in that situation. In the meantime, get ready for a slow and steady lameduck fade in the face of a still wide-open presidential election as the current Debate of the Union continues.

In general, I experienced much of the same cynicism induced by last year's speech (maybe a little more when W. was signing autographs for members of Congress). I would like, however, to present a very special award for the lamest Democratic response in American history to Kathleen Sebelius, governor of Kansas. If our military efforts in Iraq fail, perhaps she could bore the terrorists to death.

Thoughts?

Does Vegas Have a Line on This?

I can't decide if Bill Clinton is trying to save the nation or his marriage by working so hard to get Hillary elected. Anybody got odds on them lasting if she loses?

The King Turns 73

Me: "Happy birthday, Elvis."

Elvis: "Thank you, thank you, thank you very much."

Iowa

A few thoughts on the thoughts of others concerning the goings-on in Iowa:

Dick Morris gets my vote for worst overstatement of the evening:

"Obama - by winning in a totally white state [actually 92%] - shows that racism is gone as a factor in American politics."

Peggy Noonan is somewhat accurate (but also mean):

"Hillary Clinton, the inevitable, the avatar of the machine, lost. It's huge. Even though people have been talking about this possibility for six weeks now, it's still huge. She had the money, she had the organization, the party's stars, she had Elvis behind her, and the Clinton name in a base that loved Bill. And she lost. There are always a lot of reasons for a loss, but the Ur reason in this case, the thing it all comes down to? There's something about her that makes you look, watch, think, look again, weigh and say: No. She started out way ahead, met everyone, and lost."

David Brooks perhaps comes closest to summing up my perspective:

"Obama's made Hillary Clinton, with her wonkish, pragmatic approach to politics, seem uninspired. He’s made John Edwards, with his angry cries that 'corporate greed is killing your children’s future,' seem old-fashioned. Edwards’s political career is probably over. Obama is changing the tone of American liberalism, and maybe American politics, too."

"The race will move on to New Hampshire. Mitt Romney is now grievously wounded. Romney represents what’s left of Republicanism 1.0. Huckabee and McCain represent half-formed iterations of Republicanism 2.0. My guess is Republicans will now swing behind McCain in order to stop Mike. Huckabee probably won’t be the nominee, but starting last night in Iowa, an evangelical began the Republican Reformation."

The biggest surprise of the night for me was Fred Thompson (he of the "Sure, I'll run" campaign) coming in third. Not sure where he nor Rudy Guiliani (who's hanging out in Florida) will end up in New Hampshire next week, but at least it will make for an interesting (if arbitrary) angle to follow.

I'm guessing this is the beginning of the end for Ron Paul. RP, we hardly knew ye.

I don't know if I fully grasp the Iowa caucus idea, but I think I like it, especially for the fact that it takes place in the Midwest. It's nice for the nation to forget the coasts every now and then, forcing politicians to grovel and squirm at having to sit down in a local diner to rub shoulders and talk with small town folk about real life rather than rhetoric.

Thoughts from your point of view on the political spectrum?

Now Up at byFaith

I wasn't sure if they were going to post it online or not (the actual issue has been out for almost two months now), but my byFaith article (written in July) on the political views of twenty- and thirty-somethings in the PCA is finally up on byFaith's newly-redesigned site. Check it out and leave a comment (there or here) as to what you think.

The other writing news is today (tonight, really), Megan and I present the fruits of our labors from the 3-month, 400-hour How Kids Think research project we've been working on all fall. We've invested literally all weekend together - writing/designing a 26-page report, detailing our findings, and periodically checking to make sure our kids know we still love them. We think we've succeeded at all three tasks, but only barely.

I so wish I could post the report for all to see. Megan has done a fantastic job researching and writing most of it (I've served more as project director/editor/graphic designer/it-will-be-alright-er), but as the data technically belongs to God's World Publications, that's probably not okay.

If you think of us between now and tonight, pray all would go well as we meet with publisher Nick Eicher, founder Joel Belz, C.F.O. Kevin Martin, and creative director Rich Bishop to make our recommendations and pretend we know what we're talking about.

The Democrats, Vegas, and My Parents

My folks, Rog and Char, along with my uncle Bob and aunt Janice, are making their first trip ever to Las Vegas this weekend. Apparently, in addition to Mom and Dad heading for America's favorite desert oasis, the Democrats are as well (not their first trip, mind you).

It would be hilarious if my father ran into his state senator (Obama) somewhere on the strip, started talking agriculture, and ended up making it onto the national news. I could totally see my Mom hitting it off with Hillary at a Vegas show and, in the midst of some "warm chatter" (as is the Mary Kay Way), selling her some makeup for the road.

If my parents don't run into the Democrats this weekend, maybe they'll rub shoulders with O.J.'s lawyers getting ready for the weekend after next. Who knows?

Only Vegas...

Dorothy Sayers on War

Just finished a little 100-page book titled Creed or Chaos?, a collection of essays written by Dorothy Sayers at the height of World War II. Consider the timeliness of these quotes:

"The people who say that this is a war of economics or of power politics, are only dabbling about on the surface of things. Even those who say it is a war to preserve freedom and justice and faith have gone only halfway to the truth. The real questions is what economics and politics are to be used for; whether freedom and justice and faith have any right to be considered at all; at bottom it is a violent and irreconciable quarrel about the nature of God and the nature of man and the ultimate nature of the universe; it is a war of dogma." (28)

"War is a judgment that overtakes societies when they have been living upon ideas that conflict too violently with the laws governing the universe. People who would not revise their ideas voluntarily find themselves compelled to do so by the sheer pressure of the events which these very ideas have served to bring about." (64)

"Shall we be prepared to take the same attitude to the arts of peace as to the arts of war? I see no reason why we should not sacrifice our convenience and our individual standard of living just as readily for the building of great public works as for the building of ships and tanks - but when the stimulus of fear and anger is removed, shall we be prepared to do any such thing?" (68)

Would it be accurate to say that the majority of us have sacrificed little "convenience" or "individual standard of living" this time around? And how crazy does Sayers' idea of doing so for something other than war seem? Talk about your whacked out biblical craziness...

Faith's Only Worth Is in What (or Whom) It's Placed

John McCain's recent interview about religion, combined with Barack Obama's declaration about faith and how it plays "every role" in his life, reminded me how much politicians (and most Americans) talk about faith as if it's an actual deity itself.

McCain said last week in this Beliefnet interview:

"We have to rely on our faith sometimes to give us guidance, not to help us make a specific decision, but to help us maintain our moral and spiritual values that then allow us to make the right decision, even if sometimes it's politically expensive. My faith obviously informs my decisions. It informs my strengths as well as my weaknesses. And it makes me aware of how imperfect a person I am. And it is vital in helping me maintain the principles upon which I conduct my political life, as well as other parts of my life..."

The New York Times reports in this article Obama saying:

"It's what keeps me grounded. It's what keeps my eyes set on the greatest of heights. Faith is what propels me to do what I do, and when I am down it's what lifts me up...What role does faith play? It plays every role."

It could just be me playing semantics, but if I didn't know any better, I'd swear McCain's and Obama's god is named Faith. Maybe it's a generational thing (my parents' friends talk about having "a faith" almost like it's a membership to Sam's), or maybe it's just politico-speak to appeal to the religious voter (which is everyone, regardless of whether they acknowledge it or not) - I don't know.

What I do know is this generic faith thing bugs me. Faith's only worth is in what (or whom) it's placed, not just in having some.

The fact that I may have "a faith" that a chair will hold me has more to do with the integrity of the chair than the integrity of my faith; that is, I can believe all I want, but if the chair isn't worthy, my faith in it is worthless. Likewise, I can believe all I want that my faith can make a difference in the world, but it has little to do with my faith being mine and more to do with my faith being in God.

If politicians want to talk true religion instead of just playing the "spiritual" card on the campaign trail, they're going to have to stop making faith a generic buzzword and start specifically naming who and for what they're really trusting. Call me a cynic, but my guess is few of them honestly know.

Wondering Indeed

Got a subscriber email from byFaith about its coming issue. Here's what the intro said:

"The next issue of byFaith will be delivered to homes and churches in two weeks. This magazine, as much as any we’ve published, will provoke thinking. It will show visitors a church that is engaged in the world, and present non-believers with an organization that thinks seriously about the city, the environment, politics, mercy, and the quality of our life in the world together."

Then, third story down:

"Political Views in the PCA - Writer Craig Dunham talked with twenty- and thirtysomethings about politics, the church, and the diversity of political views in PCA congregations. With the 2008 election a year away and the nation’s political debate intensifying, Dunham wonders: Can the PCA maintain peace despite increasingly different political views among her members?"

Wondering indeed, especially if I start getting mean emails from either end of the political spectrum because I'm not Republican or Democrat enough in somebody's eyes or theology.

All that to say, it looks like the crew at byFaith are going with the piece I wrote in July as is; apart from some basic edits, they've not changed my conclusions (nice of them).

Thanks again to those who contributed here, here, here, and here to flesh out the piece. I'll post a link to the article when it hits online.

Ir(aq)onic

I've only caught bits and pieces of the hearings with General Petraeus and company concerning the war in Iraq; thus, I have nothing really to contribute to the discussion.

It does strike me as interesting, though, that there is so much questioning of the character and competency of members of the new Iraqi government by our American government's own sterling and effective representatives.

The Last Hurrah

Last night I dreamt that Barack Obama was one of my professors at Covenant. Needless to say, it's probably time to bring our political discussions to a close. However, before I do, I've got a few last questions to which I'd appreciate your responses (think personally and practically here):

• Apart from voting (or not), what else do you, as a twenty- or thirty-something believer, do to influence political change at the local, state, and/or national levels?


• How do you try to live in community with others who hold different (perhaps very different) political perspectives from yours? What difference does age make?


• If you were tasked with trying to represent the political views of your generation within the PCA (as I am), what would you say?

Thanks for your thoughts on this last round of questions. It's been tremendously helpful to hear from you, and your thoughtful (and cordial) feedback has given me much guidance for the writing process. The comments are still open on the four previous posts, so feel free to continue any discussions you feel so inclined to pursue. If I use a quote from you, I'll be in touch.

Finally, with regard to the 2008 election, let me remind you of my own candidacy for President. Though my first digital town meeting got little media attention, I'm content to just let the grassroots buzz build before I really start playing the game (that and I have no money).

Let me hear from you on these last inquiries. And thanks again for contributing this week.

Good Questions (Mostly Yours)

I'd like to pick up on a few of the questions posed within several of your comments earlier in the week. What's your response to any of these?

• Why do American Christians seem to think that a democratic republic is the best system of government? Are there other alternatives (theonomy, for instance) we should consider this side of heaven?


• What defines a "good citizen"? Can one be a good citizen and not vote? How would the first-century Christians have viewed their role in the govermental procedure?


• When the New Testament refers to Christians as exiles, what (if anything) does this imply for our role in/within the state?


• "Live like Democrats but vote like Republicans." Is this helpful advice?

Any other questions you would ask? Give me something I can print.

Red, White & Boom

It's been surreal reading your many thoughts on American government and politics during this Fourth of July week (happy Independence Day, by the way). I'd like to say I purposely coordinated the overlap, but that wouldn't be true. I will say that processing your observations has been particularly pointed as a result of the fortunate convergence.

While I'm giving you a break from my questions today in light of the holiday, I will have a few more for your input tomorrow and Friday, so check back when you can. In the meantime, here's a story of my own from last night:

Yesterday, we drove from St. Louis to Tulsa to visit Megan's parents, who live just north of the city. Their suburb (Owasso) puts on a fireworks show on July 3rd each year at the high school football field, so rather than fight the crowds downtown tonight, we thought we'd hit that one.

The show (called "Red, White & Boom") was good. Fireworks, accompanied by (though not synchronized to) a variety of "patriotic" songs from Sousa to Springsteen, played to packed bleachers of easily several thousand people (mostly white, middle-class). It lasted 40 minutes.

The last song of the night was Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA". Most of the crowd knew (and sang) the lyrics by heart, and the fireworks built to an impressive climax before disipating a little bit after the song had already finished. Despite the less than clean ending, the crowd cheered, the public announcer thanked everyone for coming, and we made our way to the parking lot. It was a nice (but late - we didn't get home until 10:45 p.m.) evening.

As I sat there watching the show with so many of your comments from the past couple of days running through my head, my five-year-old daughter began crying, covering her ears and hiding her eyes from the exploding commotion. Megan held her for a bit, and then I held her for the rest of the time. She calmed down some, sneaking a glance every now and then at the beauty of the lit-up sky, but always clapping her hands back over her ears and returning her eyes back to my chest when the "booms" of the fireworks caught up with their visual counterparts.

The experience metaphorically made sense to me in a number of ways. Very few of us (at least from what I could tell from those of you who have posted so far) would shy away from the vision of freedom that our country offers, but most of us are concerned by the power we see such vision purportedly requiring for those chosen to govern it.

Just as we go to a fireworks show to see the colors (rather than just sit around and listen to an evening of explosions), in American politics, explosions (and not the colors) are all we seem to get. Put another way, the red and white are beautiful, but the boom scares us. It scares us especially when we see freedom pimping faith (with faith becoming just an option of freedom), or faith pimping freedom (with freedom becoming a plank in a religious platform).

But this isn't the worst part. Like my daugher who had to sit through the entire fireworks show because there was no other place to go, the worst part is we don't feel we can do anything about it because it's all too big. We feel like all we can do is cry and cling to Daddy, who we know loves us, encourages us to be brave and look up every now and then, and keeps promising it will all be over soon. But we're little and don't know everything and find ourselves wondering why Daddy brought us to a place that can be so beautiful (but also so very loud).

Anybody resonate with any of that? Any other Fourth of July experiences you'd like to share?

More questions to come, dear readers. Thanks for sticking with me and sharing your thoughts.

Got Time for a Story?

We had a great start yesterday to our political "interview" (that's how I'm thinking of it, anyway). Thanks to each of you who responded, as well as to all of you who gave some link love. The comments are still open, so feel free to continue any discussion you like.

I'd like to make a few more inquiries over the course of this week, following up today on the theme of discontentment so prevalently mentioned in many posts yesterday. Specifically:

• Do you remember a time when you didn't feel disenfranchised by or cynical regarding our current democratic political system/process? What was different?


• What changed in your political understanding and when? Who influenced you the most in the midst of this transition and how?

Brief (paragraph or two) stories summarizing your experience(s) would be great. Use discretion with names, but give us enough specificity to understand where you're coming from, especially if/how it involves the PCA.

Studying the Body Politic

Alright, friends, I need your help. A couple of years ago, I wrote a piece called "A Church That's Too Embarrassed to Talk About Sex" for the PCA's byFaith magazine. The article dealt with how twenty- and thirty-somethings in the PCA felt little help from the church in areas of sexuality.

Well, the folks at byFaith have asked for another article for one of their fall issues, same demographic (PCA twenty- and thirty-somethings) but different topic - politics. Anybody got an opinion on that? I thought so.

Specifically, the angle I'd like to take is not Democrat/Republican or Liberal/Conservative and who's voting which way and why; rather, I wonder what you all think about the American body politic in general, and to what degree do you (and friends you know) involve yourself (mentally, physically, emotionally, spiritually) in its goings-on?

I'll have more specific questions, but what I'd like to do in this post is ask you for two things:

1. Give some thought and offer your initial ideas to the question above (be sure to include at least your email address so I can contact you for clarification if needed).


2. If you have a blog, would you be so kind as to point your readers here this week, encouraging them to leave a comment as to what they think?

My goal is to use this week for research into how twenty- and thirty-something PCA-types (and others) think politically so as to formulate questions to go deeper in understanding and representing your perspectives. Feel free to ask your own questions and help me figure this out - I'm wide open as to where this goes, so long as the conversations are civil and it serves the purposes of writing a good and informed piece.

I'll post more specific questions here throughout the week, but for now, would you spread the word, as well as share your initial thoughts with us? I'd greatly appreciate it.

The Immigration Issue

My friend, Ronnie, asked me to sign the following with regard to immigration reform. I did so wholeheartedly, as this approach seems the best middle-of-the-road option in a land of dehumanizing extremes. (For more from one of the shapers of this initiative, click here.)

Dear President George W. Bush and Member of Congress,

Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform represents a coalition of Christian organizations, churches, and leaders from across the theological and political spectrum united in support of comprehensive immigration reform. Despite our differences on other issues, we are working together to see comprehensive immigration reform enacted this year because we share a set of common moral and theological principles that compel us to love and care for the stranger among us, including the following:

• We believe that all people, regardless of national origin, are made in the “Image of God” and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect (Genesis 1:26-27, 9:6).


• We believe there is an undeniable Biblical responsibility to love and show compassion for the stranger among us (Deuteronomy 10:18-19, Leviticus 19:33-34, Matthew 25:31-46).


• We believe that immigrants are our neighbors, both literally and figuratively, and we are to love our neighbors as ourselves and show mercy to neighbors in need (Leviticus 19:18, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:25-37).


• We believe in the rule of law, but we also believe that we are to oppose unjust laws and systems that harm and oppress people made in God’s Image, especially the vulnerable (Isaiah 10:1-4, Jeremiah 7:1-7, Acts 5:29, Romans 13:1-7).

The current U.S. immigration system is broken and now is the time for a fair and compassionate solution. We think it is entirely possible to protect our borders while establishing a viable, humane, and realistic immigration system consistent with our American values that increases national security while not threatening the livelihoods of Americans. The Biblical principles above call us to support comprehensive immigration reform legislation that includes the following elements:

• Border enforcement and protection initiatives that are consistent with humanitarian values while allowing the authorities to enforce the law and implement American immigration policy;


• Reforms in our family-based immigration system that reduce the waiting times for separated families to be safely reunited and maintain the constitutionally guaranteed rights of birthright citizenship and the ability of immigrants to earn naturalization;


• An opportunity for all immigrant workers and their families already in the U.S. to come out of the shadows and pursue the option of an earned path towards permanent legal status and citizenship upon satisfaction of specific criteria;


• A viable guest worker program that creates legal avenues for workers and their families to enter our country and work in a safe, legal, and orderly manner with their rights and due process fully protected; and


• A framework to examine and ascertain solutions to the root causes of migration, such as economic disparities between sending and receiving nations.

Immigration reform that incorporates these elements, rejects anti-immigrant and nativist measures, and strengthens our American values will enrich the vitality of America and advance the common good. We stand together in calling upon President Bush and Congress to seek humane and holistic immigration reform within this legislative year.