Judeo-Christian-Muslim Traditions*

The title of this article may seem unfamiliar to you. That is likely because it is not used. I know I’ve never seen it used. We religious folk of a certain persuasion are known to use the term Judeo-Christian traditions when talking about the history and theology of our faith which comes from the Old and New Testaments. But is has occurred to me recently it is a woefully inaccurate statement, and is also exclusive and does not paint the full picture of our religious traditions.

What is distinctive about the Judeo-Christian-Muslim* tradition is the belief is a single God. All other religious and spiritual philosophies for the most part have multiple deities or no deity at all. If you look at Egyptian religion you can put almost any two or three letters together and you have the name of some Egyptian God. The Greeks and Romans had very human like gods for various purposes and seem an irascible bunch the fought together a lot often and the expense of people. Buddhists find the way to enlightenment, but a god is not necessary for that path. Scientology again is a method of getting “clear” making the most of how you are by yourself, of course, with the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard.

But Moslems, Jews and Christians believe in a single God, whose ways are not like our ways but loves us with passion and wants good things for us. (One of those being that we not fight with each other all the time; but that’s people not the teachings of those belief systems.) And it is the same God we believe in. We use different names: Jehovah (bad translation of Yahweh), Elohim, El, Allah, Adonai, Elyon, El Shaddai, Ar-Rahim, Al-Malik, Al-Jabbar, Al-Gaffar etc. One Islamic exercise is to use all 99 names for God (the exact list is not agreed upon). But when all is said and done, we believe in one God, even if Christians say that one is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The point I am trying to make is that theologians and laity in the Judeo-Christian tradition have done ourselves and our Moslem brothers and sisters and injustice by not being more inclusive and accurate in labeling our tradition.

Go talk to your pastor or religious friends and ask if they feel they are in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition and if they don’t get it tell them they need some remedial education. I know I do.

Our God is the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Ishmael.

There is but one God and his name is…

*or should I say the Judeo-Christian-Isalmic or the Judeo-Christian-Moslem traditions?

Care for Others: Public vs. Private

Many conservatives like to say big government is bad and often infer that government is just plain bad anyway. This conveniently ignores that in recent times the Democrats have consistently reduced the size of government while Republicans have increased the size of government. It also is an over simplification. But that is not the point.

There are a lot of well meaning conservatives that just think the needs of the public can be better served by private individuals rather than the government. You will find numerous conservatives as well as liberals working in soup kitchens, volunteering in hospitals, raising money for worthy causes and the like. A good example I ran into was a conservative who goes to the city and picks up surplus produce donations from farmer’s markets at the end of the day and then delivers that produce to charities that seen that it gets to those in need. That’s good, but how many people do it? Compare it to the food stamp program, which conservatives want to do away with, and see which is best able to reach the objective of feeding the poor? I would think that the answer is obvious.

That is the point of a recent Christian Century article by Steve Thorngate. The question we should raise is not whether a program is public or private but whether it works.

I have worked in churches all my life that have multiple programs to raise money for mission work. They seek fervently to help out those in need in local communities, in national efforts and international efforts. They take responsibilities seriously to be their brothers and sisters keepers; who seen the need to share their wealth with those who are lacking. It is good work. In Old Testament times this was how social welfare was handled, through religious organizations. But in Old Testament times the Religion was the government. In modern times we have delegated that work primarily to the government. In churches I have served I promoted the idea that every congregation should tithe to mission; meaning that at least 10% of the income of the church should be put towards mission purposes. Ten per cent is an arbitrary figure; the Old Testament tithe was much larger than that, but it hard to promote more the 10% in giving. In fact on a family level, the average church giver gives about 2% of their income to the church. Oh, I never ever had a church, even though it supported that ideal, that actually made it to the 10% level, though some do. The rising costs of church operation make giving to others increasingly difficult, especially for the majority of churches which are under 150 members.

The truth is churches and other religious organizations plus benevolent individual givers just cannot come up with enough funds to care for those in need. And if you look at the expenses involved, especially in conservative churches (think of TV evangelists’ scandals over the years), the administrative costs are way too high.

We are better served almost always by government programs taking on these issues than by any other means.

The issue truly is who can do the job best? And the answer invariably is the government. And, it is also the responsibility of government to see these programs are run fairly and efficiently. Church programs and government programs go awry, surprise, surprise; they are run by human beings who mess up. So, our job is to make sure they run as best they can rather than just doing away with them.

Of course, there are those who just say the poor and poor because they are lazy and don’t deserve anything and government programs just make them lazier. They have hearts of stone and are ungrateful compassionless, cruel, mean, unkind and stupid.

Romney Jobs Creation

Kimberly A. Clausing is a professor of economics at Reed College. She recently wrote about “territorial corporate-tax system” meaning the effort to exempt American corporations from taxes on their foreign income.

President Obama has read her proposal and used it to poke fun and Mitt Romney’s job plan. Exempting taxes for foreign income in Clausing’s study would in effect create 800,000 jobs; but those jobs would be created in other countries not our own.

Obviously Professor Clausing thinks the idea of exempting American Corporation of taxes created by foreign operations is a bad idea. “U.S. tax payments for the income from foreign operations of U.S. multinational corporations would not simply be deferred; they would be completely erased,” she writes. “That would eliminate constraints on shifting income abroad.”

Romney folk complain that her report is partisan in that she has donated to Obama, an idea she rejects. She points out that she has been doing her work for 20 years and is widely published in respected economic journals. She just seeks to be honest in her work without political aim. She makes a great analogy: “ That said, some say the truth has a partisan bias. Some facts just happen to line up with one party more than the other. For instance, most scientists believe in climate change, but that does not mean they are partisan.

Her arguments just make sense to me. They make a lot more sense in continuing to promote trickle down/supply side economics when we have well seen that have not worked in the last 35 years.

ALEC vs Bill

ALEC explained cartoon style.

I have a brother named Bill, I don't want a brother named Alec; I don't think he would be nice to me as Bill is. Click on ALEC above and see if you agree.

Also go to http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9214 for more information about ALEC.

The Impact of the Olympic Games on Your Head

We know the history how in Ancient Greece athletes and warriors from the city states came together for competition. What was nice it that it called for a truce in wars during the games. Great idea.

That is the hope of the Olympic Games, the give a time of respite from wars and politics to be about human endeavor, dedication and endurance. It still works for some. For example gold medalist Wilfred Bungei called for his fellow Kenyans to use the London Olympics to reduce ethic tension and increase unity in his country. We know what he means when a national anthem is sung or played when the contestants receive their medals; national pride swells.

I’m not sure the reporters of the Olympics get this, they tend to focus on the negatives that take place rather than the positives, but then that the way news sells today. Scandal: U.S. uniforms made in China; wild living in the Olympic village; Romney sticks foot in mouth over security…

For 15 days the world will compete, but at the same time unity is being produced and the human spirit is fanned.

- - - - -

Now to the more absurd; a psychological pondering on how dogs might do if allowed to compete in the Olympics against humans. We obviously have to omit those games that require an opposable thumb; but there are games where they might compete. How about races including greyhounds? Their huge lungs enable them to run up to 45 mph for a 20 meter race. It could even beat a cheetah at that distance. Results: 100 meter race could be done by a greyhound in 5.02 seconds; humans lag at a high of 9.58 seconds. In a 200 meter race Usain Bolt (current record holder) would be beaten by a greyhound going at 10.35 seconds to his 19.19 seconds. Michael Johnson record 400 meter 43.18 seconds would be demolished by super dog at 21.10 seconds. Even at 800 meters dog beats human 1 minute 50 seconds to 43.18 seconds. Skipping a few we get to the 10,000 meter race where record holder Kenensia Bekele is trounced by his 26 minutes 18 second by the greyhounds 13 minutes 9 seconds. For the marathon dogs might have to switch to the Siberian Huskies.

But never fear fellow human beings, we would likely dominate field events.  Well in the long jump (comparing the dogs dock jump) human best 29 feet 14 inches, Malinois dog named Vhoebe did 31 feet 5 inches. Close.

Stanley Coren, PhD clearly is into dogs. His books:  Born to Bark, The Modern Dog, Why Do Dogs Have Wet Noses? The Pawprints of History, How Dogs Think, How To Speak Dog, Why We Love the Dogs We Do, What Do Dogs Know? The Intelligence of Dogs, Why Does My Dog Act That Way? Understanding Dogs for Dummies, Sleep Thieves, The Left-hander Syndrome

He's messing with our human heads.

Republican Budget Blueprint Released

Thom Hartman reported on the Republican (read Paul Ryan) budget proposals the 21^st of this month. He says, “and if they succeed, the 99% of us are condemned to life like serfs.

Ryan’s budget would make massive cuts to food stamps, student loans, Medicaid, and Social Security. It would also move Medicare to a voucher programs which is not exactly good news for seniors have to deal with insurance companies. It would also give huge tax breaks to multimillionaires like Ryan lowering the top tax rate from 35% to 25% or $3 trillion in tax breaks to the wealthy.

Ryan says it is up to the people to decide about his budget. Are you kidding, if that were true all the lobbyists and PAC money would have to disappear.

Later in his article Hartman says that Germany is eating our lunch when it comes to renewable energy.” The will likely invest $260 billion, 8% of the GDP into renewable energy as they seek to end their nuclear program. Time for the U.S. to wake up and smell the coffee.

Political Giving Numbers

I have been enjoying It’s the Middle Class Stupid!  book by James Carville and Stan Greenberg. It is about how Washington and Wall Street messing things up for the average American. How our work has been devalued, rising education costs, and hard work not being rewarded. We all know James Carville, the zany political guru and perhaps Greenberg who is an outstanding pollster. They maintain political parties must own up to their failures and the electorate must regain its voice. It’s a humdinger book that shows no mercy. I think it is a must read for anyone involved in the 2012 election. I’m about half way through it but I thought I’d share some numbers they have come up with in their writing.

The job crash was the worst in March 2009. 2/3rds of those polled were angry at the big banks and financial institutions and big corporations for this. Six out of ten blamed the Bush administration, four of ten blamed consumers, and only one in five were angry with the Obama administration for this.

Later in the book they found that more were angry at the government for not doing its job; limiting risks, limiting corporate and consumer excesses and the like. In other words, people were asking for more government involvement and not less. They saw through the Bush “hands off” method as ineffective and contributing to national problems. People are angry at the government but not for the reasons the conservatives promote, they want more government not less.

The next section I want to share with you has to do with campaign contributions. Nixon had his Watergate scandal, but now with the help of the Supreme Court there is a lot blocking help for the middle class that is perfectly legal. The cost of winning a House race in 2010 was 1.4 million up 71% in the last decade. A Senate seat when up by a paltry 37%, $9.7 million. House campaigns are over $421 million so far this year. But this represents just a small number of supporters.

In 2010 a quarter of contributions came from 26,783 individuals, 0.01 percent of the population. I think we are familiar with that number of 1% of 1%. These folk gave at least $10,000 per person and averaged giving $28,913, which turns out to be about $2,000 more than the median income in this country.

Since Citizens United there has been a great increase given by the PACs; these are groups unaccountable to the public. They raised $100 million with an average donation of $47,718 which is nearly ten times what an individual can contribute to a campaign. No laws apply to them. Romney is taking full advantage of this. After Romney launched his campaign he had back to back fund raisers in Florida hosted by people who had already hit their personal giving limits. The afternoon host, Francis Rooney’s holding company is said to have given $1 million to Restore Our Future accompanied by Gerald and Darlene Jordan who gave $400,000 to that organization. Oil groups with an eye on their subsidies have given 31.9 million on the 2010 election and are keeping the giving up. Oil tycoons David and Charles Kock pledged $60 million to defeat President Obama.

Wall Street gives the most of all; three months into this year they have given $207.2 million to their candidates.

I guess that is enough numbers for now. It is a good read no matter what your political inclination is.

It's rubbish like this...

Two depressing things about this infographic:

1) People are clearly getting MORE ignorant, more gullible, and less grounded in reality

2) Even if it were true, I thought we were supposed to have freedom of religion in this country anyway, at least theoretically.  Something in the Constitution about there being "No religious test" for holding office.  But whatever.

This Nails It!

Click to enlarge

Hummer Green?

Christia Agapakis who is a biologist at UCLA made the following comment: “When you factor in the fertilizer needed to grow animal feed and the sheer volume of methane expelled by cows, a carnivore driving a Prius can contribute more to global warming than a vegan in a Hummer.”

Sounds smart but I think it is really dumb. She has remarkable credentials if you look them up and I have little (well maybe a little) doubt of the factuality of her statement; but it is dumb nevertheless. All it sounds like to me is an argument for vegetarianism, not a bad thing, and an argument for Hummers; a bad thing. Why not just let the vegan drive a Prius?

Also one wonders about the assumption of just how much meat the Prius driver eats per week, and vegans also produce prodigious amounts of methane; beans anyone?

If you want to meet her up close and personal she has a Facebook page, and you can see her on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTRnSNu2a3g  In her Synthetic Biology Slam. Definitely weird. She also has her own blog. She is very cute and bubbly.

As to my own bias, I think anyone who drives a Hummer out to be jailed for conspicuous consumption. No, we have too many in jail already; better yet, be forced to work in a Prius plant until they get it.

Gun Cluture

I just had to share this article from the Christian Century blog.

Mike Huckabee and America's sin problem

Jul 24, 2012 by James F. McGrath

On his talk show, Mike Huckabee had the following to say about the shooting in Aurora, Colorado (that link goes to the Fox video; there are excerpts in print here):

Ultimately, We don’t have a crime problem or a gun problem – or even a violence problem. What we have is a sin problem. And since we ordered God out of our schools and communities, the military and public conversations, you know, we really shouldn’t act so surprised when all hell breaks loose.

I find Huckabee’s analysis (which others have also voiced), far from being a call to appropriate religious introspection, an attempt at blame-shifting. American life and society is more infused with Christianity than just about any other in the world. And yet the secular, “godless” societies of Europe for the most part do not see anywhere near as many shooting deaths in their countries as the United States does.

And so let me offer a challenge to Huckabee and other Christians who try to shift the blame onto the removal of God from public schools (see too my recent postsabout whether the shooting has anything to do with the teaching of evolution). Other societies far more secularized than we are do not have the same problems to the same extent as we do. And so why not take this opportunity to ask about America’s real sin problem?

And what is that problem? It would be too easy to point out that large numbers of Christians in the United States are full participants in American gun culture. As news reports both old and recent have indicated, other countries (like Switzerland and Canada) share or exceed Americans’ love of guns, but still do not see the numbers of shooting deaths that we do. While there is something puzzling about Christians loving guns, that in itself does not seem to be the heart of the problem.

The biggest difference between us and those other countries which excel us in secularism, and yet do not share the extent of our problem with murder and violent crime, is our own indifference to the poor, and the ever-growing gap between rich and poor in our society, not only in terms of income but also in terms of access to everything from basic daily necessities to health care.

Poverty and wealth are something that the Bible talks about regularly, and not just in Old Testament texts like the laws in the Torah or the Book of Amos. It is an issue that is addressed in relation to the values and expectations of the Kingdom of God in the New Testament. Yet it is such an enormous blind spot in the US, that many Americans actually oppose even minimal attempts to change things for the better, somehow mistaking their own capitalist values for something the Bible teaches rather than condemns.

There is some evidence that societies with significant poverty witness more crime, and that there is a connection between a wide gap between extremes of rich and poor and violent crime. But even if that isn’t the solution to America’s leadership in the number of fatal shootings we see each year, it is still something the Bible addresses. And we won’t know how this might affect other aspects of our society unless we actually begin to do what we’re supposed to, and address our “sin problem.” This seems like as good a place as any to start.

We read nothing in the New Testament about early Christians trying to impose their beliefs on the Temple in Jerusalem or in pagan temples around the Roman Empire. But we do read about them sharing all their belongings in what has been described as a form of “love communism.” I don’t think that exact model fits our modern setting. But even the underlying principles behind their practice of sharing possessions, the belief that eliminating the gap between rich and poor is what God desires, is something that American Christians have abandoned in favor of the Gospel of materialism, of consumption, and of wealth.

We do indeed have a sin problem. And it is time to repent, instead of trying as usual to use the issues of the “culture wars” to try to distract from what our real national sins are.

Extroverts and Introverts

Psychology Today asks the question of whether extroverts or introverts are happier. So, which are you? Extroverts are those folk who crave a lot of social interaction, social butterflies who like a fast paced life with quick decisions are needed. Good examples are President Obama and Oprah Winfrey. Extroverts get their energy by being with other people. Extroverts comprise about 50 to 74 per cent of the population. Introverts on the other hand (16 to 50% of the population) like alone time to ponder. Scientists, writers and artists are typical introverts though public personality can be introverts such as David Letterman and Barbara Walters.

It turns out our brains are just wired a bit differently. Introverts front brain parts are more active while extroverts back brain parts are more active. Extroverts need more dopamine to feel good in contrast to introverts.

A basic misconception of introverts is they are shy. Not true. I am barely an extrovert but have a lot of introvert in me and even though I lived a very public life, I need a good deal of alone time to keep me balanced.

Introverts and extroverts need each other and make good teams. For example extrovert Steve Jobs and introvert Steve Wozniak of Apple fame.

So who’s happier? We don’t know but tests show a slight edge for extroverts. Our culture seems to prefer extroverts so there may be a cultural bias built into these tests. Eastern cultures tend to extol the introverts and treasure the contemplatives.

If you don’t know which you are take this test. 

The Cost of Repealing Healthcare

A fairly constant argument of the conservatives is that our current health care program (Obamacare) is just too expensive and that private plans would be far more effective. If that were true it would seem that the U.S. would be leading the world in affordable health care rather than lagging behind it. But money arguments hold a powerful sway over the voting public, and scare tactics of the cost of the Heathcare Program is often used and seems effective.

Now that the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the our Healthcare program the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has issued a new report concerning their financial impact. They estimate that President Obama’s health care law will save the government $84 billion over the next 11 years. That’s a lot of money. The CBO believes that fewer states will enroll in the program. It also predicts it will leave 3 million more Americans uninsured.

The CBO also looked at H.R. 6079 (A repeal of the Healthcare program) on behalf of John Boehner that Mitt Romney said he would seek of elected president. They said that would increase the deficit by $109 billion dollars; "In total, CBO and JCT estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion over the 2013–2022 period, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period."

The popular myth is that Democrats are the tax and spend party and that Republicans are the tax reducing and lower government spending party, when nothing seems to back up those claims. This is a good example.

Health Care

God and Politics: and political whackos

One of the things that constantly amazes me is God’s consistent unconditional love for we human beings. Now there are those who believe God is a mean deity who is just out to get us for mistakes we make and wants most folk to go to hell; but even though they can quote scripture till the cows come home, they don’t seem to get it; at least in my opinion. The record of God’s constantly forgiving people who ignore God, fail to follow God’s ethic of love, and are generally just pains in the ass boggles my mind. Truly God’s ways are not our ways. If anyone has read even a bit of history, humankind just doesn’t seem that great. We just seem to fight a lot and try to kill each other over really dumb stuff.

Let me give you a modern example. There is a fellow in Texas, Wes Riddle, who is running for congress and is likely to become one of our congressmen. He has a Facebook page on his spokeman, Garrett Smith wrote the following: “The reasoning for President Obama’s impeachment begins with the fact that the State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to Russia.” The giveaway includes billions of barrels of oil and the like he says. He endorsed by Ron Paul. He goes on with a conspiracy theory that this is all being done in secret, with the discussing anything with the public or even members of the Alaska state government.

Riddle has written on his blog that Western Civilization is superior to all others. Even slavery served its purpose by getting Africans to America. He just wants the “GOVERNMENT TO LEAVE US ALONE.”

Of course, all that he says is absolutely bogus and has been discredited by fact check groups. However, he is loved by the Tea Party folk. The truth is the President Obama didn’t give away any islands, the treaty dealing with them was signed by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 and they were all on the other side of the international date line and the treaty was endorsed by both of Alaska’s senators of the time.

We can debate whether Wes Riddle is whacko, and opportunist, or just a plain liar. But he is still one of God’s critters and is likely to be a U.S. congressman because people will vote for him. Why, I don’t have a clue but then the electorate often confuses me. I find the title of his blog amusing, “Horse Sense.”

You can check with Mother Jones for the complete article.

Are You a Regressive or a Progressive?

Do you long for the things of yesteryear and by yesteryear I don’t mean our memories even of those of us who have a little wear on our bodies. I mean yesteryear of the days when there was little government regulation, there was no social safety net (i.e. social security, medicare, etc); when bigotry was in, pre-union days, when the rich were really rich and the rest of the country rode an economic roller coaster of wild ups and downs in the economy? Or in other words, the 19^th century in this country.

Robert Reich properly make the differences today about regressives and progressives rather than liberals versus conservatives or Republicans versus Democrats. Lots of folk seem to want rush back to yesteryear while other want to move forward into the future that deals with major real issues such as global warming, improved education to make our country more economically competitive, to make sure that it is a citizen’s right to have basic health care and where the American Dream is possible once again.

One of these dreams seem much more moral to me than the other but you can decide that for yourself.

Robert Reich says is much better in his video, take a look.

Can it be any more obvious than this

Fun Fact: Wisconsin has its new voter ID law... and in Sauk City, the ID-issuing office is only open on the 5th Wednesday of every month.  The FIFTH WEDNESDAY.  That's 4 days a year.  That's really going out of your way to make it hard.  I expect they'll move it to the sixth Wednesday next year and just give up the pretense altogether.

There are many, many articles now detailing this fact also, aside from the link below: the fact that so-called "free" state-issued IDs carry pre-documentation costs that well exceed the infamous 'poll tax' outlawed during the Civil Rights era.  The poll tax has returned with a vengeance, we just don't call it that anymore.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/study-finds-costs-associated-with-voter-ids/2012/07/17/gJQAlrcXsW_story.html

Nanny Info

A reader suggested some of you might be interested in her blog site so here it is. As a great grandpa I have no immediate need for this information but it is interesting. Read and enjoy


http://www.nanny.net/blog/5-things-facebook-will-tell-you-about-your-nanny-that-she-may-not/

More nanny info
(http://www.nannybackgroundcheck.com/blog/how-to-evaluate-your-nannys-driving-skills

Climate Smiment ~ Gen X

Mother Jones says that Gen Xers (those born between 1961 & 1981) are better educated, work longer hours are more active in their community but don’t seem to give a toot when it comes to the climate. It doesn’t make any difference about the political persuasion they just respond “meh” when it comes to the climate. Well, the liberals are a bit more concerned, but you’d expect that.

The sociologist they rely upon for this, Jon Miller of the University of Michigan, thinks this is the result of climate disinformation campaigns. So, they just tune out when it comes to climate issues; beside Al Gore kinda looks like a penguin and it is hard to take him seriously.

Gen Xers seem to be more immediate concerned than long range thinkers. So until it is at the doorstep (which could be a lot sooner than they think), they don’t get very excited about it.

The good news is the a Pew poll showed a slight rise in people who see evidence of global warming. And a Gallup survey said 70% wanted higher greenhouse emission standards for business and industry.

My wife really wants to take a cruise to Alaska. I hope they have some icebergs left by the time we get there.


But now we are off to the Olympics where the weather will be unusually high; hmmmm.

Hand Counting Ballots

Long ago and far away when I was teaching school I was asked to be a reporter for UPI on an election eve. My task was to go to a nearby town, wait for the counters of the ballots to finish their counting and then phone the results to UPI. It was a system that worked.

I wrote not long ago that when I was given the option this year to vote by computer or by paper ballot I chose the paper ballot, a change  of mind for a mini tecky like myself. I had grown to trust computers more than frail human counters and this trust no longer exists. We have just had too many abuses of this system to trust it. Even when the problems have been found they have been largely ignored.

There is a book out called Broken Ballots: Will Your Vote Count? By Douglas Jones and Barbara Simons which goes over the history of technology in elections. They talk about the voting machines that were used in the 19^th century, they were the same type of machine I caste my first ballot in an election in my hometown in the 60’s. These machines had a paper trail that could be verified unlike today’s computers.

Their findings are that the risks of these technologies frequently outweigh their advantages. They are far from alone in the conclusions that computer based voting was a bad idea. This seems like a clear and well researched book that both parties need to heed as they both have been victims of bad counting in this country.

And to think when we moved to where we are I thought it was quaint when they handed me a paper ballot. Now I demand it.

The Selling of American Democracy: The Perfect Storm

The following comes from Robert Reich’s blog. Rather than attempting to summarize it, which would only detract from his writing, I decided to reprint it in total. It is his title as well.

Who’s buying our democracy? Wall Street financiers, the Koch brothers, and casino magnates Sheldon Adelson and Steve Wynn. 

And they’re doing much of it in secret.

It’s a perfect storm:

The greatest concentration of wealth in more than a century — courtesy “trickle-down” economics, Reagan and Bush tax cuts, and the demise of organized labor.

Combined with…

Unlimited political contributions — courtesy of Republican-appointed Justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy, in one of the dumbest decisions in Supreme Court history, “Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission,” along with lower-court rulings that have expanded it.

Combined with…

Complete secrecy about who’s contributing how much to whom — courtesy of a loophole in the tax laws that allows so-called non-profit “social welfare” organizations to accept the unlimited contributions for hard-hitting political ads.

Put them all together and our democracy is being sold down the drain.

With a more equitable and traditional distribution of wealth, far more Americans would have a fair chance of influencing politics. As the great jurist Louis Brandeis once said, “we can have a democracy or we can have great wealth in the hands of a comparative few, but we cannot have both.”

Alternatively, inequality wouldn’t be as much of a problem if we had strict laws limiting political spending or, at the very least, disclosing who was contributing what. 

But we have an almost unprecedented concentration of wealth and unlimited political spending and secrecy. 

I’m not letting Democrats off the hook. Democratic candidates are still too dependent on Wall Street casino moguls and real casino magnates (Steve Wynn has been a major contributor to Harry Reid, for example). George Soros and a few others have poured big bucks into Democratic coffers. So have a handful of trade unions. 

But make no mistake. Compared to what the GOP is doing this year, Democrats are conducting a high-school bake sale. The mega-selling of American democracy is a Republican invention, and Romney and the GOP are its major beneficiaries.

And the losers aren’t just Democrats. They’re the American people. 

You need to make a ruckus. Don’t fall into the seductive trap of cynicism. That’s what the sellers of American democracy are counting on. If you give up on our system of government, they win everything.  

The London Olympics

The time for the games are approaching, tension mounts, athletes putting the finishing touches on their training, grounds being prepared, pavilions laid out, world travelers assembling, excitement nears a fever pitch, security – no problem; now if we could just get some rain to moisten the ground and help the crops.

Confused? I’m talking about the London, Wisconsin (which can be found on some maps but not likely worth the effort) Olympics which will be taking place July 21^st. This Diamond Jubilee event also marks the 60^th birthdays of the Queen Ann of London and her Royal consort husband the Duke of Dale. Queen Ann is the daughter of the Queen Mum, Doreen to which I am married. I believe I am the court jester in the regal gathering.

Countries represented at these Olympics include: U.S.A. (host country), Canada, Lebanon, Japan, Jamaica, Mexico, Uladh (Northern Ireland), Germany, Wales, Brazil, Australia, Italy, the Republic of Ireland, Philippines, China, Norway, Greece, England, Sweden, Iceland and Argentina; at last count that is. These representative countries selected by the families of Febock and Rumpf and assorted others. Each country is to bring food representative of the country (Doreen and I will be bringing potato chips; we represent Uladh…enough said.)

Following is a list of some of the games that will be played: Balloon Toss (guaranteed to cool down competitors, especially the inept ones); Golden Golf chipping contest; Cricket Spitting; Corn Husking; Football Toss; Horseshoes (horses not attached); Bocce Ball; Sack Race; Grandma’s Kickball (limited to grandmas); the Pillow Putt (makes less of a dent in your toe if dropped); the Javelin (actually swimming noodles) Throw; Big Wheel Race; the 10 Meter Crawl; and whatever else comes to mind. Oh yes, the day begins with a mini triathlon early in the morning, survivors will congregate at 1 pm for Registration, the appearance of the royals and the games will begin at 2 p.m.

I have vowed not to talk about neither religion nor politics during these games; perhaps that will work out. I am relatively assured that none of them read this blog anyway. I’m am sure the conversations will be primarily fixed on the events, babies, beer preferences, hunting and fishing tall tales, gluttony preferences, and politically incorrect remarks.

Dinner and awards will take place at 5 p.m.

So we will likely be baking for our London Olympics while the folk in England will be slogging around in the mud and rain. Don’t you wish you were a Febock or a Rumpf? [If you check this blogs archives very early on you might get an idea of who some of these people are.]

Long live the Queen etc.!

A Car with Two Drivers

Now for a little kernel of optimism: Federal Reserve Statistical release showing household debt service and financial obligations ratios as a percentage of income: this is a measure of how much of the public's income is currently going to service their debt.  NOTE that it is now, finally reaching cyclical lows - through a combination of de-leveraging in 2008-2010 and through reductions in effective interest rates right up to present.

See, while government policies the world over are leaning more and more into 'austerity', monetary policy has been as permissive and liquid as it can possibly get -- and while for the last 3 years it has felt like it's pushing on a string, it is now reaching a point where the effects have a chance to become visible in a big way: the consumer is finally getting back to 'comfortable' debt service ratios and is soon ready to come back for more punishment - note also that one of the reasons the current de-leveraging has gone on so long was because there was no such de-leveraging in the recession of 2001-2002.

It is this debt cycle that is one of the primary governors of our economic and business cycle.  Mind you, there can be long cycles beneath this: and generational/demographic factors, such as the current retiring of the Baby Boom generation, may limit the consumers' 'appetite' to run up consumer credit again as folks settle into a 'slower' lifestyle.  But still it's interesting food for thought.

The 'Car with Two Drivers' metaphor is a title of a chapter from William Greider's book, 'Secrets of the Temple', describing the early 80's when government fiscal policy was becoming highly stimulative while monetary policy was extremely restrictive with  veryhigh interest rates (the opposite of today's trends on both counts), like a car with two drivers, one with his foot on the gas, the other with his foot on the brake.

More on Morality

I have continued to ponder the psychology of morality. Jonathan Haidt’s book The Righteous Mind and his perceptions continues to tickle my muse and make me wonder. To reiterate a bit of the proceeding discussion, Haidt brings up the old nature versus nurture argument about human action with an emphasis, that seems popular currently, putting an emphasis on nature. Or, as he sees it we are hardwired to think in particular moral standards.

I, with my sociological background, have always placed a heavier emphasis on nurture, especially the cultural influences that determine moral behavior. There is the famous old ethics question which goes like this. There is an Indian tribe in South America that believes when a person reaches a certain age it is the responsibility of the eldest son to take that parent up on the mountain and leave them there to die. The question is, what if the eldest son does not fulfill that responsibility but keeps the parent in the village; how would he feel. And the answer is, guilty. He did not conform to the culture and the moral in which he was raised, even if that seems strange to us who have different moral codes. The conclusion being is that culture plays a very strong role in morality despite how we are hardwired. But it also assumes a very singular and widely shared culture.

Now what happens when you live in a multifaceted culture, where there are number conflicting mores, folkways, values and even laws. Morality now gets far more complex. In religion I have talked about in the past two major viewpoints: one being a legalistic viewpoint that sees a God of judgment that sets certain requirements for people, and they will be judged, even damned if they do not follow a certain set of principles. I see these as the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus’ day, and their modern counterparts in the extreme right conservative Christians of today who have a definite set of well defined beliefs and place heavy judgment on those who do not conform to those beliefs. The modern counterpoint of Jesus’ teaching I find in the more liberal and accepting traditions of mainline churches, though there is more inconsistency in the later group.

It is my belief in religious circles the legalistic believers have an easier and simpler system which makes it popular with folk who don’t want to spend a lot of time on applying or thinking about the ethic of love Jesus taught. For instance, adultery; in biblical times adultery was causing a child outside the bonds of marriage ~ meaning there was a lack of responsibility by an individual and society to care for a child of such a relationship. But that principle has been codified by legalists into a narrower understanding of no sex outside of marriage. I heard one account years ago when someone was discussion this with Billy Graham who understood the argument, but went with the simpler legalistic interpretation not because it was right but because it was easier. Situational ethicists live in a more complex and reflective world than do the legalists. It is just simpler.

Now to the world of politics; I find the same principles are at work. There is the legalistic conservatives who have a definite set of rules in which they believe fervently and condemn those who do not affirm them. It is a simpler method. And in both liberal and conservative groups we find folk who follow those same principles of staying with a particular set of beliefs mainly because they have always following them. i.e. “My father would turn over in his grave if I voted ….” But we live in a complex and multicultural country in which moral values are not easy to apply with a single stroke, but are constantly moving and changing and requiring adaptation. One reason educators are typically democratic rather than republican; they are more used to reason and applying logical principles to life.

As I look around I find a lot of folk just plain don’t think much about politics except that they are tired of the public debate and acrimonious arguments that seem to inevitably ensue. There is little love of good debate such as the founding Fathers engaged for the purpose of finding the best truth, ethical values they could.

Increasingly we seem to be a less reflective country and I think that has given rise to a conservative majority. That by no means there are not very bright and intellectually curious and reflective conservatives; there are, but I do not think the rule the day. Ronald Reagan is reflective of the non reflective age in which he could with a straight face promise to lower taxes, decrease the deficit, increase military spending, limit government increase government spending and everybody would be better off with trickledown economics. This was a illogical concept but it has dominated political thinking for 35 years. But according to Haidt, we are hardwired to operate that way.

But if that is true how do explain the years dominated by more liberal thought? How do explain the progressive leadership of Lincoln? How do account for the popularity and effectiveness of the New Deal under Franklin D. Roosevelt? How do you explain a country backing ideas that worked for the common good?

Part of the reason for that I believe is because those were more reflective times and people were more reflective and more engaged in political debate and reasoning. They were more knowledge about their country which was less complex and values were shared more widely.

Those times have past and may never return again. But I hope not. It may well being that the complex difficulties of today’s world may force us to harder thinking. What I think is the big question is whether than will happen before it is too late.

Misinformation Part Deux

The campaign commercial I’ve seen most recently and most often is the one where they say Obamacare is “the biggest tax increase in history.” Rush Limbaugh, that bastion of misinformation and spin originated the line and likely he never thought anyone would take it seriously, but there it is being trotted out to frighten the masses into believing the President is bound and determined to destroy the country as a tax mad Democrat.

Of course for subterfuge to really work it must contain a kernel of truth as this one does. The Congressional Budget Office (nonpartisan) estimates all the things put together in this package (which is rather complicated to determine) but result in a total of 675 billion between now and 2022. You could even add penalty payments perhaps up to $54 billion. At any rate there is a lot of money involved but is it the largest tax increase in history.

A simple and a simplistic answer would be yes, if you see things in raw dollars, meaning you forget about inflation. See chart below (ACA is Affordable Care Act at 76.8 billion dollars.)

But that is definitely misleading because inflation. If you account for that the ACA goes to 4^th place behind Reagan’s increases, see the next chart below.

But this is also misleading as if fails to account for the increase in population which is 82 million more since Reagan’s 1982 increase. Plus, incomes have increased.

FactCheck.org says the best yardstick to measure all of this is to see the tax increase in terms of its relationship to Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Now the increase is under 1/4^th of Reagan’s 1982 increase. See the next chart.

There is more to it than even this, but enough is enough but you could go back to 1942 and it seems like a pittance.

Probably a effective political ad, but it is just wrong.