Confusion at Sea

The following set of articles I wrote while at sea; we still are. They may not be in the order I wrote them, so I hope you can figure out their chronology.

Sorry for the confusion.

More from Michael Edwards Book

Edwards repeats a famous Ronald Reagan quote, “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Which, unfortunately has become the mantra, or bumper sticker, of both Republicans and many Democrats, Unfortunately it is not a full quote and taken out of context. Reagan was talking about high taxes and high federal expenditures and said, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” “From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government is an elite group is superior to the government for, by, and of the people.” Or, Reagan wanted better government. He wanted better management of government. Unfortunately his record shows he did little to improve the situation and increased the debt manifold, just for his cronies rather than his predecessors.

But his point is valid, government is to foster productivity not stifle it with unreasonable restraints, but it still needs restraints. Those have been so weakened we find ourselves in the mess we find ourselves today with big business needing bailouts and banks bilking the customers rather than serving them.

Interesting data: Reagan became president in 1981. There had been Democratic presidents for 12 of the previous 20 years and had controlled congress for 30. By 2007, conservatives had controlled the congress for 10 years and the Presidency for 26 of 34 years. That 34 for year record speaks for itself in economics alone. No longer do children expect or get a higher standard of living than their parents despite higher education. It’s lower. And government spending is way beyond what the Democrats ever did creating a staggering national debt and encourage huge private debt. Their conservative ideals were good, their application was whacky.

Edwards constantly asks conservatives to return to their roots and principles. Once they were the protectors of the environment, now they back unscrupulous business to create an environmental crisis. They have moved from stewards to opportunists, making a bleak future for the coming generations. Conservatives you should be “tree huggers” not use the term as a derogative remarks for those who seek to protect the planet. Conservatives need to reestablish the principles versus just bottom line short term thinking for the few.

My own example of this is that small business should be solidly in back of single payer medical coverage for the nation. It would lift a tremendous burden from those businesses and provide better medical care for all. And yet they are the arch opponents of such a system. The function of the health system should not be profits but health care. Other countries realize this, while we turn a blind eye and are manipulated by special interests.

Political Thoughts at Sea

While on the briny sea I have also continued reading Mickey Edwards Reclaiming Conservatism which has been absolutely fascinating. It takes me back to my college days when I was fascinated by the beliefs of Barry Goldwater, who is the benchmark of conservatism for Edwards. Thus we agree on a tremendous amount of things. Of course, he sees conservatism as the repository of all things good and liberals as deviants. The overriding criterion of conservatism for Edwards is a strict adherence to the Constitution. Edwards is absolutely incensed over what Reagan through George W. Bush has done in the Republican Party that has led the party in a completely different direction of “true conservatism.” I will limit myself to this brief observation since this is really a Caribbean journey log. Suffice it to say, I see his book as well as Fareed Zakaria (The Post American World) as essential reading to understand conservatism at its best. These along with Barack Obama’s, Audacity of Hope, I see has must reading for informed understanding of today’s political scene (remember Obama’s degree is in constitutional law.) I suppose you could toss in George Will, but he’s such a pompous grump. But at least they get the conservative point of view correctly. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, Glen Beck and others of similar ilk do damage to their party and the cause and have helped splinter in Republican party into hate mongering sloganeers. Tea Party leaders are clueless about their political heritage and just seem to be in it for the money; but not all; they are just ill guided.

It is indeed sad that the majority of politicians are just out to win without regard to conservative or liberal traditions and principals. The congress has abdicated power and initiative to the executive branch. President Obama, who would lead us appropriately as the chief executive is condemned for not over stepping his authority; though he has on occasion. There is no middle rational ground for debate and the population has become illiterate as citizens and their responsibilities as well as how the government is supposed to operate as public servants.

We have degenerated into an Oligarchy where the haves of an out of control free enterprise system have bought the government. To reclaim democracy we will need to radically change the electoral process and put in place regulations that protect the Republic rather than allow it to be sold to the few. Our materialism threatens to bring on our own destruction. 

While at sea I have read Edwards book and have found it thoroughly thought provoking, stimulating, refreshing and a very good read. Once more I recommend it to folk who prize our republic and want to see it flourish. I am as enthusiastic about his book as I was of Fareed Zakaria’s book, The Post American World. These are two conservatives we need to pay attention to no matter what our political affiliation may be. They know the strengths and the weaknesses of conservatism and the appalling state modern Republicanism has fallen. I find Edwards advise to his own ilk, conservatives equally helpful to liberals in a common search to see our democracy revive itself and to make politics again a respected and vital part of American culture. The political quagmire we find ourselves in benefits only very few and may have sown the seeds of destruction of our democratic experiment.

I grow very weary of folk, who seem the vast majority, that only complain about politics and politicians and take no responsibility for our current preposterous position. As I have often told my parishioners over the years, “it is easy to complain, it is hard and takes are work to fix problems.” As citizens we need to be problem solvers not just chronic curmudgeons. It is our nation and our responsibility to be informed and involved in the political structure, but few seem to be either.

As I have written before we need both of our political parties and their ideologies to find and discern the truths we need to be responsible citizens. Both parties have their strengths and witnesses, and we need to appreciate various forms of views. Read these books and read the books of liberals as well. The educated ones and informed ones are fairly easy to discern. That is why I like President Obama. He brings far more to the table than just a creative means of raising money, an eloquent speaking manner and the ability to win an election. He is a student of the constitution, where he has his degree. And he expresses his inclusive and widespread views very well in his book, The Audacity of Hope, which informed citizens, should read as liberals should read the books mentioned here.

A final point about Edwards I find most illuminating and hopeful. He ends his book speaking about his wife Elizabeth Sherman. Note she retains her own name. She is an ardent Liberal with a degree in political science and a doctorate in sociology and a Democrat. It is obvious that they love and care for each other in their private lives provide a wonderful example of how folk of differing views and beliefs can live together in diversity and harmony. May we learn much from them.

Love Priorities

Remember the song that says something like, “I would give up my very soul for you,” as an expression of deep love. Of course you cannot get up a soul, but if you could, you’d likely become a spousal and child abuser and an axe murderer. Yep, this is another priorities piece.

First love priority should be one’s love for God. God is what enables us to love and even exist in the first place. Loving God first, make us able to be better lovers of other things and people as well. That is why it ranks first in God’s gift to Hebrews who had been enslaved and needed to learn how to live as free people who could set their own priorities. Love God first and foremost. Life will go better if that is you number one priority. In fact, the first set of commandments all deal with this concept.

The second love priority is to love yourself. You are child of God for goodness sake, appreciate it. We are all the center of our own little universes in God’s big universe, so admit it and accept and affirm it. This is not egotism, it is egoism (as I understand egoism; a strong sense of self.) If you don’t fill you own cup with self love, how can you possible love others? I know this is dangerous territory as we can so easily get caught up on only self love which is self destructive. But an honest of love self is healthy. As Jesus said, “Love others as you love yourself.” That infers love of self is of great importance and again enables us to be love people.

The third love priority is you extended self. By that I mean love of spouse and family. You are loved by God enabling you to love, you love self, as being one capable of love, and then you need objects of love that are close to you ~ family. This one gets screwed up often. We fall into the trap of thinking we need to love our spouse and our children and are parents, cousins… to the detriment or more than ourselves. That is just a formula to deplete you own cup so you can love anyone. If you make your spouse number three in you love priorities, I believe you will love them more than those who profess they love they as their number one priority. A sub point here is to love spouse over children or other family members. The old cliché if you want to do the best for your children love the mother or father. Again, loving creates the ability to love. When God asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac, it was a statement of that number one priority, but when Abraham prepared to do that sacrifice, God, in essence said, “Are you nuts! I gave you a brain do you really think I’d ask that of you?”

Finally, we need to find extensions of our love that reach out to the entire world. These next priorities and be mixed in a variety of ways, but we should never limit our love to just self, family, and extended family. Love may begin at home, but God never intended it to just stay there, it is a jumping off point. Whenever we denigrate, demean, or hate others, we are doing those things to our brothers and sisters, part of our family of God. We are never to withhold our love for them. We may disagree, dispute values, have all out arguments, but we are not to stop loving. Loving should also not be confused with liking. Love is a verb to care for the well being of others whether we like them or not. Again, Jesus explained it well in the story of the good Samaritan.  The Jews and the Samaritans hated each other in Jesus’ day, but to explain neighborliness, love of neighbor, Jesus demonstrated how it works with an example of one who would be typically loathed.

Jesus stated it simply and best when he told us “to love others as he has loved us.”

[Written while observing the staff onboard the Celebrity Constellation. Friendly, loving folk.]

Presidents and Foreign Policy

For a long period of time now the role of congress and its responsibility in foreign affairs, particularly in the area of declaring wars (often referred as police actions) has gone completely awry. Or, in other words, the congress has blatantly abdicated their responsibilities in this area; as well as many others. You may recall Regan’s invasion of Granada, which seems like complete idiocy. But worse was the whole Contra affair where congress just gave free reign to a popular president to do as he pleased. In was unconstitutional and unfortunately has continued to present times. We conveniently do not call have not called the Korean conflict, the Vietnam War, and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars even though they are. Congress does not vote to go to war which they should, they just vote funds after the fact.

It has interested me that this conservative writer talks about Democrats restoring traditional conservative values that conservatives have trampled upon since the Regan years. This mainly has to do with constitutional issues and congress doing their job rather than pushing their responsibilities onto the executive branch of government. Presidential Line vetoes being a choice example this eroding of congressional power. What he has not addressed so far however, is the purchase of the legislative branch by the financial elite.

A side thought. Is the only way back to a representative democracy, where all citizens interests are addressed rather than the ultra rich, is through a third party movement? Unfortunately, 3^rd party movements have reflected even more radical interests than the two party system.

Mickey Edwards brings up another interesting concept in his book on reclaiming conservatism. It is what he calls Factionalism, meaning “solidarity with one’s part had become more important than the obligation of Congress to act as a body separate from, and completely equal to, the presidency.” From my point of view that is why the Obama administration seems to have accomplished little. A solid, non-compromising, “get Obama” Republican dominated congress (aided by like minded Democrats) have stymied any real action for the welfare of the country. The disastrous acts of the G.W. Bush administration cannot be adequately reversed because of this factionalism, causing the gridlock we see in place. Edward’s point is that the Republicans during the Bush administration abdicated the conservative ideals and promoted this factionalism.

As I read more of Edward’s book, I am reminded of the biblical story of Jacob and Esau. You will recall old hairy Esau had been out doing his outdoor things of hunting and the like and came home famished. Jacob said he would give him a bowl of stew for his birthright. More hungry than bright, Esau agreed. The corollary is that the Republicans, seeking to overthrow Democratic domination of congress prior to Regan sold their birthright of conservatism for the hunger for power. Among others Edward’s blames Newt Gingrich as one of the prime architects of this movement. He and folk like Thompson advocated term limits which weakens congress, and giving up power to the executive branch through line item vetoes, and fiscal responsibility all worked to subvert the historical conservative agenda. Thus the fears that James Madison had for the democracy have come to fruition under this modern sloganism versus conservative principles and strict constitutional interpretation.

Non Republican Republicans

I’m enjoying the Mickey Edwards book, Reclaiming Conservatism:… I wrote about recently. I even bought the book after reading the free sample. It is not making me a conservative by any means, but I agree with a great deal of what he says in terms of the significant changes in the Republican Party in recent years.

One of the major beliefs of the Republican party/conservatives was a limited government, or government should be a small as possible. A concept I find good and worthy. However, in recent years we have seen the Republicans turn their back on that concept and just want to use the government to force their ideas upon others.

Another basic tenant of the conservatism that goes along with the above, is maximum individual freedom. Again they seem to have turned their back of that belief. Now you see them make and wanting to enforce beliefs systems: i.e. no stem cell research, abortions, prayer in schools, and the like on everyone. This goes against individual freedoms which would believe just the opposite, they are a matter of individual rights and should not be messed about with by the central government. This is as it was in the Goldwater days.

A primary reason for these shifts in conservative thought has been the result of another core belief in the separation of church and state. The Religious Right has found tremendous political power in recent years which it seeks to force upon the public. It makes for strange bedfellows and twisted ideology.

Now a great deal of this is popular with the general public, at least in some cases. Polls have indicated that the majority of Americans belief in a literal interpretation of scripture and refute the theory of evolution. This absolutely boggles my mind. This discussion should have left in the dust with the Scopes Trial. There is no conflict between science and religion except manufactured ones which is ill understand either disciplines, in my opinion.

Well, I have a whole lot more to say, but my mind is more on cruising right now than politics. I and want to read more of the book before getting to interpretation and reactions.

America Needs Two Strong Parties

I have always tried to make clear my political biases. I am a moderate liberal Democrat. I make no apologies for that and feel it is consistent with my religious beliefs and personal philosophies. With that said, I firmly believe we need a strong Republican party and strong Republican candidates for President and for the legislative branches. It is the mix of ideas that give us the best overall product for our country.

I also believe that the entire political spectrum has changed for the worse over the past three and half decades. The entire spectrum has shifted significantly to the right, both Republicans and Democrats. But that shift has not brought the parties closer together. I have written about this before that the most left Republicans are still significantly right of the most moderate Democrat. Those moderate folk of both parties that could work out deals for the good of the country no longer exist. Thus, the incredible mess we find ourselves in today; the gridlocks of all gridlocks. In my opinion the worse it has been in all of American history.

Now to the point of this article. I think the real problem facing us today lies primarily in the conservative movements which have their traditions, value resulting in lost direction. Here me out before just writing this off as the whining of a liberal.

I want to the Republican Party to be stronger and more reflective on conservatism we have seen in times gone by. The type of Conservatism that existed prior to the past three and half decades when conservatism move away from its roots and basic values.

There is a book out by Mickey Edwards, entitled, “Reclaiming Conservatism: How a Great American Political Movement Got Lost -- and how it can find its way back,  that I think expresses this viewpoint extremely well. For kindle users, you can download a sample of this book to try it out for free before you buy it. I think it is great and plan on buying it when I finish the sample.

In my college years I was quite enamored by Barry Goldwater. Edwards takes us back to those times and clearly lays out the traditional conservative values that have contributed greatly to this country. In our recent era those values have been lost. Reagan, while he believed in these values I think lacked a full understanding of conservatism and led the party down an unrealistic garden path that Republicans have been following in one form or another since. Reagan promised less government, reduced taxes, military buildup, and reduced debt all at the same time. It couldn’t be done and he led the country on a ridiculous spending spree, worsened by G.W. Bush. And now we have these irrational intractable beliefs that has created a lose lose way of politics.

Let me repeat my premise, we need two strong political parties for this country in order for our government to live up to the dreams and visions of the countries founders. Parties that can adapt to a new and changed world bringing the values that will benefit all.

So, let me strongly implore you to read Mickey Edward’s book and ask others to read it as well. It is a good compliment to President Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope. Together they bring the values of two great traditions that made us the country we were and hope to become again. Read them both, not just to back up your own viewpoints and arguments but learn of the values of these views of our country.

Pastor’s and Presidents

I have loved being a pastor for the past nearly 40 years. It is a most fulfilling job. You are there at the big moments of peoples lives: births, deaths, marriages, good times and bad. You are responsible for teaching values and lifestyles that are positive and good for that faith community as it reaches out to the world in commitment and love. You see people at their best, touched by grace dong selfless acts of care and compassion for others. Pastors are also unique in all professions that I can think of as when you move into a community you have an instant extended family that already cares for you and wants you to be important in their lives and will care and love you immediately. You get to talk to them about the most important things in life: why are we are and what are we to do and is all of it important. And in all cases you talk about the positive contribution their lives have. You get to tell them that they are God’s beloved children and that God will love them no matter what they do, unconditionally and yet God has high expectations of them. It is a great vocation and I feel blessed in having it. Even though I’m retired, it is still my vocation.

With that said, being a pastor is a pain in the ass. Despite an education similar to doctors and lawyers everyone assumes they know how to do your job better than you do. After the honeymoon is over “roast preacher” is common faire among congregants dining tables. The members of your congregation feel free to take cheap shots at you fairly secure that you will not fire back in kind. After a bit you cease being their pastor and they want you to be the personal chaplain, there at their beck and call whenever they want, whether they let you know you’re wanted or not. And we live in a time when the pastor has less prestige than any time in our nation’s history. The only thing worse than being a pastor is being a pastor’s spouse who is expected to work for the church at no pay and to be the perfect model in all ways and things, and the pastor’s spouse has no pastor to turn to for pastoral care. You are called an expected to lead, even “do” the Christianity for them, rather than enabling them to do their Christian living. And if you don’t lead the way they think you should they’ll sneak around behind your back to try and get rid of you. One of three pastors leave their congregations under duress.

Hmmm, is their another job that comes to mind with the similar benefits and problems? Ah, Presidents and politicians in general; they just get paid better.

Now getting the job and President or a politician is far worse than getting a job as a pastor. Why anyone would want to undergo that type of scrutiny and debasement is beyond me. Oh, politicians like pastors generally have huge egos that accept that. Though in responsible denomination through background checks are run on each applicant.

Successful pastors as I define that nebulous state, are good listeners. They listen to those they are to lead so that can discover their dreams and visions (and add a few when necessary) and then find the means by which they can realize those dreams and visions. Good pastors know that they are there to primarily serve God and serve God in concert with their parishioners. And if a congregation wanders away from that common calling, they are to bring them back on track by reminding them of their basic identity. Good pastors should have pleasing personality to which the majority can relate but they should never lose their integrity in the leadership, and just be a pleaser to congregations and their members, especially those members who believe they need and deserve more attention than others. Good pastors seek to find common ground where the vast majority can respect decisions made and support them. They are to be problems solvers and teach those problem solving methods to others, always conscious of the common good. Pastors should understand and respect their office and make it possible for their congregants to do the same. Good pastors are to love their congregations and allow those congregations to love them in return.

As for presidents, it is pretty much the same work. Dreaming and capturing dreams with the people. Good Presidents are to provide leadership that respects everyone’s contributions and needs while retaining the integrity of themselves and their office. They should earn the country’s respect and act respectfully towards the citizens. Good presidents as leaders are to find common ground to accomplish the common good. They are to be problems solvers and surround themselves with experts in the fields where problems reside. They are to exhibit their love for their country and its citizens and allow the citizens to reflect that love.

When churches lose their way and there is great conflict between pastors and congregations, inevitably it is because they have lost sight of the large issues that connect them and the fighting becomes personal and degrading. Common and ground and common vision are lost is hateful rhetoric that neither listens nor contributes to solving issues.

It is my perception of the country is that we have lost common ground and common visions. The parties have grown so far apart that they lack middle ground, and they are not even seeking common ground. In my opinion the entire country has moved further to the right in the last 35 years, and that the traditional solid values of the right have been lost in ideological intolerance. I voted for and supported President Obama who I saw as a man of vision and real sense of the common good. I believe he is president in the most unfortunate of times. In seeking to become a reconciler he has given far too much without receiving quid pro quo which makes the system work.

As churches become dysfunctional they usually fire the pastor, but the problems remain and they get stuck in hiring and firing pastor after pastor and become disillusioned. Eventually this leads to the death of that congregation. Those churches are broken beyond repair.

My fears are that is now true of the country which seems to have moved from a democracy, where all people are to have equal say, to and oligarchy, or government by the few. In our case the government by the ultra rich who are not concerned with common good but in their own short term self interest. Though there are many in that group who realize that the direction of the rich while the middle class disappears and the poor increase is not good for anyone, including themselves.

I am hopeful for the country that we make find our way through our current morass. I hope that we can change the election process so the common voice is once again heard. I hope government will accept its role as the servants of the people and place and enforce safeguards that protect all of our citizens. I hope that the judiciary becomes so removed from the political arena in can be the independent voice it was intended to be following the guidelines of the constitution and applying them to the changing modern world. I hope that as citizens we come to respect each other more and those who lead us. I hope for a much better educated populace that can make intelligent choices in terms of leaders and work for the common good of all fellow members of our country.

As a Christian I have far more hope in the church as it and other religions are lead by a loving God who will intervene on our behalf.

As a citizen, I am hopeful that those religious values come to the fore once again in our society and others that the common good becomes our primary value.

With that said, I’m packing up my computer and heading south where we can bask in the warmth with family and friends.

Oily Fracking

In my hometown lived a fella who was a bit of a daredevil, named Oily Fracking. Frankin, as we called him, was a creative sort always trying new things to make a buck, but his frontal lobe (the brain’s governor) was a bit limited. He was a major risk taker but also lacked a bit of common sense. His  best friend was Everett Paul Anchor; we called him EPA for short. EPA was a very responsible guy, and though he really like his friend Frankin’, he also viewed him as a loose cannon that you had to keep a careful eye upon.

For instance, Frackin came up with an idea to create methane to run his farm. Frackin started feed his cattle a diet of mainly beans and other legumes know to produce gas. One day all the cows were in the barn at one time eating the legumes and as luck we have it their internal pressure built up at the same time and let loose all at the same time as well recording the world foremost cattle fart. It was amazing. It blew all the barn doors off, and the smell; well, It was beyond description. Unfortunately a stranger on the edge of town chose to light up a cigarette at the moment. The ensuing fireball caused an emergency meeting of the First Fundamentalist Church in town to talk about the 2nd coming, very soon. 


 EPA told his buddy Frackin, “what on earth were you thinking?” Frackin replied, “Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time.” EPA then explained to his friend, perhaps you could have tried this out on one cow first. But that’s not the way Frackin operated.

And that’s the way it went in my hometown. Frackin continually tried wild and strange ideas without a clue as to whether they were dangerous or not, he just thought of making a buck. EPA was always at him, to test things out as to their danger to him and others. But Frankin was Frackin and few expect he’ll ever change his ways. EPA was a lot smarter and more responsible, but folk complained more about him as a wet blanket for some reason. Go figure.

[Inspired by Truthout’s blog, EPA links Tainted Water in Wyoming to Hydraulic Fracturing for Natural Gas.]

Get Rid of Corporate Taxes

Paul K. has convinced me, we should do away with corporate taxes. [See his comments on the 57,000 page tax return article.] It is a regressive tax. He has commented on this before.

Here is what really pushed me over the edge. Christian Century reported on a major study of the 280 most profitable Fortune 500 companies which showed that 78% paid no income tax in one of the last 3 years and 30 had negative tax rates over the same period of time. The report was done by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

They don’t pay their taxes and they just get pushed forward to us anyway if they do, so let’s just get rid of them. Of course, that may mean that our income tax might raise a bit, but at least we see that we’re paying for it instead of having it hidden from us. And, it puts all those tax lawyers finding loopholes out of a job, would that translate into lower prices? Likely not but it should.

Karl Rove and Catsup

I believe once before I wrote a bit on catsup. It was about an ad about Heinz Catsup which I could never get out of the bottle without a small stick a explosive, so they advertized it as good and thick. Or, they advertised their weakness as a strength.

What has that to do with Karl Rove? Well, his latest attack ad on Elizabeth Warren ( one of the few bright lights on the political scene) in which he doesn’t just take a weakness and make it a virtue. He just flat out lies, which seems to have become perfectly acceptable to politicians today.

In the ad he blames Warren for TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) and for bank bailouts. Here are the lies: 1. TARP was a Republican program implemented by G.W. Bush; 2. Warren became the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel to bring such programs under control. 3. Warren has been an advocate of getting rid of “too big to fail” institutions by breaking them up. 4. Charged with being anti financial, she was charged with setting up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, working with financial institutions. 5. Charged with siding with big banks instead of the middle class is bizarre. Big banks have been after her for a long time.

I know she and Rove are fighting in Massachusetts, but she is such a bright light I like to follow what she is doing.

Here in Wisconsin we have our Gov. in his Kock Brothers backed ads having teachers talk about how they kept the jobs and things are just fine in getting more money in the classroom. I wonder what the 3,368 teachers who lost their jobs at his cutbacks think about that. Of course, this was done under the guise of balancing the budget deficit which he created by giving tax break to the wealthy.

If the rest of us make such statements in public we would be sued for slander and libel. Ah politics.

Is The Doctor In?

When I was a kid and if someone in the family got sick, we called the doctor, and went to see him usually that day. Sometimes the doctor even came to our farm. Can you imagine that? Today, most of us don’t even try to see our doctor if we’re sick, we head off to a urgent care center. You can see your own doctor, it just takes some time. The following chart compares us to other countries in waiting time.

 We have the most expensive health care system in the world but we rarely can see a doctor when we want. There is no reason to blame the doctors for all this, they are seeing 20 to 30 patients a day. They just don’t have time. So the real problem is we don’t have enough doctors! Take a gander at the next chart to see how we compare to other countries in terms of doctors in relation to population.

Now that is a mind blower. I've heard the argument that the doctors will leave single payer systems to work in free enterprise systems. Well, we do pay our doctors more, but you can clearly see that doesn't make for more doctors. So, when someone trots that old argument out, show them the data.

I Don't Get It!

There are lot’s of things I don’t get. Here are some.

Why is Jerry Seinfeld funny. He has an annoying voice, uses mean condescending humor and is regarded as a comic Genius. I don’t get it. (But then I didn’t get “Friends” either. Perhaps it is olditis.)

Why don’t we fix the health system. Most people want universal health care. It is proven more efficient in countries that use it. The current system is an enormous drag upon the economy. I don’t get it.

Why do women fall in love with bad boys, seek to change them, and when it doesn’t work divorce them. I don’t get it.

Why don’t folk see that supply side economics (a.k.a. trickle down economics) doesn’t work. It hasn't worked for 35 years and yet folk who have not benefited by it still support it. They would have $13,000 more in their pockets it we went back to proven demand side economics. I don’t get it.

Why are there thousands of channels available on TV and you can’t find one of them worth watching? And why did the FCC allow so damned many commercials to be shown each half hour? I don’t get it.

Why is “intelligent design” called intelligent design, when it’s stupid? I don’t get it.

Why don’t we mourn Veterans Day rather than celebrate it? They died because as a race we’re so damned stupid we can’t solve our differences sensibly? And then why after praising soldiers, and we should, don’t we take care of them adequately when they come home? I don’t get it.

Why is the happiest nation in the world Sweden when they live in an inhospitable climate and pay over 50% taxes. Actually, I get that, they have a better value system and take care of each other.

Why do you need a bar at a shooting range? Seems like a recipe for disaster. And does any hunter need an automatic weapon or a bazooka? I don’t get it.

Why do we get all excited about subsidizing education, public broadcasting, social security, medicare, Medicaid etc. and not blink an eye about subsidizing professional sports programs, and corporations with tax breaks. I don’t get it?

Why is it legal for banks to bet on the the folk the lend to going broke? I don’t get it.

Why does almost the entire food industry underpay and give no benefits for their workers, so the live in poverty and can’t afford to eat out? Except at fast food places which destroy their health. I don’t get it.

Why does anyone live in the north during the winter? Sadomasochists? I don’t get it.

Why do folk think it is more moral to get up early? I don’t get it.

Why do we applaud folk who fanatically work themselves to death? I don’t get it.

Following the moral and economics failings of Wall Street why do the majority of folk want to privatize social security? I don’t get it.

Why have we allowed our country to become an oligarchy of the rich? I don’t get it.

Why do mommy’s and daddy’s love their children? Well, maybe I get that one, sometimes.

Why is it improper to fart in public but to insult people without compunction? I don’t get it.

Why do folk go to football games and freeze their butts of when they can see better at home and stay warm? And why are we a nation of such sports fanatics and so sedentary and obese? Or why do people cheer at ball games and remain quiet in church? I don’t get it.

Why do I love playing golf, which I do poorly and write blogs? Why didn’t I finish the book I had two thirds done? I don’t get it.

Why do dogs give us undying affection no matter how we treat them? I don’t get it.

Why do we put down animals when they suffer and keep humans alive when they want to go see God? I don’t get it.

Why do we think the entire world is governed by cause and effect except for ourselves? I don’t get it.

Why do we laugh at others people’s pain? i.e. the Three Stooges and my wife seeing me fall on my ass. I don’t get it.

Why did the chicken cross the road? I don’t get it.

Who cares if a tree falls in the woods and makes noise or not if not one is there to hear it? I don’t get it.

What do we think baby faces covered with gunk is adorable? Yuck! I don’t get it.

Why do women complain that men don’t put the toilet seat down and they don’t put the lid down (especially if it is under the medicine chest) when essentially both just do their business and leave without a thought about anyone else. I don’t get it.

Why is it necessary to teach MBA’s etc business ethics? Didn’t they have parents? I don’t get it.

Why do we introduce ourselves by telling each other what we do or did to make money? I don’t get it.

Why do we feel dumber the more learn and the older we get? I don’t get it.

Why do we distrust smart people? I don’t get it.

Why would pigs want to fly? I don’t get it.

How could hell possibly freeze over if hell is the absence of God and God is the creator of all; therefore hell doesn’t even exist? I don’t get it.

Why do some evangelists want to scare people into believing? Isn’t that anti-good news? I don’t get it.

Why are men from Mars and women from Venus; what’s wrong with Uranus and Neptune or Kepler 22b? I don’t get it. (Do you suppose Jesus retired to Kepler 22b?)

If we are so against illegal immigrants, why don’t we all throw ourselves out except the Native Americans? I don’t get it. And do you suppose the places where we or our ancestors came from would let us back in?

Do you think our frontal lobes where our moral compasses reside are shrinking?

Why don’t were hear Mort Saul’s comedy anymore? This political age seems made for him. I don’t get it.

Is Betty White right when she says we don’t have as many daytime quiz shows is because we just lack general knowledge nowadays? Or, we don’t get it.

If you have, why have you read so many of these speculations? I don’t get it.

Finally, why does God seem so head over heels in love with us, when we seem to spit in God’s eye? I don’t get it, but I am thankful for it.

The Social Gospel

I used a term in a recent blog that perhaps not all of you are familiar with: the social gospel.” It has been a common term that I have used most of my life, but it is not a common term today, so, I decided to write a bit about it.

Historians tend to see it as essentially a protestant movement of the 20^th century, particularly the early part. In essence the social gospel is the attempt to apply Christian ethics to social problems that face our society. As a Presbyterian, it is reflected, eloquently in my opinion, in the first chapter of our form of government as labeled as The Great Ends of the Church:

F-1.0304 The Great Ends of the Church

The great ends of the Church are:

the proclamation of the gospel for the salvation of humankind;

the shelter, nurture, and spiritual fellowship of the children of God;

the maintenance of divine worship;

the preservation of the truth;

the promotion of social righteousness; and

the exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven to the world.4

The conditions in the country when the social gospel was prominent were similar to what they are now. During the 19^th century, lacking the governmental controls that came into being in the 20^th century following the Great Depression. There was widespread poverty, great unemployment, a lack of child labor laws, a few laws dealing with the safety net that came into being under the leadership of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The so called Protestant Ethic was also prominent in people’s thinking. That was the idea that good people worked hard and therefore were rewarded by God with wealth, while poor people were being punished by God because they were slackards. Not unlike how we hear the Wall Street people describing the Wall Street Occupiers. It was prominent in the Old Testament times prior to the wisdom writers. The wisdom writers (authors of Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon) looked around the world and saw that a lot of good people were having a hard time of it and a lot of nasty folk were making out like bandits economically. So they rejected that type of thinking, as the Social Gospel contingent rejected similar thinking in their day.

Most mainline churches today still support the Social Gospel in one form or another feeling that we need to take care of people’s physical needs before we go out evangelizing them. The good news of the gospel includes care for people as well as the proclamation of salvation through Christ. And we are beginning to see more evidence of this type of thinking emerging in the more fundamental and non-denominational mega churches of today.

To give an example we can turn to how the church has done missionary work at various times in history. Some might remember an Ingrid Bergman movie who played a rather slow woman who just wanted to help to poor African babies; she saw them as less that her so she could help them. And so churches sent missionaries off to various countries to tell them about Jesus and in the process demonstrate the superiority of American culture and values and save their poor little ignorant souls. Fortunately, churches gained a more enlightened understanding of mission work, meeting people where they were, accepting them and their culture and providing help in living a more productive live before evangelizing them. In my home town and my church, (true story this time), a young man named Frank Younkin , felt called to be a missionary. He grew up on a farm, went to Iowa State University to learn the latest agricultural skills, and then to seminary. He and his wife Anita spent their lives in Thailand and similar places. Basically he taught farming practices that would work well in their countries, and Jesus likely was talked about a bit as well. To me that is the social gospel done properly in mission work.

One fella felt it necessary to explain my job to me as a pastor one day (one of many over the years). He said, I had but one thing to do, evangelize. I thanked him and thought privately, bull. My job, as a teaching elder is to help others grow in their faith so the may live the Christian life more fully and share it with others. The least of my work is so-called evangelism. My work as I saw it was to be aware of my church, my community, my state, nation and world, and to perceive what were it’s needs. And share those perceptions with others, who, if touched by grace, wanted to respond to the needs of others and care for them. Social gospel. Again I didn’t seem my primary job as doing the social gospel, but awakening need to do so in others and help them with their ministry of the social gospel. In other words, I mainly told stories, like Jesus did, to awaken our awareness of our needs to give thanks and share with others God’s bounty.

After all, how many times can a person be saved? For me, it was once and that took place at Golgotha (where Christ was crucified). But our response to the good news is to live as good citizens of the kingdom of God, here and hereafter. And that means taking care of each other.

Another great example I believe I shared before. The fella who runs the local gas station woke up one Sunday morning to tons of snow and all churches had cancelled their services. So, he said to his family, “Let’s go do something good today.” And he did, he went all over town with his snowblower cleaning out people driveways. That is the social gospel.

Matthew 25

³⁴“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Enter, you who are blessed by my Father! Take what’s coming to you in this kingdom. It’s been ready for you since the world’s foundation. ³⁵And here’s why:

I was hungry and you fed me,

I was thirsty and you gave me a drink,

I was homeless and you gave me a room,

³⁶I was shivering and you gave me clothes,

I was sick and you stopped to visit,

I was in prison and you came to me.’

³⁷“Then those ‘sheep’ are going to say, ‘Master, what are you talking about? When did we ever see you hungry and feed you, thirsty and give you a drink? ^38-39And when did we ever see you sick or in prison and come to you?’ ⁴⁰Then the King will say, ‘I’m telling the solemn truth: Whenever you did one of these things to someone overlooked or ignored, that was me—you did it to me.’

⁴¹“Then he will turn to the ‘goats,’ the ones on his left, and say, ‘Get out, worthless goats! You’re good for nothing but the fires of hell. ⁴²And why? Because—

I was hungry and you gave me no meal,

I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,

⁴³I was homeless and you gave me no bed,

I was shivering and you gave me no clothes,

Sick and in prison, and you never visited.’

⁴⁴“Then those ‘goats’ are going to say, ‘Master, what are you talking about? When did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or homeless or shivering or sick or in prison and didn’t help?’

⁴⁵“He will answer them, ‘I’m telling the solemn truth: Whenever you failed to do one of these things to someone who was being overlooked or ignored, that was me—you failed to do it to me.’

57,000 Page Tax Return

The General Electric Corporation (GE) filled a 57,000 page tax return; well it was electronic so that is the equivalent of their return. It would be 19 feet tall if stacked. That is one whopping big tax return. Makes you wonder how long it took to create and Congressman Frank Wolf, Republican TN asked the IRS commissioner how many hours it took the employees to review it. It we put legs on the bloody things it would be the Creature from the Black Return, or a Transformer light bulb with a billion watts.

Need I say it? GE paid no tax for that year. They paid a considerable amount of tax to China, but nada, zero, zip to our government.

Do you think we need tax reform?

[info for this piece came from tax.com.]

Another Internet quiz or two,

Following are the results of  another quiz I took on the internet. What you may find more interesting is the overall poll of folk who took this test. My results are at the end of the article so you know my biases in case you haven't guessed them already.

The Quiz
The more interesting part:

Currently, after 112728 submissions, the average Conservative/Progressive score is 6.03, the average Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist score is 6.79, the average Libertarian/Authoritarian score is 5.58, and the average Pacifist/Militarist score is 4.43


1. Are our gun control laws too strict? - 27% said yes, 73% said no
2. Should gay marriage be legalized? - 65% said yes, 35% said no
3. Should we consider invading Iran? - 23% said yes, 77% said no
4. Should intelligent design be taught in public schools alongside evolution? - 51% said yes, 49% said no
5. Does the US need a system of universal health care? - 61% said yes, 39% said no
6. Should marijuana be legalized? - 58% said yes, 42% said no
7. Should we repeal [or substantially change] the Patriot Act? - 56% said yes, 44% said no
8. Does the US have a right to stop countries we do not trust from getting weapons? - 50% said yes, 50% said no
9. Should we end (or reduce the use of) the death penalty? - 40% said yes, 60% said no
10. Should there be a higher minimum wage? - 68% said yes, 32% said no
11. Does affirmative action do more harm than good? - 62% said yes, 38% said no
12. Is the United States spending too much money on defense? - 56% said yes, 44% said no
13. Should embryonic stem cell research be funded by the government? - 59% said yes, 41% said no
14. Should flag burning be legal? - 43% said yes, 57% said no
15. Should all people (rich and poor) pay fewer taxes? - 58% said yes, 42% said no
16. Should the US begin withdrawing from Iraq? - 80% said yes, 20% said no
17. Is it sometimes justified to wiretap US citizens without a warrant? - 34% said yes, 66% said no
18. Should the government be involved in reducing the amount of violence/pornography in tv/movies/games/etc? - 25% said yes, 75% said no
19. Should the United States only start a war if there is an imminent threat of being attacked ourselves? - 77% said yes, 23% said no
20. Should stopping illegal immigration be one of our top priorities? - 56% said yes, 44% said no
21. Is outsourcing of American jobs justified if it allows for cheaper goods? - 28% said yes, 72% said no
22. Are all abortions unethical? [with the exception of risk to mother's health] - 37% said yes, 63% said no
23. Should social security be privatized? - 56% said yes, 44% said no
24. Should the United States ever go to war even if the UN is against it? - 50% said yes, 50% said no

Here are the pieces I find most interesting: 2. Most folk are for recognizing gay marriage, most folk favor universal health care,10. most folk want a higher minimum wage, 13. most folk see the need for stem cell research, 15. most folk agree on progressive taxes. Yet we hear little debate on these issues which are of major importance.

Lesser important issues which I find public response a bit scary [1 (power of the NRA), 4, 11 (despite all research to the contrary), and others are not as important but get a lot of press. All this reflects a lot of single issue people who base their thinking on slogans rather than information and data.

----

My results:

The following are your scores. They are based on a gradual range of 0 to 12. For instance, a Conservative/Progressive score of 3 and 0 will both yield a result of social conservative, yet 0 would be an extremeconservative and 3 a moderate conservative

Conservative/Progressive score: 12 
You are a social progressive. You generally consider yourself a humanist first. You probably think that religion and patriotism go too far in society. You probably consider yourself to be a citizen of Earth first rather than a citizen of your country.

Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist score: 11 
You're a Social Capitalist, you think that, left to its own, Capitalism leaves a lot of people behind. You think that Health Care should be free to all, that the minimum wage should be raised, and that the government should provide jobs to all that are capable of having them. You likely hated the Bush tax cuts, and believe that the middle class has gotten poorer, and the rich have gotten richer over the past several years. The far extreme of social capitalism is socialism.

Libertarian/Authoritarian score: 5 
You're a Moderate. You think that we all have certain inalienable rights that must be protected, but that sometimes laws need to be made to protect the majority's lives or quality of lives. You might think that the 2nd amendment isn't necessary anymore because letting everyone a gun is extremely dangerous to the community. You might also be against illegal drug use or public pornography because of its possible harmful effects to society.

Pacifist/Militarist score: 2 
You're a Pacifist. You are angered that the United States thinks it should dominate the world through its military force. You think that the only time war is necessary is when we are in direct danger of being attacked. You also believe the US spends way too much of its money on defense, as we can practically cut it in half and still easily defend ourselves, and use that money to fix all our economic problems.

Overall, you would most likely fit into the category of Hardcore Democrat

Another test I took said I was a Reality-Based Intellectualist, also know as the liberal elite. You are a proud member of what's know as the reality-based community, where science, reason and non-Jesus based thought reign supreme.

Just goes to show a lot of these tests reflect the writers bias more than reality. Both tests seem totally unaware of the social gospel of caring for each other that many mainline churches affirm. Do they have a clue of the teachings of Jesus upon these subjects?