Author: Neil Hanson

I think that the word socialism is one that we should re-think. I agree with you that one of the basic tenants of socialism seems to be a redistribution of wealth. How does their saying go – from each according to their ability, to each according to their need – or something like that.

It seems to me that western culture all has some degree of socialism. Wouldn’t we all like to have a class-less society? (Maybe not those in the “upper” class who reap all the rewards of a class-based society, but surely the rest of us would I think.) The early followers of Jesus were certainly as socialist as you could get. When the US instituted the income tax to pay for WW1, (back when we paid for wars that we waged), and then kept the income tax in place after the war debt was paid, that income tax was used to begin to implement the progressive policies that marked all of western society in the post-enlightenment world. We were making a conscious decision to re-distribute wealth in that progressive era. We were all instituting some form of “socialism”.

We could spend a lot of time discussing the different paths that we and other nations have been on since then, but I think that it is fair to say that in the US or any other western country, there are going to be those who are satisfied with the way that the wealth is distributed and spent, and those who aren’t. I have heard for years from people in this country who talk about how unhappy the people in more socialist countries are with both the distribution of wealth policies and the use of that money – usually things like social medicine or universal health care used as the example. However, I never hear those things from the people in those countries. The everyday people that I have known from Canada, Sweden, Britain, Norway, and Germany have generally felt pretty good and positive about their social systems. A case can be made that our economy in this country is suffering, though certainly not in as bad a shape as France and Germany as you point out. However, during our last recession, (01-02), as I recall the European countries fared better than we did, but I didn’t hear much talk of our economic problems being tied to the fact that we had an almost completely private system of medicine. Why is it that when their economy is in the tank, we always want to bring out the “social medicine” card as the cause?

I agree that the working class in many countries is getting fed up with the load that they are being asked to carry, but I don’t see this as linked very strongly to the social policies of the country. I think that a culture makes value statements about themselves when they decide what is important – what they want to pay for. The more socially progressive countries make value statements that indicate a strong sense of accountability for everyone in the culture – regardless of class or economic privilege. My dealings with the everyday folks like you and me in those countries leads me to believe that they generally support those national values. Where they get upset, just like the people in this country get upset, is when an ever increasing burden of the bill falls on their shoulders, as those who are wealthier see their portion of the bill reduced. While the European countries remain more socially progressive than the US, there has been a growing trend in those countries to follow the lead of the US and redistribute the tax burden away from the wealthy and toward the poor and middle class. This – in my opinion – is what causes the unrest among the working class that is growing throughout the western world – the fact that their share of the bill continues to increase, while the share that the wealthy pay decreases.

Discussion recently got me to wondering…

The discussion revolved around Jesus rebuking the disciples for their rebuke of the kind act of a woman, where the disciples were clearly focused on the waste of the oil used for anointing, and Jesus is said to have made a comment something like, “The poor will be with you always.”

This may very well be a reference back to the 15th chapter of Deuteronomy. The actual verse comes from the 11th chapter, which reads something like, “There will always be poor people among you”, but the context of the preceding instruction in the chapter, as well as the following words, is extremely critical it seems to me. For that reason, here is the text (NIV).

1 At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD’s time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. 3 You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you. 4 However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your G-d is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, 5 if only you fully obey the LORD your G-d and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. 6 For the LORD your G-d will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you.

7 If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your G-d is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. 8 Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. 9 Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. 10 Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your G-d will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. 11 There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.

If the quote that is attributed to Jesus was truly referencing this passage, then the light that is cast on the issue is brand new. As usual, lack of context is blinding.

The instruction is imbedded within dialogue meant to eliminate poverty – exactly the problem that we said could probably never be cured. Yet, here in the Torah, we are given the formula for eliminating poverty. Within that formula, the assumption appears to be that even as we follow the instruction of G-d, and do out best to eliminate poverty, there will be a constant flow of people into our system who will be poor, and we are commanded to be “openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land”.

To follow this through for a minute, did the authors of Deuteronomy truly believe that it was possible to eliminate poverty? If this was possible, then why would there remain a constant flow of poor? Is it possible that we could read into this the notion that as we follow this command, and share wealth among all the people, then a “rising tide” will indeed continually re-define poverty, constantly raising the bar so that the affluence of humanity will require a constantly revised definition of poverty, (thus a constant flow of the poor)? This is, indeed, what has happened in our world, as most in our country who are considered “poor” might be considered pretty wealthy in many parts of the world.

If this reading of the command was accurate, then our instruction is very clear. As we continue to distribute wealth to the poor, and the tide of affluence rises among all the people, we must continue to raise the bar, not lower it. Progress toward the Kingdom of G-d lies clearly on this path, and breaking this command moves us away.

A discussion of politics within our nation might go well here…

Did Jesus see things like this? If so, then His rebuke makes all the sense in the world. The struggle to eliminate poverty is not a struggle at all, but a blessing – a mitzvoth that we are given. It is one that we can (and should) practice all the days of our lives. He was at that table at that moment, and kindness shown to Him should in no way be taken as a slight to those who were more poor than him. The woman in the story was, indeed, sharing wealth with a poor man at the table, just as everyone at that table should continue to do as a way of moving toward G-d.

Are the poor among us and within our culture a blight to be struggled against, or a blessing for those who are less poor? Perhaps the Beatitudes take on a new meaning?

War

Can war be justified? I think so. There can be many justifications for war.

Most of these justifications are based upon greed – deciding who gets to control resources.

Many of these justifications are ego based – desire for power.

Some of these justifications are based on a need to protect ourselves from some other predator.

Sometimes, (though very rarely I think), these justifications are even based on compassion and charity – the desire to help others out of a terrible situation.

These are all justifications – some good, some bad. But can war ever be “moral”? I think not.

In order to win a war, one must commit acts that are not moral – that is plain and simple. If a leader is going to commit his nation to war, then he had better feel pretty convinced that his justification for this war is rock-solid and will stand the test of hindsight and introspection.

Nietzsche said, “If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”

Our world is full of soldiers who have done what is required to win wars. Some of these soldiers were on the winning side, and some were on the losing side. Some committed acts of greater cruelty and immorality than others. Most are good and moral human beings, who were asked to “look into the abyss” by the leaders of their country, and they responded as a solder responds – with loyalty and obedience. For most, the abyss has looked back into them in some way.

I have an uncle who served in WW2 – the Great War. For most Americans, this was the last time that our nation entered into a conflict that seemed “just and right”. My uncle looked into the abyss for 3+ years in the South Pacific. He has spent his life since as a quiet semi-recluse. He farms, in a small community, so it is easy to avoid people. Nobody notices his reclusive nature. For 60 years, he has lived in the shadow of the abyss, as it has stared back at him. He knows what humanity is capable of.

My generation dealt with Vietnam. While our government insisted that the conflict was both just and necessary, many questioned this. 50,000 Americans gave their lives trusting a government that lied, and well over a million Vietnamese civilians and soldiers gave their lives. Many came back from Vietnam wondering why they had been there – what they had really been fighting for. Many came back with the ghost of the abyss watching over them for the rest of their lives. History has shown that those who questioned our motives for being in that war were correct – that much of our motivation was based on greed, with many in the defense industry gaining great wealth while our generation wrestled with the abyss.

And what of today? We are asking the generation of my sons to look long into the abyss in the Iraqi desert, and many are struggling with what is looking back. Many in our country question our real motives, while a few in the defense industry grow quite fat profiteering from the war that Bush has insisted on – many in his own administration are growing rich daily on war profits. They are not asked to sacrifice, they seem to feel they have a right to a profit.

In The Great War, we made it illegal to profit from the war. Doesn’t that small sacrifice seem reasonable, when so many are asked to look long into the abyss?

The abyss is looking back into the hearts of our sons and daughters – how long will we allow this to continue? I wonder, does President Bush sense an abyss looking into his heart? Does Mr. Cheney?

• Of course we are here to help the poor, and bring those who are outcast into the fold of the Kingdom of God – we should be doing this every day.
• In your zeal to “do good”, be careful that you don’t end up at each other’s throats in criticism over the best way to do good – this is the easiest way for evil to enter into your midst.
• Apply your goodness and kindness to the problem right in front of you, and apply it with zeal and gusto.
• Do not allow your attention to be taken from the problem that has been given to you and is right in front of you. This is hard to avoid, as our natural tendency is to be anxious about a distant problem, as this is sometimes easier than applying ourselves to the problem at hand. This is also an easy way for evil to make your hands idle.
• God will supply the problems and challenges that you need in your life to move forward – do not question this by trying to focus on other problems – solve what you have in front of you.

My friend Betty wrote the following:

“I think we simply don't know enough unbiased "facts" about almost everything/anything to have an informed opinion, only "interpretations of facts." Given that we all have different life experiences and therefore have different filters, of course we are going to have different opinions.”

In addition to this comment, last winter, my brother and sister and I were having political discussion, (which we commonly do), and were discussing a particular issue about which we disagreed, and my sister made the comment that, “It just depends on your perspective”. While I agree that perspective drives everything, the issue that we were discussing was not one of perspective, but of fact.

When my sister made this comment, it really set me back and made me think. When Betty added her comment above, it brought this back to the top of my mind.

I think that we have a crisis going on right now, and that crisis is our difficulty in discerning the difference between fact and interpretation (or perspective). It is just now striking me how big a crisis this is. There is a big difference between fact and perspective, but we seem to be struggling with that difference today.

Below, I have some examples to review, but before I get to those, I want to discuss this problem. You see, when the media creates this confusion by mixing opinion with news, as they have been doing for the past few years, they create an environment where we don’t seem to see the difference. There is not a gray area here – facts are facts. What you do with those facts, and what they represent to you, that is where opinion comes in.

I don’t think that there is such a thing as a “biased fact”, there are only facts. The bias occurs when only some of the facts are shared, and the reporting of those facts is overlaid with opinion. If the media is actually reporting news, it is difficult for it to be biased – only the listener can add bias based on their “life experiences and filters”, as Betty says.

But there is very little actual “reporting” in the media today, and quite a bit of overlay. This is a change from years past, when there was a clear delineation between news and commentary. In addition, the “news” that you see or hear depends entirely on which outlet you watch or listen to or read – I am often astounded at the difference in coverage that the same story receives depending on the source.

Then there is the laziness issue. People don’t want to be challenged. We don’t want to have to think and be open to change. We have been taught that all that matters is that we be on a “winning team”. We listen to the sports talking heads to be indoctrinated on what we should be saying regarding sports. We listen to the political talking heads to find out what we should think and say about politics.

This is not football, this is life. If we want to be lazy about sports, fine. But when it comes to politics, we need to turn off the talking heads. We need to hear all sides of the story, and form our own opinion, and have that open to change as the information that we get changes. Since the news sources will only tell their half of the story, we have to be willing to listen to all sides – even the ones that we don’t agree with. And most of all, when we listen, we need to filter out the nuggets of “fact” that are hidden within the commentary, and clearly see the difference.

I think that it “is only a matter of perspective” if I am only listening to one side of the story. If that is the case, then it appears that my “facts” are different than your “facts”. I need to be willing to hear you and “take your side” long enough to sift through what you say and vet the facts out of it, and find where those facts disturb my universe. Because clearly, no matter how hard I try, my presentation of the facts will sometimes (not always) reflect how I am interpreting those facts.

Let me use a few examples that will hopefully stir everyone up.

• FACT: Our federal budget has been running deficits for many years. The deficits are masked to some degree and larger than they initially appear because we have been using Social Security trust fund money to fund the operating fund of the budget. This money will have to be repaid to the trust fund for it to remain solvent. These deficits add up year after year and become the “national debt”. One can view the debt in terms of actual dollars, in which case you will see the graph spike a bit during WW1 and WW2, then steadily decline until around 1981, when it begins to explode. One can also view the debt in relationship to the GDP (Gross Domestic Product, or how big our economy is). Viewed in relationship to our GDP, you will see the graph spike up during WW1, then steadily decline until the Great Depression, when it begins to climb again, then it spikes to its highest level during WW2. It steadily declines following the war as we pay down our war debt. It begins to rise again in 1981, and rises steadily until about 1993 or 1994, when it reverses and begins to decline. This decline continues until 2000 or 2001, at which point we have reduced the debt to about the level that it was in 1956 or 1957. In 2001, the debt begins a sharp rise, and continues to rise today so that it is now higher than the previous high point in 1992 – 1993, headed toward the 1945 -1946 wartime high unless the trends are reversed. In fact, current projections show a continued rise, and a crisis in 2017 or 2018 when the trust funds need to be re-funded with the dollars that we have been using to subsidize general operating funds since about 1980. Right now, the federal debt equates to over $100,000 per American family.

REFERENCES:

 http://www.aier.org/2004pubs/RR20.pdf

 http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/?article=noll.publicdebt

 http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/bp153

 http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/feddebt/debt-facts.html

The above is fact – it is not perspective. Google these subjects on your own to research the subjects.

Perspective A: Federal debt is not a bad thing, and the current rise in debt is a result of our war on terrorism. Like all wars, this debt will be repaid as the economy continues to grow. The rise in debt during the Reagan and Bush senior years was acceptable as it resulted in economic growth, just like the rise in debt during the 30s was OK as it resulted in saving the economy and the country.

Perspective B: Debt should not be increasing EXCEPT to fund a war effort or to fund extraordinary rescue efforts, (such as the Great Depression or Hurricane Katrina.)

 

• FACT: During the period 1959 – 2004, tax rates for individuals have risen (combined federal and payroll taxes) from about 10% to about 13%, while tax rates for corporations have fallen from about 4% to about 1.3%. When you add the fact that an increasing tax burden has been placed on state and local governments, this disparity is sharper. In addition, all of the individual tax increase comes in payroll taxes, which are slanted heavily toward redistributing the tax load onto low and middle wage workers.

REFERENCES:

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/bp153

 Again, the above is fact.

Perspective A: Private enterprise and wealthy individuals power the economy, and should not be penalized with high tax rates. The early part of the 20^th century was marked by a lean toward socialism, and the resulting penalizing of private enterprise, and in recent years we have simply reversed that trend and put the tax burden back where it belongs – on all of the people.

Perspective B: The Progressive movement in the early part of the 20^th century moved us toward a more just and progressive world, with progressive tax rates that asked the wealthy to share their wealth with others at a higher rate than the poor were asked to share. This is reasonable in a just world, and resulted in an unprecedented economic boom that placed the US firmly on top of the world economy. By regressing back to regressive tax rates, we are simply redistributing wealth into the hands of the wealthy, and putting the brakes on the economic engine of the last century, dooming millions to essential servitude and inescapable poverty.

• FACT: While in office, Bill Clinton engaged in sexual activity with an intern. He tried to cover-up the activity. He lied to the American people and to Congress about the activity. (I don’t think I need to put any references in here at all…)

Perspective A: This is shameful activity by the leader of our nation, and we should all be embarrassed. We need to restore dignity and honor to the office. This is probably just the tip of the iceberg – if you can’t trust the man, what else has he lied about?

Perspective B: Not only did he engage in the activity, but he probably enjoyed it, and frankly, why should I care? Hillary should be good and pissed-off, but I don’t hire Presidents based upon their marital arrangements or sexual habits. The big crime here was the fact that we spent $50 million investigating the man’s sexual habits, and that is just the formal investigation – who knows how much more we spent on the impeachment process etal? The fact that the press produced, published, and distributed pornography by their continued coverage of this silly ordeal is probably the worst offense of all. He did the deed, he lied about it, and who cares? I would probably lie about it too. The rest of the world was laughing at us, not with us on this one.

• FACT: The Bush administration used 9/11 as a tool to carry out a pre-existing desire to invade Iraq. I could spend pages documenting sources, but I will refer you generally to insiders such as Richard Clark and Paul O’Neil, as well as the 9/11 report itself, and the now public official British documents – the Downing Street Memos. In addition, as recently as today, those close to Bush such as Trent Lott admit that this was the case. It is clear from insiders and pre-existing documentation that there was a desire to invade Iraq, and that within days of the 9/11 attacks, Bush and those in his administration began an effort to tie Iraq to terrorism to justify attacking and occupying the country. This effort included citing evidence of WMD that they knew to be false, (the yellow-cake, Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame story, well-documented in many sources). It also included the “fixing” of intelligence to meet their requirements, (the now public Downing Street memos). We went to war to rid Iraq of the WMD that we “knew” were there. (Again, many public sources of Bush, Cheney, and other senior officials stating that they “knew” the weapons were there, and in some cases, knew where they were.) But in fact, the basis of this knowledge was weak or fabricated in many cases. According to the CIA before the war, there was no link at all between bin Laden and the terrorists on one hand, and Saddam and Iraq on the other. President Bush and his administration repeatedly tied the two issues together, suggesting that we needed to “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here”. According to polls, a high percentage of Americans came to believe that there was a link, (in the teens to over 50% depending on the poll and the time) even though CIA intelligence and common sense suggested otherwise. (Saddam and Osama hated each other, and each represented exactly the thing the other was trying to get rid of.) It cannot be established as fact that the campaign of the administration resulted in the American people being misled, it can only be established that the administration engaged in a campaign to mislead, and that the American people became misled. President Bush lied to both Congress and the American people on this issue. Since our invasion, the CIA reports that Iraq has now become a major training ground and recruiting ground for our terrorist enemy.

REFERENCES:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1240541,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NIM501A.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter12-h.htm

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/blog.html

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html

Perspective A: Regardless of what happened in the lead-up to the war, Saddam was an evil man, and the world is better off without him. Period. If we had it to do over, we should do the same thing. The ends justify the means.

Perspective B: This is an honesty and integrity issue. It is not alright to lie to the American people in order to carry-out your agenda, and certainly not within the moral fiber of our nation to invade another on false pretense. If we wanted to have a national debate about whether we should invade other countries in order to rid them of evil dictators, then we should have done that, and Iraq probably would not be high on the list – there are other nations where we could have greater impact at less cost. In terms of national security, the action that we have taken has made us far less secure by providing an excellent recruiting tool for the terrorists. Our deception leading up to the war has reduced our credibility in the world, and thus our ability to lobby and pursue diplomatic solutions to problems. The diverting of resources from our “homeland” has made us less secure here. The actions of our President are shameful, and he should be impeached. We need to restore dignity and honor to the office. This is probably just the tip of the iceberg – if you can’t trust the man, what else has he lied about?

And here’s a fun one…

• FACT: The Christian church, as we know it today, was formed in the 4^th century CE. Prior to that point, there was a movement that began with Jews who were devoted to a man named Jesus, and grew into a fairly broad movement of both Jews and non-Jews. This movement had many factions, with sometimes broadly divergent theology, as well as widely differing beliefs about who Jesus was, and how they should live their lives. In the 4^th century, when Constantine decreed Christianity the official Roman religion, he essentially “endorsed” one of the “factions” within the movement. This faction became “Orthodox Christianity”, or Roman Christianity, while all other forms became heresy. From that point forward, there have been multiple instances where this Roman Church has used violence and destruction to wipe out competing beliefs and “theology”, most especially competing Christian beliefs and “theology”.

Perspective A: Orthodoxy is the “true” Christianity, and there is evidence that links the orthodox beliefs back to the earliest believers. Other beliefs are, indeed, heresy, and are evil influences within true Christianity.

Perspective B: There is evidence linking “orthodoxy” back to the earliest believers, just as there is evidence linking gnosticism back to the earliest believers, and many other “forms” of the emerging Christianity. There is great wisdom to be found in these different forms, most of it tied back to Jesus, and it is this wisdom and the seeking of it that ties us together as Christians.

It is becoming clear that the New Orleans catastrophe resulting from hurricane Katrina will go down as one of the worst natural disasters in our country’s history. As such, I think that it is understandable that the authorities who we hire (through elections and taxes) to manage and respond to problems and disasters were overwhelmed and not able to respond as well as they would have liked.

There. Simple statement – how can you argue with that? Local authorities were overwhelmed. State authorities were overwhelmed. Federal authorities were overwhelmed. And that is the right order, is it not? Don’t we expect local authorities to call on state and federal assistance only when they are overwhelmed? And don’t we expect state authorities to call on federal assistance only when they are overwhelmed? Bottom-up management in action.

And from a top down perspective, we certainly expect the federal government – with its vast resources – to proactively seek to provide assistance to “lesser” entities when it is clear that they are going to be overwhelmed. That is how it has worked for quite a number of years, through quite a number of catastrophes.

Thus far in this post, I can’t imagine that there is very much controversial in what I have written. But this is the point that this probably changes, because I have to say that I am sick and tired of the refusal of this administration to be accountable for anything that it does or does not do. Those who lean right and tend to support President Bush will now (most likely) find controversy in what I have to say.

I assume that mistakes have been made in this effort as are made in every effort. I assume that these mistakes have been made by governments and bureaucracies at all levels – local, state, and federal. Voters at each level will have to hold those people accountable for their performance

It will be up to the local authorities to identify and fix the mistakes that they have made, and they should be held accountable for their performance by local voters. The people of the local parishes in the South will have to hold them up to scrutiny when the time comes.

It will be up to state authorities to identify and fix the mistakes that they have made, and they should be held accountable for their performance by state voters. The people of Louisiana (and other states) will have to hold them up to scrutiny when the time comes.

As for the national media, and the vast majority of the people in this country, the only entity accountable to us is the federal government. It is upon the federal government, and their response to this disaster, that our focus should be maintained. Not that we should spend much energy on it now – right now we should be focused on providing aid to those in need.

Once we have provided the aid required, and have FUNDED THIS AID, then we should focus on the rebuilding effort, decide who should be paying for this effort, and FUND THE REBUILDING EFFORT. We have many precedents to follow regarding how much the federal government should be funding the rebuilding of “at-risk” infrastructure and private property, and we should be following those precedents, or we should be publicly debating and changing the role of the federal government in this regard.

Then, we should be holding our federal government accountable for their performance during this disaster. We should do this in the media and at the voting booth. The fact that this administration is spending its time and effort trying to “spin” things is such a way to re-focus the national media on state and local efforts rather than federal efforts has the top of my head coming off. These people have refused to accept accountability for any action that they have taken in the past 5 years, and now with Americans dead by the thousands, they continue to shirk accountability.

Note that I say “they” here, as it is hard to really focus on President Bush alone. For the past 5 years, we have seen him pointing his finger everywhere else whenever bad things happen, so we have grown accustomed to this new “shared accountability” style. Let me tell you how I feel about shared accountability.

I had a boss for several years with whom I disagreed about many things. Although we had disagreements that were often loud, table-pounding affairs, we also had an abiding respect for one another. He demanded of his top people that when you were wrong and had made a mistake, you admitted it – hat in hand – and you filed it away as a lesson that you had invested yourself in, and a mistake that you would not make again. He used to say that so long as you defended your mistake, you could not learn from it. And if you were going to be a leader, he used to say, your shoulders must be broad enough to carry not only your own mistakes, but also the mistakes of those who report to you. That was the essence of leadership – the courage and strength to be fully accountable for your actions and the actions of those who worked for you. Regarding “shared accountability”, he had a very simple response: When everybody is accountable, then nobody is accountable.

And that seems to be how this president runs his administration. Let’s have an investigation – let’s investigate ourselves. Let’s study it – by the time the study is done, the press will have moved on to something else, and the American people will have forgotten the issue, and we won’t have to be accountable.

I’m sick of it frankly. Have the guts to stand up and say, “The buck stops here – I am accountable.”

• The fact is that we have used our National Guard as a foreign occupying force – a job that they were NOT designed to do – and we have stretched our armed forces very thinly. This is not an interpretation of fact, this is a fact. This fact certainly had some impact on the ability of our government to respond rapidly to a disaster that they knew was coming. Accept this and be accountable for it.
• The FEMA director lies to the people (a way of defending the slow response) by saying that nobody could anticipate the break in the levies as. Note that clearly at this stage, they knew that they had a response problem, and were trying to justify the reasons for the slow response. Yet, he had apparently been briefed just days before on the fact that these levy breaks were a likely result of this hurricane – before the hurricane had hit. Accept the fact that you knew it was likely, and that you failed to respond quickly with anything approaching adequate aid. Perhaps adequate assistance would have been impossible anyway?
• Our national focus regarding taxation during the last 5 years has been on cutting taxes. We cut taxes even as we wage war – unprecedented in American history. Part of this effort to cut taxes means that we must find ways to continue to cut funding to programs, in order to try and reduce the huge deficits that this tax-cutting frenzy creates in our national budget. Among the programs that the administration cuts are programs aimed at fixing the very levies that broke. For the first time in 30 years, construction and upgrading of these levies was stopped during this administration. This is a fact, not an interpretation of fact. If you are on the left, you will interpret this fact and say that they did this to fund the tax cuts for the wealthy. If you are on the right, you will interpret this and say that these programs were not effective, and were wasteful. In either case, be accountable.
• In fact, it appears that since about 2002, there has been a fairly loud cry from those in that area that they are sitting ducks for exactly this disaster. They have loudly protested the funding cuts that they have seen stop the sorts of contingency preparedness that was clearly required, and mitigation efforts that had been underway. Again, if I believe in the policies of this administration, then I need to be accountable for the fact that it appears that I may have been wrong on this one – perhaps it was a mistake to stop these programs – perhaps a few more lives could have been saved? Or perhaps not – perhaps the programs were so useless that they would have made no difference at all? I don’t know, but I should be accountable enough to at least ask the question rather than trying to blame someone else.
• And what about the bigger picture here. We have invested so much of our grandchildren’s money in this effort to “fight the terrorists over there instead of over here”, without ever talking about what it costs to do this. Is it possible that in this process, we have taken our eye off of the ball here at home, and have allowed our ability to respond to homeland disasters erode significantly? Is it possible?

I could go on about this, but the bottom line is that I am sick of the lack of courageous leadership within this administration. Courageous leadership would stand up and say something like, “We have a disaster to deal with right now, so I don’t have time for spin. When we are done with triage within this disaster, then I expect the American people to review the performance of me and my administration in this disaster, and I stand singly and solely accountable for the mistakes that we have made, and I share accountability for the things that have gone well with those in my administration.” Wow, now that would be leadership!

But instead of real leadership, we have the president and all of his spin patrol trying to divert attention from themselves, and on to state and local officials.

Shame, shame, shame.

Where is my hero Teddy?

Islamic Extremist Fundamentalism – Calls for drastic measures to institute their own form of Islam, including the assassination and death of those who disagree with them. In general, opposed to the notion of democracy, (though they will claim otherwise), as they want to institute their interpretation of God’s law.

Christian Extremist Fundamentalism – Calls for drastic measures to institute their own form of Christianity, including the assassination and death of those who disagree with them. In general, opposed to democracy, (though they will claim otherwise), as they want to institute their interpretation of God’s law.

We ask the majority of Muslims, who are moderate and opposed to the sort of measures that the Fundamentalist are willing to kill for, to stand up against that minority who appears to have hijacked Islam for their own political purposes. It is clear to us that this must be done, in order to make it clear that these Fundamentalists are not following the more widely-held viewpoint of Islam as a faith and tradition that stands up for and preaches not only peace and brotherhood, but also calls for continued movement toward God’s justice, primarily the equality of people and fair distribution of the gifts of God.

In the same way, we as Christians who are opposed to the measures that Fundamentalist Christians are calling for and trying to implement. We must do this in order to make it clear that these Fundamentalists are not following the widely-held viewpoint of Christianity as a faith and tradition that stands up for and preaches not only peace and brotherhood, but also calls for continued movement toward God’s justice here on earth, primarily the equality of people and fair distribution of the gifts of God.

Pat Robertson prayed publicly for more vacancies on the Supreme Court, and since these are lifetime appointments, this generally would be construed as praying for either the death or serious illness of sitting judges. (I can only assume that he was praying for the ill-health of only the 2 judges who were appointed by Democrats…) There was no public outcry. There was no demand for apology. Nobody made it clear that this man is a nut-case, and does not represent Christianity as most people practice it.

Now he calls for the assassination of the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEADER OF A NATION. While there is some press, much of the press is focused on the victim – the democratically elected leader of Venezuela– rather than on demanding a public apology and an FCC investigation. My guess is that this will die down after a day or two – at least in the American press.

And most pointedly, our President and all of our elected leaders should loudly denounce this hate-speech. If we believe that it is a good idea to spread democracy in the world, then we should hold those within our own country who oppose democracy and advocate the assassination of democratically elected officials to the highest public scrutiny. Mr. Robertson has the right in this country to say whatever he wants, (though we should scrutinize whether we are willing to allow this sort of pornography on the public airwaves), and we should make sure that the rest of the world knows that when he does so, he does not have the support of our leaders or of the Christian community.

We as Christians must stand up against this sort of hate-mongering by extreme Christian Fundamentalists.

The debate over public education in general is one that has gotten little attention recently.

I have very dear friends who are fundamentalist Christians, who are disgusted that we don’t teach Biblical history and morality in our public schools. They believe that the world is 5700 years old, and that “macro” evolution, (or Darwinism as many groups have taken to calling it), should not be taught. These people are loud critics of, and I would say enemies of, the notion of public education – unless it is taught their way.

This movement has been working its way through our culture for several years now, painting a generally dim view of the public education systems in our country. I can tell you that in our family, back in the 80’s, we went through a brief period where we put our kids in a private Christian school with an outstanding academic reputation. After just a couple of years, it became plain that the quality of instruction that they were receiving was very plainly less than that they had received in the public system. We switched back.

I tell that story so that you know my bias from experience. From that experience, I have come to understand that generally, private schools pay their teachers less than public schools. It should come as no surprise, then, that the public schools have better teachers.

So why private schools? I see it as broken into 3 main groups:

1. The folks with more money than sense who just can’t stand the thought of their child with the common folk.

2. Folks who live in areas with poor public schools, and with the means to send them to private schools, which in their case means an improvement in both quality of education and safety for their child.

3. Folks with strong idealogical (religious) convictions who don’t want their children to learn the mainstream knowledge taught in public schools.

Of these 3 groups, the first one will never go away. There will always be an “elite” class, who will not want to mingle with the common folk. Nothing wrong with that.

The second group of folks use private schools as an escape from poor public schools. Fixing the public schools in their area would fix this problem, and eliminate the need for private education. Better models for distribution of funding for public education is at the heart of that discussion.

The third group is the one that I want to focus on.

Should education be a “right” of citizens? If so, to what level? 8th grade? High School? College?

If the answer to that question is no, then we should focus our discussion on the direction our culture takes as we define ever widening “classes” of people. As ignorance increases among the masses, and the resulting “want” that lower employment will likely bring increases, what will be the result?

If the answer is yes, that some level of education is a “right”, then we are left with public funding for education. Let’s start with where we are now.

So far, we have taken an approach that says that local public school districts should exist, and with varying degrees of oversight from the state, these school boards should decide what gets taught and how to teach it.

Of course, the national government has some very high-level authority, in that they want to assure that the rights of citizens are not compromised. This is why the national authority has asserted that it is not constitutional for “creationism”, for example, to be taught in school, as it violates the constitutional prohibition of establishing religion. (The thought being that by teaching the Creation Myth of just one religion, you are essentially “establishing” this as the accepted religion.)

The movement among the public school opponents asserts both explicitly and implicitly that they don’t like this. They assert that the founding fathers were Christian, and that what they really meant to do was establish a Christian country. (While it is true that most of the fathers were Christian to varying degrees, this new movement ignores that fact that NOTWITHSTANDING their Christianity, they explicitly forbade the establishment of religion. In other words, the fact that they were Christian actually makes a stronger case for their intent to keep religion out of government.)

The solution of the public school opponents is clear. Change education so that it is private rather than public, then you don’t have to deal with that pesky constitution. This fits very nicely with an anti-tax agenda, which doesn’t like the fact that the public has to pay for any of this stuff anyway.

And this is exactly what has happened. Those with an anti-public-school agenda that is driven by a religious ideology are aligned with those with an anti-tax ideology. They have been successful in redefining to varying degrees the way that school funding money is distributed, resulting in the increase in “vouchers” which essentially take public funding and funnel it to private schools. (The idea being that the public should fund the education of a student, but that the student and the student’s family should be allowed to learn whatever they want.)

So we only got to this point by saying that we did believe that it was a right of citizens to receive an education, which means public funding. I think that this means that we agree that we have a “moral obligation” to offer education to all citizens.

Should there be any limits on what the public funds in terms of education? What if the local Islamic Mullah wanted to set up a local school that taught Islamic Fundamentalism and Extremism? What if a local Christian group wanted to set up a local school that taught Christian Fundamentalism and Extremism?

If it is not “anything goes”, then who sets limits? The US constitution? Other national authority? State authority? Local school districts as it is now?

What constitutional principles should apply to publicly funded education?

And here is the real reason why I put this post together. Beyond the agreement on a moral obligation to educate citizens, are there other moral obligations that we have in educating ourselves? Are there common morals that we can teach that don’t take steps down the road of establishment of religion in our country? Can these be taught outside the context of a specific religion? How about teaching morals that are common among many religions?

My own bias is that I have a problem with public funds being used to finance private schools. I do believe that we have an “education obligation”, but am undecided on how far that obligation reaches. I do believe that we have a common moral compass in our culture, and that reinforcing that compass can be achieved outside of the context of a specific religion, and that school curriculum should do this. How…