Explaining the Bailout

Best piece I've seen so far on why the bailout is important to Main Street. Why hasn't Bush hired Ross Perot to give a PowerPoint presentation to all of America in prime time?

Bailout Bill Failure

I'm stunned over the failure of the bailout bill to pass. Didn't McCain tell us on Friday it was essentially a done deal so he could join the debate? I have two quick observations.

1.) Nancy Pelosi' speech was atrocious. She should be removed as Speaker of the House. The woman is clearly too divisive. I don't know how she's elected as Speaker of the House (if she's elected). But, I hope she loses the position. There was no need for gloating, posturing and simply antagonizing Republicans right before this crucial vote that needed bipartisan cooperation. Shame on you, Nancy Pelosi. I've defended you for a while now. But, this is indefensible and inexcusable.

2.) The Republican leadership was miserable. On these types of votes they are supposed to know before hand how many votes they can deliver. Both Democrats and Republicans had good reasons for voting against the bill which was far from perfect. But, each side committed to enough votes to get it passed. The Dems on the far left didn't think it went far enough to protect homeowners. The Republicans on the far right didn't like the whole concept. But leadership, on both sides, thought it was necessary. In spite of Nancy's stupid speech, the Dems delivered the votes they committed to. The Republicans fell short. Any childish Congressman who voted against the bill because of the speech isn't worth of being in the House.

The bill is very unpopular among the American people. No one wanted to be on record on voting for it. But, I think most of them agreed it was a necessary evil. They didn't get their ducks in a row and give permission to just enough people who really needed to say "no" (those in close reelection races) to say no and still get the bill through. And Bush did a lousy job of explaining to the American people why it was necessary. Today, after the vote, he's addressing the nation again. George Bush has lost all credibility with the American people and may as well be hiding in the cave with Bin Ladin. Where has he been?

I never thought our leadership could be as bad as it is. But, they never cease to amaze me.

Saran Palin with Katie Couric

This one is an instant classic:

What did she say?

Watch CBS Videos Online

Jem's New Gem- Down To Earth

Jem's new album Down To Earth just dropped and it's a gem. Here's the title track followed by my review of the album.

Jem widget by 6L & AC

I don't review too many CDs because it's just hard to describe music. But, every once in a while a new artists or a CD will come along that I feel compelled to share with anyone who will listen. A couple of years ago someone on Last.FM recommended Jem to me. I had never heard of her. I'm not sure how many of you have. I bought the CD and was immediately hooked. I couldn't wait for another one to come out. You have to understand that as an old geezer now, I've turned into one of those people who complain that all the music "the kids" listen now-a-days is garbage. It all sounds alike and none of it's worth listening to. Not back like in our day. It takes a special artist to wake me out of my musical funk and stop playing all the oldies from the 70s and 80s. Jem is one of those artists. Her first album "Finally Woken" was phenomenal. I like artists who write their own songs and I pay a lot of attention to lyrics. Jem's songs are not only musically appealing. But, her lyrics are uplifting and thought-provoking. I like her view of the world. I could go on about her first album. But, as good as that one was, her sophomore effort "Down to Earth" is even better.

Jem has a slightly smoky voice that is just as enjoyable on an up-beat dance tune as it is on a moving ballad. This album is very varied in style but does not come off as disjointed. There are so many CDs now where even after several listens, I can barely tell one song from another. The picture Jem paints with with this CD uses the full palette of colors, not just many shades of the same color.

• Down To Earth- is a song sung by an extraterrestrial Jem who is looking at humanity and who is saddened that we are so disconnected from each other, missing our potential and not getting the joy out of life that we should be getting. The guitar work sounds slightly Middle Eastern and there's just enough strings to make the song musically interesting.
  
  
• Crazy- really turns the beat around. The song rocks with a funky banjo and a dance beat. Jem is telling a boyfriend who is making her crazy that he's simply not welcome anymore and to hit the road. Nothing deep about this song. Just a "Hit the Road Jack" for the year 2008.
  
  
• I Want You To.. - Gets all Spanish on you with the guitar work, the beat and the spoken Spanish intro. This is a simple feel good song about just getting to know Jem (and her body). Very sexy. Very appealing.
  
  
• It's Amazing- It's definite got a "Jem sound". A little bit of classical piano mixed in with some drum machines. A great song about just how great it feels to be alive.
  
  
• Keep On Walking- opens with a blues/gospel riff from a female vocalist. Not much in the way of lyrics. Just about the need to keep moving forward through life and asking God for strength.
  
  
• You Will Make It- This one is a real tearjerker. Just Jem and a piano at the beginning. Later a cello joins her and there is an African chant. A song to someone who has lost someone dear to death and picking up the pieces and the grieving process. Ends with a spoken word promise that none of us really dies. Really beautiful song.
  
  
• I Always Knew- Jem thumbing her nose at those in the music industry who would have kept her down and how she always knew she would one day be where she is. Great juxtaposition between a nursery rhyme kind of rhythm and almost hip-hop bravado lyrics. Music almost has the feel of "They" from her first album.
  
  
• Got It Good- Another song about just how good life is. Are you start to pick up on the theme of this album?
  
  
• Aciid- Jem decides on this song to just jam. Great dance beat. Heavy synth drums. Jem chants. Very reminiscent of Tom Tom Club (if you're old enough to remember them).
  
  
• How Would You Like It?- OK. Back to the heavy stuff here (as in the subject of the song, not the music). Great song about racial prejudice. Basically telling telling racists to stop talking to her assuming she'll agree with just because she's white.
  
  
• And So I Pray- Facing the troubles of the world, Jem prays for a better day. Wishes she could escape but this is where she is for now. The melody is a little reminiscent of Warren Zevon's Tenderness on the Block
  
  
• On Top Of the World- opens with a choir humming and the sound of the ocean pounding the shore. Then joined by a piano with another kind of lilting melody. The song has an almost meditative feel and matches the lyrics which are about really being "present" and not letting the little things get you down.

One Note Charlie

I spend a lot of time on-line discussing/debating with people over all kinds of issues you're not supposed to talk about:  Politics, race, religion, homosexuality, abortion- the more controversial the topic, the better in my mind.  Someone once said "Sunshine is the best disinfectant" and I agree with that.  I want things exposed, brought out into the light. Don't keep ignoring that elephant in the living room.  I love talking with conservatives about politics.  I love talking with homophobes about homosexuality.  And, I love talking with people about the history of racism and the on-going racism in our country.  But, a couple of days ago someone told me that I'm a "one note Charlie" (concerning racism).  The implication is that I play the race card too often and too quickly.  I was really hurt and taken aback.  I never, ever want to be viewed as the angry black man and to think that people might be perceiving me that way was a shock.

Annie is one of my best friends on-line.  We've talked about all kinds of stuff.  If you read my other blog, you might have seen where I posted pages and pages of dialog between Annie and me about the Reverend Wright flap.  Annie and I agree on just about everything.  So much so that we've been accused of teaming up on other people.  But, there are two issues where we just don't seem to see eye to eye.  Race and politics. Interesting enough, in this election, the two are inseparable, at least in my mind.  As our discussions have turned to politics and social policy race has come up.  I rarely (if ever) introduce the subject.  But, I do take every opportunity I can find to share my experience when it does come up.  Maybe because it's so often avoided by the "polite" white people I hang out with who are scared to share their feelings on the subject (at least in mixed company).  I had to take some time to process the label "one note Charlie".  Is it true? Why would she feel that way?  

Coincidentally (there are no coincidences, BTW), on Sunday we extended the call for a new pastor at Nexus.  The new pastor happens to be gay.  Nexus is an "open and affirming" church and does not discriminate based on sex, race, gender, physical ability or any number of other factors for either membership or leadership positions.  But, while the search committee was considering pastors, we all agreed that we did not want Nexus to become known as a "one issue" church.  Whether that issue be rights for homosexuals, feminism, racism, whatever, we would not expect the pastor we hired to center all her sermons around her pet issue.  We didn't extend the call to Mike because he's gay and were not going to withhold the call because he is gay.  By hiring a particular pastor we were not identifying ourselves as a church for women if we hired a woman, a church for gays if we hired  gay pastor , a church for blacks if we hired a black pastor, or a church for white men if we hired a white man.

But.... (there has to be a "but")  as I meditated on this, I realized I am a one issue guy in a certain respect.  I am perpetually concerned about the "least of these" (as Yeshua called them).  Some at Nexus have expressed concern at the mention of "women, black people, gays (etc.)"  too often in our sermons.  Personally, I have zero problems with mentioning the discrimination and oppression in our society every single Sunday.  I am a firm believer in the "social justice" aspect of the gospel.  I truly believe that the way we show our love for G-d is not by going to church, or saying our prayers or reading our Bibles but in how we treat our fellow man.  And, in particular, how we treat the "least of these".  I think G-d has a special heart for the downtrodden and the rejected and to me, this is clearly displayed by how Yeshua hung out with the "sinners" (who I recently learned were the poor who could not afford to study Torah thus were deemed too stupid to be righteous), the tax collectors, women (who were devalued by that society), children, etc. 

So, yes, I am a "one note Charlie".  I will always be vocal about  discrimination against women, the uninsured, fat people, gay people and yes, black people.   I root for the underdog (I've been a Bengals fan for 35 years for Pete's sake).   Because I happen to be black, I have particular expertise on that subject.  That may come across as me being only concerned or even especially concerned about discrimination against black people.  But, that is simply not true.

p.s- I love Annie like a sister and I am thrilled that she felt comfortable enough to tell me how she felt. It's all good.

Rachel Maddow Breaks Down the Bailout

I'm in love with Rachel Maddow.  This is a great segment from her.  It's a pretty good explanation of the bailout the Bush administration is asking for- including a mention of the troublesome Section 8, which has got to go!  I'm not saying we should do nothing.  But, the way this thing is being ramrodded through now and the language included is downright scary.  The more I'm reading/hearing about this, the more I think Somebody was right with his (her?) comments.

Patriotic Dilemma

I had to make a run to the Post Office and I needed groceries.  The Post Office is in one direction, the nearest Kroger in the other.  Wal-Mart is very close to the Post Office.  Normally, I would have driven the extra two or three miles past Wal-Mart (thumbing my nose as I went by). I hate Wal-Mart probably more than any company in the world.  But, with gasoline prices as high as they are, I had to weigh my patriotic duty to reduce demand for gasoline and keep gasoline prices down for those struggling with them already and shopping at Wal-Mart, propping up the Chinese economy and contributing to their (mis)treatment of their employees.  I was torn.  What a dilemma! I agonized over the decision as I drove to the Post Office and finally decided to go into Wal-Mart. 

What would you have done?

If Mr. Obama Goes to Washington

In this speech Obama outlines his plan for transparency of government and reformation of government.  I don't know why I had such a hard time locating this video or even a transcript. So, I don't know if you've seen it.

Issues covered:

• Lobbying- no coming to his admin and working on your former industry for two years.  No leaving his admin and lobbying back to it- ever.
  
• Americans can view bills on-line before Obama signs them.  Know which corporations benefit from them.
• Government wasteful spending- Iraq war, Medicare,  Student Loans, Farm Subsidies
• Streamlining all government programs- fire managers not getting results, bring private sector management practices into government
• Loopholes and tax breaks outweigh earmarks.  Corporations with negative tax burdens.  Corporations sending profits offshore to avoid taxes.
• 95% of working families get tax cut under Obama plan- three times tax relief of McCain for middle income families.  Lower tax rates under Obama than under Reagan.  Seniors will not pay taxes on Social Security. If you're making $50,000 or less.
•  Financial Markets-
•  If you (corporation) borrow from the government, you get government oversight/supervision.
• Reform requirements on all regulated financial institutions.  Investigate ratings institutions conflicts of interest with companies they're rating.  Companies were overvalued.
• Streamline regulatory agencies
• Regulate institutions for what they do, not what they are.  Mortgage brokers and companies were doing things they weren't regulated for.  They avoided regulation and got us into trouble.
  
• Crack down on trading activities that are actually market manipulation
• Establish process that identifies risk to financial system.  Know these risks before they turn into crises.
  

Why Barack Obama is Not Perfect

I've been accused of being "in the tank" for Barack Obama. Guilty as charged. For the first time in my life I have contributed to a candidate running for office (any office).  For the first time in my life, I have volunteered (a little any) to help a political campaign.  For the first time in my life I have registered with a political party. It feels good to actually feel enthusiastic about a candidate and to be able to vote without holding my nose.  I'm not going to be ashamed of that.  I'm celebrating it.

But, I've been accused of being so blinded by the glare coming off of the Messiah that my eyes are no longer "wide open".  I think some think I am incapable of seeing Obama's shortcoming, mistakes and ,yes, lies.  So, I want to take a few minutes to tell you some of the issues I have with Obama and some of the mistakes I think he's made in this campaign.

1. Barack Obama is not against capital punishment- Barack Obama is for capital punishment under certain circumstances.  While he did vote to stop the wrongfully convicted men in Illinois from going to their deaths and he has written that he think the death penalty:  "does little to deter crime." But he supports capital punishment in cases "so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment.  I say, let's join the rest of the civilized world and eliminate the death penalty in all cases.  The only justified killing is the taking of a life to protect another life.  Killing the "captive in chains" is barbaric.
2. Barack Obama is not strong enough on gun control.  When the Supreme Court struck down the 32 year ban on handguns in D.C., Obama agreed with them the the law (which was working) "went too far".  No Barack. I disagree.
3. Barack Obama has been running negative ads- After promising a different type fo campaign, Barack Obama's ads are, quantitatively  anyway, more negative than John McCain's.  A recent analysis showed McCain's negative ad ratio in the 50% range and Obama's in the 70% range. Living in Ohio and getting the juiciest of both ads (we get to see ads most of you never see), I thought it was more like 90% and 95%.  I can only recall one ad from either candidate that did not mention the other's name and that is a recent ad by McCain-Palin.'
4. Barack Obama has been lying in his ads- until recently, most of the ads I saw by Obama seemed to be pretty much true.  The $5M joke that McCain told (if you made less than $5M you're middle class) was pounced on by the Obama campaign though.  That was a cheap shot.  The 100 years in Iraq was taken way out of context.  That was hitting below the belt.  But, the worst so far is the mischaracterization of McCain's social security plans.  That is a very McCain like ad, IMO.  In Obama's defense, I think he has told less lies than McCain has and I think a scan of FactCheck.Org would back me up on that.  And I think he's told less whoppers.  But, I think he has allowed the McCain organization to pull him into the mud.  American politics requires a politician look "strong" and to look "strong" Obama has had to hit back. Sad.
5. The Obama campaign got sidetracked by Sarah Palin- they took their eye off of the ball on this one and played right into McCain's hands by allowing McCain to bring up the experience issue again by comparing Sarah Palin to Barack Obama.  Fortunately, I think that one is behind us. 
   
6. Barack Obama needs to clarify his position on late-term abortions- a lot of people are still asking questions about Obama's decision not to vote for a bill that would have made it mandatory in Illinois to try to save babies "born alive" during late term abortions.  I understand his position to be that he thought the law was designed to chip away at abortion rights (as did a lot of other legislators) and that it was redundant as doctors were already required to work to save born alive babies.  However, the most clear information I found on this was on factcheck.org and it has not been very clearly addressed by the campaign, IMO. Now, as President, he would have very little (none?) say over what abortion limits are set. But, you've got people running around thinking Obama supports putting live born babies to death.  A vote for Obama is not a vote to increase the number of abortions or on late term abortions.  But,  he needs to clear that up. 
   
7. Obama has allowed himself to be painted as a tax and spend liberal-  He needs to be more clear on his message and the average tax payer needs to know their income tax goes down more under an Obama administration than under a McCain administration.  How they've allowed this myth to linger this long is beyond me.
8. His response to Reverend Wright wasn't strong enough or quick enough- Obama underestimated White America's fear of a screaming Black man.  By trying to remain loyal to Reverend Wright for too long, he suffered permanent damage in the minds of a few anyway.  His assertion (which I heard just a few days ago again) that he was not in church to hear those sermons is unbelievable to those who heard the clips and assume he must have heard some of it or at least something like it. While I can believe he did not hear those particular clips (the man is a United States Senator, I wonder what his church attendance record actually was), surely he heard things "like" this while he was in church. Obama knew Wright might be a problem back before he hit the political trail.  For political expedience, he should have gone with his gut and distanced himself then.
9. Barack Obama needs to learn to be more "to the point"- I admire his brilliance, his ability to see all sides of an issue, his nuance and his way with words.  But, Joe Lunchbox thinks Obama is talking over his head and relates more to the certitude of John McCain (which scares me because it's reminiscent of the certitude of Bush 43).  During the debates, he's got to learn to leave out some of the nuance and give a "straight" answer.  I think the charges of elitism about Obama are not because he drinks wine or eats arugula.  It's because intellectually, he is having trouble connecting to the average American voter. He needs to be a little less polished, a little less perfect.  I know it's hard for him because all of his life he's strived for excellence.
   

OK.  There you have it.  Barack obama is not perfect and those are my top 9 reasons why he's not.  Yes, I'm still "in the tank" for Obama.  I still agree with him on most issues. But, I don't agree with him on everything.

FactCheck.Org

The lies are coming so fast and furious, I can hardly keep up. If you care enough to check things out for yourself and if you haven't already subscribed, I recommend subscribing to factcheck.org's RSS feed.  I find myself going there every day anyway.

Music Friday- Les MisBarack

If you haven't seen Les Miserable (the play) you might not get this video.  But, I loved the play and this video.

Words Matter

Recently someone I was discussing abortion with accused people who are pro-life of deliberately misusing language to support the untenable position of “it’s OK to kill babies”. She insisted that the terms zygote, embryo and fetus are really just euphemisms to dehumanize a baby and make it all right to kill babies.  I want to point out that first of all, it’s not true that Pro-choice people are using misleading terms.  Furthermore, it’s the people who call themselves “Pro-life” when they really mean Anti-choice who are using a misleading euphemism.

Zygote, Embryo, Fetus, Baby

One of the things I love about the English language is its richness.  Yes, we have a thousand ways to say the same thing.  But, more importantly, we have the language to express differences both subtle and massive.  We  can call a two year old a child, a baby or a toddler.  They’re all basically the same thing although you could argue there are slight differences between the meanings of the words.  We could say that a child is the same as an adult in that they are both human, they both have thoughts, feelings, emotions, can experience pain and pleasure. Yet, there are differences as well.  My point to this woman is that while a zygote, an embryo and a fetus do share some tings in common with a “baby”, in other very important ways they are very, very different.  Different enough to merit a different word.  I do not discount the anti-choice person’s arguments that a human life is human life whether it be a two-celled organism or an 80 year old man.  But, my point is this, a very good argument can be made for why a zygote (a collection of just a few cells with no ability to think, feel, experience pain, sustain its own life, breathe or any number of other things we think of as “human”) is very different from a fully developed human being.  While the pro-choice person would agree that an embryo or a zygote is a potential human life, we would not agree that is it human life. 

We use medical terms because we know the term “baby” is an emotionally charged term and because we also believe it is not the best descriptor for what the organism is and to call the undeveloped, potential being a “baby” is misleading.  A point I made earlier is many people seem to think that at the moment of conception a teeny, tiny baby is formed in the woman’s womb. That is simply not what happens.  At the point of conception, two very special cells, a spermatozoa and an ovum, come together and form another type of cell that begins to multiply and one day can potentially become human life.  When that collection of cells actually becomes a human being is beyond my pay grade. But, I have no difficulty differentiating between a collection of a few cells that can be stored in a Petri dish or frozen away for years and a human being.  Saying that making that distinction is disingenuous is a.) not productive in how we can come together to work on the abortion issue and b.) insulting to good, reasonable people who happen to disagree that the issue of exactly when human life begins is as simple as calling a zygote a baby.  The terms are not used to muddle the argument, to mislead or to cover up a deep down desire to kill babies.  The terms are used to be clear about exactly what we are talking about.  If you want to argue that a zygote is human life, fine.  If you want to argue that a fetus at 12 weeks or 22 weeks or whatever is a human life, fine.  But, a fetus is still a fetus and a zygote is a zygote and neither is a baby, in the normal sense of the word.

Secondly, as to how words matter, is the terms pro-life and pro-choice. I have to say that in the labeling department, the pro-life definitely won this skirmish in the war.  Pro-life.  Sounds so wonderful.  Doesn’t it?  Who wouldn’t want to be pro-life.  If you-re not pro-life, what are you?  Pro-death? Anti-life?  Who wants to be pro-death?  Not me.  Pro-choice.  That sounds pretty good, but not as good as pro-life.  Saying “I’m pro-life and you’re not.” automatically puts the pro-life person on superior moral ground.  If you have to choose between being for life and being for choice, it’s obvious which is the better position.  Isn’t it?  But, I would argue that pro-choice does not mean you are not pro-life.  Rather, being “pro-life”, as the term is commonly used, really means “anti-choice”.   Let’s juxtapose a couple of possible positions.

• Pro-life versus Antil-life (or Pro-death)
• Pro-abortion versus Anti-abortion
• Pro-choice versus Anti-choice

Pro-life. 
We all know what that Pro-life commonly is known to mean. But, I say it’s a misnomer as commonly used.  My friend Debra made this point the other day when she pointed out herself as an example of what I have always said.  Debra has said she herself would never have an abortion.  In that sense, she considers herself Pro-life.  However, she also does not feel qualified to make that decision for all women, for all time and in all circumstances.  While her personal opinion is that women should not have abortions, she is not willing to impose that opinion on other people.  I would argue that Debra is both Pro-life and Pro-Choice, a position that would be impossible, if Pro-life really meant what it has been used to mean and Pro-Life were an antonym to Pro-Choice.

Just as a quick aside, does anyone else see the irony in the fact that so many who are “pro-life” and complain about our culture of death support capital punishment?   They have no problem with the putting to death of (as a friend put it) the “captive in chains”.  The deliberate and premedidated killing of a thinking, feeling human being is something that people who are “pro-life” has no problem with.  So, just how “Pro life" are those who support capital punishment?

Pro-death?

Now, so what should be the antonym for Pro-life?  Maybe Pro-death or Anti-life?  I’ll also cover the other term that is less often used and is solely used by “Pro-life” people at the same time. That term is “Pro-abortion”.  I don’t know anyone who is either “Pro-abortion”, Anti-life or Pro-death when it comes to the issue of abortion.  I don’t know of anyone who says they want to see the number of abortions increase.  I made this statement a few months ago and someone pointed out that possibly people who run abortion clinics could be pro-abortion.  But, that would be an example of a financial incentive distorting what would otherwise be the position most reasonable people would take.  It is similar to a cigarette company wanting more people to smoke.  It’s not a position taken on principle, rather it is a distorted position based on financial gain.  No one wants to see more abortions.  Every one wants to reduce the number of abortions.  So, stop the nonsense and stop labeling people who are “pro-choice” as being pro-abortion. 

Pro-Choice

Now let’s look at Pro-choice versus Anti-choice.  This is the real crux of the debate.  It’s not whether’ you’re for life or not.  It’s not whether you’re for abortion or not.  It’s whether you’re going to make the choice for every woman in the United States or you are going to allow her to make that choice on her own.  Instead of labeling ourselves Pro-choice and Pro-life, more descriptive labels would be Pro-choice and Anti-choice.  But, no one wants to  say they’re Anti-choice.  So, they use the euphemism “Pro-life”.  I’m not saying that no one is really Pro-life, just that one can be “Pro-life” and still be Pro-choice.  So, to make a clear distinction, the people who are really against a woman’s right to choose should state that clearly in the label they use for themselves.   Just say you are against a woman's right to choose.

Words matter.  Let’s call a thing what it is.  Only by first being clear and honest in the words we choose can we make any progress in any discussion.  I, for one, will not concede when people try to label me as being intellectually dishonest for using the correct terms for an undeveloped, potential human being.  And, I will not allow people to label me as “Pro-abortion” as I certainly am not “Pro-abortion”.  I think whether women should have abortions or not is, at the very least debatable, and as long as it is debatable, I do not have the right to impose my opinion in the debate on someone else’s behavior.

Someone asked me if I think Obama wants to help women who are considering abortions.  I think that Obama does want to work to improve the conditions that cause a lot of women to have abortions.  But, with all due respect, that is still not the point.  Sure, some women will have regrets after having had an abortion. Yes, PASS (Post Abortion Stress Syndrome) is a real syndrome.  But, my point is this. This should be a decision a woman makes with counseling, advice or whatever from her doctor, preacher, priest, spiritual advisor, husband, friends, etc.  The question is choice or no choice, not whether or not abortion is a good thing.  If we can counsel every woman out of the United States out of abortions and the demand goes to zero, I will celebrate that right along with every other Pro-Life person in the country.

Peace,
Brian

Economic details... Yucch

People have said that Obama needed to be more detailed his economic plans. Well, yesterday, he spent 38 minutes giving a speech detailing some of the problems with our economy and his (high level) plans to fix them. This took 38 minutes. How many people in our sound-bite society are going to dedicate 38 minutes to listen? If he had gone into detail, this would have taken all day.

In case you're one of them, the video is here. And, I've attached the text of the speech also.

Over the last few days, we have seen clearly what’s at stake in this election. The news from Wall Street has shaken the American people’s faith in our economy. The situation with Lehman Brothers and other financial institutions is the latest in a wave of crises that have generated tremendous uncertainty about the future of our financial markets. This is a major threat to our economy and its ability to create good-paying jobs and help working Americans pay their bills, save for their future, and make their mortgage payments.

Since this turmoil began over a year ago, the housing market has collapsed. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to be effectively taken over by the government. Three of America’s five largest investment banks failed or have been sold off in distress. Yesterday, Wall Street suffered its worst losses since just after 9/11. We are in the most serious financial crisis in generations. Yet Senator McCain stood up yesterday and said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong

A few hours later, his campaign sent him back out to clean up his remarks, and he tried to explain himself again this morning by saying that what he meant was that American workers are strong. But we know that Senator McCain meant what he said the first time, because he has said it over and over again throughout this campaign – no fewer than 16 times, according to one independent count.

Now I certainly don’t fault Senator McCain for all of the problems we’re facing, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. Because the truth is, what Senator McCain said yesterday fits with the same economic philosophy that he’s had for 26 years. It’s the philosophy that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down. It’s the philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise. It’s a philosophy that lets Washington lobbyists shred consumer protections and distort our economy so it works for the special interests instead of working people.

We’ve had this philosophy for eight years. We know the results. You feel it in your own lives. Jobs have disappeared, and peoples’ life savings have been put at risk. Millions of families face foreclosure, and millions more have seen their home values plummet. The cost of everything from gas to groceries to health care has gone up, while the dream of a college education for our kids and a secure and dignified retirement for our seniors is slipping away. These are the struggles that Americans are facing. This is the pain that has now trickled up.

So let’s be clear: what we’ve seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed. And I am running for President of the United States because the dreams of the American people must not be endangered any more. It’s time to put an end to a broken system in Washington that is breaking the American economy. It’s time for change that makes a real difference in your lives.

If you want to understand the difference between how Senator McCain and I would govern as President, you can start by taking a look at how we’ve responded to this crisis. Because Senator McCain's approach was the same as the Bush Administration’s: support ideological policies that made the crisis more likely; do nothing as the crisis hits; and then scramble as the whole thing collapses. My approach has been to try to prevent this turmoil.

In February of 2006, I introduced legislation to stop mortgage transactions that promoted fraud, risk or abuse. A year later, before the crisis hit, I warned Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke about the risks of mounting foreclosures and urged them to bring together all the stakeholders to find solutions to the subprime mortgage meltdown. Senator McCain did nothing.

Last September, I stood up at NASDAQ and said it’s time to realize that we are in this together – that there is no dividing line between Wall Street and Main Street – and warned of a growing loss of trust in our capital markets. Months later, Senator McCain told a newspaper that he’d love to give them a solution to the mortgage crisis, "but" – he said – "I don’t know one."

In January, I outlined a plan to help revive our faltering economy, which formed the basis for a bipartisan stimulus package that passed the Congress. Senator McCain used the crisis as an excuse to push a so-called stimulus plan that offered another huge and permanent corporate tax cut, including $4 billion for the big oil companies, but no immediate help for workers.

This March, in the wake of the Bear Stearns bailout, I called for a new, 21st century regulatory framework to restore accountability, transparency, and trust in our financial markets. Just a few weeks earlier, Senator McCain made it clear where he stands: "I’m always for less regulation," he said, and referred to himself as "fundamentally a deregulator."

This is what happens when you confuse the free market with a free license to let special interests take whatever they can get, however they can get it. This is what happens when you see seven years of incomes falling for the average worker while Wall Street is booming, and declare – as Senator McCain did earlier this year – that we’ve made great progress economically under George Bush. That is how you can reach the conclusion – as late as yesterday – that the fundamentals of the economy are strong.

Well, we have a different way of measuring the fundamentals of our economy. We know that the fundamentals that we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great –that America is a place where you can make it if you try.

Americans have always pursued our dreams within a free market that has been the engine of our progress. It’s a market that has created a prosperity that is the envy of the world, and rewarded the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon of science, and technology, and discovery. But the American economy has worked in large part because we have guided the market’s invisible hand with a higher principle – that America prospers when all Americans can prosper. That is why we have put in place rules of the road to make competition fair, and open, and honest.

Too often, over the last quarter century, we have lost this sense of shared prosperity. And this has not happened by accident. It’s because of decisions made in boardrooms, on trading floors and in Washington. We failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices. We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales. The result has been a distorted market that creates bubbles instead of steady, sustainable growth; a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street, but ends up hurting both.

Let me be clear: the American economy does not stand still, and neither should the rules that govern it. The evolution of industries often warrants regulatory reform - to foster competition, lower prices, or replace outdated oversight structures. Old institutions cannot adequately oversee new practices. Old rules may not fit the roads where our economy is leading. But instead of sensible reform that rewarded success and freed the creative forces of the market, too often we’ve excused an ethic of greed, corner-cutting and inside dealing that threatens the long-term stability of our economic system.

It happened in the 1980s, when we loosened restrictions on Savings and Loans and appointed regulators who ignored even these weaker rules. Too many S&Ls took advantage of the lax rules set by Washington to gamble that they could make big money in speculative real estate. Confident of their clout in Washington, they made hundreds of billions in bad loans, knowing that if they lost money, the government would bail them out. And they were right. The gambles did not pay off, our economy went into recession, and the taxpayers ended up footing the bill. Sound familiar?

And it has happened again during this decade, in part because of how we deregulated the financial services sector. After we repealed outmoded rules instead of updating them, we were left overseeing 21st century innovation with 20th century regulations. When subprime mortgage lending took a reckless and unsustainable turn, a patchwork of regulators systematically and deliberately eliminated the regulations protecting the American people and failed to raise warning flags that could have protected investors and the pensions American workers count on.

This was not the invisible hand of the market at work. These cycles of bubble and bust were symptoms of the ideology that my opponent is running to continue. John McCain has spent decades in Washington supporting financial institutions instead of their customers. In fact, one of the biggest proponents of deregulation in the financial sector is Phil Gramm – the same man who helped write John McCain’s economic plan; the same man who said that we’re going through a ‘mental recession’; and the same man who called the United States of America a "nation of whiners." So it’s hard to understand how Senator McCain is going to get us out of this crisis by doing the same things with the same old players.

Make no mistake: my opponent is running for four more years of policies that will throw the economy further out of balance. His outrage at Wall Street would be more convincing if he wasn’t offering them more tax cuts. His call for fiscal responsibility would be believable if he wasn’t for more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and more of a trillion dollar war in Iraq paid for with deficit spending and borrowing from foreign creditors like China. His newfound support for regulation bears no resemblance to his scornful attitude towards oversight and enforcement. John McCain cannot be trusted to reestablish proper oversight of our financial markets for one simple reason: he has shown time and again that he does not believe in it.

What has happened these last eight years is not some historical anomaly, so we know what to expect if we try these policies for another four. When lobbyists run your campaign, the special interests end up gaming the system. When the White House is hostile to any kind of oversight, corporations cut corners and consumers pay the price. When regulators are chosen for their disdain for regulation and we gut their ability to enforce the law, then the interests of the American people are not protected. It’s an ideology that intentionally breeds incompetence in Washington and irresponsibility on Wall Street, and it’s time to turn the page.

Just today, Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book – you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem. But here’s the thing – this isn’t 9/11. We know how we got into this mess. What we need now is leadership that gets us out. I’ll provide it, John McCain won’t, and that’s the choice for the American people in this election.

History shows us that there is no substitute for presidential leadership in a time of economic crisis. FDR and Harry Truman didn’t put their heads in the sand, or hand accountability over to a Commission. Bill Clinton didn’t put off hard choices. They led, and that’s what I will do. My priority as President will be the stability of the American economy and the prosperity of the American people. And I will make sure that our response focuses on middle class Americans – not the companies that created the problem.

To get out of this crisis – and to ensure that we are not doomed to repeat a cycle of bubble and bust again and again – we must take immediate measures to create jobs and continue to address the housing crisis; we must build a 21st century regulatory framework, and we must pursue a bold opportunity agenda that creates new jobs and grows the American economy.

To jumpstart job creation, I have proposed a $50 billion Emergency Economic Plan that would save 1 million jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure, repairing our schools, and helping our states and localities avoid damaging budget cuts.

I worked with leaders in Congress to create a new FHA Housing Security Program, which will help stabilize the housing market and allow Americans facing foreclosure to keep their homes at rates they can afford. Going forward, we need to replace Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as we know them with a structure that is focused on helping people buy homes – not engaging in market speculation. We can’t have a situation like the old S&L scandal where its "heads" investors win, and "tails" taxpayers lose. That’s going to take ending the lobbyist-driven dominance of these institutions that we’ve seen for far too long in Washington.

To prevent fraud in the mortgage market, I've proposed tough penalties on fraudulent lenders, and a Home Score system that will ensure consumers fully understand mortgage offers and whether they'll be able to make payments. To help low- and middle-income families, I will ease the burden on struggling homeowners through a universal homeowner’s tax credit. This will add up to a 10 percent break off the mortgage interest rate for 10 million households. That’s another $500 each year for many middle class families.

Unlike Senator McCain, I will change our bankruptcy laws to make it easier for families to stay in their homes. Right now, if you’re a family that owns one house, bankruptcy judges are actually barred from helping you keep a roof over your head by writing down the value of your mortgage. If you own seven homes, the judge is free to write down any or all of the debt on your second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh homes. Now that may be of comfort to Senator McCain, but that’s the kind of out-of-touch Washington loophole that makes no sense. When I’m President, we’ll make our laws work for working people.

But as we’ve seen the last few days, the crisis in our financial markets now reaches well beyond the housing market. That’s why it’s time to do what I called for last September and again this past March – and it is only more overdue today.

Our capital markets cannot succeed without the public's trust. It’s time to get serious about regulatory oversight, and that’s what I will do as President. That starts with the core principles for reform that I discussed at Cooper Union.

First, if you’re a financial institution that can borrow from the government, you should be subject to government oversight and supervision. When the Federal Reserve steps in as a lender of last resort, it is providing an insurance policy underwritten by the American taxpayer. In return, taxpayers have every right to expect that financial institutions with access to that credit are not taking excessive risks.

Second, we must reform requirements on all regulated financial institutions. We must strengthen capital requirements, particularly for complex financial instruments like some of the mortgage securities and other derivatives at the center of our current crisis. We must develop and rigorously manage liquidity risk. We must investigate rating agencies and potential conflicts of interest with the people they are rating. And we must establish transparency requirements that demand full disclosure by financial institutions to shareholders and counterparties. As we reform our regulatory system at home, we must address the same problems abroad so that financial institutions around the world are subject to similar rules of the road.

Third, we need to streamline our regulatory agencies. Our overlapping and competing regulatory agencies cannot oversee the large and complex institutions that dominate the financial landscape. Different institutions compete in multiple markets - Washington should not pretend otherwise. A streamlined system will provide better oversight and reduce costs.

Fourth, we need to regulate institutions for what they do, not what they are. Over the last few years, commercial banks and thrift institutions were subject to guidelines on subprime mortgages that did not apply to mortgage brokers and companies. This regulatory framework failed to protect homeowners, and made no sense for our financial system. When it comes to protecting the American people, it should make no difference what kind of institution they are dealing with.

Fifth, we must crack down on trading activity that crosses the line to market manipulation. The last six months have shown that this remains a serious problem in many markets and becomes especially problematic during moments of great financial turmoil. We cannot embrace the administration's vision of turning over the protection of investors to the industries themselves. We need regulators that actually enforce the rules instead of overlooking them. The SEC should investigate and punish market manipulation, and report its conclusions to Congress.

Sixth, we must establish a process that identifies systemic risks to the financial system like the crisis that has overtaken our economy. Too often, we end up where we are today: dealing with threats to the financial system that weren't anticipated by regulators. We need a standing financial market advisory group to meet regularly and provide advice to the President, Congress, and regulators on the state of our financial markets and the risks they face. It’s time to anticipate risks before they erupt into a full-blown crisis.

These six principles should guide the legal reforms needed to establish a 21st century regulatory system. But the change we need goes beyond laws and regulation. Financial institutions must do a better job at managing risks. There is something wrong when boards of directors or senior managers don't understand the implications of the risks assumed by their own institutions. It's time to realign incentives and CEO compensation packages, so that both high level executives and employees better serve the interests of shareholders.

Finally, the American people must be able to trust that their government is looking out for all of us - not the special interests that have set the agenda in Washington for eight years, and the lobbyists who run John McCain’s campaign.

I’ve spent my career taking on lobbyists and their money, and I’ve won. If you wanted a special favor in Illinois, there was actually a law that let you give campaign cash to politicians for their own personal use. In the State House, they called it business-as-usual. I called it legalized bribery, and while it didn’t make me the most popular guy in Springfield, I put an end to it.

When I got to Washington, we saw some of the worst corruption since Watergate. I led the fight for reform in my party, and let me tell you – not everyone in my party was too happy about it. When I proposed forcing lobbyists to disclose who they’re raising money from and who in Congress they’re funneling it to, I had a few choice words directed my way on the floor of the Senate. But we got it done, and we banned gifts from lobbyists, and free rides on their fancy jets. And I am the only candidate who can say that Washington lobbyists do not fund my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am President of the United States. That’s how we’re going to end the outrage of special interests tipping the scales.

The most important thing we must do is restore opportunity for all Americans. To get our economy growing, we need to recapture that fundamental American promise. That if you work hard, you can pay the bills. That if you get sick, you won’t go bankrupt. That your kids can get a good education, and that we can leave a legacy of greater opportunity to future generations.

That’s the change the American people need. While Senator McCain likes to talk about change these days, his economic program offers nothing but more of the same. The American people need more than change as a slogan– we need change that makes a real difference in your life.

Change means a tax code that doesn’t reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it. I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America. I will eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups – that’s how we’ll grow our economy and create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families. My opponent doesn’t want you to know this, but under my plan, tax rates will actually be less than they were under Ronald Reagan. If you make less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase one single dime. In fact, I offer three times the tax relief for middle-class families as Senator McCain does – because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

I will finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don’t, you’ll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And I will stop insurance companies from discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most

I will create the jobs of the future by transforming our energy economy. We’ll tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I’ll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I’ll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I’ll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy – wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can’t ever be outsourced

And now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. I’ll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. But in exchange, I will ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American – if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

This is the change we need – the kind of bottom up growth and innovation that will advance the American economy by advancing the dreams of all Americans.

Times are hard. I will not pretend that the changes we need will come without cost – though I have presented ways we can achieve these changes in a fiscally responsible way. I know that we'll have to overcome our doubts and divisions and the determined opposition of powerful special interests before we can truly reform a broken economy and advance opportunity.

But I am running for President because we simply cannot afford four more years of an economic philosophy that works for Wall Street instead of Main Street, and ends up devastating both.

I don’t want to wake up in four years to find that more Americans fell out of the middle-class, and more families lost their savings. I don’t want to see that our country failed to invest in our ability to compete, our children’s future was mortgaged on another mountain of debt, and our financial markets failed to find a firmer footing.

This time – this election – is our chance to stand up and say: enough is enough!

We can do this because Americans have done this before. Time and again, we’ve battled back from adversity by recognizing that common stake that we have in each other’s success. That’s why our economy hasn’t just been the world’s greatest wealth generator – it’s bound America together, it’s created jobs, and it’s made the dream of opportunity a reality for generation after generation of Americans.

Now it falls to us. And I need you to make it happen. If you want the next four years looking just like the last eight, then I am not your candidate. But if you want real change – if you want an economy that rewards work, and that works for Main Street and Wall Street; if you want tax relief for the middle class and millions of new jobs; if you want health care you can afford and education so that our kids can compete; then I ask you to knock on some doors, and make some calls, and talk to your neighbors, and give me your vote on November 4th. And if you do, I promise you – we will win Colorado, we will win this election, and we will change America together.

Drop the Blackberry (non) Story

OK.  So a McCain staffer said something incredibly stupid.  Why is this news?!  Everybody knows John McCain didn't invent the Blackberry.  So, drop the "story". When the Obama camp was asked about it the only response should have been "No comment." 

Same with the Carly Fiorina comment that running a major company isn't the same as running the country.  She's right.  Being President might be harder. But, it's not the same.  Carly has said some bone-headed things. But, this isn't one of them.   I don't think any of the candidates would be hired to run HP and that means absolutely nothing.  They wouldn't be hired to be brain surgeons either.  So what?  There's some comparison between being CEO of HP and being the President, but actually probably less than most of us would think at first glance.  Carly gave an honest and a correct answer and it doesn't mean any of the candidates are any less qualified to be POTUS.  How many former Presidents would you like to see running Apple or Microsoft? 

p.s.- update.  I read that they're throwing Carly under the bus and she will now "disappear"

FactCheck- Obama's Plan Will Not Raise YOUR Taxes

Just in case you've bought into the lie that Barack Obama plans to raise your taxes, it's time for a reality check.   The Tax Policy Center has done an independent analysis on both Barack Obama's and John McCain's tax plans (actually months ago) and has declared that both men will cut taxes.  This report is relatively obscure, detailed, confusing and boring. But, it is finally being digested by some main stream news agencies and everyone who has looked at the report and both plans (with the exception of the John McCain campaign) agrees that both men will cut taxes.

So, why does John McCain continue to run ads saying that Barack Obama will increase your taxes?  Why do so many people continue to believe it?  Well, tell a lie enough times and with enough force and a certain number of people will believe it.

Here's the truth.  The Tax Policy Center has said in terms of revenue, both plans are relatively the same. The difference comes in who gets the majority of the cuts.  McCain wants to cut taxes across the board.  But, to pay for that, he gives relatively little relief to the little guy.  The guy running the ads saying the other guy wants to raise your taxes, gives most of his relief to the wealthiest among us.  Obama says not everybody needs a tax cut and to pay for the little guys' tax cuts, he's going to take a little more from the relatively well off (those making more than $250K a year, but I think they can afford the $12) and he'll take a chunk more from those making more than $603K a year).   Obama's plan actually gives families making between $40,000 and 66,000 almost three times the amount of relief McCain would give to those families.  Look at this chart and tell me would your taxes go up or down under Obama.

Graph from Washington Post

Even Fox News has figured this out.  Watch this two minute interview with Tucker Bounds, a top McCain advisor.

Did you catch that?  Their justification for continuing the claim that Obama will raise your taxes is not his tax policy. It's not what he's stated he will do and has laid out a plan for.  It's not based on independent third party analysis.  It's based on their interpretation of his voting record.  So, if you believe that Obama is lying to you and playing a bait and switch, you can continue to believe he's going to raise your taxes.  But, if you believe he's going to implement the tax plan he said he's going to, he is not going to raise your taxes.

Now the kicker and a confession. Both plans.  Let me repeat that.  Both McCain's and Obama's plans increase the deficit.  McCain says he'll make that up by stopping earmarks (let's hope he doesn't put Sarah Palin in charge of that little duty- sorry, couldn't resist).  But, spending cuts are hard to do. Look at what Mr. Fiscal Conservative George  Bush and the Repulican Congress (for six of his 8 years) did with spending.  The question I have is can we really afford anybody's tax cuts right now?  But, that's another story.  The point of this story is, if you're a guy voting for your own pocketbook and to get the bigger tax cut, read the chart and if you planned to vote for McCain, you might want to rethink that.  I'll tell you this much about how I vote.  Based on this chart and this one issue alone, I'd be better off voting for John McCain.  But, guess which way I'm going in November.  My hope is that a rising tide raises all ships and that by Obama giving more money to more people and giving them the ability to afford my goods, I'll be privileged enough to pay even MORE taxes.  Also, I think it's just the right thing to do.  If we're going to give away money we don't have, let's give it to the needy, not the guy making more money in a year than most people have in their life savings.

The confession, you ask?  In the opening paragraph, I was careful not to say that Obama will not raise your taxes.  The truth is I think both tax plans (based on the little I know about economics) are in trouble from the start.  If they think they're going to fund tax cuts by reducing spending, they're dreaming.  I would not be surprised to see drastic alterations to either McCain's or Obama's plans once they actually take office.  But, based on what they've laid out they will do, Obama gives more of a break to the majority of the people I know than McCain does.

Here's a pretty easy to read article that gives some more details:

How McCain and Obama Will Change Your Tax Bill

So, does any of this surprise you?

Allow me to introduce Pastor Mike...

We think we're nearing the end of the road in the search for a pastor for Nexus church.  I'm more of a deist when it comes to G-d intervening in human affairs, although I do believe in the power of prayer (more on that later if you'd like). Anyway, if I used such language, I would say that our search has been a "God thing" as they'd say at the Vineyard.  We have selected a final candidate who will be leading our service this coming Sunday. 

The search committee has worked so well together it's been truly amazing.  We have all been of one accord since the very beginning.  Our meetings have gone quickly and smoothly as we review candidates. We have each gotten almost the exact same "feeling" about candidates whether it be from reading their profiles, their emails or talking to them over the telephone.  So, when we came together, after studying their profiles on our own, we just whizzed through most of our discussions.  While we had several very qualified candidates and small handful that we thought would "get" Nexus, Mike has stood out from the bunch from the beginning.  If you know me, you know I don't normally "gush" about someone (other than Barack Obama- ;-))  But, I'm going to gush about Mike.

Before I go to far, I want to provide you with a link where you can find some of Mike's sermons.  If you're a Nexus member or a friend of Nexus who attends, please see if you can take some time to listen to one or two this week.  I can recommend "Go and Learn" and "Midwife God's Future".  Here is the link:  Mike Underhill at Epiphany

Mike felt the call to be a minister (servant of G-d, not necessarily ordained) at an early age.  But, coming out as a gay man held Mike back from being ordained. Mike has worked as a Systems Programmer, Computer Software Trainer and had a very successful career with Amoco/British Petroleum before going to seminary to be ordained. Mike's style of teaching is largely extemporaneous.  He does follow the lectionary cycle and uses the scripture given as the basis for his sermons.  But, after studying them he sets them aside and tailors his remarks to the concerns of the community he is preaching to.  During our conversations with Mike the words ministry and discipleship came up over and over again. He wants to keep the worship relevant, fresh and to remove barriers to the non-church, and de-churched who may come into the service.  When he and Vincent visited with us yesterday one of Mike's first observations was how the non-threatening environment of the YMCA might allow us to draw those who would be reluctant to "go to church".  Mike gets us!

Mike's communications with us, both written and verbal have shown a level of maturity and professionalism that has been refreshing.  Mike has been very responsive and truly seems excited about receiving his first call and the opportunity to work with a community like Nexus to share the good news.  Mike's background in technology will be very helpful as he would be able to take on some of the duties of maintaining the website, handling electronic communications with the congregation and incorporating technology into the Sunday morning services.

I had the opportunity to have lunch with Mike and his partner Vince on Saturday. We spent a couple of hours with them and then had dinner with them before Mike and Vince joined us for Sunday morning service. Mike was very inquisitive about our church experiences, what brought us to Nexus and our vision for Nexus' future.  While out shopping Saturday morning, Mike already found his first potential recruit for Nexus a woman working in one of the stores he was shopping in. And, Mike gleaned a great spiritual truth from her that he will probably be using in one his sermons in the near future. It is obvious Mike is always on the lookout to make a connection with a fellow spiritual seeker and shares our belief that G-d is still speaking because Mike heard G-d speak to him through that woman.

Mike will join us again this Sunday to lead worship.  I personally, and the search committee collectively, could not be more pleased to have a candidate like Mike.  We have carefully and prayerfully considered this and feel extremely comfortable recommending Mike to the congregation.

Hold On Change is Comin'

When I get in a funk (like I've been in lately), this song always lifts my spirits.  Unfortunately, YouTube has disabled embedding, so you'll have to link to their site to link.  This is a remake.  The original rocks with a huge gospel choir. But, this version is pretty good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlBvVbhDpRA

Is Sarah Palin a Lying Liar?

One thing I want to say and I thought it deserved a post of its own (although it's an extension of my last post).  I do not, I repeat not, think that Sarah Palin is a liar. I have seen several articles recently calling her a liar.

I think that Sarah Palin and John McCain are good people who love their country.  Unfortunately, in today's political environment it has become necessary to spin, to obfuscate and to deflect.  One of the fascinating things about the movie Being There (with Peter Sellers) was that as a mental midget, Chance the Gardener told the truth straight up. But, no one believed he would actually be so direct and truthful, so they all put their own spin on everything he said.  We expect politicians to do these things. Their advisors tell them they have to to win.  John McCain was reluctant to talk about his Viet Nam experience until his handlers made him play it up.  Now, it's the answer to every question.   But, I wonder how he really feels about it.  And even though John McCain puts his "I'm John McCain and I approved this message" at the end of all his ads. I wonder if John McCain really approves of the message.  I'm guessing not.  I heard him answer a question today about the community organizer digs thrown at Obama during the convention.  Then, I heard what I believe is the real John McCain (the old John McCain).  He praised Obama's sacrifice. He praised community organizers. But, he said something very telling. 

WOODRUFF: Senator, at the Republican convention, a couple of speakers, most notably your running mate, vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin , made somewhat derisive comments about Senator Obama’s experience as a community organizer. I’ve heard you say you haven’t taken that tone. So I guess my question is, are you saying to others in your campaign and your supporters that that’s not the kind of language you want to hear?

McCain:  First of all, this is a tough business. Second of all, I think the tone of this whole campaign would have been very different if Senator Obama had accepted my request for us to appear in town hall meetings all over America, the same way Jack Kennedy and Barry Goldwater had agreed to do so. I know that, because I’ve been in enough campaigns.

Look, Governor Palin was responding to the criticism of her inexperience and her job as a mayor in a small town. That’s what she was responding to.

Of course I respect community organizers. Of course I respect people who serve their community. And Senator Obama’s record there is outstanding. And so I praise anyone who serves this nation in capacities that, frankly, we all know that could have been far more financially rewarding to individuals, rather than doing what they did.

So, there we have it.  It's a tough business. My conclusion is that by prefacing his answer with that he is saying since this is a tough business, this type of tit for tat has to be done.

The problem of intentionally deceiving people without out and out lying is you begin to forget where the line is and I think that's what has happend to the McCain campaign.  Not that they don't know what they are putting out is lies but they are justifying it in their own minds by saying everybody does it and it's necessary to win.  I don't think either John McCain or Sarah Palin would be doing these things of their own accord, or at least I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.  They probably feel they cannot afford to stand up to the experts around them telling them "This is how you win an election.  It's worked in the past.  It'll work again. Trust me.  I know what I'm doing.".  

I trust John McCain and Sarah Palin are basically honest people.  I trust that they want what's best for the country.  I trust that they think they are what's best for the country. But, I don't trust their judgment and I hate the political system they've allowed to manipulate them.  If they're willing to do this to win a campaign, I have to wonder how they'd govern the country.  The mentality that the end justifies the means is one that I've seen too many times over the last couple of years and I'm sick of it.  I hope the American people are, too.

Tell Me Lies...

The mainstream media is stepping up and calling a lie a lie. Factcheck.org has pointed out this week "distortions" and misleading ads coming from the McCain campaign (they haven't used the term lie that I know of). This goes back to the pattern I first pointed out at the Republican Convention when I felt like I was suddenly transported to George Orwell's 1984 where the Republicans were trying to sell me on doublespeak like if you want change, vote for the 72 year old, 30 year Republican senator. OK. Now that's subjective. He can call himself a maverick if he wants to. He can say he and Sarah Palin represent change and it's really a matter of opinion. But what is coming out of the McCain camp this week is blatant, out and out lies. Not mere stretching of the truth, not "well, you could look at it that way". Just bald faced lies.

The lies are coming out so fast and furious, it's hard to keep up. Maybe that's the strategy? Hit 'em with so many lies they can't debunk all of them. Well, I think it may be backfiring. Not with the base, of course. The base will make excuses for Senator McCain and Governor Palin no matter what they do. But, Independents and potential cross-over Democrats surely cannot be as stupid as the McCain camp hopes they are.

Here are just a few of the lies and some mainstream media reactions. Not HuffPo, not the DailyKos. But, mainstream reporters are finally calling the Republicans on their dirty campaign tactics.

FactCheck.Org- McCain ad saying Obama is belittling Palin is characterized by FactCheck as "goes down new paths of deception" (strong words for a staunchly independent source).


FactCheck.Org- McCain Ad about Obama funding sex education for teenagers "misleads.

FactCheck.Org-McCain-Palin ad distorts our finding.  In this ad, the McCain campaign even distorted the findings of FactCheck.Org.

Now, in fairness, FactCheck has called Obama on an ad this week, too.  And I've seen distortions and exaggerations in Obama ads.  The staying in Iraq for 100 years for example.  The $5M is middle class joke that McCain made.  But, I honestly think the McCain campaign is relying on the "they all do it" to continue to pump the  airwaves with more and more over-the-top blatant lies.  FactCheck.Org is an excellent resource, BTW.  Bookmark it and check out both sides ads as you see them.

Here's what the press is saying this week.  These are just short excerpts.  But, I've linked to the full articles. And this is not all I could find. But, it's enough to show that (hopefully) someone will hold both sides accountable to telling something that at least resembles the truth.

Paul Krugman in an Op-Ed piece titled Blizzard of Lies:

Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?

These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign — and they’re all out-and-out lies.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being "balanced" at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that "some Democrats say" that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

E.J. Dionne, Jr. in Tiptoeing Through the Mud

The campaign is a blur of flying pieces of junk, lipstick and gutter-style attacks. John McCain's deceptions about Barack Obama's views and Sarah Palin's flip-flopping suggest an unedifying scuffle over a city council seat.  The media bear a heavy responsibility because "balance" does not require giving equal time to truth and lies. So does McCain, who is running a disgraceful, dishonorable campaign of distraction and diversion.  But Obama bears responsibility, too: His task is to remind Americans that the stakes in this election are far higher than the matter of who said what and when about Palin. He isn't doing that.

McCain has shown he wants the presidency so badly that he's willing to say anything, true or false, to win power. Obama can win by fighting for what he believes. What he can't do is wait for the media to call McCain out -- although they should -- or expect voters to know he'll fight for them when they are not yet sure that he's willing to stand up for himself.

Charles Babington- AP News (not exactly a liberal organization, BTW)- McCain's claims skirt facts, test voters.

The "Straight Talk Express" has detoured into doublespeak.

Republican presidential nominee John McCain, a self-proclaimed tell-it-like-it-is maverick, keeps saying his running mate, Sarah Palin, killed the federally funded Bridge to Nowhere when, in fact, she pulled her support only after the project became a political embarrassment. He accuses Democrat Barack Obama of calling Palin a pig, which did not happen. He says Obama would raise nearly everyone's taxes, when independent groups say 80 percent of families would get tax cuts instead.

Even in a political culture accustomed to truth-stretching, McCain's skirting of facts has stood out this week. It has infuriated and flustered Obama's campaign, and campaign pros are watching to see how much voters disregard news reports noting factual holes in the claims.

Jay Bookman- The Atlanta Journal-Constitution- Palin Lies could lead to Bridge to Oblivion

Sarah Palin is out on the campaign trail, this time in Ohio, still repeating the lie that she rejected federal funding for that infamous bridge in Alaska.
 
Palin — with the full backing and support of the McCain campaign — is doing herself longterm political damage with this ploy. The American people are watching her repeatedly lie to them, day after day, and watching her do so with no apparent compunction. This is her introduction to the national scene; this is when her image is being cemented into the public mind.

 And her image is increasingly that of a guiltless liar.

Andrew Sullivan- The Daily Dish- Lies, Damned Lies and Sarah Palin

Unless, in fact, this election is about Palin. And it has to be. She - along with the Iraq war - is the embodiment of McCain's claim to presidential judgment and experience. If she is a fraud, and has been proven a demonstrable liar in ways that a competent campaign would have vetted six months ago, McCain's campaign is over, and deserves to be over. As is the election. I don't see how we can know anything until she has answered a series of obvious, factual questions from the press corps about the truthfulness of her various statements in the public record.

Cherry Creek News- Sarah Palin- Serial Liar?

Despite a solid debunking, the McCain-Palin campaign continue to traffic in falsehoods about the Alaska Governor's short tenure. According to the AP, "The governor (Palin) has cut back on pork-barrel project requests, but in her two years in office, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. And as mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million." >From the day he nominated Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AZ) to be his vice presidential running mate, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and his campaign advisers have been repeating the lie that Palin opposed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. (In fact, Palin repeatedly expressed strong support for the project.) ThinkProgress has been keeping track of these lies and compiled them here. 

Music Friday- Little Lies

In honor of the press cycle this week... The song title is "Little Lies". But, we've been fed some whoppers this week.

Abortion- My Take On It

Never one to back away from a controversial topic, I thought I'd throw this into the political discussion.  For the last several days, I've been debating this topic with people on a message board.  Here is a summary of my view.

For me, the abortion discussion we've been having has gotten way too technical. I'm not a medical ethicist.  As Obama said (to great criticism) the question of exactly when life begins is above my pay grade.  I look at it this way.

One can say life begins at conception.  That is a clear defining moment.  It's extreme.  But, it's clear.  If you say that and believe that, you have a clear case against abortion at any time during pregnancy.  The only possible exception I could see would be to save the life of the mother.  That would be a case of one "person" jeopardizing another person's life and the mother would have the right to defend herself.

Some say the Bible supports the view that life begins at conception. I beg to differ. Torah (written and oral) says that life begins at first breath.  It's always been Jewish tradition that while the fetus is potential human life, it is not the same as a person who has drawn a breath.  The penalties for causing a woman to miscarry (accidentially or intentionally) are different than the penalties for killing a person (accidentally or intentionally).  Someone asked me for a scripture reference for life beginning at first breath.  All I can think of is Genesis 2:7. But, to the Jews, Oral Torah is just as imporant as written Torah and this is the Jewish interpretation of their laws.  I am not saying that we should use Torah to make political or medical decisions. Just the argument that life begins at conception is not really supported by the Bible.

The organism that is present at conception in almost no way resembles anything we would call human.  And that organism is a part of and dependent on a larger organism called a woman.  It is a part of her body.  It's inseparable from her.  It's completely and utterly dependent on her.  It most ways it resembles her liver more than it does a person (except it's parasitic).  That makes it different in many substantial ways from a born person.  That is in addition to the functional differences between an embryo or a fetus and a person.  Therefore, IMO, the woman has some say so about what happens with that part of her body.  So, many of us believe, up until a point in time, the mother has some say over what happens with her own body, the embryo being a part of that body.

The other extreme from defining life as beginning at conception is to say that life begins at birth.  This brings up an irony that I find curious. When someone asks us how old we are, we count back to the day we are born.  We don't go back to the day we were conceived.  We celebrate birthdays, not conceptiondays.  However, not many advocate allowing for abortion (except in extreme cases) up until the time of birth.  It can be reasoned that a fetus that has a chance of survival outside of the mother has some rights.

Taking the view that life starts sometime after conception and sometime before birth leaves us with the dilemma of whether abortion should be legal or not.  And, if it is legal, how late in the pregnancy should we allow it?  I see it as totally unacceptable to make abortion illegal. That would drive women back to dangerous, illegal abortions and make them criminals and the people who try to help them criminals.  Abortions are going to happen whether they are legal or not.  And, since no one can definitively show that human life begins at conception and medical science clearly shows that an embryo can neither feel nor think I think it's in society's best interest to allow abortions up until some point in time.  What that point is I'll leave to the medical experts just as we leave the definition of when someone is legally dead up to medical experts.


I'm a bottom line kind of guy.  We're not going to agree on this any time soon (or probably ever).  We've been debating it for decades and where has that gotten us?  I'm not saying the discussions are pointless. But, what can we do in the meantime?  I say we do these things.  Improve sex education.  Give boys and girls (men and women) the tools and the education they need to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.  Stop all the stupid moralizing and "just say no" crap.  Yes, tell them the only safe sex is no sex and the only 100% effective birth control is abstinence.  I have no problems teaching abstinence. But, let's be real.  People have sex. So, tell them what to do when they do have sex. Make sex education and  effective birth control available.  Let's also improve women's options for what to do if they become pregnant and don't feel they can handle a child.  Put some of that energy spent on protesting outside abortion clinics and hassling women who are having abortions into adopting children and helping women find resources to care for their own children.  Let's all work together to do everything we can to reduce the number of abortions, not by legislation but by education and providing better alternatives.

p.s.- I've realized that a lot of people think a zygote/embryo/fetus is just a teeny tiny baby.  It's not.  Here is a very detailed timeline of the development of a human being.  I didn't post this initially because, as I said, I think the conversation between laypeople can get to technical very quickly.  I don't want to be the one to determine where the line is.  But, clearly (IMO), a zygote does not equate to a human being.  Stages of development from ovum to baby

Is this you?

It's me...

American Savior- Book Review

I picked up American Savior by Roland Merullo on a whim. Call it a divine appointment if you will. Just a few days before Amazon served it up to me as something I might like, I was bemoaning our current political atmosphere and made the comment "Jesus Himself couldn't get elected in America". Lo and behold, then Roland Merullo's novel comes along. I had to read it.

Of course it's an unlikely story. Those critical of the book saying Jesus would never run for office remind me of people who don't get a the joke "A duck walks into a bar and says..." because, they say, ducks can't talk. The point of the book is not that Jesus would run for office. The point is what if Jesus did run for office. The story is narrated by a mediocre reporter that Jesus chooses to head up his campaign security. The disciples Jesus chooses to help him are like the disciples he chose in the Bible. You scratch your head saying "Why would he choose...?" They're confused people lacking confidence like all the rest of us. I think Roland Merullo did an excellent job of capturing the essence of Jesus. Jesus was a man who intrigued the intellectuals. The Pharisees and Saducees might have hated Him but obviously He was no intellectual lightweight. Jesus can charm the women. He's a man's man. He's loved by children. He's macho and sensitive at the same time. He's humorous. He's sharp tongued. He infinitely patient yet at times He becomes exasperated. Just as some see the Jesus of the Bible as warrior and some a pacifist, such is Roland Merullo's Jesus.

Some might complain that Roland's Jesus is too left leaning or his Jesus is too right leaning. That's the point! The Jesus of the Bible was also criticized when His views didn't meet expectations. When He didn't come down on the side that was "obviously" right (like whether they should pay taxes to Caeasar). Roland Merullo's Jesus refuses to be politically correct.

Honestly, some of the characters in the book outside of Russell (who narrates the story) and Jesus are pretty flat. But, who wouldn't be standing next to Jesus? The story pulls you forward wondering what Jesus will reveal next. Roland puts some very deep theological/philosophical/existential thoughts in the mouth of Jesus. Some will find them too "New Age" I'm sure. But, this book is not really for your more fundamentalist Christians. It's for people who are still exploring who Jesus was, what He meant. What was His real mission? If He came back today, what would He do? Some might be shocked when Jesus says He didn't come (the first time or this time) to be worshipped. He came to be emulated. Those who think it's all about what you think of Jesus will be appalled to hear Jesus say He doesn't care what you think about Him only that you develop what is already inside of you. When Jesus refuses to take a stand making abortions illegal (and sounds more like Barack Obama than Sarah Palin) some will find that utterly unthinkable (as did several of the characters in the book). But, Roland presents us with a Jesus who is almost as mysterious and intriguing as the Jesus of the Bible.

The book is definitely worth a read.