Did he really say that? Yes, he did. (see here for text). To be fair, it wasn't the president, it was his spokesman. And he corrected it later in the day. And many people use this same mis-quote much of the time.
The president actually said "God wants to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work." I think it's interesting that he thinks God wants us to help ourselves, but by that he means the government helping us. But then I've always said that we're not electing a theologian in chief. I occasionally had problems with the previous president's theology and I'm sure I'll have problems from time to time with the next president as well.
This all brings me to my point. Over the next year, many of the candidates will say things that they don't have a chance to think through. Look beyond that. What is he really trying to say? What does his record say? What does he say in position speeches and papers? Those really determine what the person will do if he reaches office.
I'm not surprised that President Obama thinks that God wants the government to step in and help people who need jobs. This has been his approach all along. You may agree with the idea and you may disagree. But you shouldn't be surprised.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Thursday, November 03, 2011
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Should we blame God for our mistakes?
Ok, I'm going to step into a religious discussion again. I rarely do, but this one peaked my interest. Seems Steve Johnson, wide receiver for the Buffalo Bills literally dropped the ball in a football game. Not just any ball drop, a winning touchdown pass in overtime in the end-zone. And he wasn't too happy, so he tweeted about his frustration. The Yahoo! article is titled "Steve Johnson blames God for his overtime drop."
Now when you read his exact tweets, it seems to me that he really didn't blame God. He said "I PRAISE YOU 24/7!!!!!! AND THIS HOW YOU DO ME!!!!! YOU EXPECT ME TO LEARN FROM THIS??? HOW???!!! ILL NEVER FORGET THIS!! EVER!!! THX THO..." He did say he praises God 24/7 and he never really blamed God.
It's hard to tell if his ending "THX THO" is sarcastic or real. Since he said "THO," at the end, I take it as serious. And it seems to me that Johnson expects to learn something, although he can't figure out what it is to learn about. And I also noticed is that Johnson sure likes exclamation points!!!
But ignoring all of that and taking the writer Chris Chase at his word, let's assume Johnson was blaming God. Is it ok to blame God for our mistakes? We often see athletes giving God credit for wins, why not for losses?
Most people would say that God doesn't care who wins or loses a football game. I completely disagree. God cares about the sparrows and they are two for a penny. He knows how many hairs are on your head. If He cares about these little things, don't you think He cares about a football game? (Especially if it's a certain college team that LOST to another college team this past weekend). So what message might be in the loss for Steve Johnson?
I'm not usually one for great discernment, but I have a few ideas. First, I have to say that I'm glad Johnson didn't revert to the Flip Wilson excuse, he could have said the devil made him drop the ball. Possibly, the message that God wants Johnson to get is that he is not the center of the universe. And just to be clear, neither am I (although I think I'm pretty close some of the time). On this Sunday, there were 90 football players on the active game day roster. Add about 16 more on the bench, cheer-leaders, coaches, owners, fans, advertisers and TV viewers and there were a lot of people who had an interest in the outcome. Undoubtedly, some were upset and some were happy.
Did God make Steve drop the ball? I don't think so. Not any more than he made Johnson catch the ball so many times before. That's part of the free-will thing. Does God care about the dropped ball? I think He certainly does. How does God decide when to allow a dropped ball vs. stepping in with a minor miracle, blowing the ball a little? Beats me. That's why He's God and I'm only close to the center of the universe.
Is it Ok to blame God for things like this? Well, it wouldn't be the first time. Several people in the Bible blamed God, asked Him why and asked Him what they were supposed to learn. Johnson's not the first to do this and won't be the last. God's a big guy, with big shoulders, I think He can handle a few questions like the one's in this tweet. The real question, is where does He keep His Blackberry?
Now when you read his exact tweets, it seems to me that he really didn't blame God. He said "I PRAISE YOU 24/7!!!!!! AND THIS HOW YOU DO ME!!!!! YOU EXPECT ME TO LEARN FROM THIS??? HOW???!!! ILL NEVER FORGET THIS!! EVER!!! THX THO..." He did say he praises God 24/7 and he never really blamed God.
It's hard to tell if his ending "THX THO" is sarcastic or real. Since he said "THO," at the end, I take it as serious. And it seems to me that Johnson expects to learn something, although he can't figure out what it is to learn about. And I also noticed is that Johnson sure likes exclamation points!!!
But ignoring all of that and taking the writer Chris Chase at his word, let's assume Johnson was blaming God. Is it ok to blame God for our mistakes? We often see athletes giving God credit for wins, why not for losses?
Most people would say that God doesn't care who wins or loses a football game. I completely disagree. God cares about the sparrows and they are two for a penny. He knows how many hairs are on your head. If He cares about these little things, don't you think He cares about a football game? (Especially if it's a certain college team that LOST to another college team this past weekend). So what message might be in the loss for Steve Johnson?
I'm not usually one for great discernment, but I have a few ideas. First, I have to say that I'm glad Johnson didn't revert to the Flip Wilson excuse, he could have said the devil made him drop the ball. Possibly, the message that God wants Johnson to get is that he is not the center of the universe. And just to be clear, neither am I (although I think I'm pretty close some of the time). On this Sunday, there were 90 football players on the active game day roster. Add about 16 more on the bench, cheer-leaders, coaches, owners, fans, advertisers and TV viewers and there were a lot of people who had an interest in the outcome. Undoubtedly, some were upset and some were happy.
Did God make Steve drop the ball? I don't think so. Not any more than he made Johnson catch the ball so many times before. That's part of the free-will thing. Does God care about the dropped ball? I think He certainly does. How does God decide when to allow a dropped ball vs. stepping in with a minor miracle, blowing the ball a little? Beats me. That's why He's God and I'm only close to the center of the universe.
Is it Ok to blame God for things like this? Well, it wouldn't be the first time. Several people in the Bible blamed God, asked Him why and asked Him what they were supposed to learn. Johnson's not the first to do this and won't be the last. God's a big guy, with big shoulders, I think He can handle a few questions like the one's in this tweet. The real question, is where does He keep His Blackberry?
Monday, November 01, 2010
Goodbye to Wesley
A few times in the past I have taken on the duty of saying good bye to someone on my blog. Today is another such day.
Wesley would have been seven months old today. His mom was a close friend of both of my daughters and his maternal grandparents were close friends of mine. A little over two months ago, he started displaying signs of an illness that ended up being something in his immune system. His own body was attacking his red blood cells. On Friday, his fight ended.
Wesley's mom was like another daughter to me. She was always at my house and I know my girls were often at her house. One of my favorite memories was when she caught me napping (and snoring) on a Sunday afternoon. Her mom & dad helped my family on two major occasions (and numerous minor ones) when we needed it. Even though I moved 100 miles away twelve years ago, there was always the feeling that we would help each other out when needed.
While I travel frequently, only in the last couple of months have I gone to the town where Wesley was hospitalized. Then, out of the blue, I had two trips to the town. I took that as a sign that I was supposed to visit his family. I've said before that I don't believe in coincidence, that I believe in Providence (see here and here). I believe Providence caused me to have two business trips to see Wesley's family. I got to meet his dad and his paternal grandparents. And hopefully, I eased the burden on some old friends.
Goodbye Wesley. Your family will miss you, but rest assured that they are loved and we'll look out for them.
Wesley would have been seven months old today. His mom was a close friend of both of my daughters and his maternal grandparents were close friends of mine. A little over two months ago, he started displaying signs of an illness that ended up being something in his immune system. His own body was attacking his red blood cells. On Friday, his fight ended.
Wesley's mom was like another daughter to me. She was always at my house and I know my girls were often at her house. One of my favorite memories was when she caught me napping (and snoring) on a Sunday afternoon. Her mom & dad helped my family on two major occasions (and numerous minor ones) when we needed it. Even though I moved 100 miles away twelve years ago, there was always the feeling that we would help each other out when needed.
While I travel frequently, only in the last couple of months have I gone to the town where Wesley was hospitalized. Then, out of the blue, I had two trips to the town. I took that as a sign that I was supposed to visit his family. I've said before that I don't believe in coincidence, that I believe in Providence (see here and here). I believe Providence caused me to have two business trips to see Wesley's family. I got to meet his dad and his paternal grandparents. And hopefully, I eased the burden on some old friends.
Goodbye Wesley. Your family will miss you, but rest assured that they are loved and we'll look out for them.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Burning the Koran - Updated
*Update& - On tonight's news, I heard the White House has weighed in on the subject and said the church shouldn't burn the Koran. So how is it, that they come down on the side of freedom or religion and speech regarding the WTC mosque, but against it on this matter? Yes, this will be used (if they go through with it) as anti-American material by Muslims, but won't the WTC mosque be used as well? Why doesn't the White House realize that there are some matters that do NOT require their involvement?
You may have seen this story, where a pastor at a church in Florida plans to burn the Koran in a bonfire on 9/11 (the 9th anniversary) of the attack on the US by some Muslim extremists. The leaders of the movement say that they are doing this "to warn about the teaching and ideology of Islam."
My first hope is that the President stays out of this issue. Unfortunately, the current president has a tendency to take issues like this and escalate them to a national level (consider the WTC Mosque, the arrest of Prof. Gates and the firing of Shirley Sherrod). He seems to have the idea that he can fix any problem, if we will only listen to him.
My second thought on this is that the leaders of this church have every right to burn the books. As Americans, they have the right of free speech, especially religious speech. Part of our founding as a nation begins with the concept that we are free to express our own ideas and that we as a nation are better for it.
However, I see this as being much like the WTC mosque. While these Floridians have the right to bun the Koran, I think it's a bad idea. I seriously doubt that anyone will change their mind about following the Koran (one of the goals) because of the book burning. It gives Christianity a bad image, an image of being hateful. As I said in my previous post, just because someone has the right to do something, that doesn't make it right to do it.
One additional comment is that General Petraeus is concerned about the impact of this protest on soldiers in Afghanistan. I have mixed emotions about his concerns. My initial thought is that anything that puts a soldier's life in more danger should be stopped, and stopped quickly. However, what if there are other threats? What if some group decides to oppose apple pie distribution in states in the south and threaten soldiers because of it? Would we stop distributing apple pies? I hope not!!
Americans should not be held hostage to an idea, or from an idea, just because soldiers are threatened. They are fighting FOR the idea of free speech and to limit speech for their protection is contradictory. I also believe American soldiers are quite capable of fighting ANY enemy and to change our beliefs out of fear is ridiculous.
So what do you think? Burn the Koran? Ban the burn?
You may have seen this story, where a pastor at a church in Florida plans to burn the Koran in a bonfire on 9/11 (the 9th anniversary) of the attack on the US by some Muslim extremists. The leaders of the movement say that they are doing this "to warn about the teaching and ideology of Islam."
My first hope is that the President stays out of this issue. Unfortunately, the current president has a tendency to take issues like this and escalate them to a national level (consider the WTC Mosque, the arrest of Prof. Gates and the firing of Shirley Sherrod). He seems to have the idea that he can fix any problem, if we will only listen to him.
My second thought on this is that the leaders of this church have every right to burn the books. As Americans, they have the right of free speech, especially religious speech. Part of our founding as a nation begins with the concept that we are free to express our own ideas and that we as a nation are better for it.
However, I see this as being much like the WTC mosque. While these Floridians have the right to bun the Koran, I think it's a bad idea. I seriously doubt that anyone will change their mind about following the Koran (one of the goals) because of the book burning. It gives Christianity a bad image, an image of being hateful. As I said in my previous post, just because someone has the right to do something, that doesn't make it right to do it.
One additional comment is that General Petraeus is concerned about the impact of this protest on soldiers in Afghanistan. I have mixed emotions about his concerns. My initial thought is that anything that puts a soldier's life in more danger should be stopped, and stopped quickly. However, what if there are other threats? What if some group decides to oppose apple pie distribution in states in the south and threaten soldiers because of it? Would we stop distributing apple pies? I hope not!!
Americans should not be held hostage to an idea, or from an idea, just because soldiers are threatened. They are fighting FOR the idea of free speech and to limit speech for their protection is contradictory. I also believe American soldiers are quite capable of fighting ANY enemy and to change our beliefs out of fear is ridiculous.
So what do you think? Burn the Koran? Ban the burn?
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Baptism - Part 2
Yesterday, I restarted posting to my blog. It's been a long hiatus and I wasn't sure if I wanted to start back or not. But, I did and when I posted yesterday, I read my last posting. It was about baptism.
Well, I certainly didn't think about today's events when I re-started my blog. But, maybe there was something going on in my subconscious or maybe Someone was planning something.
Regardless, today was another baptism, but not at my church. Today, my son-in-law was baptized at a nearby state park in the lake. I've seen lake baptisms before and I think they are neat. Nothing wrong with a nice clean pool, but a lake works too.
As I said before, I believe baptism is a symbol, a sign of some previous action. Today's was neat because we had most of the family around to watch and to support Michael. The pastor pointed out that this doesn't mean he has it all together, but that he's working on it.
I like the way this was done today.
Well, I certainly didn't think about today's events when I re-started my blog. But, maybe there was something going on in my subconscious or maybe Someone was planning something.
As I said before, I believe baptism is a symbol, a sign of some previous action. Today's was neat because we had most of the family around to watch and to support Michael. The pastor pointed out that this doesn't mean he has it all together, but that he's working on it.
I like the way this was done today.
Friday, December 18, 2009
I'll put your Menorah beside my Christmas tree
A couple days ago, I posted an article about how Christmas trees should be allowed in the public square, because Christmas isn't really a Christian holiday. I must not have said something right, I figured I'd get tons of comments from both sides (I did receive one - thanks Thomas). If you want to read that original post, see here.
I heard something on the radio about a town that doesn't want to put up a Christmas tree because they would have to put up a Menorah and symbols of other religions. Personally, I think this is a good idea.
Let's put up a Christmas tree beside a Menorah. We'll also put up a symbol of Islam and a cross (a really good symbol of Christianity). For Agnosticism maybe we cut make a statue of a question mark and for Atheism an exclamation mark. We can even put a pentagram for Wicca believers.
As I thought of this, I thought that surely someone had done something like this before. With the aid of my favorite search engine, I was able to find the history of one previous display like this (you can read about it in 1 Kings 18:21-39).
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Ok, what's going on?
About four years ago (almost exactly), I posted an entry about Providence, the unseen hand of God. I don't really believe in coincidence, but as I wrote back then, it seems ostentatious to say God planned something. Providence seems like a good way to say it while not really saying it.
This week, Providence seems to be at work again. On two separate occasions, I had discussions with two different friends about two different religious matters. Then, I had three different religious discussions on three different blogs (again on different matters). I typically steer away from these things, but these three discussions just came out.
Then it hit me, Providence. There's something behind this. What's going on?
This week, Providence seems to be at work again. On two separate occasions, I had discussions with two different friends about two different religious matters. Then, I had three different religious discussions on three different blogs (again on different matters). I typically steer away from these things, but these three discussions just came out.
Then it hit me, Providence. There's something behind this. What's going on?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Bummer of a birthmark, Hal
No real time to blog today. I'm enjoying coffee in a cup with a Far Side comic strip. (You can buy the cup on E-Bay here). I can't find a picture to cut/paste here and it would probably violate copyright laws, but I'll describe it.
Two deer standing on their hind legs, are talking together like two human beings (typical Larson). One of them stares down at his furry chest upon which is emblazoned a giant circular target with smaller and smaller rings ending in a bulls-eye right over the deer's heart. The other deer takes one look and quips, "Bummer of a birthmark, Hal."
I searched for a picture and came across this site that points out the religious aspect of this cartoon. "The fact is we are all born with a fatal birthmark. According to the Bible, we have all inherited a sinful nature which inclines us toward sin, and furthermore have sinned and are thus destined to die. Romans 5:12; 6:23."
Two deer standing on their hind legs, are talking together like two human beings (typical Larson). One of them stares down at his furry chest upon which is emblazoned a giant circular target with smaller and smaller rings ending in a bulls-eye right over the deer's heart. The other deer takes one look and quips, "Bummer of a birthmark, Hal."
I searched for a picture and came across this site that points out the religious aspect of this cartoon. "The fact is we are all born with a fatal birthmark. According to the Bible, we have all inherited a sinful nature which inclines us toward sin, and furthermore have sinned and are thus destined to die. Romans 5:12; 6:23."
Monday, January 26, 2009
Blog reading diversity
I try to be somewhat diverse in my blog reading. Certainly most of what I read is stuff written by Christians who are politically conservative. But I read blogs about politics, religion, life in general and even a daily blog by a Miata lover (Brian almost makes me covet his red Miata).
But lately I've been looking for some greater diversity in what I read. My posts on contrary evidence, Super-heroes needing an antagonist and even on diversity itself were basically disguised attempts to look for another blog or two that I could read.
So if you know of a good blog from another view, especially a political or religious blog, let me know.
But lately I've been looking for some greater diversity in what I read. My posts on contrary evidence, Super-heroes needing an antagonist and even on diversity itself were basically disguised attempts to look for another blog or two that I could read.
So if you know of a good blog from another view, especially a political or religious blog, let me know.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Do you believe this 100%
Earlie this week, I focused on some "facts" that I find almost unbelievable. Did you realize we're moving at over 1,000 miles per hour? Today, I'll get to my main point, do you believe the Bible 100%? I do, but I also confess that sometimes it's a little hard to believe it all.
When I first became a Christian, there were a lot of parts of the Bible I didn't believe. I mean creation in 7 days? A man swallowed by a fish, came out three days later and preached? Come on, let's get real. But as I get older and understand more, I begin to believe more. Most of the change came when I accepted the fact that God is god and I am not. If He truly is God, He can do anything He wants. Creating the world in 7 days seems to be easy enough. Why when you really get down to it, He only needed 6 days and most of that was just looking around at what He had made thinking "man, look what I did."
So, here's my point. Maybe you have trouble believing everything in the Bible. That's OK, God has seen and heard that before. He can handle it. The real key is do you trust Him to handle it? God said there is one way to Him, through His Son Jesus. Once you accept Jesus, the rest is easy. If He can create the world in 7 days, surely He can work with you to understand His Word.
If you haven't come to the point where you trust Him yet, or if you trust Him, but don't completely believe all the stories you've heard, then why not read His Word? Read the stories and ask Him to explain it to you. Then read some more.
When I first became a Christian, there were a lot of parts of the Bible I didn't believe. I mean creation in 7 days? A man swallowed by a fish, came out three days later and preached? Come on, let's get real. But as I get older and understand more, I begin to believe more. Most of the change came when I accepted the fact that God is god and I am not. If He truly is God, He can do anything He wants. Creating the world in 7 days seems to be easy enough. Why when you really get down to it, He only needed 6 days and most of that was just looking around at what He had made thinking "man, look what I did."
So, here's my point. Maybe you have trouble believing everything in the Bible. That's OK, God has seen and heard that before. He can handle it. The real key is do you trust Him to handle it? God said there is one way to Him, through His Son Jesus. Once you accept Jesus, the rest is easy. If He can create the world in 7 days, surely He can work with you to understand His Word.
If you haven't come to the point where you trust Him yet, or if you trust Him, but don't completely believe all the stories you've heard, then why not read His Word? Read the stories and ask Him to explain it to you. Then read some more.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Why blog?
A few months ago, my friend Neil posted this question on his blog. I recently posted some comments on a liberal blog and was asked the question, why I would post there, when it was primarily liberals who visited there. The comments were later clarified, I don't mean to imply I was made non-welcome or anything. In fact, I had a nice dialog via email after the initial banter.
But it got me to thinking about Neil's post again. Why do you blog and why do you read blogs? I'm going to list several possible answers and some comments to them. Neil, I apologize for stealing your idea.
1) Some people blog in order to inflame like-minded individuals. This is good. You'll likely attract a lot of people who think the same way. Use words like "stupid" and "narrow-minded" to describe those who disagree with you and you'll likely make a lot of points with those on your side. These blogs seem to mostly be about religion or politics.
2) Some people blog to inflame the opposition. Another good reason. See comments above. You're not likely to make friends, but then you're not likely to see these people in person, so who cares.
3) Some people blog for fun. They really don't care if anyone else reads what they have to say or not. This is good too. I confess, I sometimes fall into this category. I've gotten some good comments back on some of the movies/books I've read and added new material to my list of things to read in the future.
4) Some people blog to inform. This is tough. You need to find something that people care about, then present it in an unbiased, un-flamable matter. If you use words like "stupid" and "narrow-minded", you'll never reach those on the other side. And if you only reach those on your side, have you really informed, or were you just preaching to the choir?
5) Some people think they are journalists. This brings to mind the difference between journalism and editorializing. The former expresses facts, the latter expresses opinion. I know, the line can be blurred easily, with statements like "Randy refused to answer questions about his wife-beating habits" (if you asked those kinds of questions of me, I'd refuse, but that doesn't mean I beat her - I'm much too afraid of her).
I confess, I fall into the journalist/editorial categories sometimes. I actually never consider myself a journalist, I know one and that would be an insult to him. But sometimes I do report my findings in an unbiased manner (recent Obama and McCain post are two cases) and then follow up with editorial comments (Obama1 & Obama2, McCain).
Ok, I've probably inflamed some people with these comments. I will say they are not intended for any of my regular readers or the person with whom I recently exchanged emails. But they do reflect an opinion of what I've seen in blogs and in comments on blogs.
The real question is why do you read and/or write blogs?
But it got me to thinking about Neil's post again. Why do you blog and why do you read blogs? I'm going to list several possible answers and some comments to them. Neil, I apologize for stealing your idea.
1) Some people blog in order to inflame like-minded individuals. This is good. You'll likely attract a lot of people who think the same way. Use words like "stupid" and "narrow-minded" to describe those who disagree with you and you'll likely make a lot of points with those on your side. These blogs seem to mostly be about religion or politics.
2) Some people blog to inflame the opposition. Another good reason. See comments above. You're not likely to make friends, but then you're not likely to see these people in person, so who cares.
3) Some people blog for fun. They really don't care if anyone else reads what they have to say or not. This is good too. I confess, I sometimes fall into this category. I've gotten some good comments back on some of the movies/books I've read and added new material to my list of things to read in the future.
4) Some people blog to inform. This is tough. You need to find something that people care about, then present it in an unbiased, un-flamable matter. If you use words like "stupid" and "narrow-minded", you'll never reach those on the other side. And if you only reach those on your side, have you really informed, or were you just preaching to the choir?
5) Some people think they are journalists. This brings to mind the difference between journalism and editorializing. The former expresses facts, the latter expresses opinion. I know, the line can be blurred easily, with statements like "Randy refused to answer questions about his wife-beating habits" (if you asked those kinds of questions of me, I'd refuse, but that doesn't mean I beat her - I'm much too afraid of her).
I confess, I fall into the journalist/editorial categories sometimes. I actually never consider myself a journalist, I know one and that would be an insult to him. But sometimes I do report my findings in an unbiased manner (recent Obama and McCain post are two cases) and then follow up with editorial comments (Obama1 & Obama2, McCain).
Ok, I've probably inflamed some people with these comments. I will say they are not intended for any of my regular readers or the person with whom I recently exchanged emails. But they do reflect an opinion of what I've seen in blogs and in comments on blogs.
The real question is why do you read and/or write blogs?
Monday, March 24, 2008
Obama's speech on racism
Warning: This entry could surprise my friends on both sides of the political aisle.
If you're like me, you heard tons about Obama's speech on racism. I've heard nothing positive about it. I listen mostly to conservative talk radio and no one expects them to say anything good about Obama. I also listen to the big networks and they had nothing positive to say either. Years ago I tried listening to liberal talk radio and I just couldn't stomach it.
In 1992, Dan Quayle made his famous Murphy Brown speech. This was when Al Gore was still inventing the internet, so I depended on the main-stream media to read the real speech. By the time it came out, most political candidates had changed their tune and were supporting Quayle's ideas, if not his speech. What a turn-around!
I learned from that experience to go to the source. So today, I took time to read Obama's speech. You can find it here. To my surprise, I found very little in Obama's words with which I disagree.
Sen. Obama's speech included lots of words about Rev. Wright, but that was no more the topic than was Quayle's speech about a TV character back in 1992 (it was about a poverty of values, including absent fathers - which Obama mentioned also). Rather, Obama was talking for the first half of the speech about racism in America. I thought he did a good job expaining the situation. Yes, he spent time defending his views on Wright, but that's not all the speech is about.
At this point, I should indentify myself as a white American. Born and raised in the south and proud of it. I have looked back for about 4 generations and all of these ancestors were raised in the south. I don't know if any ever owned slaves, but I know some fought in the civil war (and not for the north). I do know that some of my relatives have harbored racist feelings and for that I am not proud. I'll also apologize to anyone offended by the term "black". I'll use that in this entry: it's what Obama used in his speech and it's shorter than "African American". I should also point out that I will assume that his speech matches the way Obama feels. I have no doubt that he has speech writers who wrote good portions of the speech, but he gets all the credit and all the blame.
Obama's speech was very well written and shows a good bit of intelligence. Four years ago, I realized that this man was going to be somebody. Starting with a quotation from the Constitution and tracing slavery through the halls of the Philadelphia convention, Obama spoke without malice about the process and the realization that "words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage."
Senator Obama gets it. Neither then, nor now, can "words on parchment" solve the problem. He also gets it that racism cuts both ways. He talks about "white racism" and "divisive comments" by Wright.
Then he transitions his speech. "Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze"
In other words, both black and white racism distract us from the real problems. I agree 100%. He says that "to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding." In all, I think he spoke more about reverse racism (anti-white) than he did about racism (anti-black). I haven't counted words and think that that too would "block the path to understanding."
What are the real problems? Obama sites these items: 1) Big Business, 2) Washington politics and 3) economic policies that favor the few over the many.
He identifies some specific actions for blacks: 1) embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past, 2) continuing to insist on justice and 3) binding our particular grievances to the larger aspirations of all Americans. This is also where he talks about absent fathers (where's Quayle when you need him?).
He identifies some specific actions for whites: acknowledge that racism is real with both words and deeds (investing in schools and communities, enforcing civil rights laws, providing "ladders of opportunities).
Then he transitions again by asking us not to focus on racism. Instead he wants us to focus on education, on health care, jobs (and offshoring) and bringing the troops home "from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged".
He also mentioned that Wright sees "the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily (with) ... allies like Israel, instead of (starting with ) radical Islam."
So, that's a condensation of Obama's speech, I'll explore my comments on it in a couple of days. I'd be interested in your comments. I'd be especially interested in any comments on the comparisons between Obama and Quayle.
If you're like me, you heard tons about Obama's speech on racism. I've heard nothing positive about it. I listen mostly to conservative talk radio and no one expects them to say anything good about Obama. I also listen to the big networks and they had nothing positive to say either. Years ago I tried listening to liberal talk radio and I just couldn't stomach it.
In 1992, Dan Quayle made his famous Murphy Brown speech. This was when Al Gore was still inventing the internet, so I depended on the main-stream media to read the real speech. By the time it came out, most political candidates had changed their tune and were supporting Quayle's ideas, if not his speech. What a turn-around!
I learned from that experience to go to the source. So today, I took time to read Obama's speech. You can find it here. To my surprise, I found very little in Obama's words with which I disagree.
Sen. Obama's speech included lots of words about Rev. Wright, but that was no more the topic than was Quayle's speech about a TV character back in 1992 (it was about a poverty of values, including absent fathers - which Obama mentioned also). Rather, Obama was talking for the first half of the speech about racism in America. I thought he did a good job expaining the situation. Yes, he spent time defending his views on Wright, but that's not all the speech is about.
At this point, I should indentify myself as a white American. Born and raised in the south and proud of it. I have looked back for about 4 generations and all of these ancestors were raised in the south. I don't know if any ever owned slaves, but I know some fought in the civil war (and not for the north). I do know that some of my relatives have harbored racist feelings and for that I am not proud. I'll also apologize to anyone offended by the term "black". I'll use that in this entry: it's what Obama used in his speech and it's shorter than "African American". I should also point out that I will assume that his speech matches the way Obama feels. I have no doubt that he has speech writers who wrote good portions of the speech, but he gets all the credit and all the blame.
Obama's speech was very well written and shows a good bit of intelligence. Four years ago, I realized that this man was going to be somebody. Starting with a quotation from the Constitution and tracing slavery through the halls of the Philadelphia convention, Obama spoke without malice about the process and the realization that "words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage."
Senator Obama gets it. Neither then, nor now, can "words on parchment" solve the problem. He also gets it that racism cuts both ways. He talks about "white racism" and "divisive comments" by Wright.
Then he transitions his speech. "Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze"
In other words, both black and white racism distract us from the real problems. I agree 100%. He says that "to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding." In all, I think he spoke more about reverse racism (anti-white) than he did about racism (anti-black). I haven't counted words and think that that too would "block the path to understanding."
What are the real problems? Obama sites these items: 1) Big Business, 2) Washington politics and 3) economic policies that favor the few over the many.
He identifies some specific actions for blacks: 1) embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past, 2) continuing to insist on justice and 3) binding our particular grievances to the larger aspirations of all Americans. This is also where he talks about absent fathers (where's Quayle when you need him?).
He identifies some specific actions for whites: acknowledge that racism is real with both words and deeds (investing in schools and communities, enforcing civil rights laws, providing "ladders of opportunities).
Then he transitions again by asking us not to focus on racism. Instead he wants us to focus on education, on health care, jobs (and offshoring) and bringing the troops home "from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged".
He also mentioned that Wright sees "the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily (with) ... allies like Israel, instead of (starting with ) radical Islam."
So, that's a condensation of Obama's speech, I'll explore my comments on it in a couple of days. I'd be interested in your comments. I'd be especially interested in any comments on the comparisons between Obama and Quayle.
Friday, January 18, 2008
I approved this message - Foreign affairs
I've been extremely busy and unable to get to my second point until today. But, as previously noted, my popularity seems to have managed quite well even in my absense. 100% approval rating of my previous comments and Google front page status can't lie - I'm in it to win.
But enough grand-standing. Both of my regular readers will recall that I'm outlining planks in my political platform for my presidential run. By doing so, my goal is to actually establish WHY I support a certain candidate as soon as I identify that candidate.
My first point was on national defense, this post is on foreign affairs. Now I truly believe that if one of the active candidates makes it to the White House, her husband will be involved in several foreign affairs. However, I'm talking about, not about sexual relationships, but our political relationships as an American nation with other nations. (Note that I did not speak about any candidate, but the candidate's husband. And I didn't even mention a name.)
I believe that foreign affairs and how they are handled is the second most important topic affecting the president. How we interact with other countries affects our national defense (#1 priority) is directly related to isolationism (#3) and greatly affects our economy (#4).
I am concerned about relations with the following countries/areas: Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration).
Russia is still our long term greatest enemy. As the second nuclear power in the world, they still have a strong political hatred of America and work hard to promote our other enemies. We need to establish semi-regular summit meetings to see where we agree and to strengthen our relationships. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The economic market in Russia is not as big as other countries, but it is still significant. With joint ventures between our two countries, we can accomplish much more. We have no reason to fear them and no reason to hate them.
Our greatest short term enemy is Iran. Looking at our history with Iran (going back to before the last Shah), we don't manage our relationships with Iran very well. Our best solution with Iran is to avoid confrontation, but to continue our position of strength. We need to allow Israel to do whatever they want to Iran (which will probably result in the destruction of Iran if allowed 100% of Israeli will). While Iran is greatest short term enemy, we can outlast them and develop strong ties with them when (or if) their government changes.
It is difficult to know how to work with Pakistan. On the one hand, they have been one of our allies in the war in Afghanistan. On the other hand, they haven't been a strong ally and at times have aided the enemy. We should work to encourage democracy in Pakistan and push them for greater cooperation. We should limit our direct involvement in Pakistanian matters and work to gain other allies in the event Pakistan moves away from us.
I link India and China together. In my mind, but countries should be treated alike (with the exception of human rights). Both countries have much to gain by working with the US. By holding taxes and tarrifs as a potential punishment on both countries, we can work for change. Both countries need to do more to respect child-labor laws and to respect American copyrights and patents. They have more to lose than the U.S. does if we hold their feet to the fire for fair trade.
Now a word about human rights in China. That country still pratices strong repression of religion. We should work to encourage some degree of freedom of religion and to restrict persecution. The countries forced reduction in birth rate, is touchy. As a country, they do need to reduce population growth, but the methods are not right. We should encourage greater relaxation in adoption by other countries.
Mexican relations are poor now, and there is no reason. As one of our bordering countries, we should work with Mexico to strengthen relations. We should work together to form an immigration policy that fits our needs and is palatable to Mexico. There is a great feeling in this country that Mexicao doesn't want us to have a policy, that they appreciate getting rid of some of these people and that they appreciate American money going into Mexico. We can erect a wall, both physical and economic, but instead we should work with the Mexican government.
South America and Africa are still frontier land. As a people, we need to be concerned about the tyranny in some of these areas, the diseases and the problems. We need to spend more on supporting these areas and on education. Educate the people on everything from the three R's to how to build a government, how to maintain an economy and how to build.
That's my foreign policy statement. I'm sure there's parts I left out. As soon as I have a secretary of state, I will work to develop this policy further.
But enough grand-standing. Both of my regular readers will recall that I'm outlining planks in my political platform for my presidential run. By doing so, my goal is to actually establish WHY I support a certain candidate as soon as I identify that candidate.
My first point was on national defense, this post is on foreign affairs. Now I truly believe that if one of the active candidates makes it to the White House, her husband will be involved in several foreign affairs. However, I'm talking about, not about sexual relationships, but our political relationships as an American nation with other nations. (Note that I did not speak about any candidate, but the candidate's husband. And I didn't even mention a name.)
I believe that foreign affairs and how they are handled is the second most important topic affecting the president. How we interact with other countries affects our national defense (#1 priority) is directly related to isolationism (#3) and greatly affects our economy (#4).
I am concerned about relations with the following countries/areas: Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration).
Russia is still our long term greatest enemy. As the second nuclear power in the world, they still have a strong political hatred of America and work hard to promote our other enemies. We need to establish semi-regular summit meetings to see where we agree and to strengthen our relationships. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The economic market in Russia is not as big as other countries, but it is still significant. With joint ventures between our two countries, we can accomplish much more. We have no reason to fear them and no reason to hate them.
Our greatest short term enemy is Iran. Looking at our history with Iran (going back to before the last Shah), we don't manage our relationships with Iran very well. Our best solution with Iran is to avoid confrontation, but to continue our position of strength. We need to allow Israel to do whatever they want to Iran (which will probably result in the destruction of Iran if allowed 100% of Israeli will). While Iran is greatest short term enemy, we can outlast them and develop strong ties with them when (or if) their government changes.
It is difficult to know how to work with Pakistan. On the one hand, they have been one of our allies in the war in Afghanistan. On the other hand, they haven't been a strong ally and at times have aided the enemy. We should work to encourage democracy in Pakistan and push them for greater cooperation. We should limit our direct involvement in Pakistanian matters and work to gain other allies in the event Pakistan moves away from us.
I link India and China together. In my mind, but countries should be treated alike (with the exception of human rights). Both countries have much to gain by working with the US. By holding taxes and tarrifs as a potential punishment on both countries, we can work for change. Both countries need to do more to respect child-labor laws and to respect American copyrights and patents. They have more to lose than the U.S. does if we hold their feet to the fire for fair trade.
Now a word about human rights in China. That country still pratices strong repression of religion. We should work to encourage some degree of freedom of religion and to restrict persecution. The countries forced reduction in birth rate, is touchy. As a country, they do need to reduce population growth, but the methods are not right. We should encourage greater relaxation in adoption by other countries.
Mexican relations are poor now, and there is no reason. As one of our bordering countries, we should work with Mexico to strengthen relations. We should work together to form an immigration policy that fits our needs and is palatable to Mexico. There is a great feeling in this country that Mexicao doesn't want us to have a policy, that they appreciate getting rid of some of these people and that they appreciate American money going into Mexico. We can erect a wall, both physical and economic, but instead we should work with the Mexican government.
South America and Africa are still frontier land. As a people, we need to be concerned about the tyranny in some of these areas, the diseases and the problems. We need to spend more on supporting these areas and on education. Educate the people on everything from the three R's to how to build a government, how to maintain an economy and how to build.
That's my foreign policy statement. I'm sure there's parts I left out. As soon as I have a secretary of state, I will work to develop this policy further.
Friday, December 14, 2007
I am Legend
We went to see this movie tonight. If the showing we were at was representative, it will make a lot of money this weekend.
Overall, it was a good flick. I'm an SF fan, so last-man-on-earth movies are nothing new to me. But, hey, it's got Will Smith, so it ought to be good, right? My wife was terrified at some of the scenes, she nearly came out of her seat. My sister (who hasn't seen it - we talked after the movie) said she thought it was a horror movie. In some ways, it was. But the horror was reasonable horror (what an oxymoron!)
What surprised me the most was the religious references. They were done in good taste, if a little bit hurried and pushed. Even Smith's character declaring there is no God made sense. And religious folks will be glad the way it was all handled.
Overall, a good movie. Made for the big screen, with surround sound and all (there was glass falling behind us in one scene - neat). Spend the $9 (or less for a matinee), don't wait for the DVD. And warn your wife that it could be a little bit bloody and jumpy.
Overall, it was a good flick. I'm an SF fan, so last-man-on-earth movies are nothing new to me. But, hey, it's got Will Smith, so it ought to be good, right? My wife was terrified at some of the scenes, she nearly came out of her seat. My sister (who hasn't seen it - we talked after the movie) said she thought it was a horror movie. In some ways, it was. But the horror was reasonable horror (what an oxymoron!)
What surprised me the most was the religious references. They were done in good taste, if a little bit hurried and pushed. Even Smith's character declaring there is no God made sense. And religious folks will be glad the way it was all handled.
Overall, a good movie. Made for the big screen, with surround sound and all (there was glass falling behind us in one scene - neat). Spend the $9 (or less for a matinee), don't wait for the DVD. And warn your wife that it could be a little bit bloody and jumpy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)