Tag / Politics

by Greg

Constitutionally Speaking: We’ve Got It All Wrong!

Bill of RightsOK, I admit. That’s just a fun, “grab-your-attention” kind of headline.

But it’s not far from the real truth. At least for many of us U. S. Americans.

The first amendment protection of free speech, and more specifically the part about freedom of religion was the central part of an interesting discussion the other day.

It began innocently enough with me overhearing a conversation about how the Constitution might be applied in a case regarding State versus Federal powers. The Constitution was written to limit the Federal government’s power over the People, and also over the individual States’ governments.

That’s not very well understood today, by my reckoning.

Back to the scenario that was unfolding. One party was trying to suppose what outlandish bill might be passed by a state legislation, which, in context might have had something to do with religious activities, perhaps in schools. The other party suggested that perhaps the bill might try to instate mandatory school prayer. At this, the first party scoffed, rigidly stating that the Constitution would clearly prohibit such a thing. To which the second party responded—though backing off, slightly—that it might be possible at the state level. Party One maintained his unyielding stance that it was a definite violation of the Constitution to require prayer in a public school.

So, I thought, Actually, the second guy is kind of right—though, no state would ever require such a thing—that the states are free to pass such bills and laws, if they so choose. The federal government can not interfere with this if a state would choose to do so.

This is where I decided to join the conversation.

At first, Party One stuck to the, uh, “party line” of zero allowance for anything which could be seen as religious being mandated by the states, because the Constitution prohibits such a possibility. I maintained that while I thought that was an awful idea that would never even be attempted, it was not unconstitutional.

Let’s examine the First Amendment:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That’s it. Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof. The only other mention of religion in the Constitution is that there would be no “religious test” for becoming a congressman.

Today we interpret that one sentence above to mean that any public institution, office, official, or representative—any entity with any connection to any level of government—can not in any way espouse, promote, endorse, or engage in any activity which might be construed as “religious”.

But that’s not what it says at all, really.

I’m getting off track here. We can revisit the First Amendment in tomorrow’s post. Let’s stick to the topic: Federal vs. State powers.

Specifically, can the Federal government overrule a State government’s law or proclamation, or any such legislation intended for its citizens?

Thomas Jefferson is an interesting example here. When he was Governor of the State of Virginia, he called for a day of thanksgiving and prayer on December 9, 1779, saying:

“I do therefore by authority from the General Assembly issue this my proclamation, hereby appointing Thursday the 9th of December next, a day of publick and solemn Thanksgiving and Prayer to Almighty God, earnestly recommending that all the good people of this commonwealth, to set apart the day for those said purposes… (signed) Thomas Jefferson” [ref]

But as the third President of the United States, he said the following on the same (similar) subject:

“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises…Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. …But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises, which the Constitution has directly precluded them from…civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.” [ref]

Fascinating, huh? Doesn’t this seem to be two different ideas? Was Jefferson under duress when, as Governor, he wrote and signed that very religious-sounding proclamation of a day of Thanksgiving and Prayer for his state (the Commonwealth of Virginia)? Or did he just change his mind? I should think not the latter because he was the author of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom, which is one of the three lifetime achievements he wanted inscribed on his gravestone at Monticello. (A list which conspicuously does not include being President of the United States.)

Well, as it turns out, that’s not all there was to it.

I dug a bit more, and read a bit more, and found the full text for that response to Samuel Miller, quoted incompletely on the Monticello website (and above). It would seem that context would give us a much more clear picture of why Mr. Jefferson did not think it was his place (nor that of the “General Government”) to be “intermeddling with religious institutions”.

I know this is a bit long already, but I’d really like for you to read the following in its entirety.

Washington, Jan. 23, 08
Sir,

—I have duly received your favor of the 18th and am thankful to you for having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent than to refuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with. I consider the government of the US. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U. S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U. S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation the less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it’s exercises, it’s discipline, or it’s doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it.

I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But I have ever believed that the example of state executives led to the assumption of that authority by the general government, without due examination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in a state government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another. Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the US. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.

I again express my satisfaction that you have been so good as to give me an opportunity of explaining myself in a private letter, in which I could give my reasons more in detail than might have been done in a public answer: and I pray you to accept the assurances of my high esteem & respect. (Emphasis mine.)

Jefferson very clearly stated that (1) religious freedom, and the power to hold that, belonged with the people (and religious institutions) and the Constitution “deposited it” there, (2) that states “might” have the right to declare a public day of thanksgiving and prayer, but that (3) the general (federal) government, most certainly does not. So says the Constitution. (As well as one of the most ardent supporters of religious liberty.)

The main point for this first installment of Constitutionally Speaking is that the Constitution does not grant the Federal government supreme power. That is not and never was the intent. The intent of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was to grant some limited power to a federal governement that represented all the individual States as the United States of America. It was a compact created by the People, and the authority remained with the People and their State governments and representatives.

We have lost that today, in my opinion. It seems more that we view the power residing in Washington, and doled out as those in charge from there see fit.

That’s not how our government is supposed to function, however:

James Madison said as much in Federalist No. 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” [ref]

That does not sound like a government over the People, does it?

No. And that’s where we came from, and who we still are.

It’s essential that we have a proper understanding of our founding documents, but too often we just think we do. It is more common to find that someone has a second- or third-hand understanding of American governement, learned through a long-ago high school history course, or perhaps (and far worse) learned from some partisan commentator on talk radio or the internet. (And even worse than that… on TV!)

Original sources are the only way we can truly know history. Thankfully, we have those original sources very readily available to us. It may take more time and effort, but it’s definitely worth it, and will preserve the freedoms we have going forward, generation to generation.

Tomorrow I want to explore the First Amendment more in-depth. I hope you’ll join me! And please do add your thoughts in the comments below.

AND, lastly, and paramount: please find, purchase, own, and read the original documents! (Many of them are free in digital version!)

See you here tomorrow!

by Greg

Big Box Thinking

New-ish friend and somewhat-regular blog reader, Jessica, noticed a brief aside in this post not too long ago, and encouraged me to take some time to flesh out the thoughts that I previously quickly prohibited. (They were not directly related to the post being written then, and they also would have likely nearly doubled the length.) I did want to elaborate on the thought—at some point—but hadn’t gotten back to it yet.

Then today, I happened to hear someone lamenting that, “Nowadays, traveling state-to-state, you just see all the same things. The same stores, restaurants, etc. It’s all the same. But we’re not the same!”

Amen, said I.

That’s precisely my point. I believe the previous context was the emphasis we place on the election of the person to the office of President; the weight which we put on participation in this quadrennial event as opposed to the annual (and sometimes more often) elections for people who actually matter more to us in our daily lives.

Somehow we’ve gotten this idea that homogenous experiences trump individual, unique ones.

And so, all of our restaurants are the same. All of the stores we shop at are the same. In a few cases, what used to be many stores are all found in one place now. There is no difference from one city or state to the next, save a few landmarks and geographical differences. (And maybe the way they talk?)

And how could there be? We can travel around the world within a day. In fact, who needs to travel? We can be virtually anywhere at any time, thanks to technology. The “communities” we live in are getting smaller and smaller (along with being more homogenous) due to the accessibility we have to each other.

But is that all it is? Technology? I don’t think so. It feels like more. It seems like more. There is a general desire for a uniform experience, even uniform thinking. This is certainly a quality of human nature. It’s why peer pressure exists (and works), and it’s been employed by and on everyone for, well, probably since we came into existence.

The question is, does that truly agree with our nature? Is that the best thing for us?

As is quite obvious (despite our best efforts to hide it)… we are all different. E-ver-y, single, one of us. We might honestly have much in common with some folks we know, maybe especially our family, but when it comes down to it, we all are somehow, someway different from one another—maybe especially our family!

And that is how God designed us. He clearly made us with unique individual personalities and temperaments, likes and dislikes (loves and hates!), and he even made it more obvious with our outward appearance. As much as we are vastly different “on the inside”, we are just as obviously different “on the outside”. From skin tone to hair color (or lack of hair… color) to shapes of bodies to facial features; the list goes on and on.

We are different. Unique.

So why do we try to be the same?

Do you remember the segment on Sesame Street when we were growing up, “One of these things is not like the other…” The point of the activity was to look at several items and point out the one that was different. In that case, different was wrong, to be singled out and removed, changed to match the rest.

Hmmm… we learn things early in life, I guess?

The political stage is another great example of this. Maybe especially the current environment in our country. You are either liberal/Democrat or conservative/Republican. There are some who are “independent”—including Yours Truly who often trumpets his own libertarian leanings—but really, it often feels like most people are in one camp or the other. Then, depending on your location/current surroundings, there’s generally a consensus one way or the other on the “proper” worldview or ideology. Kinda scary, actually.

When we look at the commercial scene, the ubiquitous homogeneity continues. Chain restaurants are the most popular establishments, and can be found everywhere. When we traveled the country performing our music from ~2000 to ~2005, we discovered chains out west that we didn’t have here in the east, but even many of those are here now, and vice versa. (Not completely, of course. The general direction does seem to be toward being omnipresent, though.) For retail there are the Wal-marts, Targets, Costcos, etc. Each shopping mall across America also houses basically the same list of stores.

Is this good?

I was recently thinking about those restaurants. Even though I do enjoy their food, the fact that it is exactly the same food, same decor, same everything… kind of makes me question the reality of the food I’m consuming there. I mean, in order to achieve such a level of homogeneity, one would assume that there is at least a lack of fresh, local ingredients involved. (And in some cases, one might even question whether the homogenous product is actually consumable…)

(Note: One of our favorites of the chain restaurants is Chipotle. And, while they may meet most of the undesirable “chain” qualifications, I do believe they are somewhat unique in their use of local farms and fresh, local ingredients. Or, it may be that their delicious food has me very biased on this occasion…)

But not everyone is like this. (We are unique, remember?) There are folks who value their local retailers and eateries and groceries—does Wegmans count as our local grocer?? And there are people who care about local politics, local issues, local communities.

Is that better? I’m not sure. I keep coming back to it. I think we are made inside a fairly small enclosure (some of us larger than others) and when it comes down to it, we are only barely in control of just that: us. Everything else is out of our hands. So with our limited control, resources, abilities, and the whole being fixed to one place in time and space thing… it seems like smaller is what we’re made for.

Simpler. Nearer. More focus, more attention, more care given to where we are, who we are with.

Doesn’t that then spill over into the rest of our life? Being that we’re all in different places, with the potentially fewer relationships that cross our paths (though that can change many times over a long lifespan) … does that not precipitate a more unique experience?

I can definitely see the other side. The more experiences you have, the more different people you know, the more different you will be! But the other side of the coin seems to be that the greater our reach geographically, the more we want it to look and be the same.

I’m not really advocating one way over another here, just fleshing out some thoughts that have been surfacing in my brain every now and again. I do think we are made for simpler. But I am also completely aware of the fact that this might be part of my uniqueness. I might be made to be simpler? Perhaps.

However it turns out for you, just remember that you are unique. That could mean that you match a group of friends on 90% of your likes and dislikes and philosophies and worldviews.

But there’s still 10% that’s just you. And that’s definitely something to celebrate.

(Maybe with a nice dinner at your local diner?) 🙂

by Greg

The Presidential Election of 2012

“I’ve grown weary of the Republican primary campaigns.”

I think I may have spoken those words even an entire year ago.

Aren’t you? Or are you not even following along?

A friend asked a couple times recently what I thought of the presidential election race and I hesitated to offer my thoughts both because they are honestly not that well-formed, and equally because I am just a bit tired of thinking about it already!

But, as we are a republic, and we are electing one third of our governmental structure in about ten months, I suppose we all must pay attention at some point.

(But over a year before the election?!?)

Wearied by all the banter I see in articles (and subsequent reader comments) as well as things I hear on radio, and see in the multiple email forwards I receive from my politically-astute Dad, I decided to look up that website I had discovered a year or two ago.

VoteSmart.org has their VoteEasy tool up and running again (I’d guess it never comes down) and it’s a great way to start out gathering information and narrowing down who might be a candidate that would best represent you in Washington.

Please note that I said start out. It is critical that we investigate all claims made by reporters, political ads (especially these), and even friends. Whenever possible, go to the source.

I can’t emphasize that enough. (I did the best I could with the <strong> and <em> tags…)

I answered all the questions that VoteEasy uses to help you figure out which candidate might be the “best match” for you. I believe it’s clear that the site creators know they are just a good starting point because they don’t just tell you who to vote for. You can click on the picture of your Best Match and read their voting record, bills they authored, read/hear speeches, and see tons of information in their public record. Plus, you can of course click on all the other candidates, too, and do the same.

But, as I intend to do, verify the claims of any resource. And it’s best to verify by going to the original source as much as possible. The closer the information is to original (not filtered through several reports) the more reliable. (The reliability of the source should be gauged as well.)

It’s a lot of work, but I think we have a pretty messed up situation at all levels of government because for too long nearly all of us have neglected to actually verify the information we are fed; especially the crap that you hear from almost every political ad. Yuck.

(Ads in general greatly annoy me, but…. that’s a subject for a future post. It’s in my Draft folder…)

I’d love to know what your resources are for information on the candidates for President. Please add your thoughts and—most helpfully—links to the comments below.

The condition of our government is really always a reflection of the condition of us: We The People. After all, our elected officials—corrupt, greedy, power-hungry, disconnected, slimy politicians though they may be—are indeed pulled from the pool of us.

I believe that for so long we’ve been trained that our votes don’t matter. Conditioned to think we should leave government and “politics” up to the professionals. Sure we can vote, but since it’s not “our thing” we vote for the party our parents or our friends like (sometimes simply to avoid scorn) and we are quite easily swayed by the propaganda-like ads that bombard us for nearly a whole year before a “big” election. And so, we go on barely paying attention while money and power determine who “represents” us and the big-picture direction our country will take in the near and long-term future.

And it will only continue to get worse as long as we think that the government dictates to us, rather than represents us. We are the vehicle for change in a republican government (note the small ‘r’) and that goes beyond a vote cast every four years.

Get involved. Know what’s being done with your tax money. Both in your town and state, locally, and on the federal level as your state is represented in Washington. Information and knowledge go a long way; wield a lot of power.

But most of all, be a person of integrity. Character matters. You probably know that. You probably live that. But one reason we so disapprove of our representatives in government is that for so long in this country, character and integrity have not mattered. And, since our elected leaders are us… well… it’s a rather bleak picture.

The only way to reverse the trend is to know what you believe and live it. Honor life, freedom, liberty. Consider others before yourself. Live at peace with everyone.

It is indeed we who abide in Jesus who could (if we would) most affect the political landscape of our country.

I’m not talking about elections. I’m talking about living lives of integrity, loving justice, and treating everyone with the grace and mercy we’ve known so deeply we taste it.

That’s the only way we will truly change our country. No politician, no elected official, no representative can do anything as monumental as a concerned neighbor. You will most likely live your entire life not residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, as will I. But if each one of us treated the other like we’d want to be treated, then our country—even in Washington—would be the light on a hill our founders dreamt it could be.

Lastly, I’ll leave you with this. Watch this video. I posted it a while back. It’s a really neat way to see the current condition of our republic. Just depends on your perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYhgK15fDFE

by Greg

Both Sides of the Story

I’ve mentioned here many times that I am learning how crucial it is to see life from multiple angles. Getting not only information from people with opposing viewpoints, but really trying to step into their shoes; see from their perspective. It’s just so crucial to communication, to cooperation, interaction… to society in general.

And so often, we—being human, flawed, self-absorbed—we aren’t even aware that there are other legitimate perspectives!

Our son Ian has been very interested in the World War II time period of history. He’s been learning every bit he can not just about the battles, but the people—the leaders in particular—involved in the story. Winston Churchill and FDR, as well as Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. He’s previously read about Woodrow Wilson and WWI… definitely has a serious passion for history and biographies!

So much so that Mom (Jen) has even recently taken up a book about Roosevelt titled, “FDR’s Splendid Deception”, about the fact that President Roosevelt was never seen public in his wheelchair, so as to not appear weak. From all accounts, it’s a fascinating story.

Somehow all of this brought to mind a movie I had seen some time back. I posted a mini-review on that movie, Letters from Iwo Jima, and it’s counterpart, Flags of our Fathers, here on this site in 2007. Please go ahead and click the link and read that story. (That’s actually the main reason for this post: that you’d re-read that older post!)

The fascinating thing was, Flags was released first, and then Iwo Jima. They depicted the exact same story from history, but from opposite sides of the battle.

How much better off we’d be if we could do that with nearly every conflict or disagreement!

For a long time now, Jen and I and I have been reading through a modern translation of the Federalist Papers called The Original Argument. In Federalist #1, Alexander Hamilton addresses this subject (in an atmosphere where there were passionate arguments for and against the proposed Constitution):

Since the motives behind each of the opinions are so strong, it is certain that wise and good people will be found on both sides of the issues. This fact should remind us all to remain modest in our opinion—no matter how right we think we are.

I think that is still my favorite quote from all the papers we’ve examined so far. And again, how different would our political climate be today if that were the way everyone approached every issue, whether controversial or relatively benign?

Forget politics. What if we all treated each other that way? What if we presumed that we were not smarter, better, right-er than everyone else around us.

“Don’t be selfish; don’t try to impress others. Be humble, thinking of others as better than yourselves. Don’t look out only for your own interests, but take an interest in others, too.”

That’s where it starts. You can’t really even care about the perpective of your adversary or opponent—or anyone—if you know you are in some way (or all ways) superior.

I’d really encourage you to read that post about Letters from Iwo Jima, and as I recommended now almost five years ago, if you haven’t seen it… do.

The more we can see things from other view points, other perspectives, the more we can live at peace with others around us. (Which is what Paul says we need to do in the verse just before what I quoted above.)

So I encourage you to take a walk in someone else’s shoes today. You might be surprised what you see.

Scripture quote is Philippians 2:3-4, from the New Living Translation

by Greg

Joining The PIPA/SOPA Cause

OK, so I’m a bit late (publicly) to this cause, but I have been following along (actually for quite a while now, when there were just “whispers in the wind” on such legislation mentioned on This Week In Tech and other TWIT shows…

The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America = Not really the “good guys”) and the US Congress (again, not necessarily currently the “good guys”) are teaming up to put a halt to internet piracy. No more peer-to-peer downloading of movies and music and other things that you haven’t paid for! And, while I completely agree (especially as a content creator) that this is not a fair, honest, just, commendable practice, the answer is most definitely not granting the RIAA via the federal government the power to shut down any website they deem a potential piracy threat.

Please do read more. I’m going to post several links here below. It’s pretty easy to add your name to some existing petitions asking Congress to vote these bills down. But you can do more.

For this reason, GregsHead.net is joining the internet-wide strike against SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act)/PIPA (Protect IP Act of 2011).

The internet, for better or worse, is definitely a tool for the people—every person—to protect freedom. And it should remain that way.

So, enjoy the day off. Stop by here again January 19th, and we’ll pick up where we left off.

For now, please do visit these links. Let congress know that you want to keep the internet as free of federal regulation as possible.

SOPA/PIPA Info Links

by Greg

Gotta Be In The Same Room

Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other because they do not know each other; they do not know each other because they can not communicate; they can not communicate because they are separated. —Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I’ve been meaning to write this post many times over. It’s changed from time to time, focusing on one particular story or detail or another. But the core of it has remained the same: we are really not listening to each other.

Worse yet, we aren’t even trying. Worse still, we might not even know how!

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.The quote above is from a book I am reading written by Dr. King about his years in Montgomery, Alabama—the heart of the “Deep South”. And since today is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day… it seemed the perfect time to write out these thoughts!

Incredibly, in the 1950s—nearly 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, and almost 150 years since the slave trade had been abolished (see here and here)—the people of Montgomery still lived as two very separate groups of people.

You’ve heard the stories. “Whites” and “Negroes” or “Coloreds” were separated on buses, restaurants, drinking fountains, even churches. Montgomery was one of the more segregated cities in America.

Feeling like this was his home (the South), the current state of race relations understandably troubled King very much. Enough that he did something about it.

So much that he has his own holiday.

But one of the things he did was not political, nor legislative, nor even “activist”.

He just got people together.

He said in his book, early in the story, that one certain committee of people—the Montgomery Council—was vital to the health of his city, Montgomery, because it was the only place where both sides who were (more than) very polarized were actually together in the same room. Otherwise, there was no communication at all.

And when there’s no communication, there’s no understanding, and that leads to fear and hate as King said.

Isn’t that where we are today? It’s mostly not race-related*. (Though that reality certainly persists, even if lessened, and will to the end of time.) Today our divisions are social, political, idealogical. But they are just as divisive, and we are just as un-hearing of the “other” side. We are still “separated”.

Those of us who read the Huffington Post already know what the rest who get their news from The Blaze or Fox News think, and even what they will do. Those of us who vote Republican and identify with the Tea Party may have a bit more tolerance for other opinions (due to a love for individual freedoms), but often know with certitude what the CNN/MSNBC crowd think, and again, what they “will do”.

And so the incessant banter continues, without either side listening much past the first thing they think they heard the other side say.

We’ve gotta be in the same room. If not physically, then at least in spirit.

It is extremely rare to find anyone who is truly open enough to sit in the same room with a person who has equally deep convictions on any given subject or subjects, just in the opposing camp. We tend to congregate with people of like mind. And that can certainly be good, helpful, encouraging in a way, but it is most certainly not helpful towards a more united community, local or on a larger scale.

And so we continue in hate, produced by fear, produced by lack of knowledge, produced by a lack of communication (meaning when both sides are spoken, and heard) …

And we get nowhere. Only further apart. More polarized. Less of a Union.

An interesting piece for a future post is that when we were first forming our Constitution, one of the arguments for the forming of a stronger union was that the larger and more diverse the Union, the less power would be given to factions of any sort. Factions were defined as homogenous groups of people united on the things they hold in common (in contrast to other people or groups of people). So if the Union was comprised of people from all classes, faiths, backgrounds, cultures, etc, then no one group could ever get a majority power of any other minority group. (And again, I’m not mainly talking “races”.)

But in the end, we have to listen to each other. Really listen. (I’ve been talking about this for a while. Re-read this article when you can, along with the links within to two other articles.)

And finally, more than just listen… we need to do. That was what set MLK apart. He acted on his beliefs and convictions.

And the world was changed.

If you want some more reading for MLK Jr. Day, please check out my post from last year, or find a copy of Stride Towards Freedom somewhere. Or I’m also reading The Life and Death of Martin Luther King, Jr (though definitely not far enough in to recommend it, or not recommend), and you can just read his own words in his speeches online!

He was a great man of conviction, courage, principles, and above all he loved God and the people he made, regardless of skin color, or anything else external. He fought for that dream, and paid for that deep conviction with his life.

No greater love than this… to lay down his life for a friend.

His love for others brought people together, an we are better for it today.

Note: I agree with Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis who contends that there are no races… we are all one race. Since God made us all from two people, that would seem to follow. But this article is most certainly NOT about creationism! 🙂

by Greg

Decision Points

George Bush - Decision PointsWhen I first heard of the book that President George W. Bush recently published, I wasn’t sure that I’d ever need to read it. I had an inkling that it might be interesting, historically speaking, but I figured I wouldn’t probably spend my money on it.

But, as my choices dwindled for books to download with my collection of Audible.com credits, I decided to take a chance and made Decision Points one of my late 2010 selections.

I gotta say, it was definitely not a wasted credit.

For all the (undue) criticism this man took over his eight years in the Oval Office (and really, still today!) he really did accomplish quite a lot during his two terms.

Beyond reliving the list of things he accomplished, what I also really enjoyed was the first-person perspective on all the stories that were the big news makers of the day: 9-11, TARP, No Child Left Behind, Iraq, and much more in the Middle East. It really was a tumultuous time, and his book reminded me of two things. First, we who are “on the sidelines” really do not have the full picture. Second, the voices we listen to (the national media) think that they most certainly do!

(Reminds me of the Jim Mora press conference where he was obviously fed up with the sports reporters who thought they knew what was wrong with the team but in Mora’s opinion were wrong. Dead wrong. “You think you know … but you just don’t know. And you never will! OK?”)

Also I really appreciated getting to know more about how Bush began living his life with Jesus. I wasn’t aware that it was very much the direct influence of the famous preacher man, Billy Graham. There were many events and people in Bush’s early life that led him to the place where he decided to trust Jesus with his whole life, but Graham helped Bush make a decision regarding what he really believed and wanted to be: an early “decision point”.

The book also begins with reference after reference to how much young George Bush loved his liquor. I was kind of surprised as it was enough to make me start thinking, Does he really want us to think he’s such a boozer? (I can’t recall if, in my thoughts, I really used the word ‘boozer’ or not…) But it all makes more sense as the story continues to unfold, and he reveals how deciding to stop drinking was not just an early decision point, but a major and an important one.

One sort of minor story that stuck out to me was where he addressed the Bush Tax Cuts and specifically the unemployment rates. Speaking from memory here (writing?), I believe the unemployment rate was near 8% when he took office in 2001, and then following the the implementation of the tax cuts (and subsequent moves to pick up the pace of their taking effect) the rates dropped into the 5% range, hitting for months and years to follow, going as low as 5.2% or maybe 5.1%. And this was sustained for the whole 8 years of his presidency. The current rate (that keeps rising) is above 9%. I guess in the end, you can do whatever you want with numbers (interpret them however you please) but somehow that particular one jumped out at me.

Whether you are a fan of George W. Bush or not, the book is a pretty interesting read, and I do definitely recommend. Especially if you are into history, biographies, current events and the like. It was packed full of very interesting stories to be sure.

If you are NOT a fan… I really would encourage you to read the book with an open mind, and see if your thoughts on the man (and even what he did as President of the United States) might change at least a little.

When talking with a friend of mine, I mentioned how I really appreciated the “other side of the story” since so much of what we heard of these major events that took place our country and across the globe were reported with a (now more obvious) bias or slant. He questioned how I might consider the book, written by the man who was the subject of the biased and slanted reports to be not biased or slanted. I responded that the difference was in the amount of eye-witness, first-hand information. Unless he was flat-out lying (and some are 100% certain that he always does) then the stories within Decision Points will help broaden your perspective on all the key moments from 2000-2009. Many vantage points always helps.

It really was fascinating to take the journey of the entire span of his life in politics (and even before) as though we were living through the events with him. Whether you agree with his choices, his policies, or even his actions (and many times, Bush expressed how he wished he could have done a thing or two differently) I do believe that you’ll grow to understand why we did what we did (America) and have an appreciation for this tough, (incredibly) patient/enduring, spiritual and principled man; the 43rd president of the United States of America.

Lastly, I strongly believe that time and history will not only soften the harsh (and I believe unfair, unwarranted) way that this man was and still is viewed and treated, I really think that his legacy will be more correctly viewed as one of the more positive presidential terms in the first couple centuries of our nation. Much like I am learning about the legacy/reputation of Calvin Coolidge. He was nearly demonized during and shortly following his presidency until decades later when Ronald Reagan claimed him as his favorite US President. Once Reagan lent credence to Coolidge’s time as President, more people began investigating the truth of what he did as president, the things he accomplished and oversaw. I’d imagine a similar thing will occur for Mr. Bush.

If you have read the book, I’d love to know what you thought about it. Or, if you will not read the book, I’d love to hear why. Comment below!

by Greg

AZ Representative Shot, “Bullets” Still Flying

I am praying for us tonight.

I have been asking God for some extra specific guidance and bringing him a few more specific requests this week for us, meaning the Campbell family. We are on a very interesting ride at the moment… but that’s not what I’m talking about.

I’m sure you have heard by now that a young man opened fire on a small political event in the state of Arizona. Representative Gabrielle Giffords was appearing at a local SafeWay grocery store and she, along with many others, was hit by one of the bullets. Reports earlier said she had been killed, but as of right now, she is still alive, and they actually do expect her to recover.

The question is … will we?

The political debates in our country are ridiculous. I’ve written about it here before, we’re not listening to each other. (See also, “The (True) Fundamental Transformation of America“.) We’re slinging the SAME accusations at each other. We can not both be right! But … in a way, we are.

The point is, the games have to stop. We are all people. We’re not Democrats, Republicans, Tea Party-ers, Libertarians, Communists, or Socialists. We’re people. Yes, we are all Americans, and it’s good to have something we can unite on … but I say that, in the end, should be that we are people.

We are neighbors.

But unfortunately, we’re not. “We” are right, and “they” are wrong. “They” are crazy. It doesn’t matter what the issue, or which side of it you are on… “we” are right, and “they” are dangerously wacko.

It’s only because we are labeling people, and treating them as that objectified concept rather than finding what we do have in common and starting from there. That is certainly much easier than really trying to understand someone who thinks differently than you, and then trying to build on what you do have in common.

But which is better? I think that’s an easy answer.

So tonight, accusations fly. On all sides, of course. I found this blog post from The Telegraph that seems to encapsulate the majority of the accusations (as well as the facts). Well-linked, too.

And that’s why I’m asking God to cool heads.

The only person at fault here is the one who pulled the trigger. It’s not the books he said were his favorites (Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto) nor is it any “commentators and blogs” that he read. It’s not the Tea Party, nor the Republicans, nor the Democrats. It is one man, alone. (At least, so far it seems he was acting alone.)

But those who get to say what is really happening (the political voices, and the press) seem to be saying that the “heated political environment” has led to this. (And the worst accusations leverage the fact that she had a “D” in front of her name to blame the opposing “R” party and their constituents. Yikes.)

I really don’t have much to say except that if we just keep doing this “us” vs. “them” thing, we’re in big trouble.

Maybe we already are.

For now, I’m going to be praying.

by Greg

November 2nd, 2010 Elections: VoteSmart.org

2010 Elections - Vote!It’s election time (or nearly so) and that means we American citizens of voting age get to head out and browse a sheet full of names and parties—many of which we’ve never heard of until stepping into the voting booth—and then flip some switches and pull a big lever in order to fulfill our duties as the electorate. Problem is, what good does it do to vote for people whom you do not know? How can they represent you? And even worse (in my opinion) what good does it do to vote for a particular candidate just because they slapped a party name on their name tag?

That’s not how it should be. It’s our responsibility to know whom we are voting for, and why we are voting for them, and how they will represent us on local, state, and national levels.

It really is up to us.

So I’ve been thinking, I really need to set up a website where I can post information on all our local candidates, so that we all can read up on every candidate and, after knowing the facts, we can make a fair and impartial assessment and choose the candidate that best represents what we would want our government to look like and to do. That’s how it should work, anyway. But I’m just one guy… how could I have the time to look up all the candidates even just in the elections I can vote for, let alone the rest of the country?

So maybe a wiki of some sort? But… that’s still a bunch of work. (I am having this idea way too late, I suppose…)

Enter Google. After a quick search for “learn about candidates” I discovered VoteSmart.org. I don’t know much about them yet, but they do go out of their way on the About Us page to say they are independent, impartial, non-partisan, and they have good and equal representation from conservative and liberal viewpoints.

Cool. That’s just what I was looking for!

So I’ll see what else I can find, but for now, have a look at VoteSmart. (And maybe see if you can help them out. They are all volunteer and at a quick glance it looked like they are always grateful for help)

They also have a fun tool called “Vote Easy“. An interactive, Flash site that makes the learning more fun. You put in what you think about a dozen or so key issues (and how important they are to you) and then it helps match you with candidates, based on what is publicly know about them.

Please educate yourself. And, do so directly from the sources, not from political ads, talk shows, magazines, cable news channels, or other such secondary sources. I can’t emphasize that enough. We have, in general, gotten very lazy about this. Take the time to be a responsible, voting citizen. The resources are available to us, and you can vote with a bit more of an easy conscience when you know you’ve had your say—and you actually know what you said.

Voting day is just two weeks away. So get to work! 🙂

by Greg

Modern Parallels In 50-Year-Old Novel

Altas Shrugged by Ayn RandI am currently reading a book from the 1950s called “Atlas Shrugged”. It’s a novel about government and business, and the various interactions between regulations and “the public good” versus free market (and individual freedom), capitalism and profits and such. It’s quite intriguing on many levels (also very long!)

I had heard Ayn Rand’s name mentioned a time or two—it’s quite a memorable name—but I actually decided to read her novel based on seeing that a friend on Facebook had “liked” a group titled, “Plugging the Gulf oil leak with the works of Ayn Rand.” (Really? That’s really worth “liking”?)

Sufficiently intrigued, I looked up some information on Rand, and discovered her most notable—and controversial—title was the fictional story, Atlas Shrugged. I borrowed a copy from the library and have been reading it over the past several weeks. (I got the audio book as that is my favorite way to “read” fiction…)

As I was listening yesterday, these paragraphs stuck out to me as amazingly parallel to current events:

They had not heard the text of directive #10-289, but they knew what it would contain. They had known it for a long time. In that special manner which consisted of keeping secrets from oneself and leaving knowledge untranslated into words. And, by the same method, they now wished it was possible for them not to hear the words of the directive. It was to avoid moments such as this that all the complex twistings of their minds had been devised.

They wished the directive to go into effect. They wished it could be put into effect without words, so that they would not have to know that what they were doing was what it was.

Nobody had ever announced that directive #10-289 was the final goal of his efforts, yet for generations past men had worked to make it possible, and for months past every provision of it had been prepared for by countless speeches, articles, sermons, editorials; by purposeful voices that screamed with anger if anyone named their purpose.

Replace “directive #10-289” with the health care bill, and remember things spoken by our politicians like: “…we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what is in it,” or, “…read the bill… What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

Fascinating. And I do believe it’s true that for many generations we have systematically removed God from the foundation of our country and our lives, and then the family—the one main social structure of our society—began to crumble. And add to that the various social agendas of the various political groups… yuck.

I know that Atlas Shrugged is just fiction, but those paragraphs just jumped out at me. Food for thought, and perhaps discussion.

(See ya in the comments…)