The "Social" Network

Socialism is such a bad word these days; I've been trying to figure this one out.

I know all the rhetoric about socialism as a step in Marx's progression toward his particular vision of the utopian society, one in which capitalism is eventually succeeded by communism. I understand why some folks are willing to use that as a scare tactic to achieve their political ends.

But I also know that socialism, per se, is just an idea. It is not, in and of itself, anything to be afraid of.

Socialism as idea is simply one of many ways to think about how our society will be ordered. As the Random House Dictionary points out, socialism is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

We're already socialists, folks. 

As communities, we have vested interests, ownership, and control of entities such as our police and fire departments, our public schools, libraries, and recreational facilities. We support and control them together through our political process; are advocates of anti-socialism proposing that we get rid of all of these entities and move them under the control of unregulated capitalists?

I haven't heard too many people-- especially amongst the Tea Party faithful and other fiscal conservatives-- volunteering to give up their Social Security benefits, including the oft-maligned and over-bloated Medicare system. Without a doubt, Social Security has some grave issues that it must face and should be brought under some form of control. 

But-- and correct me if I'm wrong here-- it is still a social program, one that is supported by millions of American voters. Strictly speaking, it is socialist! Just exactly what capitalist proposal would take the place of the safety net provided by Social Security, I prithee?

(And, just for clarity's sake, I am not advocating the overthrow of capitalism, per se, either; like socialism, democracy, etc., it is simply one of the options and ideals that we should continue to examine and put into place.) 

I don't know. Opposing the terrible "socialist" agenda of President Obama is awfully popular these days, and probably will enable a new herd of political leadership to ride into Washington and assorted state capitals early next year. I'm just wondering what the Republicans and independents who may find themselves in control of the Congress will propose. 

I just hope it ain't more of that dadgum socialist garbage...like paying grandmomma's hospital bill because she can't!

Stuff We Think We Know

Soon, the hot air quotient in America will go down; the mid-term elections will be history.

There is no shortage of rhetoric, revelations, accusations, and downright hogwash as candidates fight it out to the end. Everybody wants to get the last word in with the electorate (or, perhaps, the last robo-call. Who invented those demonic devices, anyway?)

I read an interesting column today, written by Dave Johnson of the Campaign for America's Future. Let me save some of you the trouble of looking the organization up; it is an acknowledged "progressive" think tank. I am one person who doesn't think the word progressive is a dirty word.

Progress is not God, but it ain't bad. I'm thinking here of the kind of progress that has given us, say, Jonas Salk, or Pampers, or multiple flavors of Philadelphia Cream Cheese -- just to name a few brilliant examples.

Mr. Johnson has written about "a number of things the public 'knows' as we head into the election that are just false." (article available here) Of course, what he really wants to do is hold out the possibility that the public may not know as much as it thinks it knows.

I wondered if he was just another left-wing breezebag, shouting paeans of praise blindly to President Obama.

I dunno; you be the judge:

Everybody knows that President Obama tripled the deficit.
Reality: Bush's last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama's first budget reduced that to $1.29 trillion (Reuters News Service report from October  16, 2010 -- read it here. Apparently Obama actually DID reduce the deficit. Geez!)

Everybody knows that President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy.
Reality: Obama cut taxes. (see the New York Times article here -- it's TRUE!)

Everybody knows that President Obama bailed out the banks.
Reality: The bank bailouts were requested by President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Again, the New York Times -- read it here. Facts are such pesky things!)

Everybody knows that health care reform costs $1 trillion.
Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion. (Again, Reuters citing the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office -- read it here. Maybe they should add those figures again!)

Okay, okay, enough already! You had me at tripling the deficit!

If you have managed to read this far, I hope you'll take the time to share at least one of these facts with at least one of your friends. I just happen to believe that it still matters that we tell the truth in politics. Americans are not dumb!

We just don't always know what we think we know.

The Rent Is Too Damn High!

Jimmy McMillan obviously thinks that the rent in New York is too damn high.

If you haven't seen the video of his performance in the New York gubernatorial debate from last week, you certainly will soon. (If you can't wait, you can see it here.)

In a rare political free-for-all format agreed to by the two leading candidates, there were seven "bona fide" contenders for the job of governor of New York on the platform, including a professional madam and the nut-job-for-a-day-turned-instant-celebrity Mr. McMillan.

Jimmy is the founder and sole member of the Rent Is Too Damn High party. He has one, and only one, plank in his platform. You guessed it: the rent is too damn high!

He claims that a one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan goes for $4,600 a month; 2 bedrooms will cost you $8,970. Because of this fact, "women can't feed their children," and a whole host of other maladies from homelessness to the war in Afghanistan are the result.

After watching his antics, it is easy to see how his message captivated at least 16,000 registered voters in precincts from all over the state who signed his petition, allowing him to enter the race.

More than likely, Jimmy McMillan will eventually go the way of Antoine Dodson ("The Bed Intruder Song"), the guy who sang "Pants on the Ground" for American Idol, and Clara from the Wendy's commercial ("Where's the Beef?").

But, thanks to the power of viral video, he has had more than his 15 minutes of fame and he has definitely met his main objective. He set out to have his voice heard and to get people to listen to his message. We heard you, Jimmy. And we're all with you.

The rent is too damn high!

Rove's Trove

Ya gotta hand it to Karl Rove: he knows it when he's on to a good thing.

The pugnacious purveyor of "win at all costs" campaigning has been in the news lately with his much talked-about American Crossroads group-- a "new kind of non-profit political organization," according to the group's website.

The "new kind" of political organization is what is commonly referred to as a 527-- a name derived from the section of the IRS Tax Code that allows for the existence of non-profit groups "not allied" with any particular political candidate. The really cool thing about 527's-- from Rove's current perspective-- is that they can basically receive unlimited contributions from political donors without having to identify ANY names or sources of their funds.

Kind of a political version of "don't ask, don't tell."

Rove's groups (AC is only one of the shells he has set up in the 527 world) are expecting to receive $250 million dollars to invest in political advertising for the November elections. All of that will be spent without one whit of oversight or accountability, thanks to the Supreme Court decision earlier this year that affirmed a fundamental right of corporations to contribute unlimited amounts of money to 527 groups.

(I'm still trying to figure how that decision is good for America, by the way.)

What interests me most about this development is just how far Mr. Rove has come in his attitude toward 527's and the money they can generate in order to influence government and politics.

He gave an interview to Chuck Raasch, with The Deseret News, after the 2004 election. (Remember the "Swift Boat Veterans" whose TV ads torpedoed John Kerry's campaign? You guessed it-- they were one of the original 527's.)

"I am a firm believer in strong (political) parties, and things that weaken the parties and place the outcome of elections in the hands of billionaires who can write checks and political consultants who can get themselves hired by billionaires who write the checks, give me some concern," Rove said.

My, my, my...I guess time really does heal. In this case, it has apparently healed Mr. Rove's aversion to receiving checks from billionaires.

Raasch went on to report that "Rove said the 527s... potentially undermine democracy." Rove later commented, in a  CNN interview, "Look, I'm against all the 527 ads and activities. I don't think they're fair. I don't think it's appropriate. They're misusing the law. They all ought to stop."

Now, to be fair...both sides benefit from the use of 527 money; many of the key Democrats in hot political races are getting big money from a variety of unnamed donors. It's just that nobody appears to be able to "out-Rove Rove" when it comes to amassing a trove of special interest money.

Avaritia nomen tuum in aeternum.

When You Juan to Make a Point

Juan Williams is the latest victim of the "sound bite" age we live in.

The long-time commentator was fired rather unceremoniously from his job at National Public Radio this week, supposedly for comments made on another network's news show. Williams was a guest on "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News Network. In the course of the discussion, Williams admitted that seeing people on airplanes "in Muslim garb, who identify themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried-- I get nervous."

(You can catch a clip of the O'Reilly interview here.)

According to an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's Good Morning America, Williams hasn't apologized for his remarks about being nervous seeing Muslims on planes, insisting instead they were part of a longer conversation his NPR bosses took out of context. Williams said he was making a point about how one individual's fears should not trump the civil rights of other people.

"I have a moment of fear. It's visceral. It's a feeling. I don't say I'm not getting on the plane. I don't think you must go through additional security. I don't say I want to discriminate against these people. No such thing occurs. To me, it was admitting that I had this notion, this feeling," he said. (interview here)

In all of the aftermath of the uproar that NPR's decision to fire Williams has generated -- and people from both liberal and conservative viewpoints have weighed in with almost universally negative opinions of NPR's handling of the situation-- I am afraid that the most crucial point in this debate will be lost.

We have become a society that lives and dies by the "sound bite." We judge people, form opinions, and even decide elections by who has the most effective 10- to 20-second catch phrase, either positive or negative. For those of you with lengthy enough political memories, how about these classic one-liners?


"Are you better off than you were four years ago?" (Ronald Reagan's key slogan in 1980.)
"A card-carrying member of the ACLU." (used to denigrate Michael Dukakis vs. George Bush, Sr.)
"It's the economy, stupid." (used by Bill Clinton to unseat George Bush, Sr.-- I guess what goes around, comes around!)
"Yes America Can!" (George W. Bush, 2004 slogan)
"Yes We Can!" (Barack Obama, 2008 slogan...a little scary to compare those last two, don't ya' think?)

 You catch my drift.

Now, poor brother Juan has been obliterated by his own personal sound bite. Personally, I think he has a valid gripe with the NPR brass; he was trying to make a point in a longer conversation and had his words taken out of context. That's a poor way to end a man's career after decades of diligent effort.

(Word is that his new contract with Fox will pay him around $2 million, so don't feel bad for him for long!)

The sad truth of this episode to me is that this type of mentality has crept into every part of our social psyche. Nobody takes the time to listen to what the other is saying anymore. We don't hear one another out...at least not often enough.

Just a little more patience (not to mention a healthy dose of common sense) could have kept Ms. Schiller, the NPR CEO, from making what appears, at this point, to be an idiotic decision.

Maybe a "word to the wise will be sufficient!"

What Momma Says...

It's always a good idea to do what your momma says.

Mine encouraged me to lay off the politics for a while and to "stick to talking about God." Good words, and like I said-- pretty good idea to do what momma says. So I decided to look for a piece of good news to write about tonight.

The story that caught my eye was the follow-up to the YouTube video of the man and the praying dog. Did you see it? The one where he teaches his dog to "say grace?"

(Catch it here if you'd like...definitely worth the minute it takes to watch!)

Anyhow, believe it or not there is a follow-up story on CNN.com about Steven Boyd and his dog, Djaingo. Turns out that Boyd is a 12-year Army veteran who pulled some fairly nasty duty as a sniper, a paratrooper, and a counter narcotics operator. Like many vets who serve in high tension areas, he began to have health issues after his discharge.

According to CNN, "Since he first was hospitalized on February 19, 2002, Boyd has struggled. Because of multiple traumatic brain injuries - sustained through military exercises, a car wreck, a rappelling accident and a grenade detonation - he says he suffers from gastroparesis, a paralysis of the gastrointestinal tract.... As a result of this illness and repeated, extensive dehydration, he says his weight - 175 when healthy - has dropped to as low as 98 pounds."

(The full story can be found on CNN's website here; I hope you'll take the time to read it.)

The quick version: Boyd walked into an animal shelter one day, thinking that volunteering to walk some of the dogs might take his mind off his own problems. He met the dog, then called "Chip," with whom he would soon form a fast relationship. "Chip" was scheduled to be euthanized the next day. He had become so vicious that no one could handle him.

Boyd took the dog, and put him through what he describes as "boot camp." After six months of hard work, the dog had been transformed into the kind old gentleman you see on the YouTube video. But he hadn't yet learned to pray. In fact, at that point in his life, Boyd didn't pray much either.

It was his momma who helped with that.

After Boyd considered killing himself by drinking Clorox, he says he felt like "God was smacking me with a 2 x 4, telling me to wake up." He had grown up in a Christian home, but had not been practicing his faith.

He went back to church, got involved in Bible study...and decided to give his mom, who Boyd describes as a "real prayer warrior," a special Christmas present. So, he taught his dog how to say grace and put it on a video.

And the rest, as they say, is history. The disabled veteran has received thousands of contacts from all over the world, a life-line his mother says was much needed.

"Steven told us he was so lonely. So much of the time, he's apartment-bound. Now he's getting emails from all over the world," she says. "It's given Steven such a boost to his morale. God can take the tiniest thing and use it for good."

It really is a good idea to do what your momma says!

What's Your Question?

Rick Scott is running for governor of Florida.

This is Rick Scott, former chairman and CEO of the Columbia-HCA health care giant, headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee. I lived in Nashville when Mr. Scott and his executive team were under investigation for massive fraud of the Medicare system. Several of his "underlings" were convicted; Mr. Scott -- somehow-- was not.

He is being presented here in Florida as a "millionaire businessman" who really knows his stuff, and wants to bring Florida out of the doldrums with his hardcore Republican vision of "eliminating waste and lowering taxes." Stop me if you've heard this one before.

Interestingly, some heretofore unobtainable video footage of one of his depositions in the Nashville Medicare scandal has surfaced just less than two weeks before the election. I have no idea who found the footage, nor whether they have the "legal" right to show it.

But it is IS quite entertaining to hear this high-powered corporate attorney-- the main man overseeing the largest for-profit hospital enterprise in the world-- purportedly unable to answer questions because he has trouble understanding terms like "market", "predecessor", "occupancy", "process"... and my personal favorite, "corporate hospital law."

(View the video excerpt here.)

When asked if a signature appearing on a document was his, Mr. Scott said, "That looks like my signature, I'm not sure. What's your question?"

Now, I'm all for letting bygones be bygones. But, really now...this man wants to be the governor of the 4th largest state in the Union (just a tad over 18.5 million people) and he has to take the Fifth Amendment 75 times?

I wonder if his first question at the administration of the oath of office would be: "Could you define 'uphold and defend'?"

Ask a Simple Question,...

I don't get to watch the Sunday morning news shows -- Meet the Press, Fox News Sunday, etc. -- although when I do get to catch clips, I find the format engaging. You'd think that getting a chance to sit down, basically one-on-one, with the "movers and shakers" of government, business, medicine, science, etc., would be a phenomenal opportunity to "get at" the truth (or at least the guests' various versions of it.)

But, alas, it is election season!

Evidently, political double-speak has become rampant once again, and is the preferred mother tongue of all those who dare not lose any votes this close to polling time because they dare to actually SAY ANYTHING! I was quite amused by Carly Fiorina's stint on the aforementioned Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace on October 17.

Fiorina is the Republican candidate seeking to unseat the much-reviled Barbara Boxer in the California Senate race. She is a very smart lady, having served Hewlett-Packard as both President and CEO (her abrupt dismissal from that firm is not really relevant -- maybe) as well as 20 years as an executive with AT&T.

She has railed against Boxer and most of what she calls "career politicians" from both parties. They have failed to do their jobs, in her opinion, because they have simply not been willing to "cut waste" from government spending and cut taxes even further (especially on those who could stimulate our economy by creating jobs -- Repubu codespeak for the richest of the rich.)

I like Fiorina; I have followed her career for several years, and have been quite interested to hear what her solutions for our economic dilemmas might be. I have found myself sort of ready to buy in to her "let's-get-some-people-who-know-what-the-heck-they're-doing-up-there-in-Washington" mantra. So, I clicked on the video of the interview.

I gotta hand it to Chris Wallace; he tried, he really tried to get Ms. Fiorina to answer a simple, straightforward question about her proposals for fixing the economy. For a non-career politician, she sure aced the "don't let 'em trap you, just say things that sound good" quiz! (You can hear the interview and read a partial transcript here.)

Wallace: "So now, as a non-career politician, as the anti-Barbara Boxer, you tell me specifically what are you going to do to cut the billions, the trillions, of dollars in entitlements?"

Fiorina:  "The previous non-partisan commission was just a feint for a tax increase. I believe that a Value Added Tax would be incredibly destructive to our economy right now." [Huh? Who said anything about a VAT?] "We need to start with the half a billion dollars in government waste that's already there."

Wallace: "But that doesn't even come close to the 4 trillion dollars needed just to avoid adding to the deficit, much less doing anything to eliminate the deficit. How are you going to cut the entitlements?"

 Fiorina: "See, Chris, I have to -- you know, Chris, I have to say, with all due respect, you're asking a typical political question."

Wallace: "Ms. Fiorina, but that's where the money is. The money is in Medicare. The money is in Social Security. We've got the baby boomers coming. There is going to be a huge explosion of entitlement spending, and you call it a political question when I ask you to name one single entitlement expenditure you're willing to cut."

Fiorina: "Chris, I believe that to deal with entitlement reform, which we must deal with, we ought to put every possible solution up on the table, except we should be very clear that we are not going to cut benefits to those nearing retirement or those in retirement." [Wait...you're going to cut it, but not cut it?]

Wallace: "I'm going to try -- I'm going to try one last time and if you don't want to answer it, Ms. Fiorina, you don't have to. You're not willing to say there's a single benefit eligibility for Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security that you're willing to say, Yeah, I would cut that?"


Fiorina: "What I think we need to do to engage the American people in a conversation about entitlement reform is to have a bipartisan group of people who come together and put every solution on the table, every alternative on the table. And then we ought to engage in a long conversation with the American people so they understand the choices. Instead of rushing off into a closed room and having 100 senators figure it out for themselves, we need to engage people in the conversation."

Dadgum, this woman is good! I've never heard a non-political person speak so politically!

I especially like that last part about engaging the American people "in a long conversation." I'm just wondering how you do that? Does Carly have a living room big enough for 350 million people? Would they all come if invited? What kind of snacks will we serve?

Silly me; I thought the reason we elected 100 senators in the first place was so that they could "represent" us in having the conversation. Isn't that what a "representative" form of government is supposed to be?

If not, why is she seeking to become one of the club of 100? Why not just set up that "long conversation" with the American people with some of the corporate profits you have reaped over the years (not to mention the money being spent on your campaign?)

And I thought that if you asked a simple question, you were supposed to get a simple answer!

When All Is Well with the World

Some days, it just feels right. I had one of those yesterday.

By that, I mean the kind of day where it seems that the moon, and stars, and planets converge (or whatever -- I'm not really an astrology kind of guy.) I know the weather was absolutely fabulous: temperature right at 70 degrees, sky a vivid cerulean, gentle breeze stirring the trees. I remembered why it is great to live in Florida during this time of the year.

I was able to finish off my week of work with a few morning tasks, then have the afternoon to spend with my oldest son on his birthday. Twenty-eight years earlier, I drove like a madman from Louisville, KY to Union City, TN to be there when he (not so gently) entered the world. When it was all said and done, I held this 10-pound bundle of joy (yeah, he was a big one) nervously in my arms and remember that my first thought was not, "Wow, how cool" or anything like that -- but rather, "Oh my God, what happens if I drop him?"

We have come to enjoy a wonderful adult relationship, my boy and I. I am enormously proud of him and the life that he is building. He has wisdom beyond his years sometimes, and a heart that absolutely pounds with the rhythms of compassion, integrity, and love for his family and for God.

That's a lot to be thankful for, and on this day, I am just that. Profoundly thankful, grateful, and humbled by the goodness of life on days such as this, when all is well with the world.

This blog is not really my "preacherly" side, but the words of the Bible are part of the rhythm and rhyme of my life; I can't really think any other way-- and I don't think I want to. I like what David, the poet/king of Israel, said around 3,000 years ago about days like this:

Psalm 103

 ¹ Praise the LORD, O my soul;
       all my inmost being, praise his holy name.

 ² Praise the LORD, O my soul,
       and forget not all his benefits-

 ³ who forgives all your sins
       and heals all your diseases,

 ⁴ who redeems your life from the pit
       and crowns you with love and compassion,

 ⁵ who satisfies your desires with good things
       so that your youth is renewed like the eagle's. 

Yeah. My day was just like that.

A Few Shrimp Short of a Cocktail

 (Warning to my gentle readers -- this post contains some strong language that may be considered offensive. Just so you'll know!)

Sometimes, it really is as Darth Vader said: "All too easy."

Much has been written, said, and even shouted (kudos to my friend, PBB, and her cohorts in Washington!) about the response of British Petroleum to the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster in the Gulf this past summer. Evidently, BP and our own Federal government would have us believe that the response has been both swift and effective-- some have even dared to term it compassionate (i.e., "We feel your pain.")

 As the aforementioned PBB might well say it, "Bullshit!"

Thanks to the efforts of many vigilant individuals, most of them outside of the official response teams (read "those bought by BP and sworn to silence,") the horrors of the spill and its aftermath have been documented and broadcast to the world. We have seen what's really happening down there in the Gulf-- and it ain't pretty!

This week, BP's Chief Operating Officer Mike Utsler decided to host a "media event" in a local restaurant in Bayou La Batre, Alabama. This is the "home" of fictional character Benjamin "Bubba" Blue of Forrest Gump fame, but it IS a real town, with real people affected by the ongoing oil saga.

Particularly hard-hit have been the professional fishermen and all who depend on their trade. Seafood is not just big business in places like Bayou La Batre, it is the only business.

Well, Mr. Utsler wanted to show the world that seafood from the Gulf is safe to eat. In his own words, "The seafood in the Gulf of Mexico is the most tested seafood. It is safe. It is sound. I eat it everywhere I go almost everyday." This statement was, of course, issued with a big smile on his face as he invited a few locals and members of the media to join him in dining at the Lighthouse Restaurant.

According to reporter Jessica Taloney of WKRG-TV, all seemed well and good as the assembled crowd began munching down on crab claws, mullet, oysters, and real, bona fide Gulf shrimp-- all at BP's expense, of course. (You can check the report for yourself here.)

But apparently, there was more than met the eyes at this Alabama chow-down. When Ms. Taloney asked the workers at the restaurant about the items on the menu, she learned that "the crab claws, which were bought from a local distributor, were shipped in from Baltimore, Maryland. The mullet was caught in Florida. The oysters came from Texas and Florida. And, the shrimp, though it is local, was caught before the oil spill, then frozen and served up daily." (emphasis mine)

Just kind of makes you want to ask, "WTF, BP?" Just how dumb do they think we really are, and how much longer will they be allowed to pull publicity stunts like this?

Unless, of course, they think that we are in the same predicament that reporter Taloney used to sum up the day at the diner in Bayou La Batre: it was "a few shrimp short of a cocktail."

Christian? Really?

There is lots of debate these days, especially in political circles, about who is "Christian" and whose side God is on. Candidates these days seem to get more spiritual the closer it gets to election day. I guess that's okay...praying every couple of years is better than not praying at all.

People like Rand Paul, who is running for Senate in staunchly "Christian" Kentucky, have had to repeatedly prove and assert that they are the real deal and not just using the Christian name as political one-upmanship. (Here's an interesting story from Politico.com about the Republican candidate's difficulty with his Democratic rival-- who says Paul is "out of sync" with Kentucky's family [i.e., Christian] values.)

All of this uproar got me thinking about what it takes for a politician to qualify as a "Christian," when I came across an account in the New York Times of one fairly prominent public figure on the campaign trail who offered the following assessment of his own religious faith:

“I’m a Christian by choice. My family, frankly, they weren’t folks who went to church every week. My mother was one of the most spiritual people I knew but she didn’t raise me in the church, so I came to my Christian faith later in life and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead. 

"Being my brothers and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me, and I think also understanding that Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility we all have to have as human beings, that we’re sinful and we’re flawed and we make mistakes and we achieve salvation through the grace of God.”

Not too bad; I listen to lots of people tell me what they think it takes to be a Christian, and I would rate that description in the top third-- at least--  of any I have ever heard. And, as far as politicians go, I'd have to say this one got it down pretty well. Seems fairly sincere to me.

What do you think? Does this guy have what it takes? Will he pass muster "when the roll is called up yonder?" Is he good enough for the Christian Coalition?

(Ummm...about that; I went to the Christian Coalition website to see what they had to say about being or becoming a Christian. They don't really say anything about it, though they did give me multiple options to donate to the cause or download a voter guide.)

Oh, well...I suppose it will all come out in the wash. And who, you may ask, is the mysterious politician whose Christian faith is outlined above?

Barack Hussein Obama. Go figure.

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

I love the emails I get from some of my fellow preachers. Today, one of my colleagues forwarded an email to me with the attention-grabbing  headline, "Pastor Challenges IRS to Sue Him!"

I generally want to have as little visibility as possible where the IRS is concerned, so I kind of wondered what this particular parson might be up to. Against my better judgment, I read the email.

It seems that Pastor Cary Gordon, of Cornerstone World Outreach in Sioux City, Iowa, is upset about that state's Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage in 2009.

Since three of the seven justices on the court are up for "retention votes" in November, Pastor Gordon has started a campaign to have them voted out of office. He not only has proclaimed from his pulpit that the offending justices should be ousted (and directly instructed his congregants which way they should vote)-- he has sent 1,000 letters to pastors across the state urging them to do the same.

The Sioux City Register has covered the story thoroughly; you can read more details here.

Now, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has filed a complaint against the church with the Internal Revenue Service. It is their contention that the church should not be allowed to maintain its tax exempt status if they are going to seek to directly influence elections.

As the Register reports:

"Internal Revenue Service code is clear on this matter. All section 501(c)(3) organizations 'are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.' "

But to Pastor Gordon, it's an issue worth fighting about. He is quoted by OneNewsNow, a self-proclaimed "source for Christian news," in this way:

"I have never, nor will I ever, get a message from the Holy Spirit and then go check with the IRS tax code first to see if it's okay to preach it. I'm tired of pastors submitting to this tyranny -- and I'm expecting to try to get the IRS to sue us so that we can take it all the way to the Supreme Court and restore freedom in America's pulpits."

Well, there you go...straight from God's mouth to your ears, by way of Pastor Gordon!

I'm afraid I have to agree with the Register on this one. Writing in support of the IRS review of the Cornerstone congregation and asserting that Pastor Gordon has taken it a step too far, the Register's editorial board said:


"In our view, no other conclusion can be reached in this case. Gordon may continue to voice his opinion, urge fellow Christians to join him and wage his campaign to remove Iowa Supreme Court justices. That is his right under the laws of this country. But when he does so under the banner of Cornerstone World Outreach, that church should no longer receive taxpayer subsidies."

Nobody can or should tell you what to preach, Pastor Gordon; you listen up a storm to the Holy Spirit.

But you lose the right to be exempt from paying your taxes when you willfully choose to ignore the laws of the land in which we live.You might want to ask the Holy Spirit to direct you back by Romans 13:1 for a refresher course in submission to the authorities.

And, you can make your check payable to "Internal Revenue Service, United States of America."

Searching for Claude Pepper

Well, it's high political season and the attack ads are out in full force. Makes you sort of want to give up television long before Lent rolls around, doesn't it?

I know that "negative campaigning" has been around as long as politics have been part of human existence. One of my favorite mudslinging stories of all time comes from the 1950 Senate campaign of Claude "Red" Pepper in Florida. His former friend and colleague George Smathers ran against the incumbent senator, and was reported to have used the following remarks in his stump speech throughout the rural areas of the state (Pepper was from the strongly Democratic Miami area):


"Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law, he has a brother who is a known homo sapiens, and he has a sister who was once a thespian in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy."
(quoted in Time magazine, April 17, 1950 -- read the story here.)


Unfortunately, today's pols can't hold a candle to the chicanery of old; the name calling and innuendo-placing that passes for political ads today is simply nauseating. There's nothing entertaining about it.

But I must say that, if you're going to produce and place a negative advertisement to try and pull down your opponent, you need to do a great deal better than the Democratic National Committee's latest effort. They have begun running an "attack ad" against Karl Rove and other purported "thieves" of our democracy. (You can watch it here, if you really want to waste 30 seconds.)

They try to paint the Master of Disaster and his supposed cronies, The US Chamber of Commerce, as breaking the law and stealing our democracy by taking foreign money to place political ads. This would be an illegal activity if it were true, but the Dems don't really have any proof. Nobody seems to be able to say exactly how much money was accepted, who it came from, or what it was spent on.

This is an embarrassing effort. First, it's probably not that smart to try to beat Rove at his own game. He's way better than you guys, DNC. And second, if you're going to try to whip people up into a political lather before the November election, why don't you pick an issue that ANYBODY GIVES A RIP ABOUT!

Maybe Thomas Friedman will turn out to be the real prophet with his "Third Party Rising" prediction for 2012. (read it here) America may finally be getting so fed up with both the Democrats and the Republicans that we can collectively give them the old "heave-ho!"

As I fondly remember a bumper sticker from the 70's saying: "Flush twice; it's a long way to Washington!"

Dead and Dumber

Okay, so this is what gives government programs a bad name.

Maybe our government's efforts are perpetually doomed due to the sheer size of our nation. Or, maybe those proponents of "less government" really do have a point.

I dunno, but I do know that the little Associated Press article tucked away on page 4 of my local newspaper (which I still enjoy reading in its actual ink and paper format, thank you very much!) reports that there were 72,000 federal stimulus payments sent to dead people this past year. (You can read it here, if you dare.)

Mmmm...that's right. Our Social Security Administration and its front-line employees managed to cut checks to 72,000 people who, at some time, were receiving Social Security payments in some form, but couldn't cash these particular payouts...BECAUSE THEY WERE DEAD!

Now, how that happens exactly will most likely remain a great mystery, swallowed up eternally in the bowels of the SSA's own internal investigation into the matter. I believe that, unwittingly, the early patriots that set aside the District of Columbia as the home for our central government functions must have placed it on top of an invisible black hole. One that eats data, unflattering reports, and intelligence, evidently.

The really interesting thing, though-- and this says a lot about the makeup of our citizenry, unfortunately-- is that only about 37,000 of the payments were returned. There are still 35,000 or so payments out there, "stimulating" the economy on behalf of dead people. Not exactly what either party had in mind, I don't suppose...but, in America, dead people spending is better than no people spending, I guess!

Oh, yeah-- there were also another 17,000 checks, totaling $4.3 million, that were sent to approximately 17,000 people in prison. Just how many cigarettes and pudding pops can you buy with that?

I suppose all of this goes into the category of , "You just can't make this stuff up!"

No Compassion for You!

Sometimes, it just doesn't pay to be a redneck.

At first, I was slightly amused to see the story of Gene Cranick of South Fulton, Tennessee, making its way onto national television, Youtube, and Facebook. You can get a piece of the story from MSNBC here; it has now crossed the Atlantic and was carried in The Telegraph in London, as well.

(Let me clarify: I am NOT amused that Mr. Cranick and his family lost their home to a fire this past week. Having experienced it myself, that is something I literally would not wish on my worst enemy.)

What was initially amusing to me was the way the national (and now international) media were so fascinated by "backwoods politics" and rural culture, as represented by the aforementioned Mr. Cranick. Those of us who grew up there understand the difference in living "out in the county" or living "inside the city limits." In many ways, to paraphrase Kipling, "town is town and county is county, and never the twain shall meet." But the big news guys apparently don't get it.

Interesting and a little funny soon moved to outrage and disgust, however, when I came across the following clip from conservative paragon Glenn Beck's treatment of the story:


Here's the link if the video won't play on my blog: Beck Dissing Gene Cranick

Okay, Mr. Beck, you certainly have the right to your opinion about fees and taxes and public service and the like. But it is APPALLING that you would choose to mock a decent, hardworking, American citizen based crudely on his regional ethnicity. You play all too willingly into the "all Southerners are dumb" stereotype, and cloak it in terms of a "national discussion" that all Americans must have.

Heaven forbid that we should be driven by  "compassion, compassion, compassion, compassion," as you so aptly put it. And, besides,  who are you to tell me I can't let my neighbor "sponge" off of me if I want to?

I guess we could appoint Mr. Beck and his producer/sidekick, Al Gray, to serve as the "public services Nazis" in the new pay-for- play era of lower taxes, less government.

No compassion for you!

A Club in the Hand is Worth...

I have always been intrigued by the phrase, "compassionate conservatism."

We're not seeing much of it in the run-up to the November elections. All the headlines seem to be garnered by angry Tea Party candidates and semi-hopeful Republicans looking for a little coattail action. The theme this year is much more about "we're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore" than about any real substantive proposals for effecting helpful solutions. But, hey, it has always been easier to shout down what you're against than it is to define what you're for.

Nowhere is this vitriolic approach more evident than in the call to repeal 2009's health care reform law. Noam Levey, writing for the Los Angeles Times' Washington bureau, notes that "many Republican leaders have enthusiastically embraced the call to revise the healthcare legislation, vowing to 'repeal and replace' the law in the next congressional session....The Republican Party thinks it has a winning position in denouncing the unpopular mandate that will require Americans to get health insurance starting in 2014." (See the full story here.)

Of course, this has resulted in a campaign contribution boon for GOP candidates from the nation's largest health insurers. Levey notes that campaign contributions from the industry to the major party candidates and their political action committees are flowing 3-1 in favor of the Republicans. This is a major shift from 2009, when the insurers were actually in favor of the pending Democratic legislation, and the money flowed the other way.

(Why, you ask? They actually like it that the new law requires Americans to purchase health insurance. More premiums, better bonuses, get it?)

But then a terrible thing happened...the nasty Dems decided that not only should people be required to purchase health insurance, but that it should be affordable and it should cover everybody...even those who might actually GET SICK while they are on the plan!

And children-- well, they're the worst. If they get sick, they statistically have much longer to live, and could theoretically be in for many, many more payments from their health insurer over the course of their little lifetimes. And, since the new legislation prohibits insurers from dropping sick children AND no longer allows them to set lifetime limits on coverage, BI (Big Insurance) is suddenly all about that "repeal and replace" strategy.

Interestingly, the part they don't want to repeal is the mandate that everybody has to buy coverage. They just want to have the option to get rid of the nasty, silly sick people. And especially those damn kids!

Again, from Levey's article: "The health reform law did not deliver the uninsured in the way that insurers wanted," said veteran healthcare analyst Sheryl Skolnick, senior vice president at CRT Capital Group. Some insurers have said recently they will stop selling some policies rather than comply with the mandate to insure sick children. (emphasis mine)

Yeah...just club 'em in the head while they're young, before they can take up the precious resources of the tribe!

I sometimes get the feeling that I have fallen asleep and am experiencing a nasty, twisted dream in which the America I grew up in has totally slipped away and has been replaced by a nation of unwitting sheep being herded by profiteering shepherds and their spineless, witless wonders-- the politicians.

Only then I realize it's not a dream, after all.

There's No Business Like Big Business

Part of the charm of growing up in a small town used to be the opportunities one had to interact with "mom and pop" and their local business establishments.

For me, it was the once-a-year-or-so trips down to see Miss Polky Hall at Hall's Shoe Store, or to venture deep into the musty stacks of Guttman's Department Store. The Collegiate Shop and a visit with Colonel Snyder was one of the rites of passage for many of Martin, Tennessee's young men. (Where did the young ladies go to shop, by the way? I was oblivious, I guess.)

Never in a million years could that experience be replicated by Payless or Penney's, or any of the other knock off chain stores that pass for "shopping" these days. And Super Wal-Mart? Hah! Despite the ease of access to a virtually limitless supply of food, medicines, and what were once quaintly known as "dry goods," Sam Walton's brainchild remains a soulless convenience store on the superhighway of American consumer culture.

Now, I realize that bygones are bygones, and the mom-and-pop establishments of our past are pretty much done for. Doing business with people that you actually know, and business owners who actually live and have an active investment in the local community are fast falling by the wayside. These days, in order to survive...much less thrive...business has to be big. And that is unfortunate.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that corporate profits for the companies listed on the S&P 500 during the second quarter of 2010 were up by 38%, when compared to the same period a year ago. (Find the article here.) This level of profit was termed "near-historic" by the Journal. In other words, "we're making so dadgum much money we can hardly keep up with it!"

Okay, so if big business is doing so well, that must mean that we're all doing well, right? Guess again, Bozo.

The same Journal article stated that  "these corporate profits came as the country as a whole got poorer. The net worth of households and non-profits dropped 2.8 percent" during the same period. That's you and me and our churches and favorite charities, don't ya' know.

Did someone just say "the rich got richer and the poor got poorer?"

Now, I'm all for the ability for "companies" and their shareholders to make a decent profit. But just how is it that times were so good for the "companies" and not so good for the rest of us? Again, let me quote the Journal: "To achieve the impressive quarterly results, companies have had to 'streamline' their operations. This means firing workers, outsourcing labor and shuttering unprofitable (or less profitable) divisions." Ouch!

But, wait...hold that wound open for just a minute more; I've got a little more salt left to pour in.

The Guardian magazine, in its September 1, 2010 issue, reported that the CEO's of the 50 American companies that laid off the most people during the recession earned 42 percent more than their peers. (Quick example-- Schering-Plough's Fred Hassan, who engineered a drug company merger with Merck that eliminated 16,000 total jobs, received a bonus of $49.7 million! That's $3100 and change per scalp, Fred...nice going!)

The average leader of an S&P 500 company earns 263 times more than the typical American worker. (Source: Institute for Policy Studies, http://www.ips-dc.org/) In case you missed it, these are the same guys and gals that enjoyed the above-mentioned 38% increase in profits by pushing the "common man" down by a couple of more points last quarter.

Miss Polky, where are you when we really need you?

Oh, SNAP-- Congress Hits A New Low

I admit that I have gradually (or, in recent years, rapidly) lost much respect for the politicians that fill our legislative offices on both the state and national levels. But today, I believe the US Congress has hit a new low.

There has been much hand-wringing and political-posturing-enhanced protest over the adjournment forced by a 1-vote margin in the House of Representatives this week.  This meant that the Bush-era tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 per year have not yet been "preserved," an unthinkable act of treason if one is to believe Rep. Boehner and his GOP cohorts (see my earlier post, "What's This I Hear About an Obama 'Tax Hike?'")

Similarly, there have been lots of eyebrows raised by the House's deferral of the ethics trials of Reps. Charles Rangel and Maxine Waters, both Democratic members on whom the House apparently has the goods. They've been naughty and they should be punished.

These actions are "politics as usual" inside the Washington Beltway these days; ho-hum, too bad...what else is new?

But there was also a little noted additional victim of the abruptly shortened legislative session. It is technically known as H.R. 5504 - Improving Nutrition for America's Children Act. It was the House version of a bill already unanimously passed by the Senate that would have provided an extra $4.5 billion over 10 years to help schools improve the quality of their lunches and extra nutrition programs for children, many of them from poverty-level homes.

Now, bad jokes about soybean burgers and stewed tomatoes aside (ah, the joys of yesteryear!)-- school lunch and breakfast programs have expanded greatly in recent years, and provide much of the week's nutritional value for children who are most at risk for health problems due to malnutrition. (Why this should be so in a country like America is a whole other topic!)

 But the startling fact is that the federal contribution to this "entitlement" program that supplements the food for America's school children has not increased since 1973. Freaking 1973, people-- that's the year I was a freshman in high school enjoying some of the aforementioned soybean burgers in the lunch line at dear old Westview High!

Why not pass something that would seem to be as popular as doing a better job of feeding and educating America's children? It seems that the issue had become one more political "hot potato"-- sorry, kids, didn't mean to make you hungry with that metaphor.

The bill would have been partially funded by a reduction in another federal program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. You may recognize it by its popular moniker, Food Stamps. The proposal, backed and promoted heavily by First Lady Michelle Obama, would have taken $2 billion dollars from SNAP and used it for the school nutrition program. Proponents for food stamps cried foul, and got real busy phoning and emailing representatives.

The trick is this: the $2 billion dollars in SNAP money was a temporary program authorized in 2009 in order to deal with a potential rise in food prices that never happened. That's right...the money was approved and people got more money in their food stamps, but it turns out that the extra money wasn't needed. Food prices actually went down, not up!

So now, Mrs. Obama and others who are concerned for children thought it would be a no-brainer to redirect that money. Not so fast, my friend!

Jane Black, of the Washington Post, put it this way: "Supporters of the bill say it was simply too controversial in the lead-up to the mid-term elections. Polls show that voters are keen to see cuts in spending and more limited government and some feared that the bill, which would increase access to school meals for low-income children and limit junk foods in vending machines and buffet lines, would be seen as another expansion."

In other words, it might be good for the kids, but it would be bad for my poll numbers...so to hell with you, kids!

I wonder what Charlie Moore would say about this?