There's a story the mainstream media loves to tell to illustrate housing bubble follies, and it goes a little somethin' like this:
Family sees friends' fancy house and fancy cars and buys matching toys without the income to back it up. Banks avert their eyes, lend the money. Family's debts come due and they opt to refinance to put the bill on the house, which eliminates their easily earned equity. Banks avert their eyes, lend the money. Housing market crashes. Family freaks out. So does the bank. Mayhem ensues.
(Maybe you know someone who fell into a similar trap. Maybe you find parts of your own story above. Don't be embarrassed.)
Turns out, the early part of this decade saw plenty of Americans crash and burn in such a way. (Other families, those whose income actually did grow to match their expenses, those folks landed softly, as per their plan, but they don't get a lot of play in the national media.) A good chunk of Americans got foreclosed on or had to declare bankruptcy or sold their homes at a six-figure loss. Lots of people got burned whether they "deserved" it or not. Which is a great topic for a future post.
The economic pain is ongoing. too: just pick up a newspaper, while you still can, and read five stories about how the economy is ruining dreams.
But you've heard all this before... what might not be clear yet is that we're pursuing a similar strategy on a national level.
We, the family U.S.A., owe an unconscionable sum to lenders. It's an unfathomable figure, but I'll link to it anyway. I refuse to type it. It's bigger now than when I typed the final "e" of the word that ends this sentence. (I just re-read that, and that's a pretty nifty mind trick, if I say so myself.)
Anyway, not only do we owe enough money to dedicate about $450 billion this year to INTEREST payments on that debt, but our annual pay. i.e., tax revenue, is inconveniently shrinking. You might have noticed we are in a steep recession. Just FYI.
So, because cause and effect are very real forces, our family is projected to be over $1.75 trillion in the hole this year. Reagan, Daddy Bush and Bushito were immorally careless to the tune of $8 trillion combined, but that nation-crippling project took them 20 years. (And they had to work around Bill Clinton's annoying penchant for balancing the budget.) Obama is shattering some hideous records here at a frightening pace. 1.75 trillion this year, maybe over a trillion again next year.
But if rosier times ARE around the corner, if health care reform passes and rescues countless households, if the giga-stimulus stops the bleeding, if home prices ever bounce back, if the stock market slowly but surely gets back on its horse, if consumer confidence rebounds soon enough, then we, the family U.S.A., could avoid forecluptcy at the hands of our creditors. And bankrosure, too, we could avoid that too.
In fact, not only could we emerge from Obama's presidency in a healthier, greener, energy-independentier lifestyle, but the long-term dividends from such moves could far eclipse our deficits this year and next. We could reverse the course set by so many shortsighted "leaders."
And that's Obama's bet. He's said to be a fair poker player; he's preparing to put us all in. Let's hope, for our kids' sake, that our hand is good enough.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Michael Vick: Not in my doghouse / 5-21-09
Just in case you've been living at 123 Subterranean Ave., Underrock, Earth (ZIP code: -83686), you'll be pleased/aggrieved to learn that Mike Vick is out of the slammer. Yeah, the guy who used to be the NFL's next big thing, the guy who was supposed to revolutionize the QB position, the best thing since high fructose corn syrup, the guy on the cover of Madden 2004, that guy. He got out on Wednesday.
"Didn't he just serve time for running a cockfighting ring?"
It was dogfighting. But close enough. He just completed a relaxing 19-month stint at Leavenworth. The one in Kansas, where the federal pen is. Not the German-themed tourist trap in Central Washington. (Though there are striking similarities.)
So the guy's a gifted athlete. He's a free agent. Emphasis on free. But NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is certain to place certain, um, conditions on his return to the league. You might say, tastelessly, that Michael Vick has been (ahem) put on a short leash.
Where does he land? The Raiders have a reputation for signing players with checkered pasts. The Seahawks' new head coach was Vick's coach in Atlanta. The Falcons' fan base still has feelings for him.
Well, let's kick it off at home: Michael Vick has an exactly 0.0 percent chance of landing in Seattle. This region is known for its lovery of dogs. ("Love" was just too weak of a word, it needed a suffix or two.) Seattle has the highest rate of dog treat bakeries per capita in the nation. Not. Happ. Ening. There would be a revolt.
My personal opinion is that a team will take a chance on him. He's too explosive of a talent for EVERYONE to pass on him. And there are too few good QB's in the league as it is. Or someone will plug him in at receiver or kick returner. (New England. Minnesota. Chicago. Jacksonville. Miami. One of those places. For what it's worth.)
And swiftly, he'll screw it up somehow. Vick's a classic knucklehead: he was busted for pot possession AFTER being hit with the dogfighting charges. You know me, I'm enthusiastically in favor of legalizing pot. But it takes a special kind of stupid to tempt fate by lighting up while awaiting other charges. And there's no indication he would have stopped with the caninicide anytime soon. Any regret, any remorse he expressed at sentencing -- or since -- is purely due to his getting caught, not a product of his conscience.
He'll last a year or so. Then a DUI or an assault charge will do him in. And we'll remember him as a flash-in-the-pan, when he could have been so much more.
"Didn't he just serve time for running a cockfighting ring?"
It was dogfighting. But close enough. He just completed a relaxing 19-month stint at Leavenworth. The one in Kansas, where the federal pen is. Not the German-themed tourist trap in Central Washington. (Though there are striking similarities.)
So the guy's a gifted athlete. He's a free agent. Emphasis on free. But NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is certain to place certain, um, conditions on his return to the league. You might say, tastelessly, that Michael Vick has been (ahem) put on a short leash.
Where does he land? The Raiders have a reputation for signing players with checkered pasts. The Seahawks' new head coach was Vick's coach in Atlanta. The Falcons' fan base still has feelings for him.
Well, let's kick it off at home: Michael Vick has an exactly 0.0 percent chance of landing in Seattle. This region is known for its lovery of dogs. ("Love" was just too weak of a word, it needed a suffix or two.) Seattle has the highest rate of dog treat bakeries per capita in the nation. Not. Happ. Ening. There would be a revolt.
My personal opinion is that a team will take a chance on him. He's too explosive of a talent for EVERYONE to pass on him. And there are too few good QB's in the league as it is. Or someone will plug him in at receiver or kick returner. (New England. Minnesota. Chicago. Jacksonville. Miami. One of those places. For what it's worth.)
And swiftly, he'll screw it up somehow. Vick's a classic knucklehead: he was busted for pot possession AFTER being hit with the dogfighting charges. You know me, I'm enthusiastically in favor of legalizing pot. But it takes a special kind of stupid to tempt fate by lighting up while awaiting other charges. And there's no indication he would have stopped with the caninicide anytime soon. Any regret, any remorse he expressed at sentencing -- or since -- is purely due to his getting caught, not a product of his conscience.
He'll last a year or so. Then a DUI or an assault charge will do him in. And we'll remember him as a flash-in-the-pan, when he could have been so much more.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Park yer gun / 5-20-09
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Or:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Both are "official" versions of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Perhaps you've heard of it.) Bonus trivia: there are two versions above because Congress passed the first, the states ratified the second.
Reasonable people disagree on the precise meaning of each term and each clause. If you're on the side that claims the Second Amendment gives ordinary citizens the right to have a gun or two or more, I have to give you your due and say that's a legitimate reading of the text. I mean, it DOES say "shall not be infringed" right after the part where it presumably grants people the right of gun ownership. I do have rudimentary literacy skills, and I'm not in complete denial.
Still, punctuation matters, and so I'd like to offer that the right to "keep and bear arms" is contingent on the necessity for a militia. (And a well-regulated one at that.) To be brief, the first 13 words matter as much as the last 14. Prove to me this country's security depends on a militia of private citizens, and I will drop all argument. Until then, I do NOT think the Second Amendment bestows on pretty much everyone the right to own a gun.
But again, you do have the words of the text on your side and all I have is interpretation, so I can't very well say you're definitively wrong.
OK, now that our detour is complete, let's get on with it: Both houses of Congress have now cleared the way for citizens to legally carry loaded and concealed firearms into national parks.
I should be more upset about this, but I'm not. I should be foaming at the mouth, enraged at the NRA's repugnant takeover of a supposedly Democratic-controlled legislative branch. Except I think it's good legislation, from a purely constitutional point of view, if you believe strongly in individual gun rights.
I think it's horrible legislation on its face, and it makes me more reluctant to take my family camping in a national park, but if you believe the Second Amendment provides rights, and if you think concealed weapons should be legal for qualifying Americans, then you kind of should not mess with that right.
Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn (yes, he's a Republican) snuck this in as an amendment to the hugely popular credit-card consumer rights bill that passed this past week; since President Obama insisted that the main bill get to him quickly, the Democratic congressional "leadership" elected to not start the whole process over again. Coburn brazenly said, on the Senate floor no less, that the move "isn't a gotcha amendment." Okay.
And existing state laws trump the new gun law, so there's always that to fall back on.
In the end, though, people will die as a result of this legislation. We'll see if that ends up mattering.
Or:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Both are "official" versions of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Perhaps you've heard of it.) Bonus trivia: there are two versions above because Congress passed the first, the states ratified the second.
Reasonable people disagree on the precise meaning of each term and each clause. If you're on the side that claims the Second Amendment gives ordinary citizens the right to have a gun or two or more, I have to give you your due and say that's a legitimate reading of the text. I mean, it DOES say "shall not be infringed" right after the part where it presumably grants people the right of gun ownership. I do have rudimentary literacy skills, and I'm not in complete denial.
Still, punctuation matters, and so I'd like to offer that the right to "keep and bear arms" is contingent on the necessity for a militia. (And a well-regulated one at that.) To be brief, the first 13 words matter as much as the last 14. Prove to me this country's security depends on a militia of private citizens, and I will drop all argument. Until then, I do NOT think the Second Amendment bestows on pretty much everyone the right to own a gun.
But again, you do have the words of the text on your side and all I have is interpretation, so I can't very well say you're definitively wrong.
OK, now that our detour is complete, let's get on with it: Both houses of Congress have now cleared the way for citizens to legally carry loaded and concealed firearms into national parks.
I should be more upset about this, but I'm not. I should be foaming at the mouth, enraged at the NRA's repugnant takeover of a supposedly Democratic-controlled legislative branch. Except I think it's good legislation, from a purely constitutional point of view, if you believe strongly in individual gun rights.
I think it's horrible legislation on its face, and it makes me more reluctant to take my family camping in a national park, but if you believe the Second Amendment provides rights, and if you think concealed weapons should be legal for qualifying Americans, then you kind of should not mess with that right.
Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn (yes, he's a Republican) snuck this in as an amendment to the hugely popular credit-card consumer rights bill that passed this past week; since President Obama insisted that the main bill get to him quickly, the Democratic congressional "leadership" elected to not start the whole process over again. Coburn brazenly said, on the Senate floor no less, that the move "isn't a gotcha amendment." Okay.
And existing state laws trump the new gun law, so there's always that to fall back on.
In the end, though, people will die as a result of this legislation. We'll see if that ends up mattering.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Mr. Huntsman Goes to Beijing / 5-19-09
Hard to find a moderate Republican these days? So check the Dems' party! Check. Then check China! Check. Huh?
Erstwhile Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr. got himself appointed to the post of ambassador to the People's Republic last weekend, and it's tempting to brush this off as Obama smoothly exiling a moderate Republican out of the country. But there's more at play here.
The dude was close to entering the field for the 2012 GOP nomination. Listen to a guy who was in the know, one of McCain's strategists in 2000 and 2008: "He had not made a decision to run for president, but he had made a decision to prepare to run. We were probably a month away from announcing the formation of a political action committee, so we were pretty far down the road," said John Weaver.
Don't be fooled by Huntsman's old job as chief exec of the reddest state in the union. He came out for civil unions last year. He liberalized liquor laws. He's considered a friend of the environment. He was term-limited and in his second term.
And it appears Huntsman's political future is hardly harmed by this appointment; it boosts his bipartisan cred, gets him out of that small-state-governor box (you watching, Sarah?) and it gives him additional foreign policy experience. And who wants to run against BHO in 2012? Big gamble. Especially with another Mormon (Mitt Romney) in the field? Oh yeah, fun fact: Huntsman completed his LDS mission in Taiwan almost 30 years ago.
Erstwhile Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr. got himself appointed to the post of ambassador to the People's Republic last weekend, and it's tempting to brush this off as Obama smoothly exiling a moderate Republican out of the country. But there's more at play here.
The dude was close to entering the field for the 2012 GOP nomination. Listen to a guy who was in the know, one of McCain's strategists in 2000 and 2008: "He had not made a decision to run for president, but he had made a decision to prepare to run. We were probably a month away from announcing the formation of a political action committee, so we were pretty far down the road," said John Weaver.
Don't be fooled by Huntsman's old job as chief exec of the reddest state in the union. He came out for civil unions last year. He liberalized liquor laws. He's considered a friend of the environment. He was term-limited and in his second term.
And it appears Huntsman's political future is hardly harmed by this appointment; it boosts his bipartisan cred, gets him out of that small-state-governor box (you watching, Sarah?) and it gives him additional foreign policy experience. And who wants to run against BHO in 2012? Big gamble. Especially with another Mormon (Mitt Romney) in the field? Oh yeah, fun fact: Huntsman completed his LDS mission in Taiwan almost 30 years ago.
Hard at Work / 5-19-09
Sometimes, the party out of power works just as hard as the party in power.
Like today. The Democratic-controlled Senate wasted its time passing a bill that protects consumer rights from predatory practices of credit-card companies. From now on, banks won't be allowed to send bills as little as 14 days before their due date, nor will they be able to retroactively raise interest rates, or charge you a late fee if your payment due on a Sunday or holiday arrives one day late. Among other things. Those are just the highlights.
Not to be outdone, top Washington-area Republicans, including party chair Michael Steele, gathered at a luncheon to debate passing a resolution calling on the D's to rename their party the "Democrat Socialist Party."
Good work everyone.
Like today. The Democratic-controlled Senate wasted its time passing a bill that protects consumer rights from predatory practices of credit-card companies. From now on, banks won't be allowed to send bills as little as 14 days before their due date, nor will they be able to retroactively raise interest rates, or charge you a late fee if your payment due on a Sunday or holiday arrives one day late. Among other things. Those are just the highlights.
Not to be outdone, top Washington-area Republicans, including party chair Michael Steele, gathered at a luncheon to debate passing a resolution calling on the D's to rename their party the "Democrat Socialist Party."
Good work everyone.
The Satanism argument / 5-19-09
First of all, this blog is not going to become a same-sex marriage forum for all eternity. But that issue is probably the pre-eminent social flash point of this decade, and it elicits such strong emotions on both sides... if this were the 70's I'd probably write every other day about feminism and abortion.
But we're us and it's now, and future generations will look back on the SSM debate in much the same way we look back at the interracial marriage "debate." (Of course, just because our grandkids will excoriate the haters in the anti-gay crowd is no reason to support same-sex marriage.)
So the voices in my head have spent the last couple days offering this hypothetical conversation as a good argument to trot out when locked in disagreement with a Christian opposed to SSM.
Me: "So why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry? And don't give me that worn-out dung about how if we permit gay marriage, then it's only a matter of time before polygamy or bestiality or pedophilia show up on the legalization list. Nobody is asking to marry a mule or both their 12-year-old twin great-nieces here.
Anti-SSM person: "I won't go that hateful route. I just think God intended for marriage to be between a man and a woman. No other combos allowed."
Me: "All right. You can read the Bible that way. I've seen the same passages you're about to quote me. But since we're talking about what should be illegal in this country, let me ask you this: Should worshipping Satan be legal?"
Anti-SSM person: "I don't see why not. Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights."
Me: "We agree! But then, why apply God's laws to gays but afford constitutional protections to Satanists? Seems to me that God also intended worship to be for God alone, not for Satan."
Anti-SSM person: "Ummm..."
Me: "Applying orthodox Christian dogma to politics is tricky. It's fine to use Judeo-Christian values as a building block for the law. But it's just another ingredient, otherwise it quickly becomes illegal to pray to Allah, or to curse God. And if we're going have a Constitution which allows people to worship unhindered, we ought to allow adults to love in the same way. The two just go hand in hand."
Anti-SSM person: "Ummm..."
Please fill in the Ummms for me with reasonable replies. I can't think of any.
But we're us and it's now, and future generations will look back on the SSM debate in much the same way we look back at the interracial marriage "debate." (Of course, just because our grandkids will excoriate the haters in the anti-gay crowd is no reason to support same-sex marriage.)
So the voices in my head have spent the last couple days offering this hypothetical conversation as a good argument to trot out when locked in disagreement with a Christian opposed to SSM.
Me: "So why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry? And don't give me that worn-out dung about how if we permit gay marriage, then it's only a matter of time before polygamy or bestiality or pedophilia show up on the legalization list. Nobody is asking to marry a mule or both their 12-year-old twin great-nieces here.
Anti-SSM person: "I won't go that hateful route. I just think God intended for marriage to be between a man and a woman. No other combos allowed."
Me: "All right. You can read the Bible that way. I've seen the same passages you're about to quote me. But since we're talking about what should be illegal in this country, let me ask you this: Should worshipping Satan be legal?"
Anti-SSM person: "I don't see why not. Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights."
Me: "We agree! But then, why apply God's laws to gays but afford constitutional protections to Satanists? Seems to me that God also intended worship to be for God alone, not for Satan."
Anti-SSM person: "Ummm..."
Me: "Applying orthodox Christian dogma to politics is tricky. It's fine to use Judeo-Christian values as a building block for the law. But it's just another ingredient, otherwise it quickly becomes illegal to pray to Allah, or to curse God. And if we're going have a Constitution which allows people to worship unhindered, we ought to allow adults to love in the same way. The two just go hand in hand."
Anti-SSM person: "Ummm..."
Please fill in the Ummms for me with reasonable replies. I can't think of any.
Monday, May 18, 2009
When Bush comes to shove / 5-19-09
NOT a post about the Accidental President's next career as a MMA pro.
But OH YEAH a post about Obama dealing with the realities of the Oval Office.
Obama the campaigner decried the use of military tribunals to try terror suspects. He called for Abu Ghraib photos to be released.
Obama the Prez has kind of changed his mind on those issues.
We won't call it a flip-flop, out of respect for John Kerry.
Now there exists a naughty theory that explains Obama's reversal, and it boils down to calling BHO a fraud for running against Bush policies he had no intention of overturning. I think the truth is a little grayer than that. (Shocking. Almost as shocking as a politician ditching a campaign promise.)
One, Obama is no dummy. He knew that so long as he reflexively opposed everything a historically unpopular Bush stood for, then even he, as a black man, could travel the yellow brick road, true-blue, to the White House.
But secondly, I feel that the responsibility of keeping the country safe is causing Obama to reconsider his convictions. I think it more likely that daily intelligence briefings and such things are, gulp, encouraging him to continue some Bush policies that he may deem more useful now.
And, re-gulp, Mitch McConnell could be right. (Insert proverb about blind squirrels and nuts.) On Fox News two days ago, the Senate Minority Leader opined: "I think he's adjusting his sails on all of these issues now that he is President and knows that one of his principal responsibilities is to keep the American people safe."
Let's also not forget that BHO has already called for a stop to interrogation techniques equivalent to torture, and seems committed to closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
He could simply be reaching out to Republicans on the national-security level, forging a compromise here or there as he lays groundwork for future give-and-take on issues closer to his heart. I like that option the best. That makes it right, no?
But OH YEAH a post about Obama dealing with the realities of the Oval Office.
Obama the campaigner decried the use of military tribunals to try terror suspects. He called for Abu Ghraib photos to be released.
Obama the Prez has kind of changed his mind on those issues.
We won't call it a flip-flop, out of respect for John Kerry.
Now there exists a naughty theory that explains Obama's reversal, and it boils down to calling BHO a fraud for running against Bush policies he had no intention of overturning. I think the truth is a little grayer than that. (Shocking. Almost as shocking as a politician ditching a campaign promise.)
One, Obama is no dummy. He knew that so long as he reflexively opposed everything a historically unpopular Bush stood for, then even he, as a black man, could travel the yellow brick road, true-blue, to the White House.
But secondly, I feel that the responsibility of keeping the country safe is causing Obama to reconsider his convictions. I think it more likely that daily intelligence briefings and such things are, gulp, encouraging him to continue some Bush policies that he may deem more useful now.
And, re-gulp, Mitch McConnell could be right. (Insert proverb about blind squirrels and nuts.) On Fox News two days ago, the Senate Minority Leader opined: "I think he's adjusting his sails on all of these issues now that he is President and knows that one of his principal responsibilities is to keep the American people safe."
Let's also not forget that BHO has already called for a stop to interrogation techniques equivalent to torture, and seems committed to closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
He could simply be reaching out to Republicans on the national-security level, forging a compromise here or there as he lays groundwork for future give-and-take on issues closer to his heart. I like that option the best. That makes it right, no?
Thank you Chrissie G / 5-18-09
Governor Christine Gregoire is easily one of my least favorite Democrats. Her lack of leadership in local transportation issues and her inaction as the Sonics left town last year... those two things have soured me quite a bit on her skills. But at least she knows her civil rights.
Today she signed Senate Bill 5688, which grants gay couples joined by civil union ALL the same rights as married couples. And it's about time.
To dust off a rancid phrase and rebrand it a little, this bill ensures that gay partners are separate but equal to their straight counterparts. Truly equal -- in all but name. Only one separation remains between united gay couples and straight ones: the latter get to call themselves married and fill out some fancy forms to get their fancy certificate to put in their fancy frame.
Today's step is not enough, but I'm a pragmatist, and this is more than a small incremental victory for the respect and observation of civil rights in our state. At least now we all have the same rights, which gives me a little more hope for the future of the nation. If I were gay, I'd probably pop a bottle of champagne, but not the expensive stuff: I'd save that one for in two or three or four years, when same-sex marriage is legalized here.
(Gregoire is in my camp. She likes big incremental victories, a series of crisp 15-yard passes, if you will, rather than a 70-yard heave down the field. But if you read this mininterview, you'll see I'm also right about her complete lack of initiative.)
The Faith and Freedom Network -- which is exactly what it sounds like, an organization seeking to shame Jesus Christ and hinder freedom at the same time -- will attempt to gather enough signatures to put the issue on the November ballot so it can be OVERTURNED. They'll need 120,577 signatures between May 25 and July 25 to get their hate on the ballot. Please tell your family and friends that we don't need a referendum on whether or not to grant the same set of civil rights to all Washingtonians.
Today she signed Senate Bill 5688, which grants gay couples joined by civil union ALL the same rights as married couples. And it's about time.
To dust off a rancid phrase and rebrand it a little, this bill ensures that gay partners are separate but equal to their straight counterparts. Truly equal -- in all but name. Only one separation remains between united gay couples and straight ones: the latter get to call themselves married and fill out some fancy forms to get their fancy certificate to put in their fancy frame.
Today's step is not enough, but I'm a pragmatist, and this is more than a small incremental victory for the respect and observation of civil rights in our state. At least now we all have the same rights, which gives me a little more hope for the future of the nation. If I were gay, I'd probably pop a bottle of champagne, but not the expensive stuff: I'd save that one for in two or three or four years, when same-sex marriage is legalized here.
(Gregoire is in my camp. She likes big incremental victories, a series of crisp 15-yard passes, if you will, rather than a 70-yard heave down the field. But if you read this mininterview, you'll see I'm also right about her complete lack of initiative.)
The Faith and Freedom Network -- which is exactly what it sounds like, an organization seeking to shame Jesus Christ and hinder freedom at the same time -- will attempt to gather enough signatures to put the issue on the November ballot so it can be OVERTURNED. They'll need 120,577 signatures between May 25 and July 25 to get their hate on the ballot. Please tell your family and friends that we don't need a referendum on whether or not to grant the same set of civil rights to all Washingtonians.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Fathers and sons and baseball / 5-17-09
All four of us went to the game at Safeco today. Mariners vs. Red Sox.
With our family's ties to Boston, Aaron elected to wear the Sox cap, which clashed violently with my M's gear. It was adorable. The boys spent the morning explaining to me who they were going to root for at which times, and what it means when you put the cap on backwards. (It means you're temporarily switching allegiances, come on, don't you know, Dad? Turn yours around so you can root for Boston! Come on Dad!)
So anyway, got to the game early, plunked ourselves down in our upper deck seats. And what do we see... row right in front of us: Father in M's paraphernalia, son in Red Sox t-shirt. Row right behind us: Dad wearing Seattle stuff, kid with the Boston shirt.
Classic.
By the way, Mariners won, 3-2, on a two-out, bottom-of-the-ninth hit. Must have been an early Father's Day special.
With our family's ties to Boston, Aaron elected to wear the Sox cap, which clashed violently with my M's gear. It was adorable. The boys spent the morning explaining to me who they were going to root for at which times, and what it means when you put the cap on backwards. (It means you're temporarily switching allegiances, come on, don't you know, Dad? Turn yours around so you can root for Boston! Come on Dad!)
So anyway, got to the game early, plunked ourselves down in our upper deck seats. And what do we see... row right in front of us: Father in M's paraphernalia, son in Red Sox t-shirt. Row right behind us: Dad wearing Seattle stuff, kid with the Boston shirt.
Classic.
By the way, Mariners won, 3-2, on a two-out, bottom-of-the-ninth hit. Must have been an early Father's Day special.
No to incompetent gods / 5-17-09
There is, in my stunted mind, one unhurdable problem with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God, and it's precisely that problem which steers me toward Taoist philosophy.
It's the fact that orthodox Christianity posits a God who is supremely involved in the lives of humans. That doctrine befuddles me. Ordinarily, befuddlement would be fine, since I don't pretend to understand concepts like the Trinity. But then, the idea of a roll-up-your-sleeves deity goes a step farther and flat-out repulses me, and that's quite a bit more problematic.
Don't be mistaken. My beef with regular-old Christianity is NOT the oft-asked "How can a loving God allow sh!t to happen!?" No, it goes more like this: I can't believe in a God who's managing the day-to-day operations of Earth, Inc. It's too cruel, too arbitrary, too incompetent on God's part.
Answer this one: "How does a person believe that God actively protects their four-year-old child while the four-year-old across the street gets inoperable cancer, or the six-year-old across town shoots himself with his dad's gun?" (That's not the same question as "Why does God allow evil to do its thing?")
So let's grant that you're a good, upstanding believer. Let's grant that you believe God has the power to influence events. (Otherwise, well, your God isn't very Judeo-Christian, is He?)
Either you believe this Divine Being sometimes exercises that power and steps in to interact positively with people, or you believe that Being doesn't ever go that route.
If you believe that Being doesn't, you kind of have to ask yourself if your god cares about people at all, and if a "personal relationship" is possible with such a god. You might also want to rethink your understanding of the Bible.
Put it another way: Either you believe God intervenes, or you believe God set the world in motion and then stepped out of the way to let events run their course.
But I can't have it this way: God gets occasionally involved, and sometimes lifts a finger to prevent calamity, and sometimes God can't be bothered. That way leads to madness. For me. Maybe you can deal.
And I don't think I'm falling prey to an either/or logical fallacy here. (Please point it out, if I am.)
I know it sounds like I'm saying, "The world sucks a lot for a lot of people, through no fault of their own, so if you think God's in charge, that's a mighty sadistic/lazy/incompetent God you got there."
If you think that, congratulations, you are getting warmer. But you're off the mark. Mostly, I don't have the patience to put my faith in a lousy God. And that makes me feel so much more at home in a philosophy where the divine is experienced through wonder and meditation, where the divine is not knowable on a personal level like I know my wife, but on a deeper plane, in a mystical communion.
And yet I'm a Christian; the more I read the Gospels, the more I fall in love with the essence of the Christ figure. Still trying to figure out what that means.
It's the fact that orthodox Christianity posits a God who is supremely involved in the lives of humans. That doctrine befuddles me. Ordinarily, befuddlement would be fine, since I don't pretend to understand concepts like the Trinity. But then, the idea of a roll-up-your-sleeves deity goes a step farther and flat-out repulses me, and that's quite a bit more problematic.
Don't be mistaken. My beef with regular-old Christianity is NOT the oft-asked "How can a loving God allow sh!t to happen!?" No, it goes more like this: I can't believe in a God who's managing the day-to-day operations of Earth, Inc. It's too cruel, too arbitrary, too incompetent on God's part.
Answer this one: "How does a person believe that God actively protects their four-year-old child while the four-year-old across the street gets inoperable cancer, or the six-year-old across town shoots himself with his dad's gun?" (That's not the same question as "Why does God allow evil to do its thing?")
So let's grant that you're a good, upstanding believer. Let's grant that you believe God has the power to influence events. (Otherwise, well, your God isn't very Judeo-Christian, is He?)
Either you believe this Divine Being sometimes exercises that power and steps in to interact positively with people, or you believe that Being doesn't ever go that route.
If you believe that Being doesn't, you kind of have to ask yourself if your god cares about people at all, and if a "personal relationship" is possible with such a god. You might also want to rethink your understanding of the Bible.
Put it another way: Either you believe God intervenes, or you believe God set the world in motion and then stepped out of the way to let events run their course.
But I can't have it this way: God gets occasionally involved, and sometimes lifts a finger to prevent calamity, and sometimes God can't be bothered. That way leads to madness. For me. Maybe you can deal.
And I don't think I'm falling prey to an either/or logical fallacy here. (Please point it out, if I am.)
I know it sounds like I'm saying, "The world sucks a lot for a lot of people, through no fault of their own, so if you think God's in charge, that's a mighty sadistic/lazy/incompetent God you got there."
If you think that, congratulations, you are getting warmer. But you're off the mark. Mostly, I don't have the patience to put my faith in a lousy God. And that makes me feel so much more at home in a philosophy where the divine is experienced through wonder and meditation, where the divine is not knowable on a personal level like I know my wife, but on a deeper plane, in a mystical communion.
And yet I'm a Christian; the more I read the Gospels, the more I fall in love with the essence of the Christ figure. Still trying to figure out what that means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)