There was an editorial the other day in the New York Times by Warren Buffet.
What kills me about Warren is how universally ignored he is by the pundits and professors. He's like this rich uncle that people love and respectfully listen to... and then ignore. He is the Polonius of the Plutocracy.
In his piece, he argues strongly for the rich to pay more in taxes for two reasons:
a) We need the money and
b) It's basic fairness
This argument was immediately countered by economists on all sides of the equation for the simple reason that they think the actual increase in revenue would be relatively minor. OK, that's Argument A. But everyone ignored B. And B. is what matters.
Basic fairness matters. It matters -more- than the actual revenue because morale matters. When people feel the system is constantly gamed and unfair, they just stop trying. The motivation of fair play... that 'every kid can grow up to be President' is more valuable to the country than any bailout or stimulus package.
And economists almost never include that morale as a part of their equations... for the same reason they get things wrong about so many issues; they refuse to ignore any capital that can't be quantified in dollars. But social capital matters as much as financial capital. (I think David Brooks is largely corect when he suggests that this is because Economists know they aren't -real- scientists and if they get within 100 yards of 'human' factors, they won't get tenure.)
Until we start conducting tax policy with 'fairness' as a primary goal... regardless of it's economic efficacy, we will never regain our country's past glory.
Old Uncle Warren is correct: Moral tax policy is good economic tax policy.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Founding Fathers
In American politics these days it's very common for conservatives (and liberals) to refer to 'The Founding Fathers' to support one's position on an issue. Several Supreme Court justices describe themselves as 'originalists'... adhering to the letter of these 'framers' intentions.
To my mind this is as dangerous as a strict 'scriptural' interpretation of God's Laws.
Because the Founding Fathers did not speak with one voice on much of anything.
It's easy to forget that the hatreds amongst the founders of this great country.
Adams and Jefferson slandered one another. Jefferson used dirty tricks to win their presidential contest. They then didn't speak to one another for more than a decade.
Oh, and Hamilton was shot by fellow Founder Aaron Burr.
So besides getting rid of the Brits, there wasn't much they did agree upon.
As you can see, it's a bit disingenuous to talk about 'the framers original intent'. Franklin's vision of America was as different from Madison's as was Paul's version of Christianity from Peter's. In short, though they shared the same dream of heaven, their roads to Paradise were quite different.
There is always great tension between leaders of any important movement. So we should not be too quick to assume we know a singular truth about any founder's long term intentions. It's like asking 'What Would Jesus Do?' We can't know because, after all, even those who followed nearest him were being constantly surprised.
If we attempt to govern based on 'original intent', we must first decide on a singular intent. And in the case of America's foundation, there simply was no singular vision. So then it's up to us to choose which vision is truly 'authentic'. And when we choose, we must ask ourselves whether or not our choice is self-serving. Because Madison's 'vision' on many issues is diametrically opposed to Hamilton's or Adams'. When we choose to say we 'know' what the founders would do, aren't we really saying we prefer one founder's vision over another? And if so, can we really say we're being honest. Aren't we simply cherry-picking a viewpoint (albeit a heckuva viewpoint) to bolster feelings we already have in our mind?
I submit to you, Dear Reader, that those who spout 'original intent', either in matters of government or religion are likely using fine words to follow their own desires, rather than being led by those fine words. It's the height of irony and hypocrisy in my view.
To my mind this is as dangerous as a strict 'scriptural' interpretation of God's Laws.
Because the Founding Fathers did not speak with one voice on much of anything.
It's easy to forget that the hatreds amongst the founders of this great country.
Adams and Jefferson slandered one another. Jefferson used dirty tricks to win their presidential contest. They then didn't speak to one another for more than a decade.
Oh, and Hamilton was shot by fellow Founder Aaron Burr.
So besides getting rid of the Brits, there wasn't much they did agree upon.
As you can see, it's a bit disingenuous to talk about 'the framers original intent'. Franklin's vision of America was as different from Madison's as was Paul's version of Christianity from Peter's. In short, though they shared the same dream of heaven, their roads to Paradise were quite different.
There is always great tension between leaders of any important movement. So we should not be too quick to assume we know a singular truth about any founder's long term intentions. It's like asking 'What Would Jesus Do?' We can't know because, after all, even those who followed nearest him were being constantly surprised.
If we attempt to govern based on 'original intent', we must first decide on a singular intent. And in the case of America's foundation, there simply was no singular vision. So then it's up to us to choose which vision is truly 'authentic'. And when we choose, we must ask ourselves whether or not our choice is self-serving. Because Madison's 'vision' on many issues is diametrically opposed to Hamilton's or Adams'. When we choose to say we 'know' what the founders would do, aren't we really saying we prefer one founder's vision over another? And if so, can we really say we're being honest. Aren't we simply cherry-picking a viewpoint (albeit a heckuva viewpoint) to bolster feelings we already have in our mind?
I submit to you, Dear Reader, that those who spout 'original intent', either in matters of government or religion are likely using fine words to follow their own desires, rather than being led by those fine words. It's the height of irony and hypocrisy in my view.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
A Time To Kill 'Em All
I admire Barack Obama. Frankly, if I were prez, I'd probably be drawn to the same policies... and attitudes. I believe he is =sincerely= trying to bridge the gap.
I believe he is a lot like Lincoln. I think that Lincoln was a guy who dearly wanted to be liked, and believed in compromise. I think that's why he was elected... rather than because of any deep conviction. He wasn't about 'change'... he was about trying to hold things together. I think more people voted for Obama as someone who would try to bridge the gap than those who voted for 'Change You Can Believe In.'
At some point, it dawned on Lincoln that there was no compromise. I think it took even longer for his generals... not because they were any more incompetent than generals at any other time in history. I just don't think they believed in what it ultimately took to win... complete annihalation of the opposition. And think about it... even if you're an ardent abolitionist, as an -American- how can you go about slaughtering your Southern Brothers. In the back of all the commanders minds was the idea of not 'overdoing it'. How can you destroy the enemy unless you can make them truly 'the other'. When we fought Hitler... no one worried about 'overdoing it'. More was more.
But Lincoln had to watch hundreds of thousands die before he realised there was only one response. Only one way to win. Destroy the opposition. Screw compromise. It took so much death to figure out that the South would -never- break and any attempts to work with them were only encouraging.
My point is that, there are some places in history where a 'measured response' may not ultimately be the moral thing to do. And in obtaining victory, we must be willing to accept the long term consequences of creating a profound alienation.
People wonder why Gay Marriage has taken so long to come about.. vs Civil Rights. Partly it's because no leader has emerged like Malcom or Martin. Partly it's because there's nothing in the Bible about segregation as there is a direct admonition against homosexuality. But mostly, I think, it's because it's an issue that is submitting to that gradual, slow, reasoned course of history.
But there may be some wrongs---such as slavery, that simply will -not- submit to that measured response. They -must- be met with shock and awe... even though the aftermath will be dreadful.
My guess is that we are at a point like that in the evolution of our society. I think the 60's were akin to the end of slavery... a sudden tectonic force that changed everything. And what we're going through now is something like reconstruction; an attempt by people who liked things the way they were, to take it back.
Ultimately, they cannot win... just as civil rights were inevitable one way or the other... but I now wonder if Barack is the wrong President. I'm wondering if he's simply too reasonable. It may be that this country -needs- an uncompromising 'liberal' to protect the backsliding of progressive policies which, though well-intentioned, can only lead to the permanent downgrading of America.
I keep waiting for Barack to have his Lincoln moment; to simply get fed up and bring his policy in line with his conviction and take no prisoners.
I believe he is a lot like Lincoln. I think that Lincoln was a guy who dearly wanted to be liked, and believed in compromise. I think that's why he was elected... rather than because of any deep conviction. He wasn't about 'change'... he was about trying to hold things together. I think more people voted for Obama as someone who would try to bridge the gap than those who voted for 'Change You Can Believe In.'
At some point, it dawned on Lincoln that there was no compromise. I think it took even longer for his generals... not because they were any more incompetent than generals at any other time in history. I just don't think they believed in what it ultimately took to win... complete annihalation of the opposition. And think about it... even if you're an ardent abolitionist, as an -American- how can you go about slaughtering your Southern Brothers. In the back of all the commanders minds was the idea of not 'overdoing it'. How can you destroy the enemy unless you can make them truly 'the other'. When we fought Hitler... no one worried about 'overdoing it'. More was more.
But Lincoln had to watch hundreds of thousands die before he realised there was only one response. Only one way to win. Destroy the opposition. Screw compromise. It took so much death to figure out that the South would -never- break and any attempts to work with them were only encouraging.
My point is that, there are some places in history where a 'measured response' may not ultimately be the moral thing to do. And in obtaining victory, we must be willing to accept the long term consequences of creating a profound alienation.
People wonder why Gay Marriage has taken so long to come about.. vs Civil Rights. Partly it's because no leader has emerged like Malcom or Martin. Partly it's because there's nothing in the Bible about segregation as there is a direct admonition against homosexuality. But mostly, I think, it's because it's an issue that is submitting to that gradual, slow, reasoned course of history.
But there may be some wrongs---such as slavery, that simply will -not- submit to that measured response. They -must- be met with shock and awe... even though the aftermath will be dreadful.
My guess is that we are at a point like that in the evolution of our society. I think the 60's were akin to the end of slavery... a sudden tectonic force that changed everything. And what we're going through now is something like reconstruction; an attempt by people who liked things the way they were, to take it back.
Ultimately, they cannot win... just as civil rights were inevitable one way or the other... but I now wonder if Barack is the wrong President. I'm wondering if he's simply too reasonable. It may be that this country -needs- an uncompromising 'liberal' to protect the backsliding of progressive policies which, though well-intentioned, can only lead to the permanent downgrading of America.
I keep waiting for Barack to have his Lincoln moment; to simply get fed up and bring his policy in line with his conviction and take no prisoners.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Sineàd O' Connor Interview On Recent Church Sex Scandals
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/04/29/DI2009042902200.html
What is interesting to me is how closely her remarks match my own feelings on the subject.
What is interesting to me is how closely her remarks match my own feelings on the subject.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
There Are Evangelicals And Then There Are Evangelicals
Right. Well the first post didn't really go where I wanted it to, exactly, but it got the ball rolling. I'll try to be more focused as I go.
I wanted to expand upon the taxonomy I stated in my first post. I said there are 'three' basic groups on the whole 'religion' issue that are distinct from my 'traditional' religious system. I realized two things as I wrote this...
1. I really do fall into the 'evangelical' camp. And you do to, if you're a sincere believer of any stripe. If you really believe in the super-natural aspects of Jesus' life; resurrection and miracles? If you believe you have an obligation to spread the good news? You're an evangelical. But 'evangelical' is a term that has been co-opted by the media to conjur images of mega-churches, fundamentalism, insensitive proselytizing and intolerance of others. Quite the opposite of the original evangelicals back in... oh... 100 AD.
2. The 'non-corporates' are really a political aglomeration... ie. a right wing coalition based on hot button issues such as right to life, opposition to gay marriage and the promotion of faith-based schooling. But again, from the 'outside' (ie. the 'vast left-wing conspiracy' they look like one big amorphous blob. They ain't.
OK, for most of you this is nothing new... at least on an intellectual level. Nobody likes to be pigeon-holed into some mega-group. But be honest... most of us do it all the time to one another.
For example, I resented being labelled an 'evangelical' until I read the definition given by various 'evangelical' groups... according to them, their basic beliefs are quite similar to mine. The hot button issues aren't even central to the core. Really think about it: are any of the hot button issues: abortion, gay marriage, faith in the school, part of the essential definition of a christian evangelical? Of course not. And yet, at some point, someone decided that if I don't have the 'group' position on these issues, I am decidedly not with them. Why? Why does some mega-group get to define this for -me-, even though these issues are not a part of the essential credo?
That's the thing that is divisive. By wanting to win a political victory, various groups got together and re-defined the whole CONCEPT of 'evangelical' to be 'with us or against us'. And that ain't fair! Or very Christian.
I wanted to expand upon the taxonomy I stated in my first post. I said there are 'three' basic groups on the whole 'religion' issue that are distinct from my 'traditional' religious system. I realized two things as I wrote this...
1. I really do fall into the 'evangelical' camp. And you do to, if you're a sincere believer of any stripe. If you really believe in the super-natural aspects of Jesus' life; resurrection and miracles? If you believe you have an obligation to spread the good news? You're an evangelical. But 'evangelical' is a term that has been co-opted by the media to conjur images of mega-churches, fundamentalism, insensitive proselytizing and intolerance of others. Quite the opposite of the original evangelicals back in... oh... 100 AD.
2. The 'non-corporates' are really a political aglomeration... ie. a right wing coalition based on hot button issues such as right to life, opposition to gay marriage and the promotion of faith-based schooling. But again, from the 'outside' (ie. the 'vast left-wing conspiracy' they look like one big amorphous blob. They ain't.
OK, for most of you this is nothing new... at least on an intellectual level. Nobody likes to be pigeon-holed into some mega-group. But be honest... most of us do it all the time to one another.
For example, I resented being labelled an 'evangelical' until I read the definition given by various 'evangelical' groups... according to them, their basic beliefs are quite similar to mine. The hot button issues aren't even central to the core. Really think about it: are any of the hot button issues: abortion, gay marriage, faith in the school, part of the essential definition of a christian evangelical? Of course not. And yet, at some point, someone decided that if I don't have the 'group' position on these issues, I am decidedly not with them. Why? Why does some mega-group get to define this for -me-, even though these issues are not a part of the essential credo?
That's the thing that is divisive. By wanting to win a political victory, various groups got together and re-defined the whole CONCEPT of 'evangelical' to be 'with us or against us'. And that ain't fair! Or very Christian.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Two Homes
I want to start off by telling you a bit about me. I'm closing in on 50 years old. I have two homes... one in Seattle, USA and the other in Dublin IE. I was raised in Ireland but I've been in the USA for so long I'm fairly well 'Americanised' (well, except for spelling ;) .) I was raised and remain a Catholic so everything I write about is within that framework.
I've noticed there are 3 factions in Seattle that have pretty much squeezed the life out of the 'traditional' religions in Seattle and that's what got me thinking about this blog.
1. 'Non-Corporate-Christians'. I don't have a good name for this uber-group because they cover a lot of ground. To me they are everyone who is not a member of a 'mainline' religious organisation like 'Episcopal', 'Presbyterian', 'Methodist', etc... I'm pretty sure this represents the majority of 'Christians' these days. Unfortunately, there is a misperception among the media and non-religious that they are all cut from the same cloth. You know this ain't true... For example, 'Fundamentalists' and 'Evangelicals' have nothing to do with Joel Osteen's brand of 'Christianity'. I think the media lumps y'all together as a political convenience... after all, the only thing this group seems to share in common is an overwhelming allegiance to Republican voting.
2. 'Spiritual But Non-Religious'. Most 'true' Seattle-ites would fall into this group. This also covers a lot of ground... various eastern philosophies, new age ideas, wiccan jazz, but mainly, it seems to me, a vague idea that there is 'something' out there beyond 'us', but certainly nothing that can be answered with traditional religions. These guys are about 98% Democratic in politics.
3. Bust out agnostics and atheists. They have a -lot- in common with Group #2 (although their politics are slightly less predictable.) Lately they have come out of the closet and are now vocal in the 'zealotry'. It seems like they feel a need to push back against what they perceive as the 'creationist threat'.
As I say in the intro, I feel squeezed by all three of these meta-groups. I can't figure out how they have come to dominate the media landscape. I know there are still a -lot- of 'traditional' church-goers like me... but you never hear about us so it seems like we've become irrelevant.
Well, I'm not quite ready to go quietly into that good night. I frankly find all three groups to be seriously deficient in their respective outlooks and I intend to explore these problems here. There is a real intolerance developing which has contributed to the polarization in the West and it is largely because each group has developed quite the 'holier-than-thou' attitude which would seem to contradict centuries of progress towards tolerance and communication between people of different belief systems.
I also want to provide a forum for anyone else out there who feels, as I do, that 'faith' and 'science' -do- go together---without apologies and without a bunch of lengthy circular logic. I'm talking about unabashed belief in God... yes, a 'personal' God that runs the whole show. But not finding that incompatible with 'evolution' or 'string theory'. And not feeling a need to destroy our faith when it's leaders are found wanting. And not denying scientific reality because of various phrases in a religious text.
There's a lot to cover, but I've gassed on enough for now. Trying to keep these things 'bite-sized' will be a challenge for a world-class ranter such as meself. ;)
---JC
I've noticed there are 3 factions in Seattle that have pretty much squeezed the life out of the 'traditional' religions in Seattle and that's what got me thinking about this blog.
1. 'Non-Corporate-Christians'. I don't have a good name for this uber-group because they cover a lot of ground. To me they are everyone who is not a member of a 'mainline' religious organisation like 'Episcopal', 'Presbyterian', 'Methodist', etc... I'm pretty sure this represents the majority of 'Christians' these days. Unfortunately, there is a misperception among the media and non-religious that they are all cut from the same cloth. You know this ain't true... For example, 'Fundamentalists' and 'Evangelicals' have nothing to do with Joel Osteen's brand of 'Christianity'. I think the media lumps y'all together as a political convenience... after all, the only thing this group seems to share in common is an overwhelming allegiance to Republican voting.
2. 'Spiritual But Non-Religious'. Most 'true' Seattle-ites would fall into this group. This also covers a lot of ground... various eastern philosophies, new age ideas, wiccan jazz, but mainly, it seems to me, a vague idea that there is 'something' out there beyond 'us', but certainly nothing that can be answered with traditional religions. These guys are about 98% Democratic in politics.
3. Bust out agnostics and atheists. They have a -lot- in common with Group #2 (although their politics are slightly less predictable.) Lately they have come out of the closet and are now vocal in the 'zealotry'. It seems like they feel a need to push back against what they perceive as the 'creationist threat'.
As I say in the intro, I feel squeezed by all three of these meta-groups. I can't figure out how they have come to dominate the media landscape. I know there are still a -lot- of 'traditional' church-goers like me... but you never hear about us so it seems like we've become irrelevant.
Well, I'm not quite ready to go quietly into that good night. I frankly find all three groups to be seriously deficient in their respective outlooks and I intend to explore these problems here. There is a real intolerance developing which has contributed to the polarization in the West and it is largely because each group has developed quite the 'holier-than-thou' attitude which would seem to contradict centuries of progress towards tolerance and communication between people of different belief systems.
I also want to provide a forum for anyone else out there who feels, as I do, that 'faith' and 'science' -do- go together---without apologies and without a bunch of lengthy circular logic. I'm talking about unabashed belief in God... yes, a 'personal' God that runs the whole show. But not finding that incompatible with 'evolution' or 'string theory'. And not feeling a need to destroy our faith when it's leaders are found wanting. And not denying scientific reality because of various phrases in a religious text.
There's a lot to cover, but I've gassed on enough for now. Trying to keep these things 'bite-sized' will be a challenge for a world-class ranter such as meself. ;)
---JC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
