Economic Wisdom from the Sports Page

ESPN's Gregg Easterbrook could be considered a renaissance man. While his weekly column is called "Tuesday Morning Quarterback" and is published on ESPN.com, he frequently strays into non-sports-related topics. In fact, every column comes with a large helping of science news along with comments on societal morays, entertainment and even sometimes politics. I haven't taken the time to research Easterbrook's credentials, but he seems to be quite knowledgeable on these subjects and often has an interesting viewpoint that differs sharply from the mainstream. This week, he took the time to delve into the current economic situation and his words somewhat echo some of the thoughts I've been having. Rather than link to a column that's mainly about sports, I'll share the relevant section with you here:


Gasoline Plentiful, Perspective Scarce: "Financial chaos is sweeping the world," a New York Times lead story said last week. I didn't notice any chaos in my part of the world -- every business was open, ATMs were working, goods and services were plentiful. There are economic problems to be sure. But chaos? Collapse? Next Depression? Please, media and political worlds, let's stop hyperventilating and show some perspective.

What is going on is a financial panic, not an economic collapse. Financial panics are no fun, especially for anyone who needs to cash out an asset right now for retirement, college and so on. But financial panics occur cyclically and are not necessarily devastating. The most recent financial panic was 1987, when the stock market fell 23 percent in a single day. Pundits and politicians instantly began talking about another Depression, about the "end of Wall Street." The 1987 panic had zero lasting economic consequences -- no recession began, and in less than two years, stocks had recouped all losses. (See John Gordon's excellent 2004 book on the history of financial panics, "An Empire of Wealth.") Perhaps a recession will be triggered by the current financial panic, but it may not necessarily be severe.

Politicians and pundits are competing to see who can act most panicked and use the most exaggerated claims about economic crisis -- yet the fundamentals of the U.S. economy are, in fact, strong. Productivity is high; innovation is high; the workforce is robust and well-educated; unemployment is troubling at 6.1 percent, but nothing compared to the recent past, such as 11.8 percent unemployment in 1992; there are no shortages of resources, energy or goods. Here, University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan shows that return on capital is historically high; high returns on capital are associated with strong economies. Some Americans have significant problems with mortgages, and credit availability for business could become an issue if the multiple bank-stabilizing plans in progress don't work. But the likelihood is they will work. When the 1987 panic hit, people were afraid the economy would collapse; it didn't. This panic is global, enlarging the risks. But there's a good chance things will turn out fine.

Why has a credit-market problem expanded into a panic? One reason is the media and political systems are now programmed for panic mode. Everything's a crisis! Crises, after all, keep people's eyes glued to cable news shows, so the media have an interest in proclaiming crises. Crises make Washington seem more important, and can be used to justify giveaways to favored constituent groups, so Washington influence-peddlers have an interest in proclaiming crises.

An example of the exaggerated crisis claim is the assertion that Americans "lost" $2 trillion from their pension savings in the past month, while equities "lost" $8 trillion in value. "Investors Lose $8.4 Trillion of Wealth" read a Wall Street Journal headline last week. This confuses a loss with a decline. Unless you cashed out stocks or a 401(k) in the past month, you haven't "lost" anything. Nor have most investors "lost" money, let alone $8.4 trillion -- crisis-mongering is now so deeply ingrained in the media that even Wall Street Journal headline writers have forgotten basic economics. People who because of financial need have no choice but to cash out stocks right now are really harmed. Anyone who simply holds his or her ground with stocks takes no loss and is likely, although of course not certain, to come out ahead in the end. During the housing price bubble of 2003 to 2006, many Americans became much better off on paper, but never actually sold their homes, so it was all paper gains. Right now many Americans holdings stocks or retirement plans are much worse off on paper, but will be fine so long as they don't panic and sell. One of the distressing things about last week's media cries of doomsday is that they surely caused some average people to sell stocks or 401(k)'s in panic, taking losses they might have avoided by simply doing nothing. The financial shout-shows on cable tend to advise people to buy when the market is rising, sell when the market is falling -- the worst possible advice, and last week it was amplified by panic.

We've also fallen into panic because we pay way too much attention to stock prices. Ronald Reagan said, "Never confuse the stock market with the economy." Almost everyone is now making exactly that mistake. The stock market is not a barometer of the economy; it is a barometer of what people think stocks are worth. These are entirely separate things. What people think stocks are worth now depends on their guess about what stocks will be worth in the future, which is unknowable. You can only guess, and thus optimism feeds optimism while pessimism feeds pessimism.

There is no way the American economy became 8 percent less valuable between breakfast and morning coffee break Friday, then became 3 percent more valuable at lunchtime (that is, improved by 11 percent), then became 3 percent less valuable by afternoon teatime (that is, declined by 6 percent) -- to cite the actual Dow Jones Industrials swings from Friday. And the economy sure did not become 11 percent more valuable Monday. Such swings reflect panic or herd psychology, not the underlying economy, which changes over months and years, not single days. For the past few weeks pundits and Washington and London policy-makers have been staring at stock tickers as if they provided minute-by-minute readouts of economic health, which they do not. It's embarrassing to see White House and administration officials seemingly so poorly schooled in economic theory they are obsessing over stock-price movements, which they cannot control and in the short term should not even care about.

Consider this. On Black Monday in 1987, the market fell 23 percent. If you had invested $100 in a Dow Jones Index fund the following day, it would be $460 now, a 275 percent increase adjusting for inflation. That's after the big slide of the past month, and still excellent. So don't panic, just hold your stocks. And if you'd invested $100 in real estate in 1987, it would be $240 today, a 30 percent increase adjusting for inflation. That's after the housing price bubble burst. A 30 percent real gain in 20 years isn't a great investment -- until you consider that you lived in the house or condo during this time. To purchase and live in a dwelling, then come out ahead when you sell, is everyone's dream. Not only do stocks remain a good buy, America on average is still coming out ahead on the housing dream. (This example uses the Case Shiller Index for the whole country; because housing markets are local, some homeowners have lost substantial ground while others enjoyed significant appreciation.)

Economic problems are likely to be with us for awhile, but also likely to be resolved -- the 1987 panic and the 1997 Asian currency collapse both were repaired more quickly than predicted, with much less harm than forecast. Want to worry? Worry about the fact that the United States is borrowing, mainly from foreign investors and China, the money being used to fix our banks. The worse the national debt becomes -- $11 trillion now, and increasing owing to Washington giveaways -- the more the economy will soften over the long term. It's long-term borrowing, not short-term Wall Street mood swings, that ought to worry us, because the point may be reached where we can no longer solve problems by borrowing our way out. TMQ's former Brookings Institution colleague Peter Orszag, now director of the Congressional Budget Office, was on "Newshour" last week talking about the panic. Orszag is a wicked-smart economist -- for instance, he is careful to say pension holdings have declined, not been lost like most pundits are saying, as if there were no difference between decline and loss! The below exchange occurred with host Jeffrey Brown. Remember these words:

PETER ORSZAG: One thing we need to remember is we're lucky that we have the maneuvering room now to issue lots of additional Treasury securities and intervene aggressively to address this crisis.

JEFFREY BROWN: Wait a minute. Explain that. Lucky in what sense?

PETER ORSZAG: That people are still willing to lend to us. If in 20 or 30 years we continue on the same path, with rising health-care costs and rising budget deficits, we would reach a point where we wouldn't have that ability.

I'll admit that I know almost nothing about the economy. Not exactly a math person. However, I've been waiting for someone to say this for weeks. While real life factors clearly affect the market, it is based entirely on perception and it doesn't help anything when new organizations and politicians are constantly using the word "recession" and talking like it's the end of the world. Is our economy in the best shape it's ever been in? No. Is there a good chance it will recover? I think so. McCain said that the economy was "fundamentally strong" a few weeks ago and got hammered for it. It's like no one is allowed to say that things aren't really that bad without being called insensitive or naíve. I honestly don't know if the bail-out was the right move or not. But I'm pretty sure that over-reacting isn't helping anyone.

the difference between men & women

My friends and I are avid watches of "The Office." It's set to "Keep until I delete" on the DVR. This past season, however, not everyone was totally pleased. It seemed pretty alright to me, but Rebecca complained that it just didn't seem right. The reason for the show's decline, in her opinion, was the fact that Jim and Pam finally got together. For those of you that don't watch the show, it's atypical in some ways, but Jim and Pam's relationship follows a classic sit-com arc. When the show begins, they're best friends at work who spend a good chunk of their time talking to each other and joking around. There's obvious chemistry there, but Pam is engaged to a jerk who works in the warehouse. It takes a few seasons, but eventually Jim confesses his love to her, she breaks up with the douche, and they end up together. Now they're happy and, as far as the relationship goes, more or less problemless. There's still conflict on the show, but the Jim and Pam "Will they or want they?" that was once the center of the show has been replaced by the much more tame, "When/how will Jim finally propose?" Rebecca thinks Jim and Pam's relationship has caused the show's decline. And, while she loves them both individualy and agrees that they're perfect for each other, she wants them should break up for the good of the show. I strongly disagree. In fact, I think it's a completely horrible idea.

One of my least favorite things in movies and TV shows is when a couple gets together and they're obviously right for each other, but in order to stretch things out and create conflict, the writers send some ridiculous, unrealistic circumstance or misunderstanding their way to break them up. It's that kind of thinking that ruined "Friends." During the early years, I considered it one of my favorite shows, but then, after the audience had waited years for Ross and Rachel to get together, the stupid writers broke them up. I didn't have such a strong attachment to the characters that their split upset me, but it didn't make sense and it sent the show into a whole new direction. What had once been a show about quirky 20-somethings and their misadventures became basically a soap opera with the friends taking turns hooking up with each other and whatever celebrity they could talk into making a cameo. A few years after the break-up, the writers gave Ross and Rachel a baby, but defiantly refused to let them get back together. They finally reunited in the pilot with what I believe was one of those cliche airport scenes and I guess that was the idea all along. By that point, however, it was anti-climatic and the damage had been done. The ratings stayed high, of course, but what was once a show with across-the-board appeal became a show that guys refused to watch. "

It got me thinking about men and women. Maybe women just like for things to be complicated. I think every guy has been asked a question that seems like a trap. Every guy has seen a woman freak out and start a fight over something that seems insignificant. That's not to see that men don't do a myriad of things to ruin relationships as well. We're just as stupid if not more so. But I still wish that women could learn to be happy when things are good.


I've picked up another key gender difference during my time at Toys [backwards]R Us. Women have children as an outlet for nurturing and a source of unconditional love. Men have children to give themselves an excuse to play with toys.


On a completely unrelated note. Do we know for sure that Pac-Man and Ms Pac-Man were husband and wife? She used the ubiquitous-in-the-80's "Ms" that's specifically designed to be unspecific. She may have been his sister for all we know. I do remember a Pac-Man Jr at one point, but they certainly wouldn't be the first couple to have a child out of wedlock and it's perfectly possible that, 80's supercelebrity that he was, Pac-Man knocked up Samus from Metroid or the blonde girl in the ferrari from Out Run. Maybe the fact that her name was Ms Pac-Man and not Pac-Woman means they were probably married, but either way I'm pretty sure she was sleeping with Q*bert.

push it back?

I found this article interesting. Seems that a bunch of college presidents got together to push for the drinking age to be moved back to 18. It's definitely weird to me that you can be a legal adult in so many other ways and not be afforded all the rights of adulthood. I also understand that it's difficult for colleges to treat some students differently than others. It's a weird situation. On the other hand, nobody wants more drunk driving deaths. I don't drink personally, but I don't think it' morally wrong if the drinker is legal and the intent is not to get drunk. I'm not sure how I come down on this particular issue, but I'm tempted to go with the college presidents. I usually favor more freedom over less. What do you guys think?

best seller

Every two or three years or so, there's a Christian book that really catches fire. Whether the circumstances are ordained by God or if these books happens to contain something that a lot of people are looking to hear is debatable, but whatever the cause, these books seemingly go from unknown to everywhere over night. Despite the fervor, or maybe because of it, I've always chosen to avoid them. I never read The Purpose Driven Life and I've never prayed The Prayer of Jabez. I've never even opened a Left Behind book and I didn't see the movie, my love for "Growing Pains" not withstanding. Recently, however, my parents gave me a copy of the latest Christian sensation (and weekly fixture in the New York Times Best-Seller List), The Shack. I'd read about the book in USA Today where they'd mentioned that many evangelical leaders had negative things to say about it and I was interested to see if the controversy was warranted, so I decided it was worth a read. It's currently the suggested book of the month at my church and they asked for comments on the church's blog, so I thought I'd turn my thoughts into a blog of my own and share it.

For those of you that don't know me, I have an English degree and most of a master's, so I tend to be critical of the things I read. This isn't the kind of book that can be judged simply by technique, but I find that it's valuable to study any work analytically and break down its strengths and weaknesses. If you happen to be completely enamored with the book and would be offended by any criticism of it, you may want to stop here. For everyone else, as the Apostle Paul said, "I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness; but you are already doing that."

[By the way, for those that haven't read the book, know that there will be spoilers galore. Come back later perhaps.]

First of all, let's get the negative out of the way. From a purely aesthetic point-of-view, I had a few issues with The Shack. Young's writing is mostly smooth, if unimpressive, but there are a few plot points that get skipped over and some misplaced modifiers here and there. For example, the narrator says early on that Mack[the main character]'s two oldest children are away at "camp or college. " Okay. So which is it? Does the otherwise-omniscient narrator not know? Most likely, Young (the author) meant that one was at college while the other was attending summer camp, but the mistake was enough to make me pause. While it doesn't seem like a huge flaw, little mistakes like that can ruin the flow of the narrative and take the reader out of the moment. After Missy's disappearance, the book goes into great detail about what each family member does in response, but the oldest children are completely left out of the picture. One would assume that they returned from camp or college to be with the rest of the family, but Young doesn't mention them again until much later in the book and never really tries to develop them as characters. Honestly, I'm not sure what purpose the older children serve and if I were the editor, I would have simply cut them from the narrative. Again, it's not the kind of thing that ruins a whole book, but when I'm reading a novel I'd prefer not to have a stop and think about why two kids just pulled a Chuck Cunningham. There are some other missing details throughout the book that bothered me (such as the kids' ages never being mentioned). These things could easily have been fixed with a sentence or two and I hope the poor editing is due to the book being published by a smaller company and isn't indicative of Christian fiction as a whole.

Next, let's get down to the meat of the book. What does it say? Well, it says a lot actually. When Mack meets up with "Papa" God, it's not all hugs and cake baking. They get into some pretty deep theology. A lot of it is pretty basic and mainstream. I thought, for example, that it was a bit odd for a former seminary student to not know that the purpose of the old covenant law was to point out our sin and inadequacy, but that's being a bit nitpicky I realize. Some of the theology, on the other hand, was a bit unorthodox. I don't have the book in front of me right now because I let someone borrow it, but I remember being struck by several statements that I would characterize as debatable at the very least. And there's certainly nothing wrong with that. I'd much rather read fresh ideas than hear the same boring take on things that I could already recite verbatim. It did strike me as a bit arrogant at first that Young had those statements of theology coming from the mouth of God. But people claim to be hearing directly from God all the time and Young never says his book is a true story or that his fictionalized "Papa" is an exact replica of the real creator of the universe. In fact, it bothered me a bit at the end when Mack immediately wrecks his car upon leaving the shack and questions whether his weekend was all a dream. The Alice in Wonderland/Wizard of Oz ending has been done to death and I didn't see the point in backpedaling and undercutting the rest of the book. Then, of course, Mack's best friend Willy reveals that he's been the narrator all along. It was a hokey ending that didn't seem necessary and left a bad taste in my mouth.

All that being said, I actually did enjoy the book. You'd have to be made of stone to not be moved by the death of a child and Young renders it well without straying too far into sentimentality. Beyond that, I think there are three common issues that the book addresses with a good deal of depth and grace:

1) Mack, like many people, has a problem dealing with God as father. Because of the unhealthy relationship he'd experienced with his earthly father, the word doesn't have the positive connotation for him that it should. God chooses to reveal himself to Mack as a woman, while still going by "Papa," to ease Mack into the concept, but he doesn't stop there. He also reconciles Mack with his natural father and deals with the issue of fatherhood head-on. By the end, Mack is much more comfortable with God as a father and I imagine many readers have made the journey right along with him.

2) Mack is devastated by the loss of his daughter and not only carries around melancholy and hurt, but also holds a grudge against God for allowing her to die. Mack and Papa work through the anger and, again, deal with the issue directly until he is able to forgive both God and himself. We've all had times where we're angry at or frustrated with God and Mack's story, while extreme, is a great model both of what not to do in the beginning of the novel and eventually of how to accept those emotions and move past them.

3) Mack also suffers the common problem of seeing God as Old Testament judge rather than loving creator and friend. I felt like the book could have done a bit more to reconcile the seemingly harsh God of the Torah with the Abba Father that we all know is one and the same, but it does paint an excellent picture of God in that loving, nurturing role. It's a role that's often relegated to the more camera friendly Jesus, but it's an aspect of God's personality as well and one that many readers may not have grasped. "God is love." It's a simple statement, but when that's the center of your equation, everything else falls into place.

Finally, let's tackle the controversy. I don't claim to speak for the book's detractors and there may be other criticisms leveled against the book that I haven't read. From my understanding, however, the main complaint is that the book doesn't really speak favorably of organized religion. Truth be told, the critics are right. The Jesus character is particularly critical of the modern church and Mack seems to be disillusioned by things he's seen go on among supposed Christians. Really, though, if we're honest with ourselves, don't we have to admit that we, the church, deserve a bit of criticism? So many individual churches are filled with lifeless Christians and two-faced unbelievers and the church as a whole has been infected with all sorts of rogue doctrine and some downright heretical beliefs. We've become the lovers of ourselves that Paul warned against and we're long overdue for a wake-up call. The Shack may not be the alarm bell that we need, but it's certainly not out of line in its criticisms. Despite the fact that Mack spends a lot of time in nature, his visit with God is a very specific event and the book doesn't advocate a transcendental, Walden Pond communing with nature. While the characters don't talk a lot about Mack's specific church, I think the fact that Mack shares his story with his wife and his best friend shows that Young recognizes the need for Christians to be in a community of other believers. I can see why some church-leaders are upset about the book, but any church built on sound doctrine with strong, God-seeking leadership should have nothing to fear.

The Shack, like any book, has its flaws. The writing could use a touch up in places, but it's not so terrible that it prevents the book from serving its purpose. Not everyone who reads The Shack will be amazingly touched and write glowing testimonials, but I feel like any Christian who looks should be able to find at least one or two nuggets of truth worth holding onto. Thankfully, most of us will never go through an earth shaking tragedy like the one in the novel. Still, there's still a bit of Mack in all of us and sometimes we need a special visit with Papa.

reunited and it feels...?

It came in the mail on Tuesday. The invitation to my high reunion. Lumberton Senior High's class of '98 will be living it up at the Black Water grill on June 21. Make your calendars. As for me though, I might just skip it.

First, there's the price. It's fifty-five dollars, which seems like a little much to me. I think the homecoming queen might be skimming a bit off the top (just kidding, Kelly). I'm not so destitute that I can't afford it, but when you factor in the forty bucks it'll cost me to drive there and back, it's a lot of money to pay for one meal and some cocktails I won't drink.

Secondly, there's my current life situation. Everybody wants to be doing something cool by their reunion and I like my current life for the most part, but it's not exactly impressive. "I almost got my master's and now I work at a toy store" isn't likely to wow. I like my job a lot some days and I make enough to get by on, but I could have done the same thing I'm doing now at 19 or 20 and I'm 27.

Lastly, there's my classmates. I wasn't exactly popular in high school. I talked to all the popular kids when we had classes together, but I never hung out with any of them outside of school. In fact, the only people I really hung out with at all were other theatre people and friends from church. I certainly don't hold any animosity towards anyone I went to high school with. I didn't dislike many people then and I've never been good at holding a grudge. Thing is, I always figured I'd go to my reunion just to satisfy my curiosity, to find out what everybody's up to. Thanks to the interweb, though, I've already satisfied that curiosity. I'm MySpace or Facebook friends with a good chunk of the people I'd be interested in knowing about. I can see what they're all doing now via the worldwide-superhighway-net and there's no awkward, forced conversation. There's still a few people I'm curious about, but I have no idea if they'll be there or not and I don't know if it's enough to make the whole thing worthwhile. Right now I'm leaning towards no.

the San Francisco threat

I'm going to talk about other things now, but I did want to add my opinions on the weekend's candidate happenings. The biggest news obviously was Barrack's gaffe in San Francisco. At a fund-raiser there he said, "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Not surpisingly, the Clinton campaign seized on the comments and began painting him as an elitist who's out of touch with the middle-class. She's definitely right that he comes off as elitist sometimes and his comments were extremely condescending, but there's probably some truth to them as well. People without jobs are bitter. The middle and lower classes tend to be more interested in hunting and religion than the rich and many of them are racist. All of those things are true. If someone else had said them, Marilyn Manson perhaps (he of the God, Guns and Government World Tour), they might have even been seen as inciteful. Problem is, they're not something you can say as president. Obama can sit around with his friends smoking cigarettes and talking about how uneducated and racist the poor are all he wants, but he can't make speeches doing the same. True or not, there are some things you're just not allowed to say.

On a side note, I'm not sure which clip I saw today was more disturbing: Hillary talking about the Holy Spirit or Hillary taking shots of crown royal.

a very old man with enormous wings

After a short haitus, it's on to section three. Let's see who's with me still.

Part 3 - John McCain

John McCain's a war hero. We all know that. Pretty much everyone who's not a Moveon.org pseudo-commie, half-insane liberal seems to agree that he's a man of strength and courage who loves his country dearly. He also has a vast amount of experience and more than enough commander in chief credentials. None of that will be enough by itself to win him the nomination, however. Let's take a look at how he stacks up otherwise.

Since its release in 2005, historian Doris Kearns Goodwin's Lincoln biography Team of Rivals has gotten a fair amount of press. The main theme of the book is that Lincoln's true political genius came from the way he set up his cabinet. Rather than appointing only men who agreed with him on everything or repaying favors to his cronies, Lincoln selected four of his most bitter rivals as attorney general, secretary of state, secretary of treasury, and secretary of war respectively. Lincoln, according to Goodwin, looked beyond friendships and affiliations and, during a difficult era for our nation, wanted to be advised by the absolute smartest men he could find. I've seen Ms. Goodwin interviewed by both Tim Russert and John Stewart and they both discussed the idea that modern politicians should follow the Lincoln model. One of the problems with the Bush white house, as many people see it, is that he seems to insulate himself from the world and only listen to people who are telling him what he wants to hear. Of the three remaining candidates, I feel like John McCain would be the least likely to do that. Like Bush, he can be stubborn and tenacious on matters of principle, but unlike Bush, he has close friends and allies from both sides of the aisle and he's not afraid to change his position when he comes across new evidence. Many republicans frown at the fact that John McCain has sponsored bills with the Ted Kennedys and Dianne Feinstein's of the world, but I think it's great. If he's elected president, I'm confident that McCain will pick the most knowledgeable people he can find to be his sounding board, whether that means Mitt Romney or Joe Leiberman, Chuck Hagel or Lindsey Graham. But that's a bad thing to some people. According to many conservatives, John McCain is a dirty liberal. On both social and fiscal issues, however, he's solidly conservative. He has a 100% pro life voting record (for a somewhat nuanced explanation of why I think that's a good thing, read this post) and has never voted for a tax increase. So why do hardcore conservatives seem to hate him so much? Well, that's slightly complicated. For one thing, he's never sucked up to the talking heads. The Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the world like to think they have their listeners wrapped around their fingers and if their enormous egos aren't placated, then they're quick to turn against the man or woman who slighted them. John McCain has always refused to kowtow to them or apologize for disagreeing. When conservative radio host Bill Cunningham was brought in my Cincinnati republicans to "warm up the crowd" before a McCain rally, he repeatedly used Obama's middle name, Hussein, in an obvious attempt to link him to Islam. As soon as he found out what had been said, McCain immediately repudiated Cunningham's statements and made it clear that that's not the kind of campaign he's running. Cunningham responded angrily to McCain's chastisement and said that he was going to join Ann Coulter in voting for Hillary. Tiffs like that have been occurring throughout McCain's career, so next time you hear some talk radio guy railing against him, remember that he's probably doing so with a built in bias based on some perceived slight against his fraternity.

That's not to say though that the conservatives don't have fair complaints about McCain's policies. There's two main issues on which the far right and John McCain strongly disagree. First, there's immigration. I haven't done intensive research on McCain's immigration views, but here's the gist as I understand it: McCain gave support to a plan that would allow illegal immigrants to earn citizenship. In order to do so, they would be required to turn themselves into authorities, return home for a period of time (I believe about two years) and pay a somewhat hefty fine (it was about $2,000 if I remember correctly) before they would be fast-tracked to citizenship. Critics have said that the plan amounts to amnesty. While one of Webster's definitions of amnesty says, "the release from the penalties of an offense" (remember when you were in junior high and started every paper with "According to Webster's Dictionary, [the thing I'm writing about] is..."?) and the plan would indeed forgive certain individuals of the current penalties for illegal immigration, another definition contained there is, "the excusing of an offense without exacting a penalty." If that's the definition we're going with, then McCain's plan is definitely not amnesty. A couple thousand dollar fine and a bus ticket back from may not be the punishment many conservatives would prefer, but it's most certainly a punishment. I don't want to put words into his mouth, but I think that McCain's plan is mainly a function of his realistic viewpoint. Sure, we could hypothetically round up all 15 to 20 million illegal aliens and send them back home. Anybody on the far right have a solution of how to do that logistically? As far as I can see, it would be pretty much impossible. That's not to mention all the families that would be screwed up. Any child born here is an American citizen and I'm sure a lot of parents would choose to leave their kids behind to a better life. I can already see the TV footage of little kids crying as they're ripped from their parents' arms. Think Elian Gonzalez times a million. I'm all for upholding the law and tightening our borders and I think McCain is too, but sometimes you have to admit that your reach has exceeded your grasp and do anything you can to stem the bleeding.

The other major issue of contention between hardcore conservatives and McCain is the Bush tax cuts. When the tax cuts first went to congress, McCain went against the majority of republicans and voted against them. As you can imagine, that pissed a lot of people off. His reasoning was pretty solid, however. If you know anything about McCain's legislative history, you know that wasteful government spending has always been one of his favorite issues. Since he first arrived in the Senate, he's done everything he could to stamp out pork barrel spending, which is the euphemism given to the common practice of legislators inserting clauses into a bill that give their home states money for things that had nothing to do with the main thrust of the bill. It's the reason that a lot of people support a line-item veto and it's something that, according to McCain, was abundant in the tax cut bill. While he's generally for lower taxes, he couldn't in good conscience vote for a bill that was a textbook example of the very thing he's railed against for years. Since then, McCain has said that he thinks the Bush tax cuts were good for the economy and he supports making them permanent. Really, he's on the same page with conservatives on this one. Some of them just don't want to admit it.

Marisa commented that she feels like she has to pick the lesser evil this year. That's how I felt in 2004. I'd voted for Bush the first time and he'd proceeded to champion the godawful bad No Child Left Behind act, fail to make a convincing case for war and spread half-truths in the process and then completely mismanage said war to the point that people were already starting to compare it to Vietnam. I flat out refused to vote for him again. That left me with flip-flopping, soulless, liberal Kerry and I knew I couldn't vote for him either. I almost didn't vote at all, but then I decided that I'd use my vote to make a statement (albeit an unnoticed, mostly insignificant one). I voted for the Libertarian candidate because, while I don't necessarily agree with the Libertarian viewpoint on everything, I think it would be great if we had a few more parties to choose from. I got a lot of grief from my roommates for my decision, but I stand by it and I'd do it again faced with a similarly dismal choice. I don't, however, plan on voting Libertarian again this year. Anyone who's discussed politics with me will testify that I don't make any attempt to hide the fact that I'm a McCain fan. I dig the whole straight talker/maverick attitude and I agree with the majority of policy decisions he's made. We don't always see eye to eye and I don't blindly follow every word he says, but I happen to think he'd make an excellent president.

So there you have it. I'm going with door number three. Feel free to choose another option. Just don't say I didn't warn you.

going to the candidates' debate

Shortly before I began yesterday’s post, I noticed that Barack Obama was a guest on "Hardball" and I watched a bit of the interview. Today, about an hour before I started this post, my mom called to tell me that tomorrow, Bill Clinton is going to be in Pembroke, a little town about fifteen minutes from my hometown of Lumberton. She jokingly asked me if I was going out to see him and I responded, "Nah...I already saw Dan Quayle in person. That’s enough greatness to last a lifetime." And it’s true. At least the first part. My mom and I went to see Dan Quayle speak in 1991, in the midst of Bush 1’s reelection campaign. I don’t remember anything he said at this point, but I do remember the crowd chanting, "Bush Quayle ’92!" and towards the end of his speech switching to a rousing "Quayle ’96! Quayle ’96!" I think the humor speaks for itself.

I did want to add a follow-up note to my post about Obama. The conservatives that support him seem to be blind to the fact that he’s been consistetnly rated as one of the most liberal democrats in the senate. While I haven’t heard him promise publicly funded abortions like that bastion of conservatism Rudy Guiliani (note the dripping sarcasm), he has said some scary things on the subject, most notably his proclimation in a recent stump speech that if one of his daughters was to someday make "one mistake," he wouldn’t want them to have to be "punished with a baby." Wow. On to Mrs. Clinton...

Part 2 - Hillary Clinton

Contrary to the belief of many of my conservative brethren, Hillary Rodham Clinton is probably not the antichrist. There’s no reported evidence of her stealing babies’ souls to keep herself youthful or sacrificing goats to Satan and I’m pretty sure she didn’t kill Vince Foster personally. She’s a smart, capable woman and I’m sure she’d do an excellent job of managing many things. I just don’t happen to think the country is one of them. It’s funny to me that she’s touting herself as the candidate of experience in her fight against Obama. This is only her second term in the Senate and before that she’d never held elected office. But Hillary would have you believe that being first lady should count as experience. She lived in the White House after all, right? She was advising Bill at the dinner table when all sorts of important stuff happened. She’s been to state dinners and visited other countries and shaken hands with all the important world leaders. That’s got to count for something, doesn’t it? And maybe it does. She was definitely a different kind of first lady than Laura Bush and people made jokes at the time about her being the real president. But they were only jokes. Recently released documents from her time in the White House show that she wasn’t present for the super-secret cabinet meetings she’d like you to think she chaired and her slate of activities really didn’t differ all that much from most first ladies after all. Hillary may have a slight edge over Barack in the experience department, but if so it’s only slight. And unlike Mr. Obama, Hillary hasn’t managed to convince anyone that she’s not a liberal. But honestly, while she’s definitely liberal enough that I’ll never vote for her, she has a slightly more middle-of-the road voting record than Obama and has shown a willingness to work with Republicans on a few occasions. Her problem isn’t her policy; it’s her personality. She often seems stiff and too rehearsed and never manages to appear as confident, comfortable, or friendly as Obama. You can call it sexism, but John Kerry and Bob Dole faced the same problem. After the ’96 election, the country found out via SNL and Daily Show appearances and the infamous "little blue friend" Pepsi commercial that Bob Dole was actually had a great sense of humor, something that may have helped him dethrone Bill. Maybe Hillary will lose this year’s election and afterwards appear on Oprah and cry and we’ll all discover that she’s a warm, loving, vulnerable person. If she does possess those traits, however, she may want to go ahead and let them out because Obama is charming and spending his way to the nomination. As many pundits have pointed out, Hillary and Barack differ only slightly on policy and most voters aren’t all that nit-picky. Since they both lack long-term governing experience, the primary is coming down to personality and trustworthiness. Hillary could never beat Obama on the first one and being married to a man commonly referred to as "Slick Willy" really doesn’t help her case on the second. It’s still too early to count her out completely, but it’s certainly not looking good for our old pal Hillary. Just like you remember in high school, elections often come down to simple likability. There’s a reason they call it the popular vote.

teenage politics

I’ve posted several blogs about political issues in the past, but I’ve never taken the time to lay out my position on the broader political spectrum. At some point I may write a blog explaining why I’m a conservative or lay out the planks that would make up my platform were I a candidate for something. For the moment, however, I’m going to spend a few days sharing my views on the candidates for president. Sure, it would have been more interesting to do this before the field was parsed down to three candidates, when there were Huckabees and Pauls and Kucinicheses to write about, but I’m lazy and this is free. Sue me.

Part 1 - Barack Obama

As we all know by now, Barack Obama is a fantastic orator. An African-American Clinton supporter recently claimed that, within the black tradition, Obama would only be considered a mediocre speaker. If that’s the case, every black preacher in the country must be Martin Luther King because whatever mojo Obama’s got going, it’s taken America by storm. He first burst onto the national scene with a speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention and since then he’s been gaining supporters and fans every time he’s opened his mouth. Obama almost never fails to present himself as intelligent, forthright, thoughtful, and trustworthy and on top of that he’s run a fabulous tactical campaign as well. Every time he’s been attacked, he’s responded almost perfectly. Obama’s done such a great job that he’s even won supporters among those that typically vote Republican, but are hungry for the change that the senator offers. The problem is, Obama simply does not have the credentials to back up his eloquent words. He says the right things, but there’s no proof that he has the wherewithal to implement the "change" he speaks out for or that he’ll even attempt to follow through on his commitments. Even if you consider his four years in the Senate (most of those spent campaigning) and his seven serving the state of Illinois to be more than enough experience, his actions during those tenures don’t seem to match up with many of the statements he’s making now. He says he’s all about ending partisan politics and reaching across the aisle, but he’s never worked with Republicans on any legislation or voted contrary to party lines and he refused to join the Senate’s "Gang of 14" that brokered a cross-party compromise on judicial nominees. He claims he knows how to get things done in Washington, but even his staunchest supporters can’t come up with one thing he’s ever accomplished other than "inspiring." He claims he’s a man of virtue and integrity, but he refuses to reaffirm the pledge he made to use public funding in the general election now that he’s amassed a fortune in donations. Don’t get me wrong: I think Obama is probably a good guy. I liked what he had to say in his speech about race. I agree with his opinions on gay marriage and No Child Left Behind. It doesn’t bother me that he bowls like a girl. Thing is, all of my opinions on him, and everyone else’s as well, are based solely on his words. Call me cynical, but in politics, actions very seldom mirror words. Voting for Obama is like getting excited about a Christmas present that’s still wrapped up. Under that crisp paper and shiny bow, there may be that Wii you’ve been asking for since August or it may be another sweater from Aunt Ruth.

interesting article

I can't say I'm a regular visitor to oprah.com, but I found this article on CNN and I must say that I really like it. It reminds me a bit of my rant against Romantic Comedies. While I think most people would agree with the things the article says, we all need reminders from time to time not to get carried away and let things turn unhealthy.

boredom

What if time really is an illusion. All these memories of change are false, implanted. All the world is stiff, solid. Staid. There is only now. This moment; this instant. There is no need for seconds. No breathing. There is no reason to separate, demarcate. No lineation without motion. No trends or observations. There is only this. The is. The present stands alone, forever. We exist, but never live. We are, but never will be or were. This is it. And still is. And still is. You're not reading, only being. I'm not writing, only dreaming. I'm not here or I'm only here. Reality is stone and so am I.

Pennies from Heaven

If you don't know what's going on, here is one of the many articles about the current investigation being conducted into the spending practices of several nationally known evangelists. Among them are some people my parents have enjoyed like Joyce Meyers and Kenneth Copeland and of course there's the infamous Benny Hinn. I hadn't actually heard about the investigation until I was visiting my parents over Christmas and they mentioned to me that they didn't think Joyce Meyer was guilty, that people were starting rumors about lavish spending and they hoped it was nothing than falsehoods. And they may be right. It may turn out that Joyce, Kenneth, and even Armani-suit loving Benny haven't spent a dollar that wasn't accounted for and earmarked for their personal use. If so, that's great. I don't have a problem with preachers living in nice houses or driving nice cars. But I think it's sort of missing the point. I'm not willing to call any preacher a false prophet or a heretic without doing my homework and having specific evidence to back it up. What I will say though is that there are many evangelists out there who lead people to focus on the wrong things.

The prosperity gospel, as it's often known, is the idea that God wants his followers to be rich. He has blessings ready and waiting to pour out on each and every one of us as soon as we have the faith to believe they're coming. And there are verses to back that up I suppose. There are many places in the Bible that talk about being prosperous and living a blessed life. However, there are also many examples in the Bible of godly men who lived extremely rough lives. The article points out Job and mentions the apostle Paul as another good case study. The Bible never talks about Paul having money or owning nice things. Instead, it tells us how he was shipwrecked and bitten by a snake and repeatedly jailed and beaten. Was it because he didn't have enough faith? Did he just forget to call God up and demand his share of the good life? Or maybe the blessings the Bible speaks of aren't necessarily material. There are Christians that God blesses financially and others that live in squalor. The difference isn't that the rich ones have more faith or "name it and claim it." They didn't get rich by sending 50 bucks to Benny Hinn or Creflo Dollar. They were blessed because they worked hard and they followed sound financial principles. They used the money they had wisely and ended up with more. That's how it works for everyone, believer or not.

Again, the televangelists may be innocent. Maybe they believe that God wants to bless us all with fortunes, but that's no excuse for losing focus. If they're talking to Christian audiences, the people need to hear exhortations, how to live a godly life and why we must reach out to the unsaved. If they're talking to an audience of nonbelievers, they need to hear honest facts about God and what it's like to be a Christian, not pie-in-the-sky fantasies about Rolls Royces and gold swimming pools. If having a permanent relationship with the creator of the universe isn't enough to get someone interested in being a Christian, then they're not really interested. They shouldn't have to be made extravagant promises by some over-the-top TV huckster. I meant to keep the tone of this civil, but it's something that's irked me for a long time. I go to a pentecostal church, but it's one that's fairly grounded and Christ-centered. It seems like one of the few. Everywhere I look it seems like churches are caught up in financial matters or in searching for the next big miracle, endless signs and wonders. It's all about what God can do for me when it should be about what I can do for God. About serving Him and serving other, reaching the lost and discipling the young. You don't always have to be lie to be misleading.

so I was thinking...

As I was lying in bed the other night, it occured to me that almost everyone I've been romantically involved with or interested in throughout my lifetime has either gotten married, gotten engaged, or had a baby within the past year and a half. The girl I dated over the summer got engaged a couple of months ago. The girl I dated in 2004/2005 got married a week or two ago. My first girlfriend in high school got married this year. The girl I liked after her who I went back and forth with and almost dated several times got married and had a baby. A girl I had a huge crush on when I was a sophomore in college had a baby with her husband. A girl I liked a lot a few years ago had a baby with one of my friends. Maybe it just means I'm getting old. Maybe it's all a coincedence. Or maybe it's a gift. You heard it here first, ladies. If you're looking to get married and/or knocked up, date me for a while and you're on your way. Or at least lead me on for a bit. You won't regret it. But I might.