Questions of Substance at the Compassion Forum (by Jim Wallis)
Last evening, I was privileged to be one of the religious leaders asked to participate in the Compassion Forum, sponsored by Faith in Public Life and broadcast by CNN from Messiah College. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama participated; Sen. John McCain declined.
The religious leaders asked questions of real substance, focusing on difficult and important policy choices. We are not so much interested in the personal testimonies of candidates - important as those are - but rather how their faith beliefs would shape their leadership and decisions. It is also worth noting that the majority of the questions of substance and depth about critical policy issues came from the religious leaders last night, and the more personal questions about the religion came from the stage moderators for CNN—just as was the case at the Sojourners/CNN Forum on "Faith, Values, and Poverty" last June.
Here are a few examples:
Lisa Sharon Harper of New York Faith and Justice asked Sen. Clinton:
Senator Clinton, underdeveloped nations and regions lack widespread access to education and basic resources like water, and they tend to be some of the most unstable and dangerous regions of the world. Places like Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan. Our national security is at stake, but our military is stretched. As president, would you consider committing U.S. troops to a purely humanitarian mission under the leadership of a foreign flag?
Clinton responded:
I believe we should demonstrate our commitment to people who are poor, disenfranchised, disempowered before we talk about putting troops anywhere. The United States has to be seen again as a peacekeeper, and we have lost that standing in these last seven years. Therefore, I want us to have a partnership, government to government, government with the private sector, government with our NGOS and our faith community to show the best of what America has to offer. … Before we get to what we might do hypothetically, let's see what we will do realistically to rebuild America's moral authority and demonstrate our commitment to compassionate humanitarianism.
The moderator called on me to ask a question of Sen. Obama:
As you reminded us a week or two ago, when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed 40 years ago, he wasn't just speaking about civil rights. He was fighting for economic justice, was about to launch a poor people's campaign. Yet, four decades after the anniversary of his death, the poverty rate in America is virtually unchanged, and one in six of our children are poor in the richest nation in the world. So in the faith community, we are wanting a new commitment around a measurable goal, something like cutting poverty in half in 10 years. Would you commit - would you at this historic compassion forum, commit to such a goal tonight, and, if elected, tell us how you'd mobilize the nation, mobilize us, to achieve that goal?
Obama's response:
I absolutely will make that commitment. Understand that when I make that commitment, I do so with great humility because it is a very ambitious goal. And we're going to have to mobilize our society, not just to cut poverty, but to prevent more people from slipping into poverty. … [After a series of specific policy proposals] And many of these, by the way, can be part of a faith community. And so, you know, just to go back to our theme here tonight, people sometimes ask me, what do I think about faith-based initiatives? I want to keep the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives open, but I want to make sure that its mission is clear … the faith-based initiatives should be targeted specifically at the issue of poverty and how to lift people up.
Getting such a commitment on the public record is important - both for changing the political conversation and helping to put an issue like poverty on the agenda, and also to hold whoever wins an election accountable. So I was pleased with Barack Obama's response and also that Hillary Clinton has made a similar commitment to lead to cut domestic poverty in half in the next ten years. Those commitments should further encourage the emerging faith-inspired movement to overcome poverty and give us some concrete benchmarks to work for.
Read the transcript for the rest of the excellent questions posed by the religious leaders last night, and the candidates' responses.
Kudos go to Katie Barge, the primary organizer of the Compassion Forum for Faith and Public Life, for helping to continue the national conversation on the critical relationship between faith and politics.
Add to:
Category: Elections, Faith and Politics, Poverty
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Jim, so the Dems just weren't committed enough on the war on poverty...that's why the poverty rate is virtually unchanged since LBJ instituted it?
Did you get Obama's autograph?
Posted by: Blake | April 14, 2008 5:52 PM
I read the transcript. There's a lot I disagree with from both candidates, but I will say that Obama was much more responsive than Clinton.
Posted by: Gordon | April 14, 2008 8:42 PM
The war on poverty was never really fought, Blake. LBJ lost interest in that war less than two years after declaring it, prefering to fight another war instead. If that had not happened, perhaps there would be in fact a lower poverty rate in subsequent years.
I know, I know, just cut the programs for the poor (since that war on poverty ain't working)and dump it into this Republican war in Iraq that is working so well.
Posted by: I and I | April 14, 2008 9:57 PM
Jim, thank you for lending your powerful voice to the Compassion Forum. Your contribution was prophetic. Gratefully,
Dan
Posted by: Dan | April 14, 2008 10:07 PM
The War on Poverty led to skyrocketing illegitimacy rates and a culture of dependency, doing more harm than good. It's unfortunate that the younger generation seems intent to repeat the mistakes of the past. A strong economy will always do more to help the poor than any federal anti-poverty program or minimum wage increase. If you're truly concerned with reducing poverty, you would ask "what policies will you implement to promote economic growth?" I somehow doubt such questions were asked at the Compassion Forum.
Posted by: jesse | April 14, 2008 11:49 PM
Ok, after reading some of the transcript, I have to say kudos to Obama for mentioning economic growth policies in his reply to Wallis's poverty question. They can hardly be considered ambitious, though.
Alternative energies may do some good. Improving education sounds great, too. Both items McCain supports. Raising taxes on the wealthy (who provide jobs) can only hinder growth, unfortunately. Does anyone seriously believe these policies can lead to a dramatic reduction in poverty?
Posted by: jesse | April 15, 2008 12:05 AM
I only caught two brief highlights on CNN. One was Clinton's remarks about Obama's San Fran comments. The other was Obama's response to a question on abortion. He seemed uncomfortable and he rambled a bit without saying much. This may be a vulnerable position for him. His political moves to prevent born alive legislation in Illinois for babies will be an issue come November.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 15, 2008 12:34 AM
I thought Obama was brilliant in answering th equestions. He look very comfortable and Presidential. Clinton seem a litte lost in her long dialogue. She was stabbing at a knat in he dark. McCain was a know show. He will get a pass,because he is the next Gop messiah. Have he ever confessed Christ as his Lord and Savior? My prayer is that all leaders will put their trust in God.
Posted by: Jay | April 15, 2008 12:50 AM
Jeff you should watch a tape of the whole forum. You will see a great candidate in Obama. Snippets gives a pale view of everything.
Posted by: Bob | April 15, 2008 12:55 AM
Jesse,what is wrong with giving Americans a minimun wage increase? We spend a billion dollar a week in Iraq,to help the reconstruction of the country . Let's give americans a break. They are already bitter.
Posted by: Jay | April 15, 2008 1:10 AM
Reinhold Niebuhr once said something to the effect that contemporary theology could be metaphorically described as a modernist cake with Christian frosting on top. With this in mind, I want to ask what the point of an office of Faith-Based Initiatives is if the government that funds it stipulates that the members thereof cannot devote funding to proselytizing? Furthermore, since recent research by economist Arthur C. Brooks (see "Who Really Cares") indicates that churches--and, in particular, conservative churches--have done very well allocating money to non-profit causes without the help of government, why do churches need government funding? Isn't this a violation of the separation of church and state? And I am not an atheist. I consider myself a champion of religious liberty; but, at the moment, I don't think that we are threatened by becoming a theocracy (think Iran, circa 1980); on the contrary, I think that we're in danger of becoming a state where religion is subsidized by and therefore bound to governmental authority. (Look at the Anglican Church in Britain today.) The Department of Faith-Based Initiatives, from what I can tell, is certainly a step away from the society of religious freedom (not adamant secularism necessarily) that the founders envisioned. I've the audacity to hope that one of the candidates will notice this before the next election.
Posted by: James Banks | April 15, 2008 2:35 AM
Progressives should start compassion with the unborn left alive and the family left intact.
Posted by: Boo | April 15, 2008 8:08 AM
I'm no supporter of Hillary, but once again she got shafted by the moderators.
While Obama got thrown softballs like, "Will pledge to work on cutting poverty in half in 10 years?", Hillary got questions like, "Why does a good God let people suffer?"
I'm not joking about that either; check the transcript. She was getting questions a seminarian might be qualified to answer, but not a politician.
As a Republican, it pains me to defend her, but something has to be said.
Posted by: Bob | April 15, 2008 8:38 AM
Is anyone surprised that McCain declined? I'm not.
The softballs that were thrown at these canidates - it was like watching a 'Kitten Ball' game. As one who Obama believes - how was it, hugs his gun and uses religion as a crutch, or something like that. I am enjoying just sitting back and watching these two shread each other and others in the campain. I wish the Dems were going to be in St Paul - it would be great theater.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 15, 2008 8:55 AM
Bob,
Thanks for your opinion. I think Obama's comments on the sanctity of life might come back to haunt him when the born alive issue comes up. Hillary's camp tried to bring this up in a vague way early on (her own issues wouldn't allow her to address it directly) but no one carried her water for her.
This will come up around September.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 15, 2008 9:14 AM
I really enjoyed watching the forum, and not just because it was at my alma mater. And Jim, I was most thrilled to see you stand up and speak - and ask a question to which someone had to commit. Thank you.
I came into my viewing with a definite pro-Obama bias, so let that be known as you read on. I found Clinton's answers to be largely, but not entirely, evasive. I felt like she was trying far too hard to be inclusive and not offend, and in the process, she seemed to lose track of her ideas.
From Obama, I found him to be more direct, if not always so on questions like the pro-life/pro-choice answer. I felt like he spoke what he felt clearly, and while I don't agree with everything he say, at least I can now position myself in relationship to him.
I hope that we will all weigh all the candidates ideas about all of the issues as we make our decisions in November. It pains me to think that some of us will allow one topic - be it abortion or poverty or the war, as important as each of those things are - guide us into selecting a candidate who supports our views on that topic and neglects to address the others in a Godly way.
Posted by: AndiLit | April 15, 2008 9:32 AM
Andilit,
I think what you say is wise. Though some issues weigh more in the balances for each of us. The born alive issue will be a problem for Obama because he appears to have used some devious tactics to thwart the legislation while claiming to back it and then not voting on it at all (thus Clinton's charge that he lacked political courage).
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 15, 2008 10:00 AM
Jim, WOW -- what a softball you gave Obama! Of course you liked his response! You liked it BEFORE he even gave it! He's YOUR guy!
What you really missed, Jim, was a great followup question for Mr. BH Obama. He said that he was going to "motivate us" -- with the "us" meaning the people of this country. You should have followed up by asking HOW can he motivate us when he's too busy looking down his nose at US? And for us Christians, his recent comments make it clear that he sees us as "bitter", clinging to our silly Christianity as a crutch, due to our economic hardships. Those of us who are patriotic and love this country, he sees us as stupid and not truly patriotic. We are only patriotic if we agree with HIM -- the Messiah.
You also could have asked him how he could bring us together when he's a member of a church whose goal is to divide us along racial lines.
Posted by: Al N | April 15, 2008 10:10 AM
I have to ask Jim why he lacks compassion for the citizens who are poor in the United States? Neither he nor his organization have spent even one article over the past few years discussing them.
Like the so called Christian leaders of the right wing, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and others, it's been apparent that the so called Christian "progressives" use issues selectively for their own agenda. "Poverty" is something that only happens elsewhere. They promote a callous indifference in their followers, towards their fellow American citizens.
Wallis ignores the fact that his advocacy has been the same as the corporate elites who have sought to destroy wage standards, workplace and environmental protections in the US. Outsourcing since the '80s has taken a large amount of the good paying jobs, blue collar and tech jobs that lifted Americans out of poverty, out of the US. No jobs were created to replace them. Did those Americans disappear, or become affluent and not need to work to support themselves?
We have a declining pool of jobs in the US, the government's so called unemployment numbers are based on deceptive polling, that doesn't accurately reflect true unemployment and indeed underemployment. Anyone who truly cares about human rights and civil rights would have been perceptive enough to recognize that. It's well apparent to anyone who cares to look, that too many American citizens are unemployed/underemployed and are being discriminated against by employers who want to undercut wages.
Yet Jim Wallis pretends that not to be the case. He insists that poor and struggling American citizens who are being thrown out of their jobs, and denied work have to be guilty of sin, or racism or xenophobia, because they speak out as the constitution and bill of rights gives them the right to do, against the unfairness of their being discriminated against by employers, and against the government not enforcing the laws put in place to protect them from corrupt employers hiring illegal aliens. There is nothing wrong with American citizens demanding that the immigration laws that were put in place to protect the rights of citizens, be enforced. All countries have those laws, and all countries enforce them.
The American people, and they are black, brown and white, are suffering from dire poverty, a health care crisis, and so many other problems. While Christ would advocate for those problems be addressed, Jim Wallis pretends those problems don't exist, he prefers to slander the innocent victims of corrupt government officials and corporate/business interests.
No true Christian would do that, and Christ would not approve of Wallis' rationales. Christ would have questioned the sincerity of anyone attempting to exploit his teachings to increase and exacerbate poverty. He would have questioned Wallis' sincerity as a Christian, when he has embraced Marxism, and it's mandate that the people be lied to with dogma, so as to more easily use them. Dr. Martin Luther King stated that Marxism, and it's communism and socialism requires slavery, because without the right to self determination, there is no freedom or liberty. No true disciple of Christ would advocate that.
A true Christian, like the late Senator Robert Kennedy would demand that we address the problems of poor American citizens, and he would enforce our immigration laws. He would state that not doing so only protects the status quo that exists in wealthy countries liek Mexico, and only serves to impose that status quo here.
Senator Robert Kennedy spoke about standing with the poor in other countries by demanding their countries do more to raise the standards of their people. He would never have demanded that we degrade the standard of living of our own people, and emulate the standards of corrupt governments. Those who do so seek to increase and exploit poverty, not end it. Jim Wallis is advocating increases in poverty and suffering, the pitting of one group of people against another. He preaches indifference and intolerance, for if he truly cared, he would not be advocating that poor Americans be vilefied, and that their suffering be igored.
Posted by: Jenny | April 15, 2008 10:28 AM
Dear Al N
Any body who thinks Obama is an elitist and Hilary is not is not thinking too clearly. I think maybe you're just looking for a fight and will pick on anything.
That comment has been way overblown. I am not opposed to the second amendment, I do not have a college degree, wear anything like a "white collar" nor am I an atheist, yett I could agree with Obama's comment and not mean anything negative or condescending at all.
But maybe we have come farther than I thought. Imagine an African American who is "elitist" and a female, ,white Yale grad, Democrat who is the main accuser of said condition. Who knew?
Posted by: wayne | April 15, 2008 10:41 AM
Wayne, I am an Obama supporter, but do not believe that you can exempt anyone from being elitist, racist or corrupt, merely because of the color of their skin. Behavior should be considered to determine the character of human beings.
African Americans have acted elitist, racist and corrupt, just as have Americans of other races or ethnic origins.
Consider the behaviors of leaders in African countries, Robert Mugabe is a corrupt elite, and he is not the only one.
There is a lack of honest, nuanced discussion on the subject of our problems. My problem with Reverend Wright's statements were that he ignores the wider realities. Those who attempt to claim that slavery is America's "original sin", seek to pretend that America created slavery, when that is not the case. It is true that some in America during that period practiced slavery, and they were wrong. It's something that we've attempted, and still need to deal with, but America was one of the first to deal with it.
Slavery is as old as the world, Africa and the Arab world practiced slavery, and still do to a certain extent. It was Spain who created the trans-Atlantic slave trade. They were inspired by their Arab and African trading partners, and the fact that they had virtually committed genocide against the indigenous peoples of what is now called Latin America, during their conquest of those lands. They sought to find cheap labor to mine gold and remove other resources. Yet these facts are ignored by the Reverend Wrights of the world.. it occurs to me (I am an indigenous person) that one should be asking Reverend Wright and others like him, if they are truly against slavery, because they are silent on the slavery that continues to this day in the Arab nations and in Africa, by Arabs and Africans.
Posted by: Jenny | April 15, 2008 10:54 AM
Last week, Obama was a blackened down-at-the-mouth alienated activist for the poor who threatened America's wealth-creating white elites. A real blackfaced, scarey bogeyman coming to get whitey for his sins.
This week, he's an elitist who is out of touch with the unemployed, poor and downtrodden.
Meanwhile, Hillary and Bill raked in $100 million in the last 7 years, and this week they are simple people of the earth. Not.
While so many of us decline and suffer economically, we read that the elitist businesses who cater to the super-rich are seeing no slowdown like the rest of us, but are experiencing a boom.
Most of our leaders are extremely rich. They live in a world entirely unlike our own. By the rich, of the rich, for the rich. You don't get it by giving it away. Brooks' book on the vaunted generosity of conservatives is polemical and political propaganda with flawed data and self-serving interpretations. "Charity" for many does begin at home - with the "giving" benefits actually accruing to serve financial self-interest.
As for Hillary being pro-life, I guess that's why she repeated the NARAL slogan, "abortion should be safe, legal and rare."
I in no way believe some story that we who have been roiled and raked by the financial shenanigans of the Wall Street greedsters are somehow content to retreat to our love of "guns and god" - while still praising our wealthy "benefactors" of the hundred million dollar incomes built on fraud, as they hope. Obama is right that we'll hold on to what we have left. But the attempt to make him out to be the bad guy by the real corporate bad guys is propagandistic swill.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | April 15, 2008 11:13 AM
Did anyone else have trouble making it through that transcript? I realize that people's speaking sometimes doesn't translate well to written word, but trying to find any sense of logic or basic principles in these interviews is difficult. Part of the blame definitely goes to the moderators, but what ever happened to clear speaking? I know, I'm expecting too much from politicians.
Posted by: Eric | April 15, 2008 11:23 AM
Thanks for you question, Jim. Martin Luther King would have been extremely dissatisfied with both of these candidates. I am shocked and saddened by many of the comments posted here.
This notion that the redistribution of wealth produces a "culture of dependency" is not just unsubstantiated by reason, but by the evidence. Do people who assert this nonsense turn down inherited wealth? Do they reject the idea of passing this wealth down to their own offspring? I have asked people this before, and found that not one person has refused to accept money bequeathed to them by their ancestors, not one finds that it has made them overly "dependent". Do we not realize that ALL AMERICANS have more wealth than we would have had our government not engaged in predatory, imperialistic and murderous crusades since its inception? That the enslavement of Africans produced MONEY for groups who were DIRECTLY INVOLVED and ultimately, (indirectly) MONEY/CAPITAL for groups who were not? That so called "aid" for Africa, Latin America, etc. is absurd in this context? (That is, it shouldn't be considered "charity" when one pays back only a small portion of what is owed)... We cannot possibly consider ourselves moral people until we recognize that this government has behaved in brutal ways to assert this economic hegemony, and that America's disproporionate wealth isn't a law of nature. People whose ancestors spent centuries working for FREE are now lucky to make $6 while descendants of others who benefitted (hardly anyone, even northerners, failed to benefit) are making hundreds of thousands collecting interest ON THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE MARKET ALONE and other forms of usury. Finance capitalism is a completely unproductive activity which contributes nothing to the world community but pretends that it does. Do we believe that there shouldn't be some attempts to correct this problem, which is only getting worse? We spend more money on building and maintaining cages to house more criminals than any other country. Many of these prison cages are now corporatized, deincentivizing the humane rehabilitation of these people, who are almost always the product of dysfunctional and deprived circumstances. If we devoted even moderate capital gains and estate taxes to redistribute wealth and provide for universal education we could virtually eliminate poverty in a generation.
Similarly, we have brutally destroyed a civilization, (Iraq) and don't even discuss reparations, (which should not be determined by the at-fault party, by the way, but by a neutral 3rd party, like the International Court of Justice). In fact, our Democratic candidates have taken to blaming the Iraqi people themselves for their own plight!!!! Our Congress, having voted for this War, which violated both our obligations under the U.N. Charter and our own Constitution, is comprised of people who are PROFITTING HEAVILY FROM THIS WAR through their own investments in the armaments industry. (Again, finance capital, unproductive but profitable, at work). And they will bequeath these billions to their own children, while many of the children of the poor find that their only possibility of escape from their economic circumstances still lies in joining the military. A single payer healthcare system, though championed by a solid majority of Americans, a solid majority of physicians, has been dismissed as "not politcally possible" by B. Obama. (EVER WONDER why so many POPULAR programs aren't deemed Politcally possible in a supposedly Democratic Republic?) This should tell us that the underlying democratic foundations of our country are in danger, and mild tweaking won't fix them! Instead of the popular single payer system, Obama instead advocates subsidies, which will go to working people who don't earn living wages. So TAXPAYERS (including the small business who choose to pay LIVING WAGES) will effectively be subsidizing the corporate entities who choose not to pay a living wage. Rather than establish a universal living wage and single payer healthcare, like successfully humane societies do, we are subsidizing superfluous Corporate industries, like the administration of privatized insurance, which currently takes 1/3rd of all healthcare dollars. That 1/3rd alone could cover all of our uninsured WITHOUT RAISING TAXES. Rather than explain these facts to a populace that is ready to hear them, B. Obama assures us that we aren't politcally ready for a system that we in fact support. Rather than establish a living wage, Obama makes it easier for unsustainable corporations to pay $6 per hour salaries by giving their employees health care subsidies. (IF you are a corporation (like, say Chuckie Cheese) paying so little to your employees that they NEED to get food stamps and healthcare subsidies to live, then BY DEFINTION you are not SUSTAINABLE). Let's allow these unsustainable entities to die!!! Their liabilities outweigh their benefits, and they are externalizing their costs to people who aren't even their customers. Rather than talk about how our military industrial complex is the major cause of global terrorism, how our repeated support for inter/intra-state terrorism and disregard for international law were the major causes of 9/11, our "progressive" Obama calls for leaving murderous mercenary troops in Iraq and INCREASING our armaments budget (already bigger than the rest of the world's combined budget!!! Let's demand a living wage, which will enable small businesses and neighborhood co-ops which ALREADY PAY THEM to compete with their corporate neighbors. Let's support sane, humane, democratic, and functional systems. If we are going to have a standing miltary, let's not allow millions of private citizens to profit from the use and misuse of that military. Certain things, like Healthcare, Prison Systems, and Arms Manufacturing, are best not privatized. Let's acknowledge this. Let's allow unsustainable "Democrats" to suffer electoral defeat. Let's FORCE THEM TO CHANGE!! Let's vote as Martin Luther King would. Let's vote Ralph Nader!
Posted by: Karin | April 15, 2008 11:33 AM
"Those who attempt to claim that slavery is America's "original sin", seek to pretend that America created slavery, when that is not the case."
It all depends what "is", "is" I guess.
The truth is that slavery grew by leaps and bounds under the expansion of Islam, and that same slave trade was built on when newly adopted by Europeans in the 16th century in support of colonization in the Americas.
The Puritans, who are seen as the founding political ancestry of America, and we their spiritual descendants as well, with the vision of America as a "city on a shining hill" with a special mission and dispensation from God in the world of nations, adopted slavery and trafficking in human beings within months of their arrival.
These founding Americans purchased black people who had been kidnapped from Africa by Portuguese traders to use as slaves in what became the highly lucrative planting and harvesting of addictive tobacco to sell to Europe. As the addiction took hold, the profits grew, as did the slave trade.
The true Thanksgiving story is one in which over 300 Indians were invited to share in a feast with these pilgrims - who did it for the purpose of poisoning them all. Thus the genocide of the original inhabitants began in what became our own tradition of ethnic cleansing over the next couple of centuries.
Adolf Hitler didn't invent concentration camps, either, but that doesn't excuse him and his many collaborators for the fact they killed 12 million people in them.
We invented them first, but we called them Indian reservations. The Nazis - at least they weren't plagiarists? - did acknowledge their inspiration and gave us credit for the idea.
I think these things are pretty much an original sin, by any definition of the word.
However, it's true in politics that "lies are useful things" and that one doesn't get elected for telling unpleasant truths. So there is little truth being told except in the softest and most inoffensive tones on all sides.
That doesn't bode well for any commitment to actually engaging our present daunting problems in any meaningful, changing way.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | April 15, 2008 11:34 AM
"The true Thanksgiving story is one in which over 300 Indians were invited to share in a feast with these pilgrims - who did it for the purpose of poisoning them all."
That's a new one to me. I haven't heard this before.
Posted by: Eric | April 15, 2008 11:43 AM
I dunno about the priorities of this publication sometimes. Jim Wallis manages to ask a question of Barack Obama at a forum, and he manages to get a satisfactory (to him, at least) response. This exchange merits an in-depth analysis.
But a few days earlier at a fundraiser Barack Obama suggests that people in rural communities in Pennsylvania cling to religion (along with guns and hostility to immigrants and trade) out of bitterness over lost jobs. Of this not a peep from Jim or any of the other writers at Sojo.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | April 15, 2008 11:46 AM
Jenny
What are you talking about? I disagree with just about everything Wallis says, but he certainly cares about poor people in America. He talks about it all the time!
“He insists that poor and struggling American citizens who are being thrown out of their jobs, and denied work have to be guilty of sin, or racism or xenophobia, because they speak out as the constitution and bill of rights gives them the right to do, against the unfairness of their being discriminated against by employers, and against the government not enforcing the laws put in place to protect them from corrupt employers hiring illegal aliens.”
What?!?!
And, Wayne never said Obama was or was not an elitist because of the color of his sin. I think you misunderstood Wayne’s comment.
Posted by: DITE | April 15, 2008 11:47 AM
Everyone I know that likes to listen to Rush and the others are all bitter people, quick to blame and very slow to take any resposibility.
Posted by: Oak | April 15, 2008 12:42 PM
"The true Thanksgiving story is one in which over 300 Indians were invited to share in a feast with these pilgrims - who did it for the purpose of poisoning them all."
Sojourner, please cite your source for this.
Posted by: carl copas | April 15, 2008 1:46 PM
"But a few days earlier at a fundraiser Barack Obama suggests that people in rural communities in Pennsylvania cling to religion (along with guns and hostility to immigrants and trade) out of bitterness over lost jobs. Of this not a peep from Jim or any of the other writers at Sojo."
While I do not live in rural Pennsylvania, I do live in a rural area of Iowa, and I agree with Obama's characterization of rural people. They are bitter...bitter that good paying jobs have been sent elsewhere, usually with tax incentives financing the transfer. They are bitter that politicians are quick to run to the rescue of foolish financial institutions (such as Bear Stearns) but slow to help individuals. They are bitter that countless promises to provide "economic development" seem to be simply gifts of money to businesses who then pack up and leave the area for greener pastures (and cheaper labor). They are bitter that the politicians tell them to get used to working for less money while courting millionaires who head up corporations.
I find it interesting that so many of the people who are faulting Obama for his statement do not live in rural areas. Perhaps if they did they would find that Obama was rather accurate in his assessment. Here where I live there are a many of bitter people, and a large number of them are staunch supporter of gun rights and the Bible.
Wolverine, maybe you should get out more.
Posted by: RJohnson | April 15, 2008 2:12 PM
"I dunno about the priorities of this publication sometimes."
--Wolverine
You're clearly out of your depth, as I've gently suggested before. Your paraphrase of Obama's comments is not accurate and reflects a simplistic understanding of the issues at hand.
Educate yourself, youngster! Read the newspapers! Find the good bloggers! That will allow you to make contributions of substance to Sojourners
Posted by: lloyd crump | April 15, 2008 2:28 PM
lloyd,
How about engaging in the conversation instead of engaging in insults. Let's hear your opinion, not your meanness.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 15, 2008 2:49 PM
"I find it interesting that so many of the people who are faulting Obama for his statement do not live in rural areas."
Obama was referring to the working class, not people in rural areas. Not that the two are mutually exclusive, but your appeal to authority is silly given that Wolverine lives in Michigan.
Further, the controversy isn't over the use of the word "bitter". It was the condescending nature of suggesting that people cling to God and bigotry because they are bitter. Of course you agree with Obama's characterizations. All his supporters do. That's why he felt free to make his feelings known among friendlies.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 15, 2008 2:59 PM
Why did my post not appear? (Or does your sleazy corporate sponsership, i.e., "Who will Hugh Hefner marry?" answer my question?
How grotesque this is. Do you think Jesus would approve?
Posted by: Karin | April 15, 2008 3:03 PM
"Find the good bloggers!"
So the bloggers here do not qualify, in your estimation?
You remind me of the Butch guy who used to frequent here. I always imagined him with a bottle of whiskey in his fist.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 15, 2008 3:17 PM
Posted by: Karin | April 15, 2008 3:03 PM
Why did my post not appear?
This is happening more often than you think. Several of mine have never seen the light of day.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 15, 2008 3:21 PM
"You remind me of the Butch guy who used to frequent here. I always imagined him with a bottle of whiskey in his fist."
--kevin s
Funny, I always imagine you with a carton of afternoon milk in your fist, with a chocolate moustache of course.
Posted by: lloyd crump | April 15, 2008 3:24 PM
"This is happening more often than you think. Several of mine have never seen the light of day."
For which we're all thankful.
Posted by: lloyd crump | April 15, 2008 3:26 PM
lloyd,
I think you may need a "time-out".
Please remember the Beliefnet guidelines for commenting.
"Disruptive behavior may include ... making statements that are deliberately inflammatory ... or any behavior that interferes with conversations or inhibits the ability of others to use and enjoy this website for its intended purposes."
Posted by: Proverbs 10:14 | April 15, 2008 3:32 PM
Blakes and Jesseies,
Since Reagan we have built tax policies and assistgance policies around socialism for the rich and corporations - that has not helped reduce poverty one bit. Enough already. If the LBJ War on poverty did not work for sure the trickle down theory of the right has not either.
Let us try something different. Look at countries w/o an underclass, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and such all of those countries have a better percentage growth in GDP than us over the last year, all of them have a surplus budget to handle the increase in retiring folks, they all have a positive trade balance - simply put they are capitalist countries. But all their citizens have health care and all have education up to an including college. Those two issues almost alone have done away with their underclass and the poverty we see here. A smart person looks at better ways of doing things and copies all that fit, it is time we did the same.
We know by economic fact and scriptures that we can not "take it with us" when we die, so why insist on making rich people richer helps us all? It does not. It only take less and less out of the pie for the rest of our citizens.
Our early "republican" virtues taught that both poverty and extrem riches produced evile, and it does. Tax the exteme rich to pay for their wars, and contribute to the betterment of the whole - create relief for the very poor and working poor by providing health care and the best education we can. In the end society will be much better off - and we might just be putting our money where our treausre is, our people - young and old.
Posted by: RandyT | April 15, 2008 3:36 PM
What might prove to be useful is to Google some of the people who asked questions to see where their political affiliations lie - for example, the women whom Jim references is a featured blogger on faithfuldemocrats.org and has written posts very critical of Obama. Sounds very similar to the plants Bush has been known to put in his audiences.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 3:37 PM
Lloyd, please lighten up! It's just words on your computer screen.
And Karin, your long post did appear (just scroll up and you'll find it). I read every word. Thanks for posting.
Posted by: jackfate | April 15, 2008 4:01 PM
Karin, wow. Thank you. It was a lot of fun reading your post.
I couldn’t parody a liberal with no sense of reality any better. The false claims, the continuous paragraph, the run on sentences, the excessive capitalization and use of parentheses, and the Ralph Nader plug at the end…simply brilliant.
Posted by: DITE | April 15, 2008 4:58 PM
DITE, thank you for modeling for all of us the generosity of spirit that Christians are called to display.
Posted by: lloyd crump | April 15, 2008 6:36 PM
Thanks DITE. Would you mind elaborating on the "false claims" point. Was it that finance capitalism is a totally unproductive activity? Or perhaps that people who accept inherited wealth for themselves but denounce the "culture of dependency" are total hypocrites? Perhaps it was that corporations that pay their employees $6 an hour are completely unsustainable and are only able to do it because the government forces taxpayers to subsidize their wages (through food stamps, for example)? Which of these claims are "false"? Or perhaps that 9/11 had nothing to do with hatred of freedom and everything to do with U.S. foreign policy? Mind telling me what you do for a living DITE? I'm really interested in the facts as you see them.
Posted by: Karin | April 15, 2008 6:39 PM
Yeah DITE. I'd be interested to know what facts she got wrong too. As to capitalization, parentheses, etc., it seems to me that if that is the best you've got, you are obviously threatened by SOMETHING!
Posted by: Tom | April 15, 2008 6:42 PM
I'm going to go enjoy the nice weather, but I'll be back to respond.
Posted by: DITE | April 15, 2008 7:02 PM
HI DITE,
I appreciate you drawing my attention to Karin's post. It was dense, but I thought it was odd that you concentrated on stuff like the use of capitals, which wasn't excessive at all compared to lots of posts. She brought up a few points that people never bring up, like inheritance wealth and reparations for Iraq. And she made an excellent points about corporations who don't pay livable wages externalizing their costs by relying on taxpayer subsidies. I actually thought she made a great case for Nader. If you are supporting Obama, you might not want to let other people in on that, for his sake.
Posted by: Mike | April 15, 2008 7:17 PM
Well, looks like I'm coming late to another, umm, interesting thread. That's what happens when my computer goes down.
Karin, pick a few questions, and they'll be addressed. If your goal is to really understand how other people see the world in relation to these issues, you gotta slow down a little. OTOH, if your goal is to blow off steam, then you're definitely on the right track.
Randy, when Sweden and Norway have an ethnically diverse population of 300 million, we can compare our situation with theirs.
Posted by: Odin's Beard | April 15, 2008 9:46 PM
“This notion that the redistribution of wealth produces a "culture of dependency" is not just unsubstantiated by reason, but by the evidence. Do people who assert this nonsense turn down inherited wealth?”
An offspring that inherits wealth could also become dependent. They often do. So, I agree that rich or poor people can easily become dependent on or fail to value money they didn’t earn. But, whether or not someone chooses to accept money doesn’t prove or disprove a “culture of dependency.” Acceptance is irrelevant in the argument.
When you give wealth to your offspring it is a voluntary choice. When the government redistributes wealth it is not voluntary. That is a big difference. It’s not a policy decision or any of my business whether a rich person makes his or her offspring dependent on their inheritance.
Also, when the government issues payments it can be perceived by the recipients as compensation for an injustice. It creates victimization and entitlement. When someone inherits wealth they may feel they are entitled to it, but they still view it as a gift and not compensation.
“Do we not realize that ALL AMERICANS have more wealth than we would have had our government not engaged in predatory, imperialistic and murderous crusades since its inception? That the enslavement of Africans produced MONEY for groups who were DIRECTLY INVOLVED and ultimately, (indirectly) MONEY/CAPITAL for groups who were not? That so called "aid" for Africa, Latin America, etc. is absurd in this context? (That is, it shouldn't be considered "charity" when one pays back only a small portion of what is owed)... We cannot possibly consider ourselves moral people until we recognize that this government has behaved in brutal ways to assert this economic hegemony, and that America's disproporionate wealth isn't a law of nature.”
Individuals that owned slaves benefited from the cruel exploitation. The nation as a whole, however, was hindered economically by slavery. This is one of the huge fallacies about slavery. After we abolished slavery our economy took off. Compare the North and the South during the War Between the States. The North had a far better economy that innovated and modernized while the economy of the South stagnated due to dependency on slavery. There was slavery all around the world. Shouldn’t these other nations that had slavery also have "disproportionate wealth" according to your theory?
“Finance capitalism is a completely unproductive activity which contributes nothing to the world community but pretends that it does.”
Are you saying that our economy should not have investment? We should just give up on long term growth? Seriously?
“We spend more money on building and maintaining cages to house more criminals than any other country. Many of these prison cages are now corporatized, deincentivizing the humane rehabilitation of these people, who are almost always the product of dysfunctional and deprived circumstances.
This obsession with rehabilitation as a form of criminal justice is getting quite psychologically patronizing. Some criminals need rehabilitation, but most need retribution. People are able to make choices! Some people choose to commit crimes. To deter people from committing crime there needs to be punishment for those choices…like jail.
I’ll get to the rest in a bit. Boy, you covered a lot of ground in one post
Posted by: DITE | April 15, 2008 10:07 PM
I've managed to resist posting anything to this blog for nearly a month now, but I have to take the challenge implied by the above comment that Sojo hasn't responded to Obama's now-infamous "bitter" remarks.
Here's my response: I honestly don't understand what the fuss is about. Obama was simply speaking the honest-to-God truth, which is something that presidential candidates ought to be able to do without having everybody jump down their throats.
All right, full disclosure time: I attended an Ivy League school. Does that mean that I am simply unable to understand or even imagine the needs and priorities of blue-collar Americans? If so, then God help me. Otherwise, would somebody please explain to *me* what all the fuss is about? I honestly don't get it.
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 15, 2008 10:11 PM
"This notion that the redistribution of wealth produces a "culture of dependency" is not just unsubstantiated by reason, but by the evidence. Do people who assert this nonsense turn down inherited wealth?”
--An interesting fact is that inheritance kids are a very liberal demographic. This is an irrelevant point, though, because the welfare system the govt had put in place (and still has, to some extent) penalizes productivity and rewards illegitimacy and abandonment of families by their fathers. It provides perverse incentives for these things. Large inheritances--a rare phenomenon--are just a lump sum that comes regardless of one's behavior, without any incentive.
Posted by: jesse | April 15, 2008 10:31 PM
Jenny:
The center for human trafficking is in SE Asia and is largely driven by America's insatiable thirst for sex and unregulated free market capitalists seeking exploitable labor. Slavery is America's "original sin" because we were founded on greed and the preservation/imposition of property rights and perpetual ownership of land and people. The Bible says that "the borrower is the slave to the lender" and so America's original sin continues nationally and internationally through perpetual usery. Not to mention the new indentured servants that we label as "illegal immigrants".
Thank you ST for your post on this issue.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 15, 2008 11:12 PM
“A single payer healthcare system, though championed by a solid majority of Americans, a solid majority of physicians, has been dismissed as "not politcally possible" by B. Obama. (EVER WONDER why so many POPULAR programs aren't deemed Politcally possible in a supposedly Democratic Republic?) This should tell us that the underlying democratic foundations of our country are in danger, and mild tweaking won't fix them!”
If you ask people if they think everyone has a right to healthcare a majority would agree. If you asked if we should have socialized medicine they would disagree. So our democracy is, for the most part, working. A lot of people just don’t like the “equal sharing of miseries” that come with socialism. Don’t you want the next generation to enjoy the benefits of medical innovation the free market has provided for us and the rest of the world?
What’s a living wage? Who decides?
Labor is a price. Prices are communicators. You can’t just make them up no matter how noble you think you are. Prices communicate millions of economic decisions. Do I have the right to be paid a living wage if I expect to make a living selling pickled herring flavored lemonade on my street corner?
(IF you are a corporation (like, say Chuckie Cheese) paying so little to your employees that they NEED to get food stamps and healthcare subsidies to live, then BY DEFINTION you are not SUSTAINABLE). Let's allow these unsustainable entities to die!!!
Ha. You know a good way to tell if a company is sustainable, …see if they continue to exist. That is how you tell if a company is sustainable. What’s your definition of sustainability? Let them die!!! I think what you mean is that the government should kill all the prosperous stores that are not your favorite local co-ops.
I apologize if I was rude earlier.
Posted by: DITE | April 15, 2008 11:18 PM
DITE: When the average wage earner cannot afford the average home (buy or rent), what is the market "communicating"?
PJ
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 15, 2008 11:34 PM
PJ, the market is communicating that the particular skills of the wage earner are worth a certain amount of money.
What is your alternative?
Posted by: Odin's Beard | April 15, 2008 11:50 PM
Why is communicating in parentheses? I didn’t make up the word. What it is communicating is that your definition of average isn’t accurate. I’m not sure you understand what I mean when I talk about prices being communicators. Prices communicate the value of something. I use Milton Friedman’s famous example of something as simple as a pencil. The price of the pencil communicates: the cost of owning a graphite mine, the cost of machinery to extract graphite, the cost of labor involved to extract graphite, cost of refining graphite to be put in a pencil, the cost of transporting the graphite, the cost of growing trees for pencil wood, the cost of labor in cutting down trees, the cost of transporting wood, the cost of refining wood into a pencil shape, mining aluminum for the bracket that holds the eraser…you get the point.
Posted by: DITE | April 15, 2008 11:57 PM
DITE: I don't have one. I'm "clinging to guns and religion" in Hillary's "home" (for now) state. This is the real life situation in my area of the country and I thought that,since most folk around here are conservative republicans, I could communicate a solution from a conservative economist. (other than move to where the jobs are)
BTW- most of the resentment in my community is directed at the elites in the metro area who are squeezing the economic life out through water regulations.
PJ
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 16, 2008 12:03 AM
Sorry DITE and Odin. I didn't read the poster on the first response.
I thought that communicating was a term that you used regularly and was your term.
Price can communicate more than cost. Price can communicate "I don't want to exchange with you, I believe you are more ignorant than I, I'd rather sell to another, I really want to initiate a relationship with you etc."
PJ
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 16, 2008 12:16 AM
"Price can communicate more than cost"
You're absolutely right.
Posted by: DITE | April 16, 2008 12:24 AM
On why the poverty rate is virtually unchanged:
(Actually, based on everything I've read, including government reports, it increased moderately from 1997-2000, and significantly over the past few years.)
Aid was always minimal (reaching up to the poverty line only briefly in the 1970's), programs were often piece-meal, and policies were usually formed on a "one size fits all" basis that remained inflexible to the complicated realities of life. Significant amounts of taxpayer money went into job programs since the early '80's or so, but for most, these programs were useless because they did not teach job skills. The number of people allowed access to higher education and/or legitimate job skills training remained inexcusably low.
It is worth noting that before President Clinton's welfare "reform", some 80% of AFDC recipients voluntarily quit welfare, moving into the workforce, in under 5 years. For many, the only option is low-wage work. The buying power of our minimum wage has declined dramatically. Since the mid-1990's, millions have remained poor in spite of being employed full-time because (a) the value of the minimum wage has deteriorated, and (b) changes caused by massive outsourcing of our jobs to foreign nations have included the breaking-up of formerly family-supporting jobs into part-time, bottom wage, no benefits work.
To sum this up, there is more poverty today not because our former aid programs failed, but because of dramatic changes in the US job market, and changes in social policies that have left people unable to access the education/training required for today's jobs.
Clearly, it would be in the best interests of the US to re-invest in the American people.
Posted by: DHFabian | April 16, 2008 12:34 AM
"Raising taxes on the wealthy (who provide jobs) can only hinder growth, unfortunately."-Jesse
This is a falsehood frequently repeated. The top 2-3% of wealthy individuals in the US create very few jobs. The bulk of job creation is found in small businesses and self-employed. The largest employer in the world is Wal-Mart so, by this logic we should give them a tax break to create more jobs. The most profitable sector right now is the oil industry. How many new jobs can we expect to see from their hundreds of billions of profit.
Maybe a conservative economist can show me where the data correlating low individual tax rates and job creation are.
PJ
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 16, 2008 6:23 AM
Okay, I see that some of the problem stems from my assuming that I'm addressing Christians and/or progressives. I had no basis for making that assumption, other than the Jim Wallis focus. I did have a lot that I wanted to cover, so I used progressive "lingo" rather than explain each term.
From a progressive perspective, a test of sustainability is not that an entity "continues to exist". I would have defined the term as it was meant, but again, I assumed that my reader would know from the context what definition of "sustainability" I was referencing.
One definition of sustainable system is: "An organized, integrated whole made up of diverse but interrelated and interdependent parts subject to a common plan or serving a common purpose". Also, "a set of integrated industrial or ecological processes that equitably meets the biophysical needs of society while maintaining the integrity of life supporting ecosystems over a long term horizon." If people work and their work doesn't provide them with a sufficient amount of money to purchase necessities to even continue to work then it is, by these definitions, unsustainable. The only way that corporations can continue to do this is for the government to come in and rescue these laborers with subsidies of various sorts (housing, food, healthcare). If you want me to specify "self-sustaining", okay. So, as per my example, if Chuckie Cheese is paying an employee $6 an hour, and the employees require government assistance just to keep healthy enough to continue working at Chuckie Cheese, that government assistance is an example of an "externality". That is, the money that is required to keep that person alive and working efficiently doesn't come from the Chucky Cheese corporation, or from the customers, but from taxpayers who might want absolutely nothing to do with Chucky Cheese. If the business is a healthy part of a healthy community, then the prices at Chuckee Cheese should reflect the cost of keeping the workers alive. If Moms refuse to go an establishment where the prices reflect the actual cost of sustainable labor, (b/c prices would be higher in such a scenario) then that demonstrates that the goods produced aren't valuable enough to the community to sustain it intrasystem. If all business were to rely on outsiders to pay part of their employees "upkeep" in this way, we would (or if we are smart, we should) quickly recognize the unsustainability of this model.
I didn't reference any poll that asked if "everyone has a right to healthcare". I referenced polls that asked whether people were in favor of a single payer system. And by distorting the facts of the debate in this regard, you expose your lack of interest in rationally revealing the truth. (If you want to have a grown up Christian discussion, fine. By "Christian" I am not referring to one's religious perspective, but a certain generosity of spirit, and genuine interest in human interaction).
Incidentally, I would love to meet the people you know who don't feel "entitled" to a large portion of their parent's wealth. My impression is that most people would feel terribly cheated to learn upon their parent's death that they had decided at the last minute to bequeath the entire contents of their estate to the neediest among us. I think people feel very entitled to things that they haven't earned. I see no evidence that people given $15,000 to put down on a house deposit decide to work fewer hours. I see no evidence that students whose dorm room is covered by Mom and Dad become lazy. I have observed college students whose expenses are paid for devoting an extra 20-30 hours per week to their studies. I have observed poor high school students (in the Bronx) working part time jobs while their Manhattan cohorts get internships and meaningful voluntary work on their resumes. To sum up: If you combine an inferior education with life in a ghetto, with a dangerous and insecure environment, with lack of access to nature and art, with the need to compete with people who have so much more time on their hands to study and travel and get their hands dirty, with an imbalance of young adult assistance, with a lack of inheritance wealth, you have a fundamental inequality of opportunity to participate and contribute in a meaningful and dignified way to the society at large. If that is okay, well then, again, I'm interested in having a Christian discussion, not a sociopathic one. (Incidentally, I am not currently a religious Christian, but I very much appreciate his overall philosophy of life).
As to your remarks on slavery, I just think you haven't read very much on the matter. Cheap cotton (and the intercontinental trade it brought) was fundamental in giving the north an advantage early on, regardless of the situation mid-century.
I'm sure I forgot some of your points, but this is awfully long. I do think my post was too long and too dense before. I will check back and respond to some other points when I have a chance. Thanks!
Posted by: Karin | April 16, 2008 9:41 AM
Jerry: "--An interesting fact is that inheritance kids are a very liberal demographic."
Jerry, please cite evidence in support of this assertion.
Posted by: carl copas | April 16, 2008 12:45 PM
I'd assume that none of the regular commenters on Sojourners has tried to defend Obama's remarks because they're is no real logical defense. Here's what Maureen Dowd had to say about it:
"I grew up in a house with a gun, a strong Catholic faith, an immigrant father, brothers with anti-illegal immigrant sentiments and a passion for bowling. (My bowling trophy was one of my most cherished possessions.)
"My family morphed from Kennedy Democrats into Reagan Republicans not because they were angry, but because they felt more comfortable with conservative values. Members of my clan sometimes were overly cloistered. But they weren’t bitter; they were bonding.
"They went to church every Sunday because it was part of their identity, not because they needed a security blanket."
And here's what Jonah Goldberg had to say on it:
"I don't mind [Obama] saying that small town blue collar workers are bitter over lost jobs. I think that's objectively true in some cases and perfectly defensible as a general statement. The offending word here is "cling." It's a word drenched in haughtiness and condescension. We cling to rocks when we are caught in a current. Obama's imagery suggests that because the economic tide is receding these people are clinging to God and guns, presumably to compensate for the undertow. But he also suggests that if the economic tide were rising these same people would let go of God and guns and ride the currents to happier and more progressive lands where everyone thinks like Obama.
"In his telling Pennsylvania was once Belgium on the Susquehanna — cheese parties, Sam Harris book clubs etc — and it can be again if only these people get good enough jobs to lay down their guns and bibles."
These commenters get to the heart of the problem with Obama's statement. Obama was criticizing people for relying on their faith in tough times. I don't blame anyone at Sojourners for not wanting to defend it. Why should they?
Posted by: Eric | April 16, 2008 12:51 PM
“If the business is a healthy part of a healthy community, then the prices at Chuckee Cheese should reflect the cost of keeping the workers alive.”
Incorrect. When I was 14 and got paid like $5.25 an hour at Taco Johns that was not to keep me alive. I understand you want everyone to have a living wage. We all do. But, you still can’t just make up prices. If you get paid $6 an hour you are paid that wage because that is what you are worth in the market. If you feel you are underpaid, quit. I still don’t know what you mean when you say “let them die”?
My point about polls and health insurance was that the results can vary so much depending on how you ask the question. Rasmussen, for example polled just 33% in favor of national health insurance. I don’t doubt you saw polls that say differently. Either way it’s a bad idea.
“Incidentally, I would love to meet the people you know who don't feel "entitled" to a large portion of their parent's wealth.”
What I wrote: inherits wealth they may feel they are entitled to it, but they still view it as a gift and not compensation.
Poor people don’t need to travel or go to art shows to ascend from poverty. No matter how bad your circumstances if you choose to graduate high school, get a job (any job), work that job full time for over a year, and don’t have children out of wedlock…you are almost guaranteed not to be poor.
We, like most of the world, did make profit off of slavery, but it has nothing to do with our current “disproportional wealth.”
Posted by: DITE | April 16, 2008 1:00 PM
Eric: Obama wasn't criticizing anyone. He was simply explaining the failure of Clinton-Bush economic policies.
PJ
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 16, 2008 1:06 PM
Jeff,
And in the process of explaining the failure of these policies he criticized the people he thinks are bitter about them.
Posted by: Eric | April 16, 2008 1:14 PM
"No matter how bad your circumstances if you choose to graduate high school, get a job (any job), work that job full time for over a year, and don’t have children out of wedlock…you are almost guaranteed not to be poor."-DITE
Come and meet my friends.
I'll see your almost guarantee and raise you a partially pregnant.
PJ
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 16, 2008 1:15 PM
Eric: Funny, I don't hear any of the people he specifically referred to complaining about being criticized.
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 16, 2008 1:21 PM
Posted by: Eric | April 16, 2008 12:51 PM
"Obama was criticizing people for relying on their faith in tough times."
On the contrary. Obama (pace Maureen Dowd) was saying that people are angry, upset, bitter (choose your favorite synonym), and that they may, under those circumstances, turn to religion in ways that may seem inappropriate or excessive. As Bob Herbert pointed out in yesterday's NYT, what he didn't dare to say was the even more obvious truth: "They won't vote for me because I'm black." Under the circumstances, I think he showed remarkable restraint.
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 16, 2008 1:24 PM
Okay, I see between sociopathic and Christian, you would choose the former. Or you simply don't understand words/phrases (even when elaborately defined)like sustainability and finance capitalism.
According to you, criminals don't need things like rehabilitation but retribution. Any evidence? See, I'm a scientist and so I like evidence. We do quite well with retribution in our society, and it doesn't seem to be working out very well. In fact, we have the largest criminal population in the world. In fact, populations who don't believe in retribution tend to produce kids who don't get into trouble. (Ever notice the Amish?)
As to your suggestion that a high school education/year in any employment guarantees a decent life, I admit I am speechless. I have truly never met someone so out of touch and so proud of it in my life. Apparently, you have not yet taught high school in the Bronx, as my husband does.
Your reference to "art shows" was just silly and absurd and I'm not going to dignify it. If you don't care to consider context/nuance (or are intellectually unable to) then I can only wish you well and be done with it. Thanks!
Posted by: Karin | April 16, 2008 1:35 PM
Karin -
Welcome to the God's Politics blog. You see why I've been avoiding it recently.
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 16, 2008 1:42 PM
As a veteran of the "war on poverty" era, working in Southwest Oklahoma at the time, I can attest that the war never really got a foothold in moving toward its intended goals. As soon as the powers that be understood how it was supposed to be waged, they put the skids on it and coopted it to their own ends.
Posted by: George Hrbek | April 16, 2008 2:16 PM
George Hrbek, I think I see your point but could you repost it just one more time? (LOL) I've done it before myself....well maybe not 12 times.
lloyd,
How about engaging in the conversation instead of engaging in insults. Let's hear your opinion, not your meanness.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 15, 2008 2:49 PM
I applaud Wolverine and Kevin S. for resisting the temptation to be drawn into such a lowly-level of communication, and Jeff for saying exactly what needed to be said. Peace to all
Posted by: d.e.sharp | April 16, 2008 2:39 PM
"If you get paid $6 an hour you are paid that wage because that is what you are worth in the market. If you feel you are underpaid, quit. I still don’t know what you mean when you say “let them die”?"
Yes, as Marie Antoinette was reputed to have said of the poor, if they don't like their miserable bread, they can always eat cake.
The great thing about faith in the market (or Divine Right of Kings) is you don't really have to give a s*** about anything moral. The "unseen hand" blindly and inerringly doles out economic justice as a metter of faith. Individual human sin is somehow transmuted by scale into Gekkonomics' "Greed is Good."
For the religious who incline to this heresy, the billionaires are billionaires because God ordained it so as their blessing for their goodness, and the poor are poor because of their own moral failures, so to Hell with them. The best any of us can aspire to is to join the blessed ranks of the former while avoiding the Hell of the latter.
Whether Chinese Communism or American Capitalism, we have two sides of the same overtly and reductionist materialistic coin, arguing over which is best suited to achieve heaven on earth (as per Marx) or "the pursuit of happiness" as per Jefferson.
Yet freedom doesn't consist of material abundance, but is found in the maturing of the human soul, and is measured by how much good one is able to do for others without being inhibited.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | April 16, 2008 2:58 PM
ST wrote in response to Karin's comments "If you get paid $6 an hour you are paid that wage because that is what you are worth in the market. If you feel you are underpaid, quit."
This may still not be the full picture; If you get paid $6 per hour to work at the Chucky Cheeses of the world it's because THEY ACCEPTED A JOB OFFER TO WORK FOR $6 PER HOUR...
(that's just me using all caps. not to be confused with "progressive lingo". (LOL)
C.C. didn't stick a gun to thier head and force them to take this low-waged position. They don't have to consider what their employees think is enough pay to live off of - that is until they can no longer hire employees at this pay-level.
The proposed argument by Karin makes the corporations out to be the vilians in the situation when all they are doing is offering a desirable product at the least possible cost to their customer base which is simply one way of survivng in a free enterprise economy. I know this is just a minute piece of her multi-pointed comment, but it seems a little one-sided to me.
Posted by: Doug | April 16, 2008 3:42 PM
Doug -
But that's just the point. *Nobody* has to take responsibility for the fact that workers at Chucky Cheese are being paid $6 an hour, because it is possible to fantasize that those workers can join together and refuse to work for such low wages. That's called a union, BTW, and employers like Wal-Mart have been doing everything possible to make sure that such a thing doesn't happen. How the heck are the workers supposed to fight back? If you really think they can name the price they're willing to work for, I've got some waterfront property in Arizona to sell you.
And I'm the one who doesn't seem to be able to sympathize with the plight of blue collar folks well enough to understand what's wrong with Obama's "bitter" comments...
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 16, 2008 3:54 PM
"And I'm the one who doesn't seem to be able to sympathize with the plight of blue collar folks well enough to understand what's wrong with Obama's "bitter" comments..."
Exactly. A lot of this alleged outrage over Obama's elitism is a kind of demagogic populism. Munch your pork rinds, drop the "g" at the end of verbs, talk about kicking Al Qaida's ass, all so you look like one of the boys; meanwhile, screw working Americans every chance you get while piling up your already huge fortune.
Posted by: carl copas | April 16, 2008 4:10 PM
“Okay, I see between sociopathic and Christian, you would choose the former. Or you simply don't understand words/phrases (even when elaborately defined)like sustainability and finance capitalism.”
Why, Because I have a different idea on how to decrease poverty? One could just as easily call your ideas of subsidizing poverty and encourage government dependency sociopathic. I won’t because I think that you too are generally concerned with poverty and justice. I can’t read your mind and know what your definition of sustainability is. I know what finance capitalism is. You haven’t answered whether you really believe that we would be better off without bonds, stocks, futures or other derivatives.
“According to you, criminals don't need things like rehabilitation but retribution. Any evidence?”
First, let me ask you if you have any evidence that criminals don’t make rational decisions like everyone else. If you want evidence compare the declining crime rate over the last 30 years and the climbing incarceration over the last 30 years. Do you think countries like Saudi Arabia have such a low crime rate because they have really good rehabilitation programs for its criminals?
“I have truly never met someone so out of touch and so proud of it in my life. Apparently, you have not yet taught high school in the Bronx, as my husband does.”
Take a look at the Department of Labor’s stats ( http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2000.htm ). You can’t just see problems like poverty through you or your husband’s own narrow view. That is what makes someone out of touch. I volunteer to do taxes for poor people. My personal experiences support what these stats about poverty communicate.
Posted by: DITE | April 16, 2008 4:16 PM
"Perhaps it was that corporations that pay their employees $6 an hour are completely unsustainable and are only able to do it because the government forces taxpayers to subsidize their wages (through food stamps, for example)?"
This is an interesting question with a lot of potential answers. You might not be happy with some of them, though.
"Funny, I always imagine you with a carton of afternoon milk in your fist, with a chocolate moustache of course."
Out of a sippy cup with a confederate flag on it, no less.
Actually, I am an intolerable food snob.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 16, 2008 4:53 PM
Paster Jeff, Another Anon,
Here’s what George Packer wrote in the New Yorker. “In November, 2004, Senator-elect Barack Obama told Charlie Rose that hunting and church provide solace to men like the laid-off factory workers he met in a small Illinois town. Unfortunately, in spite of his best efforts and those of his supporters, this is not what Obama said last Friday in his now notorious remarks in San Francisco. He equated guns and religion with racism, xenophobia, and crude economic populism as the refuge of the hard-pressed—the false consciousness of the white working class who need to channel their financial frustrations somewhere.
“If Obama had left out ‘antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment’ (which is what sympathetic pundits and bloggers have done in attempting to explain his comments away), he might not now be sinking in the latest polls from Pennsylvania and Indiana. But he didn’t, and his remark doesn’t require strenuous feats of interpretation. Obama was letting his audience of donors know that he, like them, sees through the cultural irrationalities and obsessions of American victims of globalization and Republican rule. As Democratic political analysis, what he said is hardly new. Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” is a book-length exposition of Obama’s one sentence. In fact, it’s such a familiar line of thinking in liberal circles that the most common defense of Obama is that he was simply saying what everyone knows is so.”
There is no way to say this isn’t a criticism of the people about which Obama was speaking. Saying that someone takes refuge in religion and bigotry in trying economic times isn’t a compliment.
Posted by: Eric | April 16, 2008 5:14 PM
"Saying that someone takes refuge in religion and bigotry in trying economic times isn’t a compliment."
Maybe not, and maybe a presidential candidate's first job is to avoid offending anyone. I don't envy anybody trying to do what these candidates are trying to do.
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 16, 2008 5:36 PM
Eric,
The reference to "What’s the Matter with Kansas?" has been used by several commentators to give Obama's remarks context. What Obama proposed is a standard doctrine on the left: if people weren't frustrated with their economic woes, they wouldn't cling to "guns, God, and religion" and they'd vote for Democrats. In essence, this is a condescending argument which assumes that those who "cling" to God, guns, or cultural issues do so out of bitterness and weakness rather than the fact that they genuinely believe in these things. If they let go of these false trappings, Frank and others argue, they would become enlightened liberals.
Obama got caught admitting to this idea and equating religious devotion with bigotry. Clinton and others were right to call him on it.
Posted by: jesse | April 16, 2008 5:51 PM
And I suppose we are all are "shocked" that religion can be marketed to capitalize on misery. Bigots? Why I'm deeply offended (that anyone would even hint at bigotry in the most segregated hour in America! Furthermore,I think I may have a second ammendment right to shoot anyone who disagrees. We should not turn a deaf ear to the sociological pitfalls inherent in all religious expression. Do thoses of you attacking Obama deny the existence of displaced anger in the rust belt? I'm still waiting for someone who actually is in this demographic to speak up instead of all you bleeding heart conservatives taking up offenses for those outsourced laborers.
"They don't have to consider what their employees think is enough pay to live off of - that is until they can no longer hire employees at this pay-level."-Doug
If they want to avert God's judgment for withholding justice and unbalanced scales, YES THEY DO. (fit of liberalism)
DITE- What happened to our discussion on price communication?
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 16, 2008 6:33 PM
What is your alternative?
Posted by: Odin's Beard | April 15, 2008 11:50 PM
We can start by holding corporations fiscally accountable to employees instead of shareholders.
PJ
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 16, 2008 6:56 PM
Context is everything:
"So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.
"Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).
"But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.
"But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. 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. So it's not surprising then that 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."
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | April 16, 2008 6:59 PM
Sojourner -
Thank you for posting that. After reading the full four paragraphs, I stand by my earlier statement that there is nothing either untrue or particularly offensive about Obama's statements. In fact, I think he was being extraordinarily tactful, considering some of the things he could justifiably have said.
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 16, 2008 7:46 PM
Pastor Jeff Writes:
"Do thoses of you attacking Obama deny the existence of displaced anger in the rust belt? I'm still waiting for someone who actually is in this demographic to speak up instead of all you bleeding heart conservatives taking up offenses for those outsourced laborers."
I'm actually a college student so this doesn't fully apply to me, but I did grow up in a working class home in rural Maine so I'll answer anyway. To start, I have to say that working class Americans are a diverse group, and the rural working class with which I am familiar is probably very different from the working class in a city. Obama was right in saying that working class Americans are bitter, but the way in which he said it did sound elitist. But it should, because Obama is an elitist, as are Clinton, McCain, and virtually every other candidate that has already withdrawn from the race. Americans who base their votes on gun rights don't do it because they're bitter, they do it because they care about the issue. The implication of Obama's comment was that working class Americans don't get the big picture; that guns aren't as important as corporate tax rates or other economic issues.
Working class Americans certainly aren't happy but the Democrats just aren't reaching them. I know many working class people who won't vote for Democrats because of their positions on gun control, abortion, and other social issues. A large part of this is that the Democrats' economic agenda isn't that attractive either. In my experience, many of them are protectionists, favor low taxes, and oppose welfare programs. No party is fully supportive of the policies they'd favor. I would challenge Obama's idea that people want the government to work for them. It appears to me that we're beyond that; they've given up on the government and just want to be left alone.
Obama has admitted that he chose his words carefully and there's some disagreement over exactly what he meant, but it is a mistake to connect social issues to economic frustration.
Posted by: Jake | April 16, 2008 8:46 PM
"I would challenge Obama's idea that people want the government to work for them. It appears to me that we're beyond that; they've given up on the government and just want to be left alone."
What about if the government wouldn't work AGAINST us, for starters?
If only we all could be left alone, if it didn't involve being betrayed by our fellow Americans who've chosen loyalty to money-making over loyalty to neighbor, and hijacked government policy to favor an incredible increasing disparity in wealth.
There are certain government policies that have been made for the benefit of elites that absolutely devastated working class and middle American families.
Our economic system ought not to be a monopoly game where a few hands end up holding most of the wealth, with the laws made to game the system in wealthy political contributors' favor.
Posted by: N.M Rod | April 16, 2008 9:35 PM
I volunteer to do taxes for poor people. My personal experiences support what these stats about poverty communicate.
Posted by: DITE | April 16, 2008 4:16 PM
Truly poor people don't file.
Posted by: Cads | April 16, 2008 10:45 PM
Why wouldn't truly poor people file? You think poor people don't want tax credits and refunds?
Posted by: DITE | April 16, 2008 11:22 PM
Because they just don't seem to get around to it in a lot of cases. People who earn so little (if any) are very out of touch (ignorant) with what they have to or need to do. They think they're better off just staying under the radar and aren't really aware of the benefits they'd receive if they only filed. This is especially true for the non-working senior poor.
Posted by: Cads | April 16, 2008 11:46 PM
"Good luck finding a poor person that doesn't know they can get a whole bunch of free money by filing their taxes."
They sent those notices to every single taxpayer in the country - even those who don't have the required $3,000 in earned income and therefore don't qualify and those who aren't poor at all too.
You've just discredited the believability of your other arguments with such over the top distortions.
It's no crime to be poor, but with DITE, it might as well be.
Posted by: N.M Rod | April 17, 2008 1:17 AM
"Good luck finding a poor person that doesn't know they can get a whole bunch of free money by filing their taxes. "
You'll find them quick. Some are proposing an automated tax system, which calculate deductions based on paychecks and other automatic reporting systems. The IRS stands to benefit from those who lack the nuance to understand the tax code.
When you begin to describe the poor as sophisticated tax specialists, you forfeit some measure of credibility.
"Maybe not, and maybe a presidential candidate's first job is to avoid offending anyone."
No, but wouldn't you be more impressed if he offended by way of advocating policy, rather than by way of cheap insult?
"We can start by holding corporations fiscally accountable to employees instead of shareholders."
How does this work? Without shareholders, how do they pay employees?
Posted by: kevin s. | April 17, 2008 1:46 AM
Poor people might not be tax experts, but they know that they get a large refund and file taxes.
If you guys had different experiences preparing taxes I would be interested in hearing them.
Posted by: DITE | April 17, 2008 1:53 AM
DITE, I'm glad to see you volunteer to do taxes for poor people (I assume at a VITA site), rather than get paid to do taxes for poor people for a usurious, unethical, parasitic company like H & R Block or Jackson Hewitt. These companies profit off the poor and steer government money meant to help the poor into their own coffers. I would like to see the progressive Christian community take on this issue at some point.
Posted by: I and I | April 17, 2008 9:33 AM
Conservatives like Cal Thomas in his recent column and the John McCain/Geo. Bush/Family Research Council set all believe this forum is a bunch of bunk and is entirely misdirected and unfocused.
What do think about the comments of these people who are in charge of our country at this time?
Posted by: Steve | April 17, 2008 10:04 AM
Steve: "Conservatives like Cal Thomas in his recent column and the John McCain/Geo. Bush/Family Research Council set all believe this forum is a bunch of bunk and is entirely misdirected and unfocused.
What do think about the comments of these people who are in charge of our country at this time?"
If Cal Thomas wrote about this blog, he must have been desperate for a column topic that day.
Posted by: carl copas | April 17, 2008 12:43 PM
Here's an interesting quote from Nicholas Kristof's column today that seems to be particularly relevant to the current discussion. He's discussing the fact that people selectively edit the information they receive so that it conforms to their preconceived ideas.
"This resistance to information that doesn’t mesh with our preconceived beliefs afflicts both liberals and conservatives, but a raft of studies shows that it is a particular problem with conservatives. For example, when voters receive mailings offering them free pamphlets on various political topics, liberals show some interest in getting conservative views. In contrast, conservatives seek only those pamphlets that echo their own views."
Sound familiar? I may check out of the echo chamber again for a while.
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 17, 2008 1:38 PM
I meant the "Compassion Forum" itself, not this forum. I wish I could go back and edit that earlier post.
Posted by: Steve | April 17, 2008 3:37 PM
I can't speak for all of the people in small towns, but I lived in one awhile and was offended by Obama's "bitter" comments.
I don't see how a man of faith could said, "they cling to religion because they are bitter." I cling to my faith because it challenges me to not be bitter not matter what happens to me. I keeps me from being bitter even if the government were to kill my family because of it. I cling to my faith because it is more true than any political figure out there. They will all pass away (and some not soon enough.)Some of them cling to their faith because it is their culture. Most of them who are still cling to their faith, cling to it because they believe it. It is very easy to walk away from your faith if you are not getting what you need from it.
As for the guns -- they cling to them because they hunt. Most of them cling to rifles and not hand guns -- unlike the city-folks where guns are a bit more of a problem that should be addressed by politicians. I never understood why they clung so tightly to their right to have guns to defend themselves -- but they see it as their constitutional right. Do I think it makes them weaker than me? No. I just don't understand it.
The organization I worked for left the area, because it was frankly, too small. Those folks who lost their jobs were not really bitter about it. (I still keep in touch with many of them.) They were glad to have the job while they had it, and most of them saw how it prepared them for something else.
So -- for those of you who want to know what the big deal was -- he made a really weird generalization that seemed out of touch. The thought that the republicans will use it to say Obama is out of touch is reasonable. The democrats can still loose this election
Posted by: frankie | April 17, 2008 4:29 PM
Is there a difference between "clinging to religion" and having a healthy relationship with the Almighty?
Posted by: I and I | April 17, 2008 5:30 PM
Thank you, Frankie. We will continue to disagree but I appreciate your candidness. My take on Obama's statement was that he was pointing out the failures of the international trade policies and "retooling" efforts of both Clinton and Bush (remember it has been 20 years of these two families). He then offered an explanation for the bitterness he sees in these rust belt states. He listed several avenues in which this displaced frustration finds expression. If we think that the increasing polarization, the growth of "militias", hate speech and home grown terror has nothing to do with economic despair, then we are just whistling past the graveyard. But then again, most Americans refuse to acknowledge that 9/11 came about as a result of American terror overseas. "Be not deceived. God is not mocked.For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 17, 2008 7:24 PM
Hope to write a book and just read transcript so hope not to ramble but integrate a few thoughts on forum and shared faith in humanity and our future.
Reg. Future president, both seem excellent, but feel Mr O will be our next pres. as he is perceived as more inclusive and rep. of our great melting pot experiment our founding fathers talked about. That all can add to the debates and hope was spoken to. Here I would someday like to elaborate on the ideas of Chardain's Universal consciousness, and how in seridipidy, it may be best represented by the fruition this consciousness woould evolve from our cities, as predicted by Chadain. Obama may be in touch with this great plan of God we are all humbled by.
Reg. Peace, abortion, and dying we can see the great struggle taking shape in what Bishop Sheen refered to as the needed wisdom when he said, "If you want wisdom you need to go to someone who has suffered". Hillary may yet prove the greatest instrument of this eternal plan as things go. But it brings up the need to reflect on other recent insites, for example Noam Chomsky, who has said, if you want to stop terror, stop participating in it, or similar words. This inward look at evil is more needed and declared in our hope for betterment I believe. Reg. this, like abortion, next election, we might even have the hope to hear that going back to the first three hundred years of Following Christ, left us Christians, with the choice of martyrdom, but not war.
Reg our environment and the shared world, we could reflect on how we try to please everyone just in dividing up what national treasures we have left and debating the greatest good and sacrifices needed.
Reg. Licoln, and careful walk with God, we again are called to hope for inclusion, as we place ourselves in the great work we share, and are made great by. Contrast to this the old Power Elite theory, of people like C Mills, and the neocons of today and we can see the need for the Democratic vision that is able to recruit even the vision of the neocons into the work of forming a consensus world view of shareing, sacrificing, and really seeing through the dark lenses as individuals we often have. One final thought is that both candidates seem to understand the call to what Dr. Peck has refered to as the real evil of every situation, and that is the failure of us to debate fully and to its conclusion the good and bad of every internal issue first before we can hope to enlist the world outside of us. Although I am a realist without illusion, like J Kennedy said, one could easily see the poor mans war of terror spreading as our world of a million just causes, does not get challenged, by our leaders. In this reg. J Wallis and Hillary and Obama are out front and in the lead. Like my environmental and humanity research showed me in the late 60's and 70's, we have enoungh knowledge, laws, and great thought, and now we just need to put the special interest groups and practicality on notice that corruption is no longer the easy path to selfish gain in the short or long term.
talked about.
Posted by: Bill R Wilson | April 21, 2008 10:39 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?