Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Announcements

1. Carrie is being induced at 8 a.m. on Friday! I feel like doing a new-aunt dance.

2. I quit NaNoWriMo two days in. I know, that's pathetic. But 1,600 words a day is so, so, so much more than I was thinking, especially with no plot idea. I tried to wing it, writing "what I know" as everyone always advises, and that got me to about 950 (after three writing sessions), and I couldn't think of anything else, so I canned it. Next year I will plan ahead and finish so I can check it off my list.

3. Thank you to everyone who endured terrible lines to vote early (most notably Lib, with a four-hour-10-minute wait on Friday), because today we were in and out in five minutes! A worker told us that 80 percent of our precinct had voted early. Now I can't wait to curl up with Matthew and a bowl of chili and watch the results come in. And we can all be happy tonight, because if I may say so, no matter who wins, it will be a big improvement.

Friday, October 31, 2008

My only political post

I'm blatantly copying this from Lib's blog, but I thought it was excellent.

My Personal ‘Faith Priorities’ for This Election
by Jim Wallis
10-23-2008

In 2004, several conservative Catholic bishops and a few megachurch pastors like Rick Warren issued their list of “non-negotiables,” which were intended to be a voter guide for their followers. All of them were relatively the same list of issues: abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc. None of them even included the word “poverty,” only one example of the missing issues which are found quite clearly in the Bible. All of them were also relatively the same as official Republican Party Web sites of “non-negotiables.” The political connections and commitments of the religious non-negotiable writers were quite clear.

I want to suggest a different approach this year and share my personal list of “faith priorities” that will guide me in making the imperfect choices that always confront us in any election year — and suggest that each of you come up with your own list of “faith” or “moral” priorities for this election year and take them into the voting booth with you.

After the last election, I wrote a book titled God’s Politics. I was criticized by some for presuming to speak for God, but that wasn’t the point. I was trying to explore what issues might be closest to the heart of God and how they may be quite different from what many strident religious voices were then saying.

I was also saying that “God’s Politics” will often turn our partisan politics upside down, transcend our ideological categories of Left and Right, and challenge the core values and priorities of our political culture. I was also trying to say that there is certainly no easy jump from God’s politics to either the Republicans or Democrats. God is neither.

In any election, we face imperfect choices, but our choices should reflect the things we believe God cares about if we are people of faith, and our own moral sensibilities if we are not people of faith. Therefore, people of faith, and all of us, should be “values voters” but vote all our values, not just a few that can be easily manipulated for the benefit of one party or another.

In 2008, the kingdom of God is not on the ballot in any of the 50 states as far as I can see. So we can’t vote for that this year. But there are important choices in this year’s election — very important choices — which will dramatically impact what many in the religious community and outside of it call “the common good,” and the outcome could be very important, perhaps even more so than in many recent electoral contests.

I am in no position to tell anyone what is “non-negotiable,” and neither is any bishop or megachurch pastor, but let me tell you the “faith priorities” and values I will be voting on this year:

With more than 2,000 verses in the Bible about how we treat the poor and oppressed, I will examine the record, plans, policies, and promises made by the candidates on what they will do to overcome the scandal of extreme global poverty and the shame of such unnecessary domestic poverty in the richest nation in the world. Such a central theme of the Bible simply cannot be ignored at election time, as too many Christians have done for years. And any solution to the economic crisis that simply bails out the rich, and even the middle class, but ignores those at the bottom should simply be unacceptable to people of faith.

From the biblical prophets to Jesus, there is, at least, a biblical presumption against war and the hope of beating our swords into instruments of peace. So I will choose the candidates who will be least likely to lead us into more disastrous wars and find better ways to resolve the inevitable conflicts in the world and make us all safer. I will choose the candidates who seem to best understand that our security depends upon other people’s security (everyone having “their own vine and fig tree, so no one can make them afraid,” as the prophets say) more than upon how high we can build walls or a stockpile of weapons. Christians should never expect a pacifist president, but we can insist on one who views military force only as a very last resort, when all other diplomatic and economic measures have failed, and never as a preferred or habitual response to conflict.

“Choosing life” is a constant biblical theme, so I will choose candidates who have the most consistent ethic of life, addressing all the threats to human life and dignity that we face — not just one. Thirty-thousand children dying globally each day of preventable hunger and disease is a life issue. The genocide in Darfur is a life issue. Health care is a life issue. War is a life issue. The death penalty is a life issue. And on abortion, I will choose candidates who have the best chance to pursue the practical and proven policies which could dramatically reduce the number of abortions in America and therefore save precious unborn lives, rather than those who simply repeat the polarized legal debates and “pro-choice” and “pro-life” mantras from either side.

God’s fragile creation is clearly under assault, and I will choose the candidates who will likely be most faithful in our care of the environment. In particular, I will choose the candidates who will most clearly take on the growing threat of climate change, and who have the strongest commitment to the conversion of our economy and way of life to a cleaner, safer, and more renewable energy future. And that choice could accomplish other key moral priorities like the redemption of a dangerous foreign policy built on Middle East oil dependence, and the great prospects of job creation and economic renewal from a new “green” economy built on more spiritual values of conservation, stewardship, sustainability, respect, responsibility, co-dependence, modesty, and even humility.

Every human being is made in the image of God, so I will choose the candidates who are most likely to protect human rights and human dignity. Sexual and economic slavery is on the rise around the world, and an end to human trafficking must become a top priority. As many religious leaders have now said, torture is completely morally unacceptable, under any circumstances, and I will choose the candidates who are most committed to reversing American policy on the treatment of prisoners. And I will choose the candidates who understand that the immigration system is totally broken and needs comprehensive reform, but must be changed in ways that are compassionate, fair, just, and consistent with the biblical command to “welcome the stranger.”

Healthy families are the foundation of our community life, and nothing is more important than how we are raising up the next generation. As the father of two young boys, I am deeply concerned about the values our leaders model in the midst of the cultural degeneracy assaulting our children. Which candidates will best exemplify and articulate strong family values, using the White House and other offices as bully pulpits to speak of sexual restraint and integrity, marital fidelity, strong parenting, and putting family values over economic values? And I will choose the candidates who promise to really deal with the enormous economic and cultural pressures that have made parenting such a “countercultural activity” in America today, rather than those who merely scapegoat gay people for the serious problems of heterosexual family breakdown.

That is my list of personal “faith priorities” for the election year of 2008, but they are not “non-negotiables” for anyone else. It’s time for each of us to make up our own list in these next 12 days. Make your list and send this on to your friends and family members, inviting them to do the same thing.

---------------------

Regardless of your stance on these issues, don't forget to vote next week (if you haven't already)!

Monday, October 27, 2008

Weekend update

NFL cheerleaders are all over the Internet but actually getting to talk to them is harder than I would have guessed. I finally have a confirmed interview with one of the Redskins cheerleaders and am still hoping to line up something with a couple others. This is going to be a fun story.

This weekend I went to Charlotte for Lib's baby shower, which was, by design, more like a baby party, with an evening start time, alcoholic beverages, and no games involving melted candy bars in diapers. I got there Saturday morning and got Lib to myself all day until the party started, so I loved that. I thought about spending the night but ended up driving home late Saturday and was really glad I'd done so the next morning when I got to sleep in before church. Sunday afternoon we did nothing but watch football and eat and I took a two-hour nap.

Matthew just told me that someone put a campaign sign in front of one of our spec houses! Annoying! As if it weren't bad enough that one appeared in front of our office last week. At least that area is technically town property. Does anyone know if it would be illegal for me to take it down, though?

One time I walked up to my own car to find that someone had put a campaign bumper sticker on it -- naturally, not for a candidate I supported! Luckily, it came right off.

This weekend I bought about 15 birthday cards because I have fallen far behind on my 101-things resolution No. 3 to send a birthday card to everyone I love this year. If you have had a birthday since May, you probably haven't gotten a card from me and you may think I don't love you, but never fear, it's on its way soon.

P.S. Thanks to the lovely Swank girls, Jessica and Petra, for providing free coffee to our whole office this morning! It was a nice way to start the week.

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Today's the day

Exercise your right to vote, North Carolinians!

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Ah, politics

I am totally undecided as to whom I'll vote for, but this is hilarious.

Background: Last week in the Obama/Clinton/Edwards debate in Nevada, each candidate was asked to name his or her biggest weakness. Here's how it went down:

Obama answered first, saying he has a messy desk and needs help managing paperwork — something his opponents have since used to suggest he's not up to managing the country. John Edwards said his biggest weakness is that he has a powerful response to seeing pain in others, and Clinton said she gets impatient to bring change to America.

"Because I'm an ordinary person, I thought that they meant, 'What's your biggest weakness?'" Obama said to laughter from a packed house at Rancho High School. "If I had gone last I would have known what the game was. And then I could have said, 'Well, ya know, I like to help old ladies across the street. Sometimes they don't want to be helped. It's terrible.'"

I missed that part of the debate, but I did see another highlight: Clinton's response when she had to defend voting for a 2001 bankruptcy bill.

"She says, 'I voted for it but I was glad to see that it didn't pass.' What does that mean?" [Obama] asked, again drawing laughter from the crowd and himself. "No seriously, what does that mean? If you didn't want to see it passed, then you can vote against it! People don't say what they mean."

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Just wondering

Does anyone else think it's strange that you don't have to show photo ID to vote?

Don't forget to vote today!


Friday, October 12, 2007

Ignorance is not bliss

This morning Dad sent me a link to a website, http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460, at which you can take an 11-question survey and see how your views fit with the presidential candidates'.

Obviously, an 11-question survey is going to have some limitations. For example, surveyers are given four options for their views on immigration, but must choose a simple yes or no regarding their support for legalized abortion. And I am so ignorant about a couple of the issues that I probably should have skipped those questions for now.

John Edwards popped up as the candidate most closely aligned with my views. That kind of surprised me, but I guess it shouldn't have. I was a big fan of his back in college, when he was first running for Senate. Holly and I plastered his bumper stickers all over our dorm room.

I've been putting off thinking about the next presidential election mostly to protest the fact that campaigning starts so early. It's worse than Wal-Mart selling Christmas items in August -- and that's saying something.

But I can't delay it forever. To paraphrase Lib, I tend to be more passioned than reasoned when it comes to politics. It's time to start doing my research so I can develop informed opinions and defend them intelligently. I challenge you to do the same!

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Gatekeepers

Exclusivity is such a funny thing.

Take churches for example. When you're an outsider, you're drawn by urgings to "come as you are" and by the "visitors welcome" announcement on practically every church sign. Then, as soon as you're part of the inner circle, there's a tendency to want to raise the bar for those still on the outside. You want them to clean up their act, or at least convincingly fake it, before stepping into the sanctuary.

But churches are hardly the only example. Think of country clubs, which depend on a perception of prestige. Cliques of friends. Boards of directors. High school sports teams. The double standard of acceptance crops up almost everywhere.

I am so guilty of this attitude when it comes to Realtors, of all things. By any standard I'm still a newbie in this business, having been licensed only about two years. But does that stop me from wishing there was some way to slow the flood of new Realtors? Of course not! Now that I'm in I want to shut the gates.

(Ironically, under new rules approved recently by the real estate commission I couldn't be a full broker, much less a broker-in-charge, without considerably more education and experience. In fact, we wouldn't have been allowed to start a real estate company from scratch under these stricter standards. I happened to fall into this business at the best possible time.)

Another example is neighborhoods. Last night we spent a couple of hours at a town meeting listening to resident after resident stand up and protest new construction and the riff-raff they're sure will follow. The town is tiny and those that are lucky enough to have secured a spot there don't want to see it grow a bit. I guess anyone else who might like to join them should just get in line and wait for someone to die.