An Inaugural special

Prophet, Priest and PIRATE

(Click here to read entire post) Prophet, Priest and Martin Luther King

We can fulfill the dream by, like Dr. King tried to, emulating Jesus' example and fulfill the destiny He gave us by dying for us, by His resurrection, and by sending us His Holy Spirit- to be His sons and daughters, so join Him in His ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:17-20) by each of us being Prophets, Priests, and Kings & Queens- and Pirates, when necessary!

A corollary to yesterday's post about political bedfellows

George W. Bush Bush dumped $848,000 worth of Harken Energy stock back in 1990, two months before the company announced a $23.2 million loss; he was 34 weeks late in filing a form the Securities and Exchange Commission required to record the sale... According to Time Magazine, "...Harken concealed losses by selling most of a subsidiary to an off-the-books entity controlled by company insiders. Bush was on the audit committee, which, at least in theory, approved the deal. It's the same tactic used by Enron—on a massive, more pernicious scale..."

Time reported in the same issue that "Halliburton, while Cheney was CEO, greased the books to boost the firm's flagging fortunes." Creative accounting.

Dennis Kozolowski, Ken Lay, Merrill Lynch, Enron, Andersen, Halliburton, Adelphia, R.J. Reynolds, Tyco, Bristol-Meyers, Global Crossing, the list goes on and on of individuals and corporations involved in abuse and corruption during early part of Bush's FIRST term. It's as if there was no S.E.C. no accountability or transparency or ethics of any kind in business, finance, and government.

The Bush years were a new gilded age or cancer-stage capitalism. A culture of corruption flourished.

Is it any wonder that we're now dealing with the likes of Bernard L. Madoff, Goldman Sacs, Lehman Brothers, the entire mortgage-based-securities, and auto executives flying in on private jets to ask Congress for bailouts?

Obscene greed. Yet Conservative Christians only get worked up about abortion and gay marriage. When I wrote columns scrutinizing John McCain's connection to the "Keating 5" and the S&L bailout scandal of the 1980's and how his role in deregulation of the financial sector may have helped lead to our current meltdown I was raked over the coals as some kind of unpatriotic, America-hating, abortion promoting liberal.

Transparency and accountability, and a whole lot of self-discipline is what America needs now.
Time for Relief, Recovery, and a whole lot of REFORM.

But what do I know? People have labeled me a "liberal" and now I have to wear that label like a scarlet letter.

One that's been brewing a long time

The point is just to make you think

It's Thursday, they day I used to always write a column. I have a few spare minutes because the 7th grade Art class that I teach M, W, and F have PE on Th. So what do I do with myself? What is to become of this blog if it's no longer a repository of printed columns?

Well, that all remains to be seen. But I still have the itch. "Why do writers write? "May as well ask "why do fish drink?" It's a compulsion, even if there's no one reading. Ah, but I may be deluding myself here, but I've been led to believe that there are at least a few of you out there- if not several who didn't read my column in the Mapleton PRESS, you read it HERE. So how can I abandon you entirely?

If you are a regular reader, you know that I am an idiosyncratic person and I tend to spend an inordinate amount of time defending my political opinions from those who think I should fit in a box (preferably their box). Liberals (which are not bad) think that I am too conservative. Conservatives (also not necessarily a bad thing to be, if you genuinely are and don't just identify yourself as that) obviously think that I am way to "liberal" (especially if they're at all religious) although more often than not, those who identify themselves as "conservative" wouldn't know a REAL liberal if one bit them in the ass ( I feel like I can use language like that now that I'm my own publisher and I'm not writing for print, forgive me if I went too far).

Comedian Mort Sahl once said that if you "maintain a consistent political position for too long in this country, you'll eventually be tried for treason."

Kurt Vonnegut once noted that "Thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative."

I want people to know (and not just you few readers, so please carry this message to others- become my "apologists")- I want people to know that while yes, I'm a registered Democrat, and yes, I voted for Barack Obama and intend to give him a chance because I believe he is both more intelligent and more empathetic than George Bush, I am who I am, an independent thinker, responsible practitioner of representative democracy, and a deeply devout disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, the only begotten Son of the one and only living God, but I am not any kind of ideologue and I resent being labeled and compartmentalized almost more than I resent being pressured to conform to anyone's box.

So, as someone who- believe it or not-is fairly conservative on many issues and a deeply committed Christian, may I present the following cartoon critique of the Republican coalition:


I've wanted to do this one for a while, but couldn't find our copy of Hop on Pop. This cartoon is how I see it. You're certainly entitled to disagree, the point is just to make you think.

This is the crux of all I believe about the Republican Party. Not Republicans themselves, mind you. Many of my closest friends and best loved relatives are Republicans, and they are basically very good people with pure hearts and the very best intentions. But let's face it- as the cartoon points out, those religious and social conservatives are "in bed" with corrupt corporatism, and plenty of other unsavory characters.

George Bush is a long way from even Ronald Reagan, let alone Barry Goldwater. There's not much of Dwight Eisenhower's progressivism and internationalism left in the Grand Old Party. And Teddy Roosevelt's reform progressivism and conservation? Long gone. And don't get me started about Lincoln.

Friends, readers, neighbors, relations- if you are passionately identifying yourself with the Republican party or if you are zealously judgmental, intolerant or even just over enthusiastically skeptical of Democrats, Progressives, and Liberals of any stripe- beware. The conservative movement, Right-wing talk radio, and a few false prophets on TV want to continue to use wedge issues to make you think that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Think for yourselves instead. Evaluate policies, projects, proposals and people individually on a pragmatic, case-by-case basis. Be skeptical. The national Republican Party likes to "use religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon."

Hey, I believe in a balanced budget and reducing deficits and the debt. I believe in protecting American industry and American jobs. I love Jesus and attend church every week, I don't condone drugs or promiscuity. You'd THINK that that would make me a "conservative." But I believe in the little guy and the small town, the mom and pop business, and the family farm. I believe in oversight and accountability (AKA regulation) and it seems that in this day and age, at least in the area that I live in, I'm considered a "LIBERAL Democrat." As if that were some great sin anyway.

I don't believe in abortion- makes me conservative, but I recognize that rape, incest and life threatening complications ought to be exceptions to any prohibition of abortion. Besides, human nature being what it is in a sinful world, people will still seek abortions if they were outlawed, and the idea of going back to a time of coat hanger abortions makes me cringe. So I can life with permitting clean, safe, legal abortions in the first trimester. For some people that makes me an unforgivable godless liberal monster.

Interpreting the Constitution in such a way that "reproductive rights" and more importantly, a right to privacy is implicit may not be "strict construction," but by most definitions, Washington, Jefferson, and even more so Lincoln were liberal.

I believe that by definition, marriage involves one man and one woman. You can call a coup a sedan, but it still only has two doors. This makes me conservative, some would even call me a bigot. On the other hand, I believe that constitutionally, we cannot deny anyone equal rights and opportunities under the law. If two consenting adults have been living in a monogamous, committed relationship, we cannot legally and should not deny them insurance benefits, tax status and spousal rights. That, no doubt makes me a "flaming" liberal.

Sorry, but neither my marriage or my faith are in the least bit threatened by permitting homosexuals their civil rights. Frankly, that's a VERY "strict" interpretation of the Constitution and while people may thing it opens up the door for a more permissive society, it is actually a very conservative approach to civil matters.

Once upon a time "conservative" meant someone who wanted to protect American economic interests. Outsourcing jobs overseas doesn't do that. Seeking the least regulation, oversight and taxation for huge corporations and the wealthiest 2% of our population definitely doesn't do that.

Once upon a time "conservative" meant someone who wanted fiscal responsibility and restraint, no deficits if at possible and limited debt. Pay as you go, transparency and accountability. Reagan didn't and neither have either Bush.

Once upon a time "conservative" meant someone who wanted to protect national security and was leery of unnecessary international entanglements, but also leery of a standing military that played too big a role in domestic life. Regard both Washington and Eisenhower's farewell addresses. I don't think that invading Iraq was conservative, I think it was reckless. I don't think that preemptive unilateral invasion was conservative, I think it was a radical new precedent. Especially when most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and based in Afghanistan, when Osama is a religious extremist whereas Hussein was a secular nationalist and they loathed each other.

Once upon a time "conservative" meant someone who wanted the federal government to leave decisions to states and municipalities. No Child Left Behind has been an intrusive, unfunded, misguided, misdirected, mistake that over burdened millions of schools that encouraged corruption, malfeasance and mediocrity.

In other words, I believe that I am a million times more "conservative" than most national Republicans today, including and especially soon to be former President Bush!

You're certainly entitled to disagree, the point was to make you think.

Morning Commute

Here's something you don't see on the LA freeway- That's right, driving a tractor AND talking on his cell phone. Of course that's probably safer than me trying to take a picture of it while I'm supposed to be driving. For my friends in Phoenix and California, they used to use CBs like truckers, so really it's probably not only safe but necessary. I still think it was funny. In Iowa we call these SMVs (Slow Moving Vehicles) as opposed to SUVs.

Fun one

New month banner for out school website! Brrrr!

Empathy from the dead

NEW YORK — It only took a 100 years or so, but the world is finally getting a piece of Mark Twain’s mind on the subject of free expression and whether it’s safer for your words to be expressed after you’re dead.

“Free speech is the privilege of the dead, the monopoly of the dead. They can speak their honest minds without offending,” Twain observed in “The Privilege of the Grave,” an essay written in 1905, and long unpublished, that appears in the Dec. 22 issue of The New Yorker.

"The living person is not really without this privilege- strictly speaking- but as he posesses it merely as an empty formality, it cannot be seriously regarded as an actual posession. As an active privilege, [free speech] ranks with the privilege of committing murder: We may exercise it if we are willing to take the consequences. Murder is forbidden both in form and in fact. Free speech is granted in form but forbidden in fact. By the common estimate, both are crimes and are held in deep odium by all civilized peoples. Murder is sometimes punished; free speech, always — when committed, which is seldom. There are not fewer than five thousand murders to one (unpopular) free utterance. There is justification for this reluctance to utter unpopular opinions: the cost of utterance is too heavy; it can ruin a man in his business, it can lose him friends, it can subject him to public insult and abuse, it can ostracize his unoffending family, and make his house a despised and unvisited solitude. An unpopular opinion concerning politics or religion lies concealed in the breast of every man; in many cases not only one sample, but several. The more intelligent the man, the larger the freightage of this kind of opinions he carries, and keeps to himself."

Collateral damage to the "unoffending family" is ultimately why I stopped writing a weekly column in our local newspaper, though I certainly endured my share of public insult and abuse- although I'd endure that to my dying day whenever I knew I was in the right because I'd researched what I wrote and confirmed it with a variety of independent sources. Generally, if they were genuine friends, people who disagree with me tended to ignore me, forgive me, or listen to me with an open mind long enough that we could come to some sort of compromise.

Reading Twain's essay at least helped me realize that what I experienced is universal to anyone who speaks (or writes) their mind "freely." Pick up a copy of the Dec. 22&29, 2008 "Winter Fiction Issue" of the New Yorker to read Twain's full essay. It is well worth the $4.99, at least that's MY opinion, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who'd think I'm a jerk for saying so.

Pro Bono Work

Here's two projects for New Year's Day. A card for placing Bible verses on for the LWML at our church, and a button for "Cub's Week" at Lake Okaboji Lutheran Summer Camp.

RNC Candidate Distributes 'Barack The Magic Negro' Song

RNC Candidate Distributes 'Barack The Magic Negro' Song

No, I'm sorry, this is not a case of bleeding heart liberals being "politically correct," this is a case of top level Republicans showing their true colors- mean spirited, ugly, racist colors.

Can you believe this? Chip Saltsman included this CD in his Christmas card, along with a letter asking members of the RNC to make him their chairman? Friends, even if this were not blatant racism, it is not acceptable, mature behavior for reasonable adults seeking power and responsibility.

And this is the kind or tripe that Rush Limbaugh puts on his show all the time??!! And you "Ditto Heads" think it's funny? Please take a good long look and consider what he really stands for stands for.

Racism, bigotry, intolerance, and xenophobia are not "Family Values."

Resolve to not make any resolutions

I don't know if I'll ever be well enough write a weekly column anymore, but I can't lie, I really do miss it. I'm still in recovery. Pundit's Anonymous has been helping, but it's still just "one day at a time."

What do Americans do when they miss something? Bring it back in "re-runs."

So, in the event that there are actually two or three of you out there who read this blog or who used to read my column and would like to have something to put you in the New Year's
Click here: http://tedscolumn.blogspot.com/search/label/New%20Year to read my New Year's resolutions from 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007!

We need Progress

Recently I was reading about Teddy Roosevelt again and I came upon the speech he made to the newly created Progressive Party after the Republican party powers that be disenfranchised their own primary voters by nominating William Taft in 1912. How different would the political landscape be today if they'd picked up the torch of progressive reform instead of maintaining their practice of protecting the wealthy at the expense of the middle and working classes? I've written a lot about how I think Obama needs to follow the patterns of Franklin Roosevelt since we're in such an economic mess, but maybe he'd do just as well to learn from FDR's Republican cousin (that is, until the Republican Party betrayed him). I wish I could convince all my Republican friends that Teddy's philosophies are far more beneficial for America than Reagan or Bushes. Whatchya gonna do?

"...our aim should be the same in both State and Nation; that is, to use the Government as an efficient agency for the practical betterment of social and economic conditions throughout this land. There are other important things to be done, but this is the most important thing...

I am well aware that every upholder of privilege, every hired agent or beneficiary of the special interests, including many well-meaning parlor reformers, will denounce all this as "Socialism" or "anarchy"--the same terms they used in the past in denouncing the movements to control the railways and to control public utilities. As a matter of fact, the propositions I make constitute neither anarchy nor Socialism, but, on the contrary, a corrective to Socialism and an antidote to anarchy...

the most pressing and immediate need is to deal with the cases of those who are on the level, and who are not only in need themselves, but, because of their need, tend to jeopardize the welfare of those who are better off. We hold that under no industrial order, in no commonwealth, in no trade, and in no establishment should industry be carried on under conditions inimical to the social welfare. The abnormal, ruthless, spendthrift industry of establishment tends to drag down all to the level of the least considerate...

The present conditions of business cannot be accepted as satisfactory. There are too many who do not prosper enough, and of the few who prosper greatly there are certainly some whose prosperity does not mean well for the country. Rational Progressives, no matter how radical, are well aware that nothing the Government can do will make some men prosper, and we heartily approve the prosperity, no matter how great, of any man, if it comes as an incident to rendering service to the community; but we wish to shape conditions so that a greater number of the small men who are decent, industrious and energetic shall be able to succeed, and so that the big man who is dishonest shall not be allowed to succeed at all.

Our aim is to control business, not to strangle it-- our aim is to promote prosperity, and then see to its proper division. We do not believe that any good comes to any one by a policy which means destruction of prosperity; for in such cases it is not possible to divide it because of the very obvious fact that there is nothing to divide. We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the business man is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or getting unfair advantages over business rivals. But it is obvious that unless the business is prosperous the wage-workers employed therein will be badly paid and the consumers badly served. Therefore not merely as a matter of justice to the business man, but from the standpoint of the self-interest of the wage-worker and the consumer we desire that business shall prosper; but it should be so supervised as to make prosperity also take the shape of good wages to the wage-worker and reasonable prices to the consumer, while investors and business rivals are insured just treatment, and the farmer, the man who tills the toil, is protected as sediously as the wage worker himself...

One camp has fixed its eyes only on the need of prosperity, loudly announcing that our attention must be confined to securing it in bulk, and that the division must be left to take care of itself (Supply-side, free-market, Reaganomics). This is merely the plan, already tested and found wanting, of giving prosperity to the big men on top, and trusting to their mercy to let something leak through to the mass of their countrymen below--which, in effect, means that there shall be no attempt to regulate the ferocious scramble in which greed and cunning reap the largest rewards.

Read the entire speech at http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trarmageddon.html
From Teddy Roosevelt's speech at the Progressive Party Convention, August 6, 1912 in Chicago