American Idol

I try to keep politics out of the pulpit and for the most part out of my blog, but tonight I just can't resist. I came home from the church this evening and flipped on the old "boob-tube," and there was President Obama answering questions at a prime time news conference. The caption at the bottom of the screen read "First 100 days," and I thought is this his 100th day in office or the 100th time he's holding a prime time press conference? I mean, he's on the TV more than Ryan Seacrest, but I'm sure he doesn't have much else to do being the leader of the free world and all.

So, I looked it up and figured that this is his 4th prime time speech since taking office (3 press conferences and the state of the union address). Assuming this rate continues and that he wins re-election in 2012, we only have 113 more prime time President Obama specials to go!

Parable on Tax Cuts

Most of the time when Jesus taught, he used parables. Why? I think it was because we can all relate to stories and see truth that we might not otherwise grasp. Somebody sent me this modern parable yesterday regarding our current tax system. It illustrates the absurdity in what so many people argue about taxes and economics. Hope you enjoy:

A brilliant explanation of our tax system, the impact of a tax cut, and the public reaction -

Every day 10 men go out for a beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would look something like this:
The first 4 men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth (richest) would pay $59

So that is what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. "Drinks for the ten now cost just $80."

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would pay their "fair share?"

They realized that $20 divided by 6 was $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everyone's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so - The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
The sixth man now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)
The seventh man now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)
The eighth man now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
The ninth man now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
The tenth man now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings)

Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got $1 out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10." "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I." "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get back $10 when I only got $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man did not show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beer without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money among all of them for even half of the bill!

And that my children is how our tax code works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most dollar benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas or in Mexico where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Everyone's Biased...Except Me and CNN

If you've read my previous post from a few days back, you'll already know that I'm not overly excited about any candidate this year. But, I am still following all the news as close as the next guy. I may be a pessimist, but I'm at least a well informed pessimist. I'm typically on the conservative side of political issues, and one thing that drives me nuts is the blatant bias shown by most of the media. The above was the picture for the headline story on cnn.com which read, "Wall Street ends one of its scariest months." Now, let me just make a few obvious observations. 1.This is the headline on a day in which the Dow Jones closed up over 144 points. 2.The election is just over three days away, and does anybody notice what button this dude happens to be wearing? I wonder if the people at CNN noticed and picked this picture for a reason.

This is an ongoing pattern for CNN. They use so much subtle manipulation in what they do that I can't imagine anyone being bamboozled by it, but of course they claim to be the "unbiased" media. I don't care if they are liberal....please just admit it and stop pretending to not have an agenda. Everybody has an agenda, just tell us clearly what we already know.

Just over a week ago, I laughed out loud when I read three different headlines for the day's main story. The first said "Gas Prices Drop 30 Cents." The second said "Largest Single Day Drop in the Price of Gas in History." CNN's headline said "Gas Prices Drop; Still Higher than Last Year." No agenda there....totally unbiased.

War, what is it good for?…Destroying evil regimes and establishing human rights.

I find myself becoming increasingly frustrated and cynical as I follow politics this year. With the election only days away, I keep asking, are there any good options? I’m not so sure. I watch the debates and find myself screaming at the television, “Please, tell me what you really believe and stop clouding everything with your jargon! Let’s get rid of all the red herrings, straw men, and shallow appeals to emotion, and give me your clearly defined system of beliefs and plans for action.” Yeah, like that’s actually going to happen. I feel as if America is drifting into the abyss, and the political options we have aren’t really going to change anything other than the rate at which we travel to the abyss.

With that said, I’ve also been wondering if democracy is really as great as everybody in our country seems to think that it is. I know that doesn’t sound very P.C. or even very American, but hear me out. I’m not anti-democracy (or a democratic republic in our case). It does seem to be the best form of government in our modern political world. Freedom is intrinsically good, but without all the other virtues, the inherent value of freedom is quickly diminished. If the hearts of people become selfish, hateful, greedy, and evil, then it doesn’t really matter whether they are ruled by monarch, a dictator, or a freely elected corrupt government. Evil people within a democracy will produce evil and corrupt forms of government. We tend to think of Adolf Hitler as a classical case of dictator, but he rose to power in a Germany that held free elections. Just because a society has fair and free elections doesn’t guarantee that the people are going to make the right kinds of decisions. I suppose democracies are better than autocratic forms of government because if democracies become evil and corrupt, the people have nobody to blame but themselves.

I think a discussion on democracy is particularly relevant when we think about the war in Iraq and any other wars in which we end up occupying a country for a long period of time. I’m certainly not one of these “anti-war” people. I have no problem with our country defending ourselves and our national interests. But, I do have one question. I have heard over and over again that our goal is to establish democracies all around the world. The popular myth seems to be that if we simply establish fair and free elections all over the world, the world will become a utopia of freedom. Not only does this goal seem impossible to truly accomplish, it seems to me that even if it were accomplished, it would not bring about the results that we desire. For example, if we were able to overthrow a dictator in a country where the majority of people have a worldview based on radical Islam…simply giving them fair and free elections wouldn’t really do much good. If the vast majority of people in a society believe it is virtues to murder infidels in suicide bombings, to enslave minority groups, and to oppress women, then a democracy will produce no better results than a dictator.

What needs to happen for our military to be successful is not simply the establishment of a democracy, but the conquering of destructive worldviews and the enforcement of inalienable human rights. Freedom is great, but freedom without virtue is hollow. Evil dictators need to be defeated, but they must be replaced by governments that have a better worldview than the dictator they are replacing.

Celebrities to the Rescue

Oh my gosh, I just watched the first two minutes of the most ridiculous television event ever. It was the “Celebrity Skifest” on CBS. Apparently this event was designed to raise awareness and money to help save the world’s water. That’s right, a bunch of celebrities skiing to save the world’s water. Does this make any sense to anyone else?

What was even more absurd than the event itself was its introduction. It featured a number of B-list actors and a skier who made brief statements about the importance and necessity of “saving the water.” Apparently global warming is causing the world’s water supply to dry up. Doogi Houser opened the segment by talking about the dangers of greenhouse gasses and the potential of our planet running out of water (without really connecting these two thoughts in any logical way). Then the guy who helped create Seinfeld said, “We need to make sure we all have good water…full of oxygen.” Next was some lady who asked, “If we don’t protect our water, how will the fish continue to swim and spawn?” Another said, “Water is our most precious resource, it’s so much more precious than gasoline." Finally, the skier said, “The world’s water supply is in danger…So, what can I do? I can ski.” Praise the Lord for that brave skier, I was really starting to get worried!

How are we supposed to take any of this seriously? I actually thought I was watching some absurd SNL skit, but these celebs were as serious as a heart-attack. They truly believe that global warming is going to wipeout the world’s water supply, and even more crazy than that, they actually seem to think their ridiculous ski event is going to make a difference. What’s next, a celebrity billiards tournament to help prevent the earth from losing its supply of dirt? Because without dirt, we’ll have no place to plant crops…I think it’s a pretty serious potential problem, and I’m sure we can figure out some way to tie into the whole global warming issue.

Sticks and stones may break by bones, but Don Imus will never hurt me

A few nights ago, we were out with some friends, and in the course of discussion I said something trying to be funny that didn’t come out right. The way I said it could have really offended one of the people we were eating with. I just hope that he interpreted my comments with grace and realized that my intention was not to attack him.

This made me think about the Don Imus situation, so I figured I’d throw in my two cents. I am not a Don Imus fan. I’ve never seen his show on MSNBC, and I’ve never heard his radio show. Before last week, I did not know Imus existed. From what I have heard, he is a rather vile individual. I’m not going to try to defend what he said. I know that if I had used the expression “nappy-headed hos” in a sermon, I too would have been fired. Whether he should have been fired or not is up to the corporations that employed him. I just want to chime in by saying that many of Imus’ harshest critics are utterly hypocritical. Here’s why:

1. Words should be interpreted within their greater context. The question is this: Were Imus’ words intended to be malicious or were they just offensive? I have heard that much of what Imus says on his program is controversial. That is why people listen to him. I suspect that Imus was intending to be provocative, not hateful. If he was truly trying to be hateful, I would assume that he would have tried to defend his words. But he didn’t. He apologized repeatedly, and said that his comments were idiotic. Of course, some may say that he only apologized in an attempt to save his career, but we will never fully know Imus' intentions. I would think that if he were truly racist/sexist then his critics would have referred to other racist/sexist remarks that he has made. Since I have heard them make no other references, I assume that this situation is an isolated incident. If this is the only racist/sexist remark that Imus has made, it seems unfair to label him as a racist/sexist.

His intentions can be juxtaposed with the intentions of his critics who refused to accept his apology and protested until he was fired. Were they really worried about redeeming the situation and seeking racial and gender reconciliation, or were they bent on vengefully destroying Imus’ career? While Imus’ comments were offensive, it seems to me that the intentions of his critics were more contemptible than his intentions.

2. Some consideration should be given to the effect brought about by one’s words. Imus’ words were offensive, but what evil did they bring about? Sure, he hurt the feelings some innocent women basketball players, but should we consider this as some kind of cosmic tragedy? None of their lives will be ruined because of his comment. If Imus had made some insensitive comment about me, I would have said he was an idiot and moved on with my life. But Imus’ critics have treated his words as if they warranted the death penalty.

This raises the question, why don’t Imus’ critics condemn all such words? A number of people have compared Imus’ use of the term “hos” to the tons of times “hos” is used in Rap and R&B music. Rap and R&B constantly denigrate women, and this music has a much more detrimental effect on society than Imus’ words. Culture is shaped by art. Kids who immerse themselves in the Rap and R&B culture often adopt the values of that culture. I'm sure that countless more people end up degrading women because of the words of this music than the comments made by Imus. If Imus’ critics were serious about defending women against such degrading language, they would be more consistent in attacking all such language.