Exactly a year from now – early October 2012 – the Dow will hit a low of about 5,500.
Obama will be totally screwed for the presidential elections in November 2012 (which might be the least of our worries).
Original text: The First Presidential Debate
What follows is my editing of Obama’s answers:
===================
LEHRER: Gentlemen, at this very moment tonight, where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?
OBAMA: Well, thank you very much, Jim, and thanks to the commission and the University of Mississippi, Ole Miss, for hosting us tonight. I can’t think of a more important time for us to talk about the future of the country.
You know, we are at a defining moment in our history. Our nation is involved in two wars, and we are going through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
And although we’ve heard a lot about Wall Street, those of you on Main Street I think have been struggling for a while, and you recognize that this could have an impact on all sectors of the economy.
And you’re wondering, how’s it going to affect me? How’s it going to affect my job? How’s it going to affect my house? How’s it going to affect my retirement savings or my ability to send my children to college?
So we have to move swiftly, and we have to move wisely. And I’ve put forward a series of proposals that make sure that we protect taxpayers as we engage in this important rescue effort.
Number one, we’ve got to make sure that we’ve got oversight over this whole process; $700 billion potentially, is a lot of money.
Number two, we’ve got to make sure that taxpayers, when they are putting their money at risk, have the possibility of getting that money back and gains, if the market — and when the market returns.
Number three, we’ve got to make sure that none of that money is going to pad CEO bank accounts or to promote golden parachutes.
And, number four, we’ve got to make sure that we’re helping homeowners, because the root problem here has to do with the foreclosures that are taking place all across the country.
Now, we also have to recognize that this is a final verdict on [What happens today is due to] eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain. a theory that basically says that we can shred regulations and consumer protections and give more and more to the most, and somehow prosperity will trickle down.
It hasn’t worked. And I think that the fundamentals of the economy have to be measured by whether or not the middle class is getting a fair shake. That’s why I’m running for president, and that’s what I hope we’re going to be talking about tonight.
[...]
LEHRER: All right, let’s go back to my question. How do you all stand on the recovery plan? And talk to each other about it. We’ve got five minutes. We can negotiate a deal right here.
But, I mean, are you — do you favor this plan, Senator Obama, and you, Senator McCain? Do you — are you in favor of this plan?
OBAMA: We haven’t seen the language yet. And I do think that there’s constructive work being done out there. So, for the viewers who are watching, I am optimistic about the capacity of us to come together with a plan.
The question I think, that we have to ask ourselves is, how did we get into this situation in the first place?
Two years ago, I warned that, because of the subprime lending mess, because of the lax regulation, that we were potentially going to have a problem and tried to stop some of the abuses in mortgages that were taking place at the time.
Last year, I wrote to the secretary of the Treasury to make sure that he understood the magnitude of this problem and to call on him to bring all the stakeholders together to try to deal with it.
So — so the question I think, that we’ve got to ask ourselves is yes, we’ve got to solve this problem short term. And we are going to have to intervene; there’s no doubt about that.
But we’re also going to have to look at, how is it that we shredded so many regulations? We did not set up a 21st-century regulatory framework to deal with these problems. And that in part has to do with an [the] economic philosophy [of George Bush and John McCain] that says that regulation is always bad.
[...]
LEHRER: Do you have something directly to say, Senator Obama, to Senator McCain about what he just said?
OBAMA: Well, I think Senator McCain’s absolutely right that we need more responsibility, but we need it not just when there’s a crisis. I mean, we’ve had years in which the reigning economic ideology has been what’s good for Wall Street, but not what’s good for Main Street.
And there are folks out there who’ve been struggling before this crisis took place. And that’s why it’s so important, as we solve this short-term problem, that we look at some of the underlying issues that have led to wages and incomes for ordinary Americans to go down, the — a health care system that is broken, energy policies that are not working, because, you know, 10 days ago, John said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound.
LEHRER: Say it directly to him.
OBAMA: I do not think that they are.
LEHRER: Say it directly to him.
OBAMA: Well, the – John, 10 days ago, you said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound. And… [Why?]
==================
This is too much fun… I may do the whole debate later. Only Obama though – don’t want to help McCain.
Well… Read the title of this post again. Then read this article. Then take a look at the stats (from the US Census Bureau):
And then, when voting next time for a Republican President, just tell me – what are your reasons other than:
Update:
Read a more dispassionate and much more educated discussion on WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? by Jonathan Haidt (found via Jean Russell).
However, at this stage of the political fight for the White House, understanding Republican voters (while absolutely necessary) is not enough. We’ve had enough of analysing why Republicans dominate the political landscape for quite some time already. We need more people to confront them. This country is our country too! Society is not “as it is”… it is what we make of it.
Here is a guy who’s (in his own words) “supposed to be thinking ‘big thoughts’ all day as part of a fellowship program that recruits PhD-level scientists into public service with the federal government.”
And here is one big thought he produced:
“But at a fundamental level, studying complex behavioral and genetic networks in animals is not so different from understanding human social networks.”
Oh yeah… on a fundamental level… we’re all animals. So heartbreakingly true.
But here is the scary part:
“So to some extent, when it comes to explaining social software to military policymakers – I’m the perfect guy for the job.”
Never read “The Gulag Archipelago“… but loved “One Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich“… always remember his advice from “One Day…” about how to survive in tough conditions – do everything slowly.
There was a joke back then… in the Soviet times… about a Russian boy… from the 21st century… asking his father: “Dad… who’s Brejnev?”… and the father: “Hmmm… I think he was a politician from Solzhenitsyn’s time.” Not a joke anymore.
In a recent (really interesting) NYT article, Jodi Kantor tells us how Obama’s students (at the University of Chicago Law School) call him “a contextualist, willing to look past legal niceties to get results.”
This reminds me of two older NYT articles (both by David Brooks) which I commented in two older posts – one about “Relationship Blend” vs. “Productive, Rational Behavior” and another about Progressive Realism.
Politically, I identify with the “ecologists” (contextualists) and Robert Wright’s “progressive realism”…
Now, here is the thing (by David Brooks) I am referring to in the title of this post:
“Most politicians are ecologists who turn into engineers once in office.”
…written by people who know a thing or two about the subject… as opposed to listening to our presidential candidates.
Running a Hospital (blog)
by Paul Levy, President and CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston
Repairing the Healthcare System (blog found via Brad)
by Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE
The Health Insurance Mafia
(article in today’s Wall Street Journal found via Stanley Feld)
No, it’s not “creative destruction” either… It is a really mean version of economic Darwinism as preached and practiced by a pathologically moneyeyed executive nomenclature. I found the article below after reading today’s news about Bear Stearns:
“Wall Street’s five biggest firms together paid a record $39 billion in bonuses [for 2007], even though three of them suffered the worst quarterly losses in their history and shareholders lost more than $80 billion.
Goldman Sachs Group, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers Holdings and Bear Stearns together paid $65.6 billion in compensation and benefits last year to their 186,000 employees. Year-end bonuses usually account for 60 percent of the total, meaning bonuses exceeded the $36 billion distributed in 2006 when the industry reported all-time high profits.
The bonuses are larger than the gross domestic products of Sri Lanka, Lebanon or Bulgaria.”
Mark tells about a meeting he and his wife had with Obama in early 2007. Here are some parts of the post:
And here is the full post…
“I carried four distinct impressions away from our meeting with Senator Obama.
What’s the picture that emerges from these four impressions?
Smart, normal, curious, not radical, and post-Boomer.
If you were asking me to write a capsule description of what I would look for in the next President of the United States, that would be it.
He’s got my vote.”
Clay Shirky on his new book, “Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations” (6PM on the Harvard Law School campus, location TBA).
“In story after story, Clay masterfully makes the connections as to why business, society and our lives continue to be transformed by a world of net-enabled social tools. His pattern-matching skills are second to none.“-Ray Ozzie, Microsoft Chief Software Architect
From the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard:
“All events are free and open to the public… Invite your friends, students, colleagues, co-workers, fellow faculty, research assistants, interns, family, and others to celebrate and collaborate with us. Please don’t hesitate to forward and blog this information.
The “Viceroy” thing didn’t work in Iraq seemingly. May be a “Czar” is the answer… or was it a “Tzar”.
A bit of etymology… Bulgaria, it turns out, is where the whole “Tzar” thing started… Here is what I found on Wikipedia:
“The sainted Boris I is sometimes retrospectively referred to as tsar, because at his time Bulgaria was converted to Christianity. However, the title “tsar” (and its Byzantine Greek equivalent “basileus”) were actually adopted and used for the first time by his son Simeon I, following a makeshift imperial coronation performed by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 913. After an attempt by the Byzantine Empire to revoke this major diplomatic concession and a decade of intensive warfare, the imperial title of the Bulgarian ruler was recognized by the Byzantine government in 924 and again at the formal conclusion of peace in 927.”
I feel almost proud… 
But how about somebody to double George W Bush – like… hmmm… a “Vice Emperor”… or something… Oh, I forgot – we already have (a) Dick there.
Update (May 20, 2007):
The NYT has an article about this story… where as usual for American journalists, Bulgarian origins are forgotten in favor of later Russian implementations. My explanation (besides journalistic disrespect for Wikipedia) – Bulgaria never had nukes pointed to America… but that’s another subject.
The best part of the article:
“It’s unclear where this fits in exactly, but any discussion of czars would be incomplete without including Woody Allen’s assertion that the Russian Revolution began when the peasants finally realized that the “tsar” and the “czar” were the same person.”
I’ve been following the French presidential elections on TV5. One thing is becoming quite clear. The French are discussing the same stuff that we’ll be arguing about in 2008. There are differences in the way things are talked about or the specific realities discussed, but the underlying ideological structure seems very much the same to me. Or, at least, that would be what I see as a pertinent structure for today’s political discourse here in the US too. Here are the main dimensions:
Most of the other stuff that may come to mind – like “security vs. growth” or “dependence vs. autonomy” for example – seems derivative to me.
I don’t even need to see the movie…
“Patt Morrison: The Funniest Movie You Can’t See”
IMHO:
Idiocracy happens when good and highly educated people – fearing a repeat of the (presumably) intellectual-born horrors of 20th century Europe – prefer to inhabit a mental 18th century utopedia (induced by the literalism of American academia), thus leaving the non-evidence based world (a.k.a. business, politics, and culture) to Limbaughs, Dohertys, Foleys, DeLays, Lays, Roves, Chenneys, and Bushes.
Why did we start a war with the “Stalin” of the Mideast after being attacked by the region’s “Hitler” and “fascists”… just asking. The smart communication strategists of the Bush administration (well versed in political and war history no doubt) started with these analogies… not me.
The last time the US had to deal with a “Hitler” and a “Stalin”… the war strategy was different… and victorious.
A related question… You have enemies with (may be) nuclear weapons – some of them led by religious fanatics believing in martyrdom and others led by atheists who do not believe in martyrdom nor life after death. Who’s more dangerous? Who can be deterred in the traditional “cold” war fashion? Who has more of a stake in staying alive… here, on earth? Hitler killed himself and Eve without hesitation. Would Stalin have done something similar in a similar situation? Probably not… he was very much like Sadam… clinging to his own life no matter what.
Generally speaking, isn’t it safe to assume that it is easier to scare atheist enemies into some sort of a negotiated peace and not exactly so easy to have this with religious folks ready to “stay the course” at any cost?
This is a rant. It’s not an essay. I am not proving anything. I just say what is on my mind. If you don’t want to read it, you’re welcome to leave my blog right now. I am not happy either with these thoughts flooding my head on 9/11.
I am really, really fed up with the primitivism of what so many Americans understand as “power.”
Let me put it as simply as that: true power does not reside in guns, money, or muscles. I’ll repeat: true power is not to be found in handguns, rifles, tanks, rockets… or the stratospheric executives’ and celebrities’ incomes… or the foot/basket/baseball players’ hypertrophied muscles. More guns for the Army… more money for the stupidly rich… and more gyms and steroids for muscles do not make America stronger.
I came to America in 1990. My love for America is rooted in the way my parents looked at America as the beacon of hope to all repressed people in the world (sounds like a cliché – to you may be). America, to me, is first and foremost about democracy and political freedom… and then, eventually, about economic opportunities (yes, believe or not, I did not come here dreaming of finally being able to buy myself a BMW).
Despite all the fascination with the American “cowboy” and “gun” traditions, people worldwide still see America mostly as the place where life is free from the unimaginable (for Americans) violence of 20th century European wars, fascism, Russian bolshevism, East European Stasis and Securitates, Chinese and Khmer Rouge communisms, African tribal wars, South American dead squads, Taliban “power” over women, etc.
The real power of America – a terrific power over the minds of billions of people – is in the IDEA of America. The idea of freedom from “powers,” “lords,” aggression, and fear. It’s not about hamburgers, jeans, jazz, or Elvis. Jeans, hamburgers, jazz, and Elvis were always just SYMBOLS of America. This might be news to many Americans, but local food almost anywhere in the world is way better than McDonalds.
America’s power is not in Rocky’s muscles – it’s in the idea that Rocky CAN have a life free from petty dependence on the local crime “lord.”
And then again, I came in America in 1990… and was baffled by “Jesus is Lord” bumper stickers (oh, how we miss our English lords) and “aggressive” and “greedy” as required (good) personal traits… and by images of gorilla caricatures (a.k.a. football players) and fat-ass ugly baseball body shapes being shoveled into the heads of youngsters as ideals of masculinity. Then came the Detroit interpretations on the theme of “power”… and a whole new culture of driving personal tanks (a.k.a. SUVs) sprang out. What a joke! Primitive is a mild word to qualify this stupidity. And it’s not just stupidity. This compulsive need to identify with infantile “power” imagery (grown “boys playing with toys”) is unfortunately the other face of a growing sense of insecurity and fear. Only people fearing other people can enjoy hiding into a car with the size, look, and weight of a military vehicle. That’s not the America I was coming to.
And since 9/11… the biggest mistake… a terrible mistake… was to forget where the big power of America resides. 9/11 is an attack on America by an ideology. The terrorist acts are just a tool. In today’s world, you don’t fight an ideology with tanks. Tanks bring easy short term “mission accomplished” stuff… and most often long term pain for everybody involved. Reagan was much smarter – he brandished a “strategic initiative” (an idea basically + some money invested for credibility)… and the Soviets were scared appropriately. It worked. Smart Reagan, stupid Bush – both Republicans. The difference is in intelligence. Ironically, the problem with Bush is not so much with his “messianic” talk about freedom – as some suggest – but with his limited understanding of true American power. As a result, American power in the world is diminished – and this makes me angry. The stupid “power” talk and imagery displaced and diminished our real powers. You cannot beat global religious extremism and global crime lords (think Russian and Columbian) with gun/money/muscle “power.” They feed off and thrive on this. That’s their turf. That’s their world. They are happy to meet you there.
Democrats cannot find their way out of the primitive “power” speak and metaphors either. My sad feeling is that nations learn mostly by experience. Unfortunately, Americans may have to see what “power” and “aggression” really mean in the scale of what other nations have gone through – and then only “unlearn” the infantile language of gun/money/muscle “power.”
Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding about my understanding of “power”: (1) I think power starts and ends in the heads and hearts of people, and (2) brut gun/money/muscle power is needed to treat some heads and hearts… on a case by case basis – I totally support the military action in Afghanistan.
///////////////////////////////
Update October 10, 2006:
Here is a good example of what I’m talking about – from an email from a nonprofit organization… notice the language and the metaphors:
“This week, the world’s biggest brands will throw their advertising muscle and millions of dollars in sales into the fight against global AIDS and extreme poverty…”
In a time when (post Vietnam) generals are so very careful with their language, American civilian life is flooded with war/money/muscle metaphors.
///////////////////////////////
Update September 11, 2011:
From today’s NYT:
“Our weakest area is combating Al Qaeda’s ideology,” Michael E. Leiter, a director of the National Counterterrorism Center in both the Bush and Obama administrations, said last week.
Oh, really!?!
Another good article in The New York Times by David Brooks. Here is the starting snippet:
“In the world of public policy, there are ecologists and engineers. The ecologists believe human beings are formed amid a web of relationships. Behavior is shaped by the weave of expectations and motivations that we pick up from the people around us every day.
The engineers believe all this relationship talk is so much mush. They believe behavior is shaped by incentives. You give people the resources they need and socially productive, rational behavior will usually follow.
Most politicians are ecologists who turn into engineers once in office…”
I totally agree with his criticism of Hillary Clinton’s “American Dream” plan. I had exactly the same reaction when I read about it – such a tired approach, such a lack of imagination, such an inability to produce something that may “change the rules of the (social) game” and inspire constituencies…
And here is the predictable (for me) conclusion:
“But the fact is, when it comes to helping people flourish, the ecologists are usually right.”
I find David’s argument absolutely pertinent to my own preoccupation right now – building an online social software service. I am talking about Aidpage – and our current work on its next major upgrade… coming soon on a computer near you…
An online test recently defined me as a “considerate idealist.” I liked that. It is very close to what I am thinking of myself.
I also identify with what Robert Wright describes as “progressive realism” in his recent New York Times article.
In my previous life under a communist regime, I almost inevitably would bring a conversation to the point where someone would call me a naive idealist for believing in democracy and market economy. To which, my reply was “no, I am not naive… don’t you see the US is stronger than the USSR.”
Similarly, when confronted with all the abundant evidence (see this and this just from today) about how morality must be left aside if you want to make real money, I would simply point to the fact that the two richest guys in the world (you know who) do not seem to be morally bankrupt crooks.
And I liked David Brooks’ “Democracy’s Long Haul” from a few days ago. It reminded me of my own theory about the sometimes necessary “Pinochet” period for countries transitioning from long dictatorial one party systems to democracy.
So, now you know where I stand…
I am just happy that the sleazy low-life character’s “iron hold on the House Republicans” will be no more.
And I hope that many Republicans will eventually start looking back at DeLay’s era as a “not to be proud of” moment in their party’s history.
“Shooting victim apologizes to vice president”
“‘My family and I are deeply sorry for all that Vice President Cheney and his family have had to go through this week,’ Whittington said.”
Is Cheney really so powerful and fearsome… that someone (a lawyer!) he shot in the face… someone that had to go through a life threatening heart attack caused by the accident… feels the need to say “sorry”…?
Sounds like a story straight out of Sadam’s regime. Imagine Sadam accidentally shooting one of his lackeys during a hunt… Then the poor guy goes: “My family and I are deeply sorry for all that our Great and Beloved Leader and His Family have had to go through this week.”
Tom DeLay says he will temporarily (hope not) step down from his post following today’s indictment. See story on Reuters…
It’s a shame – at least for those getting poorer. For those getting richer – it only makes sense.
Here are some changes over a one-year period only (2003-2004) just published by the U.S. Census Bureau:
“There were 37.0 million people in poverty (12.7 percent) in 2004, up from 35.9 million (12.5 percent) in 2003.”That makes 1.1 million more people in poverty.
That makes 300,000 more families in poverty.
Update (August 31, 2005):
From today’s article in New York Times…
And also…
So, we have a total of three documented periods of such “stabilization” of incomes – one under peace maker Jimmy Carter and two under the House of Bush Warrior Clan.
Update (September 1, 2005):
From today’s editorial in New York Times…
They should be ashamed of themselves.”I wonder… in what country do the editors of New York Times live. Don’t they know that America is all about “winners and losers”, “competition, competition, competition…”, “it’s a jungle out there”, and “the winner takes all”. And finally, since “God is in control”, obviously “winners” have “Him” on their side – try argue this point with an American.
And a bit more from today’s Reuter’s story about Katrina:
According to CNN, “there have been 2,033 coalition troop deaths – 1,841 Americans, 93 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, one Dane, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Hungarian, 26 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 17 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of August 10, 2005.”
A colleague just sent me a link to the story from a Bulgarian news site… but here is the source.
Why camouflage I wonder – the “war” president…? Or… the ranch “blending” in nature – the “environment” president…?
Whatever it is… I like Christo and Jeanne-Claude… and I like the project.
Gina (my wife) and I finally saw a real Christo event… We know about and admire Christo since our college years back in Sofia (Bulgaria). He was a kind of a hero for us for the obvious reason of his success as an artist but also for the fact that he had left then communist Bulgaria for France (and later for the US) – seeking artistic and personal freedom.
In 1993, while studying at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, we had the chance to see Christo at an event hosted by the Detroit Institute of Arts… where the organizers were a bit quick to interrupt Christo when he started talking about freedom. I guess Detroit’s “bourgeoisie” expected a lecture strictly about “art”.
And now – “The Gates” – really beautiful. I’ll post our pictures of The Gates later. For now… here is one… of us… happy… at the event:
I saw the news on BBC… and I remembered my father telling me the story of the Katyn Forest massacre.
I was probably about 8-9 years old. Against my parents’ usual instructions, I, of course, told the story to some of my friends at school. Nobody believed me (but I was already accustomed to that – they didn’t believe me either when I was telling them that the Americans would be the first on the Moon). At that time, most Bulgarians still could not imagine a “bad” USSR… or even a “bad” Stalin. And I was already starting to think “evil” USSR – had to wait almost 20 years to hear an American president say it outloud. Even then, many in the world still thought that Reagan was “too extreme”.
Here is part of the story and a link to the full text:
“The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany invaded Poland in September 1939 after Moscow and Berlin signed a secret pact to divide Eastern Europe. Millions of Poles were arrested by the Soviet secret police and most sent to labour camps. But more than 21,000 army officers and intellectuals were executed in Katyn and other parts of the USSR.”
“You have to remember the American market is not dominated by conservative, long-term investors; it is dominated by short-term traders who are compensated on a performance basis.” – says Michael Metz, chief investment strategist at Oppenheimer & Co.
Is that the same market that conservatives tell us would take care of long term problems like the health care system, the education system, the environment, and even the Social Security system?
But hey… let’s not forget that most conservatives are also churchgoers. And churchgoers have this peculiar understanding of life on Earth – as a sort of short-term trading leading up to the real big performance bonus – Eternity in Heaven.
But why then are most conservatives so obsessed with personal accumulation of the most down-to-Earth thing – money. May be… up there… in Heaven, you’d still need money to buy stuff… and for Eternity… you’d need a lot of money to sustain yourself. Or, may be… the money you make says something about you… as a person – how good you are, and why you should go to Heaven – something like “moral capital” – “IN GOD WE TRUST” printed on the money itself… and this mystical pyramid with the “LIGHT” at the top – there must be a reason for that… I don’t know. How else can you explain the appetite for more (and more) money in people that already have many millions – acting as if they would live forever. May be that’s exactly what they believe.
But since I am a relative newcomer to this country, I assume some things are oh so deeply American… that I just don’t get them.
Here is what I get about America though. Ever since our arrival here in 1990, my wife and I never stopped being amazed at one thing. You see it on the faces of most Americans. If you look carefully, you would see engraved on their foreheads: “IN GOOD WE TRUST.”
Now, that’s the real American Market – in dire need of long-term investors. There is a lot of potential there (much more than on most foreign shores). Some call it a “social capital” – but this may be a disservice because… you know what “social” connotates for many Americans (conservatives – see why you cannot label me a “socialist”). Why not call it exactly a “moral capital” – the real moral capital. Morality – dare we say – is not the religion, stupid. It is “the voice of conscience in our hearts…“
But then I found this: Daily Show Wrap Up
And this: Stewart on Crossfire
And this is good too: “The voice of conscience in our hearts…”
I don’t know about the other stuff on this same page… haven’t seen them. Explore them at your own risk of being disappointed.
Kerry would help the poor… the poor vote Kerry. Bush would continue to help the rich… the rich vote Bush. A no-brainer – right?
Now read this (full transcript):
WHITAKER: Meanwhile, Bush enjoys a lead among lower educated and lower income families despite the fact that it’s Kerry who said that he’s going to raise the minimum wage and provide healthcare for everybody.
DAVID GERGEN: …The president is doing very well among people with high school educations or below. John Kerry surprisingly, seems to have gained the support of the college educated…“
What’s going on here!
Well, may be the rich and educated are, counterintuitively, good enough (and smart enough) to want to help the poor and uneducated. That, I understand and applaud.
But why in the world would the poor vote for Bush!?
As Bill Maher would put it: “It’s the religion, stupid.”
And he would be right:
I don’t go to church regularly. In fact, I don’t go to church at all. I’ve always thought myself a Christian – culturally. Here is my take on Christianity: once we get (internalize) the “love” idea and the moral values (which we do by way of all of our tradition), we eventually (historically) become “adults” that don’t need to be re-told the myth every day or week. The measure of our integrity is our capability to think and act morally without relying on the ongoing support, approval, and blessings of our “Higher Father”. That’s the real test and difficulty of being a Christian – we are supposed to have “graduated”. This is the “freedom=responsibility” idea. This is the core and the historical strength of Christianity. Or at least, that’s my understanding.
Now, the good news:
KING: But they’re a minority.“
Yes, Larry, fortunately they are a minority… and hopefully, they will stay a minority. Because a churchgoing majority with nuclear weapons is not “a good thing” (oh no, even from prison, she’s controlling my mind).
Co-Founder/CEO of
Boston, Massachusetts
emil [at] sotirov [dot] com