ALPB Forum Online
ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: D. Engebretson on February 12, 2020, 08:45:53 AM
-
When I started the impeachment thread I had no idea we would be at 79 pages today. Since the impeachment is past (on an official, legal level) and the election is now in full swing with the first two major primaries completed in Iowa and New Hampshire, I thought that I would start a new thread for that topic.
Bernie Sanders, the self-proclaimed democratic socialist, is now leading the pack in raw votes, but Pete Buttigieg leading with delegates. Amy Klobuchar had a surprising finish, but the real surprise is how Joe Biden, the once celebrated 'front runner' has done so poorly in the first two races.
Of course "Super Tuesday" is yet to come and may still rearrange the field. We don't even know how Michael Bloomberg will fit into the picture vote or delegate-wise.
Of course this is mainly the Democratic primary and we can't predict the overall nation's response until the general election. My sense is that Democratic votes are not overly excited about Biden who represents the past and is showing his age. Sanders appeals to those who want to upset the status quo and Buttigieg appears to be the face of a new generation.
-
Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com offers a bountiful array of analyses driven by a lot of under-the-hood number-crunching. Here is the site's dashboard for the 2020 Democrats' primary schedule: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/.
-
The interesting thing to me about the race thus far is Biden's poor showing, combined with the moderate vote being split up between Buttigieg and Bloomberg, means Sanders is overwhelmingly likely to get the nomination. The only real way for this not to be the case that I can see is for Biden to slam dunk South Carolina and take that momentum to Super Tuesday. The problem, of course, is that he will have all of 1 day to gather said momentum. And if he loses Nevada, which seems more likely even though he still holds a very slim lead there, AND South Carolina? And by "loses" I mean "doesn't win," since even a 2nd place finish is not going to build much momentum.
Well, in that case Biden is done and there is no clear "moderate" front runner. At best for Democrats a clear Sanders win. At worst a brokered convention and who knows what?
-
If Sanders did win the nomination, even in a brokered deal, I wonder what kind of a national election it would be with him pitted against Donald Trump. Talk about complete opposites! We would either find out if the country is more evenly divided than we think, or discover it to be more conservative than we wish to admit.
-
The interesting thing to me about the race thus far is Biden's poor showing, combined with the moderate vote being split up between Buttigieg and Bloomberg, means Sanders is overwhelmingly likely to get the nomination. The only real way for this not to be the case that I can see is for Biden to slam dunk South Carolina and take that momentum to Super Tuesday. The problem, of course, is that he will have all of 1 day to gather said momentum. And if he loses Nevada, which seems more likely even though he still holds a very slim lead there, AND South Carolina? And by "loses" I mean "doesn't win," since even a 2nd place finish is not going to build much momentum.
Well, in that case Biden is done and there is no clear "moderate" front runner. At best for Democrats a clear Sanders win. At worst a brokered convention and who knows what?
Actually, the chart from the previous posts shows Sanders's odds declining despite his victories, and the odds of a brokered convention going way up.
-
In both Iowa and New Hampshire, the two progressive candidates together did not garnish a majority. The moderates together got a substantial majority.
Peace, JOHN
-
In both Iowa and New Hampshire, the two progressive candidates together did not garnish a majority. The moderates together got a substantial majority.
Peace, JOHN
But only by very odd redefinitions, in which socialism is considered progressive and hard-core left-wing liberalism is considered the new moderate. Every candidate in the field who gets statistically measurable votes is far to the left of Obama, at least in terms of stated positions.
-
The interesting thing to me about the race thus far is Biden's poor showing, combined with the moderate vote being split up between Buttigieg and Bloomberg, means Sanders is overwhelmingly likely to get the nomination. The only real way for this not to be the case that I can see is for Biden to slam dunk South Carolina and take that momentum to Super Tuesday. The problem, of course, is that he will have all of 1 day to gather said momentum. And if he loses Nevada, which seems more likely even though he still holds a very slim lead there, AND South Carolina? And by "loses" I mean "doesn't win," since even a 2nd place finish is not going to build much momentum.
Well, in that case Biden is done and there is no clear "moderate" front runner. At best for Democrats a clear Sanders win. At worst a brokered convention and who knows what?
Actually, the chart from the previous posts shows Sanders's odds declining despite his victories, and the odds of a brokered convention going way up.
The first chart in the FiveThirtyEight article shows Sanders projected to have a majority of the delegates by the time of the convention, if I saw it correctly. In an article referenced within this site by Rackich, the author states: According to the exit polls, Sanders racked up big margins among demographic groups that make up a good chunk, but still a minority of, the Democratic electorate. Crucially, though, he was still able to win because the rest of the electorate was split among his rivals. For example, “very liberal” voters made up just 21 percent of the New Hampshire Democratic electorate on Tuesday, and Sanders won them over Warren easily. But that was enough to win because he still tied Buttigieg for the lead among “somewhat liberal” voters, and Buttigieg and Klobuchar split the “moderate” vote.
So the vote, as they say, is still out on Sanders. Personally I think that his far left standing will not hold all the way to the convention. But I'm a Republican, so what do I know?
-
I have no idea who the Democratic candidate will be. Bernie Sanders is at least still very much in the race if not in the lead. But what kind of politics does he pursue? He calls himself a Democratic Socialist, but I have yet to hear a clear and coherent description of just what that means. We have had in our hemisphere several examples of socialism at work, notably Cuba and Venezuela. Cuba has not been exactly a economic success and Venezuela's try at socialism has been an economic disaster. Both became repressive authoritarian states.
Around the world socialism has typically resulted in either economic disaster and authoritarian repressive states. Russia under the communist variety of socialism, with state control of the economy and millions died from starvation. It is perhaps significant that when the ruling class in Russia furnished their dwellings they imported their appliances from the capitalist West. China is a strictly state controlled repressive country approaching in its control of citizens the dystopian dreams of 1984. The One Percent in China are not the greedy capitalists, but the greedy government officials who absolutely control business and industry and line their pockets thereby. Why government control and exploitation of the workers (exploitation that is worse than under the greedy capitalist in the US) should be so much better that capitalist exploitation of the workers I have yet to figure out.
Ah but what about the socialist Scandinavian countries. Are they not examples of how socialism can work? Well, no. First, they are not socialist and they will tell you so. They are capitalistic with a generous and extensive welfare state. Fueled by high taxes. In the case of Norway, fueled by North Sea oil and gas. Under at least some of the Democrats, definitely a no no. How they would continue their generous welfare state programs without the revenue from North Sea oil and gas is not clear.
So just what does Bernie Sanders and his fellow Democratic Socialist propose in their vision of America? Can they bring off their vision without crashing the economy, which all of us, even the bottom 25% depend on, or resorting to authoritarian control?
-
Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com offers a bountiful array of analyses driven by a lot of under-the-hood number-crunching. Here is the site's dashboard for the 2020 Democrats' primary schedule: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/.
Their podcast is also unfailingly interesting.
-
Ah but what about the socialist Scandinavian countries. Are they not examples of how socialism can work? Well, no. First, they are not socialist and they will tell you so. They are capitalistic with a generous and extensive welfare state. Fueled by high taxes. In the case of Norway, fueled by North Sea oil and gas. Under at least some of the Democrats, definitely a no no. How they would continue their generous welfare state programs without the revenue from North Sea oil and gas is not clear.
I wish that folks would get this straight, because it is always touted as the success story for socialism. I hope that Sanders does not make this mistake if he wishes to tout the benefits of "socialism."
-
Anyone not hopelessly naïve or blinded by ideology will recognize that capitalism has serious potential problems. The Robber Barons of the late 19th century and the excesses of Social Darwinism are examples of dangers. There is a need for reasonable governmental regulation to prevent unfair business practices and to protect workers and consumers.
Unfortunately, regulation has its own dangers as regulators assume more and more control (for the good of all naturally, the regulators know best how things ought to be run after all). Too much regulation becomes crippling, lack of regulation opens the door for the unscrupulous to exploit everyone else.
There is also a need for what has been termed a social safety net to provide for people who either temporarily or permanent cannot provide for themselves. Unfortunately, some will always try to game such a system and claim aid that they don't really need.
One area that capitalistic and market driven economics does well is provide incentives for people to work and be productive. If they work well they can receive economic rewards for their success. (One of the reasons for reasonable regulation is to protect against the strong who would rig the system to rob those who work of the fruits of their labor.) If one does not work well, they receive less.
Socialism, as it has demonstrated regularly where it has been tried, usually ends up being economically unsuccessful for most of the population, rife with corruption that siphon off what wealth it creates, and results with oppressive governmental control of the lives of its people. It is perhaps significant that border controls for the US are chiefly concerned with regulating who can enter the US. The Berlin Wall was not constructed to keep West Berliners and West Germans from flooding into the workers paradise of East Germany.
For society to work well and provide for its people there is a need for social welfare programs and regulations of business to help those less able to provide for themselves and curb the greed of the unscrupulous. There is also a need to incentivize productive work. Pure socialism, "from everyone according to their ability and to everyone according to their needs," sounds ideal, and maybe would work for ideal people. But if society is to provide for the needs of people there is need for hard work, often harder than people might do without incentives. Pure socialism depends on people being completely altruistic, which by nature people are not, or forcing altruism - working for the common good rather than one's own - on people. It is the latter that usually results in repression as the government forces people to work for what the government has decided is the common good. It also breeds centralized control of everything. That might work if the governmental managers actually did know everything. But that rarely works well in the long run.
The alternatives are not pure socialism or pure capitalism, but a system that combines some of the best features of both. It is striking the balance that is difficult. Until I learn more about what Bernie Sanders and his comrades mean by Democratic Socialism, I don't trust it.
-
but the real surprise is how Joe Biden, the once celebrated 'front runner' has done so poorly in the first two races.
Why should this be a surprise? It's what's happened every other time he's sought the nomination.
Pax, Steven+
-
but the real surprise is how Joe Biden, the once celebrated 'front runner' has done so poorly in the first two races.
Why should this be a surprise? It's what's happened every other time he's sought the nomination.
I read just yesterday that Biden's lifetime total of primaries won (so far) is zero.
-
Richard, thanks for the tip on the 538 podcast. That was pretty interesting.
Jeremy
-
Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com offers a bountiful array of analyses driven by a lot of under-the-hood number-crunching. Here is the site's dashboard for the 2020 Democrats' primary schedule: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/ (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/).
Their podcast is also unfailingly interesting.
It is one of my go to podcasts. I have yet to be bored listening to them - it doesn't mean I always agree with them, but their presentations are done really well.
-
One area that capitalistic and market driven economics does well is provide incentives for people to work and be productive. If they work well they can receive economic rewards for their success. (One of the reasons for reasonable regulation is to protect against the strong who would rig the system to rob those who work of the fruits of their labor.) If one does not work well, they receive less.
Studies have shown that "economic rewards" are not a good incentive for working. In fact, there are illustrations that economic rewards, rather than be an incentive for working become incentives for cheating and lying, e.g., the administrators at VA hospitals who received bonuses for meeting goals. Rather than meet the goals, they lied about it.
Certainly, there is a drive for people to earn enough to get what they need; but beyond the necessities, there are more important factors that motivate people to work. (These certainly can apply to congregations that usually rely on something other than monetary rewards for the volunteer work that is needed.
A video based on Daniel Pink's book: Drive: The Surprising Truth about what Motivates Us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc)
-
Studies have shown that "economic rewards" are not a good incentive for working. In fact, there are illustrations that economic rewards, rather than be an incentive for working become incentives for cheating and lying, e.g., the administrators at VA hospitals who received bonuses for meeting goals. Rather than meet the goals, they lied about it.
VA hospitals are not an example of "capitalistic and market driven economics." As for cheating and lying, that's one reason there are auditors.
I'd also be curious as to how these studies (or, for that matter, you and those reporting about them) define "economic rewards," because that is not solely matters that can be measured in dollars and cents.
Pax, Steven+
-
When capitalism is being criticized, it would be helpful to know how the word is being defined. Insofar as capitalism is just another word for free enterprise, where people are free to buy and sell at prices arrived at by mutual agreement between people entering into a voluntary contractual relationship with one another, I fail to see how there could be anything wrong with it. If greedy people want to get the government to give them unfair advantages over others, this isn't free enterprise, but its opposite. When it comes down to a choice between free enterprise and socialism, the choice is easy. Respecting personal liberty is to respect one another's dignity and humanity. To empower the state to manage the economy is both boastful and vain. The incompetence of government in this regard is obvious.
-
Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com offers a bountiful array of analyses driven by a lot of under-the-hood number-crunching. Here is the site's dashboard for the 2020 Democrats' primary schedule: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/ (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/).
Their podcast is also unfailingly interesting.
It is one of my go to podcasts. I have yet to be bored listening to them - it doesn't mean I always agree with them, but their presentations are done really well.
Yes. The focus is on "data" (i.e., polling)--what it's useful for, what's inappropriate use of data, how effective polls are conducted, what the current data is showing, etc. Very informative.
-
Pastor Preus:
If greedy people want to get the government to give them unfair advantages over others, this isn't free enterprise, but its opposite.
Me:
Please preach this to the so-called “free enterprise capitalists” who give tax breaks to the rich, let benefits given to big business trample others etc.etc.
-
So Charles and other who continually deliver vitriolic diatribes against the current president, are you going to take ownership of how your words have consequences?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/482668-florida-man-who-struck-gop-voter-tent-says-he-was-motivated-by%3famp
-
Pastor Preus:
If greedy people want to get the government to give them unfair advantages over others, this isn't free enterprise, but its opposite.
Me:
Please preach this to the so-called “free enterprise capitalists” who give tax breaks to the rich, let benefits given to big business trample others etc.etc.
Just as religious hypocrites hide behind holy sounding words, so corrupt businessmen sing the praises of free enterprise while buying special favors from the government. Big businesses are notorious for gaming the system in their favor. You'll get no argument from me about that!
I would point out, however, that the tax cuts on business that Trump and the Republicans passed helped American business to be competitive around the world. High taxes on business hurt consumers, anyway, as the cost is past on in higher prices. A cut in the income tax will ~always~ go to those who are better off because poor people don't pay income tax. While big spending Democrats don't want to admit it, the Laffer Curve was accurate. There is a point at which higher taxes will yield less revenue for the government. A country cannot tax its way into prosperity. We will all learn this the hard way if Bernie Sanders (God forbid!) is elected president.
-
Until I learn more about what Bernie Sanders and his comrades mean by Democratic Socialism, I don't trust it.
Here's what his comrades in Sweden say:
Business policy and competitiveness
In a strong society, a competitive business world is needed
Sweden has long been a competitive country. Swedish goods and services are in demand around the world. This is important for more jobs and stronger welfare. Sweden and Swedish companies are performing well in global competition. Swedish exports take world market shares and growth is high.
The Social Democrats want:
- that the business climate in Sweden promotes the start-up of new companies, that companies grow, that companies have the opportunity to hire more and export their goods and services to a greater extent. This way more jobs are created in Sweden
- to increase collaboration between public actors, business and academia and thereby create new, innovative solutions that strengthen competitiveness and contribute to sustainable development and create more jobs
- Strengthen companies' resilience and competitiveness as markets change. Swedish companies must be leaders in digital development and in exploiting the opportunities of digitalisation
- that the skills supply system should meet the needs of the industry and promote its long-term development and that Sweden should be a leader in research in areas that contribute to strengthening the industrial production of goods and services in Sweden.
More growing companies hiring more
Sweden has benefited from openness to the outside world. It has forced a constant renewal to cope with global competition, while at the same time helping to create a stronger society with jobs and welfare. But there are challenges. In order to maintain our competitiveness, it is important that society and the business community can handle the structural transformation. We see that automation and robotisation are crucial to maintaining our competitiveness.
The Social Democrats want to strengthen industrial policy efforts. Small businesses and entrepreneurs must be given the right conditions to grow and develop. We want to increase the opportunities for companies to finance expansion, hire key people, develop new goods and services and get support for exports to growing markets. It is about investing in improved infrastructure and better collaboration between politics, business and academia.
https://www.socialdemokraterna.se/var-politik/a-till-o/naringspolitik-och-konkurrenskraft
-
Until I learn more about what Bernie Sanders and his comrades mean by Democratic Socialism, I don't trust it.
Here's what his comrades in Sweden say:
Business policy and competitiveness
In a strong society, a competitive business world is needed
Sweden has long been a competitive country. Swedish goods and services are in demand around the world. This is important for more jobs and stronger welfare. Sweden and Swedish companies are performing well in global competition. Swedish exports take world market shares and growth is high.
The Social Democrats want:
- that the business climate in Sweden promotes the start-up of new companies, that companies grow, that companies have the opportunity to hire more and export their goods and services to a greater extent. This way more jobs are created in Sweden
- to increase collaboration between public actors, business and academia and thereby create new, innovative solutions that strengthen competitiveness and contribute to sustainable development and create more jobs
- Strengthen companies' resilience and competitiveness as markets change. Swedish companies must be leaders in digital development and in exploiting the opportunities of digitalisation
- that the skills supply system should meet the needs of the industry and promote its long-term development and that Sweden should be a leader in research in areas that contribute to strengthening the industrial production of goods and services in Sweden.
More growing companies hiring more
Sweden has benefited from openness to the outside world. It has forced a constant renewal to cope with global competition, while at the same time helping to create a stronger society with jobs and welfare. But there are challenges. In order to maintain our competitiveness, it is important that society and the business community can handle the structural transformation. We see that automation and robotisation are crucial to maintaining our competitiveness.
The Social Democrats want to strengthen industrial policy efforts. Small businesses and entrepreneurs must be given the right conditions to grow and develop. We want to increase the opportunities for companies to finance expansion, hire key people, develop new goods and services and get support for exports to growing markets. It is about investing in improved infrastructure and better collaboration between politics, business and academia.
https://www.socialdemokraterna.se/var-politik/a-till-o/naringspolitik-och-konkurrenskraft (https://www.socialdemokraterna.se/var-politik/a-till-o/naringspolitik-och-konkurrenskraft)
Is that the model that Sanders is proposing?
-
I found this article to be thoughtful and interesting:
https://medium.com/@karlyn/ive-been-a-democrat-for-20-years-here-s-what-i-experienced-at-trump-s-rally-in-new-hampshire-c69ddaaf6d07
-
https://www.socialdemokraterna.se/var-politik/a-till-o/naringspolitik-och-konkurrenskraft (https://www.socialdemokraterna.se/var-politik/a-till-o/naringspolitik-och-konkurrenskraft)
Is that the model that Sanders is proposing?
Sadly, probably not. He would do well to advocate for a mixed economy that promotes social values but avoids the mistakes that Sweden made in years past.
-
In all reality the Democrat ticket in November 2020 will be Mike Bloomberg for President
and Amy Klobuchar for Vice President. This ticket would appeal to everyone and give
the GOP a real battle for the White House.
-
Bloomberg/Klobuchar yes.
I’d like to see Bloomberg/Oprah, but...
-
In all reality the Democrat ticket in November 2020 will be Mike Bloomberg for President
and Amy Klobuchar for Vice President. This ticket would appeal to everyone and give
the GOP a real battle for the White House.
Battle of the billionaires. Inspiring to the average voter?
-
There is no average voter.
-
"Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) on Tuesday said that the Democratic Party should be a 'big tent' for people of different beliefs, including those who oppose abortion rights.'
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/482607-klobuchar-we-need-to-build-a-big-tent-for-anti-abortion-democrats (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/482607-klobuchar-we-need-to-build-a-big-tent-for-anti-abortion-democrats)
-
Sanders would be a formidable opponent in November. Most pundits arguing that he "can't win" really mean that they do not want him to win. He absolutely can.
A head to head election against Trump will be extremely clarifying: does the center-left (and to some extent, the center-right) really mean all of the rhetoric that has been expressed about the unique threat of Trump's presidency? If those sentiments were the least bit sincere, then they will align behind whoever the Democratic nominee will be. Even if it is Sanders.
President Trump expressed the other day that he would rather run against Bloomberg than Sanders. Maybe this was clever politics. I don't know what he really thinks, but the the rationale he gave has merit… Who is the stronger opponent: the guy with a passionate, mobilized base that supports him 100%, or the guy whose popularity is largely based on people doing electoral algebra?
The problem with picking a nominee not by choosing who you most like yourself, but rather who other people would be most likely to vote for [i.e. "electability"] is that if you get the calculation wrong, you end up with a candidate you don't really want and who also cannot win. Bloomberg has huge weaknesses as a candidate. He also has billions of dollars and a solid record as mayor of NYC. Does that get him MI, PA, and WI? Who knows?
What we do know is this: Sanders has the organization and donor base to stay in this until the convention no matter what (baring a medical catastrophe). He also has a solid "floor" in the Democratic Party, meaning he will be competitive as long as there are multiple candidates. It's a lot like the GOP primary in 2016… sure, if Rubio, Cruz and Kasich drew straws and decided that ONE of them was going to be the anti-Trump, it might have worked. But that's not what happened. I doubt very much that will be how it goes for the Dems in 2020 either…
-
"Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) on Tuesday said that the Democratic Party should be a 'big tent' for people of different beliefs, including those who oppose abortion rights.'
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/482607-klobuchar-we-need-to-build-a-big-tent-for-anti-abortion-democrats (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/482607-klobuchar-we-need-to-build-a-big-tent-for-anti-abortion-democrats)
Looking for something that would cause a Pro-Life voter to vote for Klobuchar ....Klobuchar, who is running as a centrist candidate and alternative to Sens. Bernie Sanders (http://alpb.org/Forum/safari-reader://thehill.com/people/bernie-sanders) (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (http://alpb.org/Forum/safari-reader://thehill.com/people/elizabeth-warren) (D-Mass.), said while she is "pro-choice" but she doesn't think the party should shut out Democrats who disagree.[/size][/font]
"There are pro-life Democrats, and they are part of our party, and I think we need to build a big tent," she said."I think we need to bring people in instead of shutting them out." <snip>
Klobuchar and other Democratic presidential candidates have vowed to reverse the Trump administration's anti-abortion policies and to only appoint judges that support Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court ruling that established a woman's right to abortion. <snip>
According to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll (https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/poll-finding/abortion-knowledge-and-attitudes-kff-polling-and-policy-insights/) conducted in December, 15 percent of Democrats surveyed consider themselves "pro-life" while 84 percent said they are "pro-choice." [/size][/font]
Top-tier candidate and former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (http://alpb.org/Forum/safari-reader://thehill.com/people/peter-pete-buttigieg) received a question on the issue from an anti-abortion Democrat at a Fox News town hall last month. [/size][/font]
“I respect where you’re coming from, and I hope to earn your vote, but I’m not going to try to earn your vote by tricking you. I am pro-choice,” Buttigieg said.
“I know that the difference of opinion that you and I have is one that we have come by honestly and the best that I can offer, and it may win your vote and if not, I understand — if we can’t agree on where to draw the line, the next best thing we can do is agree on who should draw the line, and in my view, it’s the woman who’s faced with that decision," he said.
Supporting abortion rights is a key part of the Democratic National Committee's platform. Campaign groups like the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have faced pressure from progressives to stop supporting Democrats who oppose abortion rights. Emphasis added
The Democratic Attorneys General Association announced in November it would only endorse candidates that support abortion access.
Perhaps a perfect example of ‘Big tents are for circuses’ as we are reminded by one of our esteemed forum members. ;)
[/size][/color]
-
"Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) on Tuesday said that the Democratic Party should be a 'big tent' for people of different beliefs, including those who oppose abortion rights.'
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/482607-klobuchar-we-need-to-build-a-big-tent-for-anti-abortion-democrats (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/482607-klobuchar-we-need-to-build-a-big-tent-for-anti-abortion-democrats)
A quarter century too late for me.
When the DNC muzzled former PA Governor Robert Casey, Sr., to prevent him from delivering a pro-life message to their assembly I came to Pr. Tibbetts' conclusion that "big tents are for circuses".
-
I found this article to be thoughtful and interesting:
https://medium.com/@karlyn/ive-been-a-democrat-for-20-years-here-s-what-i-experienced-at-trump-s-rally-in-new-hampshire-c69ddaaf6d07
Instagram's "knitting world" sounds like an "ELCA clergy" Facebook group.
-
When there are for all practical purposes only two parties, both of them have to be pretty big tents by default. That’s why it is so important to identify one core issues that is non-negotiable. It doesn’t mean you don’t care about other issues, but that when push counts to shove and everything gets boiled down to two tents, you’ll know which one you ultimately belong in.
-
“One issue” people can congratulate themselves on finding their own moral island. But they will be ignoring morality or ethics in general and they are quite likely to be politically ineffective and very good prey for those who know how to manipulate the naive portions of the electorate.
-
What is Sen. Klobuchar going to say that will attract any pro-life person into her camp, or the Democrat's camp? That abortion in the 3rd trimester is a bridge too far? If she were to say that, it would be a lose-lose strategy on her part. She'd lose the Democratic party's support and she'd gain nothing from pro-lifers.
I have a hard time believing her comments were anything but disingenuous. I know there are pro-life Democrats; there just aren't any pro-life Democratic presidential candidates, or Congrrssional members.
Jeremy
-
“One issue” people can congratulate themselves on finding their own moral island. But they will be ignoring morality or ethics in general and they are quite likely to be politically ineffective and very good prey for those who know how to manipulate the naive portions of the electorate.
And your one issue, apparently, is removing Donald Trump.
-
“One issue” people can congratulate themselves on finding their own moral island. But they will be ignoring morality or ethics in general and they are quite likely to be politically ineffective and very good prey for those who know how to manipulate the naive portions of the electorate.
Ah, so your strategy is to vote for the moral and ethical candidate, who always happens to be a Democrat. Okay.
If this is what it is like to be politically ineffective, well, I find it bearable. The most naive portion of the electorate is up for giving socialism the fair chance it never seems to have had.
-
What is Sen. Klobuchar going to say that will attract any pro-life person into her camp, or the Democrat's camp? That abortion in the 3rd trimester is a bridge too far? If she were to say that, it would be a lose-lose strategy on her part. She'd lose the Democratic party's support and she'd gain nothing from pro-lifers.
I have a hard time believing her comments were anything but disingenuous. I know there are pro-life Democrats; there just aren't any pro-life Democratic presidential candidates, or Congrrssional members.
Jeremy
Representative Dan Lipinski is one of the few pro-life Democrats left in the house, and represents my district in the House. He voted against the Affordable Care Act and has voted for restrictions on abortion. He narrowly avoided losing in a primary in 2018 and they are gunning for him this time around again.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/dan-lipinski-pro-life-democrat-refuses-to-embrace-abortion-on-demand/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/dan-lipinski-pro-life-democrat-refuses-to-embrace-abortion-on-demand/)
-
“One issue” people can congratulate themselves on finding their own moral island. But they will be ignoring morality or ethics in general and they are quite likely to be politically ineffective and very good prey for those who know how to manipulate the naive portions of the electorate.
I did not vote for Trump in the last election because I figured he would be like all the others, say how much he cares about the pro-life cause and do nothing. However, he actually did things to limit abortion funding and to promote pro-life judges. So this year he gets my vote.
-
“One issue” people can congratulate themselves on finding their own moral island. But they will be ignoring morality or ethics in general and they are quite likely to be politically ineffective and very good prey for those who know how to manipulate the naive portions of the electorate.
Ah, so your strategy is to vote for the moral and ethical candidate, who always happens to be a Democrat. Okay.
If this is what it is like to be politically ineffective, well, I find it bearable. The most naive portion of the electorate is up for giving socialism the fair chance it never seems to have had.
I have a friend -- a good friend actually -- who I had to block on FB because he did things like respond to my posts with "don't be a dick." They weren't posts where I was actually doing anything bad. What I did wrong was generally 1) attack the media, which apparently is helpless and cannot fend for itself, or 2) post an article critical of Democrats without some disclaimer saying Republicans are worse, or 3) post an article critical of Republicans but failing to point out that I will never, ever, ever, ever vote for one while I'm at it. He voted for Trump in the primary. I did not. He voted for Mrs. Clinton in the general. I also did not.
But for whatever reason he blames me for Trump's election. He sent me a text this morning that began "I haven’t jumped your **** for a while. But I’ve got to ask: do you appreciate why I have been so disappointed?" Now, consider this -- he thinks for some reason he's been very tolerant and good and kind not to jump in my ____ in a while. But the underlying premise is that is something that should be done, and he, a friend, should be the one to do it. Not because I voted for Trump because I didn't. But rather because I did not vote for Hillary.
That mindset is not unique to the left, but it is more prevalent there in my observation. I also have Republican friends who were mad at me for not voting for McCain or Romney, but they never took it to those lengths even when President Obama got 8 years in office. They never blamed me for his election, because I did not vote for him.
My point is this -- I think people with that mindset, that my vote is theirs to control by abuse, coercion, shaming, etc. -- underestimate the degree to which they make me want to vote specifically for the person they hate so much. Because as much as I dislike him too, people who think they have license to control my thoughts and my vote scare the ......... same expletive my friend used in his text ......... out of me.
-
"Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) on Tuesday said that the Democratic Party should be a 'big tent' for people of different beliefs, including those who oppose abortion rights.'
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/482607-klobuchar-we-need-to-build-a-big-tent-for-anti-abortion-democrats (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/482607-klobuchar-we-need-to-build-a-big-tent-for-anti-abortion-democrats)
Which runs completely counter to what Mayor Pete said: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/mayor-pete-dodges-the-question-again/
and front runner Bernie as well: https://decisionmagazine.com/bernie-sanders-no-place-for-pro-life-democrats/?fbclid=IwAR3r9bNnVh8S9G6fVVb2UV70rTLy8NjI5kp6-K02bnDSC6EBpdjS7jRC7Xc
-
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/482607-klobuchar-we-need-to-build-a-big-tent-for-anti-abortion-democrats (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/482607-klobuchar-we-need-to-build-a-big-tent-for-anti-abortion-democrats)
Looking for something that would cause a Pro-Life voter to vote for Klobuchar ....
Pete Buttigieg (http://alpb.org/Forum/safari-reader://thehill.com/people/peter-pete-buttigieg) received a question on the issue from an anti-abortion Democrat at a Fox News town hall last month. [/size][/font]
Here we see a very clear instance of media bias. Former Mayor Pete is asked this question by, apparently, some random 'anti-abortion Democrat' who apparently has no name or sex. Probably a white male. Imagine the outrage if the media spoke of some "black Democrat" who asked a question.
In fact, the question was asked by Kristin Day, the founder of Democrats for Life in America. I've read her stuff, listened to her on various podcasts, and have found her thoughtful and engaging.
One would think that the reporter would be interested in knowing this group exists and might be interested in speaking to her about why she thinks this is important, why she believes the Democrats should be pro-life, and how she felt about having her concerns dismissed by Former Mayor Pete.
But no. This question was not asked by a woman. Nor was it asked by a woman who has studied the issue in depth. It was asked by some nameless, sexless "anti-abortion Democrat."
-
No, Donald Trump is not going to transform the United States into a pro-life city on a hill, orchestrate the overturning of Roe v. Wade, or something like that. He will not make pro-life issues the centerpiece of his campaign or agenda. So, we should vote for a Democrat who does not want to even listen to pro-life people, supports abortion on demand to the moment of birth? That would be better?
-
Representative Dan Lipinski is one of the few pro-life Democrats left in the house, and represents my district in the House. He voted against the Affordable Care Act and has voted for restrictions on abortion. He narrowly avoided losing in a primary in 2018 and they are gunning for him this time around again.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/dan-lipinski-pro-life-democrat-refuses-to-embrace-abortion-on-demand/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/dan-lipinski-pro-life-democrat-refuses-to-embrace-abortion-on-demand/)
One of the many merits of the Affordable Care Act was its mandate to insurers to cover pre-natal, obstetrical, and post-natal care, even for the poor. I fear that, if the present president is allowed to rule much longer, poor mothers will lose access to care for themselves and the children they are expecting. If I am not mistaken, the ACC covered contraception but not abortion. As a pro-life person, I felt that it advanced the cause of life. I can't imagine why a pro-life congressman would have voted against it.
Peace,
Michael
-
Representative Dan Lipinski is one of the few pro-life Democrats left in the house, and represents my district in the House. He voted against the Affordable Care Act and has voted for restrictions on abortion. He narrowly avoided losing in a primary in 2018 and they are gunning for him this time around again.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/dan-lipinski-pro-life-democrat-refuses-to-embrace-abortion-on-demand/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/dan-lipinski-pro-life-democrat-refuses-to-embrace-abortion-on-demand/)
One of the many merits of the Affordable Care Act was its mandate to insurers to cover pre-natal, obstetrical, and post-natal care, even for the poor. I fear that, if the present president is allowed to rule much longer, poor mothers will lose access to care for themselves and the children they are expecting. If I am not mistaken, the ACC covered contraception but not abortion. As a pro-life person, I felt that it advanced the cause of life. I can't imagine why a pro-life congressman would have voted against it.
Peace,
Michael
So what motive do you attribute to pro-life congressman, 99% of whom voted against ACA? What is the most plausible explanation of their behavior?
-
Representative Dan Lipinski is one of the few pro-life Democrats left in the house, and represents my district in the House. He voted against the Affordable Care Act and has voted for restrictions on abortion. He narrowly avoided losing in a primary in 2018 and they are gunning for him this time around again.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/dan-lipinski-pro-life-democrat-refuses-to-embrace-abortion-on-demand/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/dan-lipinski-pro-life-democrat-refuses-to-embrace-abortion-on-demand/)
One of the many merits of the Affordable Care Act was its mandate to insurers to cover pre-natal, obstetrical, and post-natal care, even for the poor. I fear that, if the present president is allowed to rule much longer, poor mothers will lose access to care for themselves and the children they are expecting. If I am not mistaken, the ACC covered contraception but not abortion. As a pro-life person, I felt that it advanced the cause of life. I can't imagine why a pro-life congressman would have voted against it.
Peace,
Michael
So what motive do you attribute to pro-life congressman, 99% of whom voted against ACA? What is the most plausible explanation of their behavior?
They are Republicans who don't want the government in the health care business (at least not beyond what they already are with medicare and medicaid). The idea that ACA might help reduce abortions was not a motivating issue.
-
"Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) on Tuesday said that the Democratic Party should be a 'big tent' for people of different beliefs, including those who oppose abortion rights.'
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/482607-klobuchar-we-need-to-build-a-big-tent-for-anti-abortion-democrats (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/482607-klobuchar-we-need-to-build-a-big-tent-for-anti-abortion-democrats)
Which runs completely counter to what Mayor Pete said: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/mayor-pete-dodges-the-question-again/
and front runner Bernie as well: https://decisionmagazine.com/bernie-sanders-no-place-for-pro-life-democrats/?fbclid=IwAR3r9bNnVh8S9G6fVVb2UV70rTLy8NjI5kp6-K02bnDSC6EBpdjS7jRC7Xc
Exactly my point. If you are pro-life Democrat, you take what you can get. Klobuchar at least still allows room for dissenting opinions in the party.
-
"Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) on Tuesday said that the Democratic Party should be a 'big tent' for people of different beliefs, including those who oppose abortion rights.'
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/482607-klobuchar-we-need-to-build-a-big-tent-for-anti-abortion-democrats (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/482607-klobuchar-we-need-to-build-a-big-tent-for-anti-abortion-democrats)
Which runs completely counter to what Mayor Pete said: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/mayor-pete-dodges-the-question-again/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/mayor-pete-dodges-the-question-again/)
and front runner Bernie as well: https://decisionmagazine.com/bernie-sanders-no-place-for-pro-life-democrats/?fbclid=IwAR3r9bNnVh8S9G6fVVb2UV70rTLy8NjI5kp6-K02bnDSC6EBpdjS7jRC7Xc (https://decisionmagazine.com/bernie-sanders-no-place-for-pro-life-democrats/?fbclid=IwAR3r9bNnVh8S9G6fVVb2UV70rTLy8NjI5kp6-K02bnDSC6EBpdjS7jRC7Xc)
Exactly my point. If you are pro-life Democrat, you take what you can get. Klobuchar at least still allows room for dissenting opinions in the party.
She had a super impressive debate. I wonder if/when Warren drops out, how her support will break - will they go Bernie for policy (and have to live with the Bernie Bros) or go Klobuchar for the strongest female candidate, even though they are less enamored of her policies?
-
What is Sen. Klobuchar going to say that will attract any pro-life person into her camp, or the Democrat's camp? That abortion in the 3rd trimester is a bridge too far? If she were to say that, it would be a lose-lose strategy on her part. She'd lose the Democratic party's support and she'd gain nothing from pro-lifers.
I have a hard time believing her comments were anything but disingenuous. I know there are pro-life Democrats; there just aren't any pro-life Democratic presidential candidates, or Congrrssional members.
Jeremy
And I have an even harder time believing President Trump's appearance at the Right to Life Walk was anything but disingenuous.
Marie Meyer.
-
What is Sen. Klobuchar going to say that will attract any pro-life person into her camp, or the Democrat's camp? That abortion in the 3rd trimester is a bridge too far? If she were to say that, it would be a lose-lose strategy on her part. She'd lose the Democratic party's support and she'd gain nothing from pro-lifers.
I have a hard time believing her comments were anything but disingenuous. I know there are pro-life Democrats; there just aren't any pro-life Democratic presidential candidates, or Congrrssional members.
Jeremy
And I have an even harder time believing President Trump's appearance at the Right to Life Walk was anything but disingenuous.
Marie Meyer.
I believe that Pres. Trump's appearance at the rally was to court the Roman Catholic vote. So that would probably qualify as disingenuous. His actions as president have already demonstrated that he is the most pro-life president that has ever served, certainly among the presidents who talked the pro-life game but never really walked it while in office.
Jeremy
-
What is Sen. Klobuchar going to say that will attract any pro-life person into her camp, or the Democrat's camp? That abortion in the 3rd trimester is a bridge too far? If she were to say that, it would be a lose-lose strategy on her part. She'd lose the Democratic party's support and she'd gain nothing from pro-lifers.
I have a hard time believing her comments were anything but disingenuous. I know there are pro-life Democrats; there just aren't any pro-life Democratic presidential candidates, or Congrrssional members.
Jeremy
And I have an even harder time believing President Trump's appearance at the Right to Life Walk was anything but disingenuous.
Marie Meyer.
I believe that Pres. Trump's appearance at the rally was to court the Roman Catholic vote. So that would probably qualify as disingenuous. His actions as president have already demonstrated that he is the most pro-life president that has ever served, certainly among the presidents who talked the pro-life game but never really walked it while in office.
He might be anti-abortion (or pro-birth,) but the way he has treated lives at the border is not pro-life. The way he wants to cut benefits to the the less advantaged among us, e.g., food stamps to poor families; he is not pro-life.
-
I don't think we gain anything by trying to determine what is in mind of the president or a candidate. And it doesn't really matter. What they do matters. Think what we might about Trump, his actions, regarding the unborn, have been positive for those who wish to see greater protection for those in the womb.
As to reducing or removing benefits I am hesitant to pull such issues into the arena of pro-life and debate them in that area. One reason is that to conclude Trump is by contrast 'anti-life,' that is, he wishes to remove or destroy life simply because of benefit removals or reductions, is not a fair assessment. Do we know of significant numbers of people who are actually dying or will die simply because they will not receive government benefits? Are the people who will be removed from this aid able to find resources outside of the government? I remember 30 years ago, or so, when able-bodied men were removed from receiving direct welfare assistance in Michigan. The cry in my poor country was loud. But by removing this assistance when they were able to work did not consign them to certain death. It encouraged them to work and contribute.
-
Abortion results in the deaths of "more than 750,000 children," the bishop [Bishop Robert W. McElroy] said, yet "the long term death toll from unchecked climate change is larger and threatens the very future of humanity."
And while he called contraception "intrinsically evil...it is a far greater moral evil for our country to abandon the Paris Climate Accord than to provide contraceptives in federal health centers."
-
Abortion results in the deaths of "more than 750,000 children," the bishop [Bishop Robert W. McElroy] said, yet "the long term death toll from unchecked climate change is larger and threatens the very future of humanity."
And while he called contraception "intrinsically evil...it is a far greater moral evil for our country to abandon the Paris Climate Accord than to provide contraceptives in federal health centers."
Bishop McElroy says that to "abandon" the Paris Climate Accord (which I am going to assume is pointed at Pres. Trump who announced withdrawing from it) is a "moral evil." Now the accord is no more than an agreement lacking any real enforcement. That a country would agree but then fail to actually meet the targets to which they agreed would seem to be a "moral evil" as well, under this indictment. But who do we blame for that? The president? Congress? Businesses that produce emissions deemed dangerous for the environment? Those of us who drive and fly in modes of transportation that supposedly contribute to the creation of green house gasses? All of the above?
His statement feels a lot like the blame one tries to place for the supposed exploitation of indigenous people, such as the Native Americans. Who gets to shoulder this great "moral evil"? Do we blame the distant descendants of those who were supposedly responsible? And who exactly from the past should get the lion's share of the blame?
The above, speaking of the election, reminds me of the rhetoric that claims we can't survive four more years of Trump. We are, Biden claims, "in a battle for the soul of America." The rhetoric is too often excessive and over-the-top. But as long as we can have a concrete picture of who the evil is, then we have an enemy we can attack, the defeat of whom will spell happiness and hope for America again....
-
Abortion results in the deaths of "more than 750,000 children," the bishop [Bishop Robert W. McElroy] said, yet "the long term death toll from unchecked climate change is larger and threatens the very future of humanity."
And while he called contraception "intrinsically evil...it is a far greater moral evil for our country to abandon the Paris Climate Accord than to provide contraceptives in federal health centers."
Bishop McElroy says that to "abandon" the Paris Climate Accord (which I am going to assume is pointed at Pres. Trump who announced withdrawing from it) is a "moral evil." Now the accord is no more than an agreement lacking any real enforcement. That a country would agree but then fail to actually meet the targets to which they agreed would seem to be a "moral evil" as well, under this indictment. But who do we blame for that? The president? Congress? Businesses that produce emissions deemed dangerous for the environment? Those of us who drive and fly in modes of transportation that supposedly contribute to the creation of green house gasses? All of the above?
His statement feels a lot like the blame one tries to place for the supposed exploitation of indigenous people, such as the Native Americans. Who gets to shoulder this great "moral evil"? Do we blame the distant descendants of those who were supposedly responsible? And who exactly from the past should get the lion's share of the blame?
The above, speaking of the election, reminds me of the rhetoric that claims we can't survive four more years of Trump. We are, Biden claims, "in a battle for the soul of America." The rhetoric is too often excessive and over-the-top. But as long as we can have a concrete picture of who the evil is, then we have an enemy we can attack, the defeat of whom will spell happiness and hope for America again....
Trying and failing is different from failing to try.
-
Representative Dan Lipinski is one of the few pro-life Democrats left in the house, and represents my district in the House. He voted against the Affordable Care Act and has voted for restrictions on abortion. He narrowly avoided losing in a primary in 2018 and they are gunning for him this time around again.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/dan-lipinski-pro-life-democrat-refuses-to-embrace-abortion-on-demand/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/dan-lipinski-pro-life-democrat-refuses-to-embrace-abortion-on-demand/)
One of the many merits of the Affordable Care Act was its mandate to insurers to cover pre-natal, obstetrical, and post-natal care, even for the poor. I fear that, if the present president is allowed to rule much longer, poor mothers will lose access to care for themselves and the children they are expecting. If I am not mistaken, the ACC covered contraception but not abortion. As a pro-life person, I felt that it advanced the cause of life. I can't imagine why a pro-life congressman would have voted against it.
Peace,
Michael
Maybe he listened to the Catholic Church? While the ACA has a number of laudable parts, its support for abortion and contraception without any room for conscience objections was, and continue to be, highly problematic. I recommend to you both the Catholic Medical Association and the National Catholic Bioethics Center for information on the ACA. At the time I was Director of Pro-Life Activities for the Diocese of Allentown, the USCCB also had information.
-
Abortion results in the deaths of "more than 750,000 children," the bishop [Bishop Robert W. McElroy] said, yet "the long term death toll from unchecked climate change is larger and threatens the very future of humanity."
And while he called contraception "intrinsically evil...it is a far greater moral evil for our country to abandon the Paris Climate Accord than to provide contraceptives in federal health centers."
65 million dead in this country alone from abortion. Then add in the numbers from China, Russia, and the rest of the world, and the climate will have to change apocalyptically to catch up. I once calculated abortion deaths using the 2004 tsunami, which was fairly devastating. Abortion means that the US gets hit by a tsunami of carnage about once every three months, and has since 1970, so please spare me what may happen climatically and look at was has and is happening in utero.
-
When can we expect the politically conservative (Republicans or Trump) to eliminate abortion in the U.S.? What is the date? When? Please, when? I and many are waiting.
Peace, JOHN
-
What is Sen. Klobuchar going to say that will attract any pro-life person into her camp, or the Democrat's camp? That abortion in the 3rd trimester is a bridge too far? If she were to say that, it would be a lose-lose strategy on her part. She'd lose the Democratic party's support and she'd gain nothing from pro-lifers.
I have a hard time believing her comments were anything but disingenuous. I know there are pro-life Democrats; there just aren't any pro-life Democratic presidential candidates, or Congrrssional members.
Jeremy
And I have an even harder time believing President Trump's appearance at the Right to Life Walk was anything but disingenuous.
Marie Meyer.
I believe that Pres. Trump's appearance at the rally was to court the Roman Catholic vote. So that would probably qualify as disingenuous. His actions as president have already demonstrated that he is the most pro-life president that has ever served, certainly among the presidents who talked the pro-life game but never really walked it while in office.
He might be anti-abortion (or pro-birth,) but the way he has treated lives at the border is not pro-life. The way he wants to cut benefits to the the less advantaged among us, e.g., food stamps to poor families; he is not pro-life.
Don't forget that according to the pro-life experts like Brian and Charles to be authentically pro-life one must forget about abortion and support the entire progressive Democratic social agenda. Once that has been fully accomplished, then we can talk about abortion realizing that pro-life will always be pro-choice.
-
When can we expect the politically conservative (Republicans or Trump) to eliminate abortion in the U.S.? What is the date? When? Please, when? I and many are waiting.
Peace, JOHN
It isn't so much that he is the chosen one who will stop it and lead us into the Golden Age. It's that he is not a blood thirsty Savage committed to killing the unborn right up to the moment they exit the magic vagina.
-
When can we expect the politically conservative (Republicans or Trump) to eliminate abortion in the U.S.? What is the date? When? Please, when? I and many are waiting.
Peace, JOHN
When can we expect the politically liberal (Democrats or Speaker Pelosi) to make abortion safe, legal, and rare, as they used to say they wanted, in the U.S.?
Pax, Steven+
-
When can we expect the politically conservative (Republicans or Trump) to eliminate abortion in the U.S.? What is the date? When? Please, when? I and many are waiting.
Peace, JOHN
As a resident of one of the most pro abortion states in the union, you should ask yourself how YOUR votes for YOUR state and local leaders will eliminate abortions in YOUR city and state ... before you rather sanctimoniously question the votes of others.
In addition, please cite the source of your alleged claim that “politically conservative (Republicans or Trump) [aim] to eliminate in the US” by a certain date. I and many are waiting. ;)
-
Abortion results in the deaths of "more than 750,000 children," the bishop [Bishop Robert W. McElroy] said, yet "the long term death toll from unchecked climate change is larger and threatens the very future of humanity."
And while he called contraception "intrinsically evil...it is a far greater moral evil for our country to abandon the Paris Climate Accord than to provide contraceptives in federal health centers."
"Abandon[ing] the Paris Climate Accord" was a great evil! A horrible thing! Of course, it was never presented to the Senate for ratification, so it had no real standing in America, but who cares about that Constitution thingy?
As it so happened, according to the International Energy Agency, "The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis – a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt." (https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019) That *exceeds* what we agreed to under the Paris Accords.
Facts really are stubborn things.
-
When can we expect the politically conservative (Republicans or Trump) to eliminate abortion in the U.S.? What is the date? When? Please, when? I and many are waiting.
Peace, JOHN
No politician can "eliminate" abortion in the US. But you know that, so why ask stupid questions?
As long as Roe and Casey are the controlling SCOTUS rulings, not even a super majority of the US Congress and every state in the union can eliminate abortion. Even if SCOTUS reversed Roe tomorrow, that would only throw the issue back to the States. Some, like the liberal Commonwealth in which I live, would continue to have abortion on demand. Some would restrict it. Others, like conservative Alabama, would ban it.
But that is not the issue for the Democratic Party. The issue for the Democrats is whether or not they will even allow pro-life people to be members of their party. And the answer is: No. Former Mayor Pete made that clear to Kristin Day (her op-ed on her question and his answer: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/01/30/pro-life-democrats-abortion-pete-buttigieg-column/4609659002/). Bernie recently said that being pro-choice was "essential" to being a Democrat (https://tinyurl.com/vcwybh6; not the best news source, but the quote is accurate and not out of context). Earlier, I posted a link to an article by a Fordham University professor who recently left the Democratic Party because of this issue. Worse yet, instead of abortion being seen as a tragic decision, many in the Democratic party are now telling women to "Shout Your Abortion!" and to be proud of it. This is a called "calling evil good and good evil."
-
Don't forget that according to the pro-life experts like Brian and Charles to be authentically pro-life one must forget about abortion and support the entire progressive Democratic social agenda. Once that has been fully accomplished, then we can talk about abortion realizing that pro-life will always be pro-choice.
We don't forget about abortion, but we don't think that's the primary problem. The primary problem is unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is seen as a solution. I see two basic ways of dealing with the primary problem.
(1) Preventing unwanted pregnancies. This includes:
(a) abstinence and sex education that includes the proper use of contraceptives
(b) the availability of contraceptives
(2) Helping women with unwanted pregnancies to want to give birth, such as:
(a) providing ways that giving birth will not drastically impact their education or careers
(b) having insurance that will cover the costs of the pregnancy, birth, and infant care
(c) having schools and businesses that offer free child-care
(d) providing counseling and financial incentives for giving birth that leads to adoptions
If we accomplish these two steps, I believe that the need for most abortions will disappear.
-
I am with Brian on this, and that will surprise no one. And now we await the usual onslaught of postings on why all of these things are wrong. .
-
Note carefully how the issue is framed, because I think it belies at best an indifference to, and at worst a denial of, the humanity of the unborn.
We are told unless we get on board with the left's constantly shifting social plans (whatever they are this minute, but NOT what they were 5 minutes ago, because that was racist), we are not "really" Pro Life. In addition to my prior comments elsewhere about trying to control the language (and this from the same folks who constantly tell us the Gnostics were really, truly Christian because they said they were and who are we to dispute that?), there is a more simple point to be made.
IF the unborn are distinct, living and whole human persons, then their wholesale slaughter does not change if they are unwanted. It does not change if there are other humans being treated poorly in this country. It doesn't change if their mothers cannot afford them. It does not change if someone gets food stamps or doesn't. IF the unborn are distinct, living and whole human persons, their wholesale slaughter is intolerable to any decent human being.
If they are not, then all those other things might equal the slaughter in importance, because then we're just talking about potentiality or some other such nonsense.
The debate is not over WHETHER the unborn may be killed, but rather on WHAT the unborn are. The rest of this is sideshow nonsense raised to divert attention away from the fact that some folks here have no compunction at all voting for people who will not only allow, but encourage the slaughter to continue.
There are good and valid reasons to vote Democrat despite the life issue, and I think Pastor Stoffregen has hit on a few. But I also think his view is naive at best. It presumes "need" is the reason most people have abortions. That is false. Florida keeps up with statistics for reasons given when women seek an abortion. 75% give no reason at all. Another 20% say social or economic reasons. In 2004, Guttenmacher did a survey where nearly half said they were not ready for a child or couldn't afford a baby. 4% said it would interfere with their education or career. 7% said they were not mature enough to be a mother. 8% did not want to be a single mother. 19% said they were simply "done having children."
Now, place that over the veneer of concern that says "if we fix our social structure abortions will just go away." We live in a culture that says if you are poor, or if you don't want to be a single mother, or if you are "done having children," or if you are "not ready for a child," you can murder your offspring. That is horrifying.
That is, if you actually believe they are separate, distinct and whole living human persons. If you dispute that, then this is just a way of saying "it's not even a baby stupid" and pretending you are not actually in favor of that which you actively support.
-
Further, pro life Democrats are such a gigantic voting bloc that they could shift both parties by simply acting within reason as one voice. As a would-be Republican, I often sit out the presidential race, and I often vote Democrat in other races depending on who the candidates are. If pro life Democrats simply stopped handing their votes to the party's eventual nominee, Democrats would realize really quickly that they have no choice if they want to win elections but to moderate. The other option, for those fed up, is to leave and try to influence the other party (which is basically where I am, though I am more "staying" and trying to influence the Republicans to moderate on economic issues).
The question is which is more important to you?
-
On the other hand:
https://twitter.com/PatriciaHeaton/status/1227643710646566914?s=20
"I don’t understand why pro-life people want to know if they are 'welcome' to join the democrat party. Why would any civilized person want to support a barbaric platform that champions abortion for any reason through all nine months funded by taxpayers?"
-
Why does anyone care if a party welcomes their vote? Vote for whomever you want; there is nothing the candidate can do about it.
The idea that unwanted pregnancies are the real problem, to which abortion is a sadly necessary solution, is simply sick. It relies on an ideology that denies the nature of personhood. You may as well say that slavery was an unfortunate but necessary answer to the real problem of agrarian labor costs. There would have been no death camps if there were other ways to purify the race. Ukrainian peasants being deliberately starved was admittedly less than ideal, but the real problem was private ownership of farms.
To be pro-life is to be on the side of life, even the lives you find problematic to your own goals. One does not obtain the right to life by being wanted by one’s mother.
-
I dare to repeat: to consider a party, any party, on just one issue suggests that your brain cells aren’t rubbing against each other in the proper way.
-
(2) Helping women with unwanted pregnancies to want to give birth, such as:
(a) providing ways that giving birth will not drastically impact their education or careers
(b) having insurance that will cover the costs of the pregnancy, birth, and infant care
(c) having schools and businesses that offer free child-care
(d) providing counseling and financial incentives for giving birth that leads to adoptions
If we accomplish these two steps, I believe that the need for most abortions will disappear.
There is something about the "unwanted" part of pregnancy that bothers me, aside from the point already made that it devalues human life. That's the biggest one.
As I teach my online class on vocation I hear from my students a rising chorus: I'm first. It always begins with me. Self-sacrificial acts are a tough sell in today's culture. They read historical sources of men and women who were willing to give of themselves over their own desires for the good of their neighbor, but that goes against what our society prizes most: self-service, self-preservation. If you want a quick illustration of this stand in line at Walmart on a busy day when the lines are long and clerks are few.
As with most things cultural there are always deep, underlying issues that feed the eventual problems we try to solve. And unless we are willing to look at those we have the unfortunate task of simply binding up wounds while ignoring dangerous infections within.
I have been frustrated for years watching too many people produce babies with little concern for the child they bring into the world. The child may not be entirely "unwanted," in the strict sense of the term, but they are seen as a burden from which they have to escape at every opportunity. They may be as old as 30 but they still lack maturity. It's the childish need to have the world revolve around me. Being a parent means learning selflessness. But that is not what drives our culture.
JFK's famous call of “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country,” largely falls on deaf ears. Kennedy would never win an election today with that kind of thinking. Rather it should be: "Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you." So campaigns, to be popular, must start with that premise. What can they give or offer or promise from the deep coffers of the nation to make people happy? Pro-choice feeds into that very thinking. It's my body. I'm in control. No one should tell me what to do with it. Me. That's where it starts.
For Christians of all stripes this should be disconcerting.
-
Don't forget that according to the pro-life experts like Brian and Charles to be authentically pro-life one must forget about abortion and support the entire progressive Democratic social agenda. Once that has been fully accomplished, then we can talk about abortion realizing that pro-life will always be pro-choice.
We don't forget about abortion, but we don't think that's the primary problem. The primary problem is unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is seen as a solution. I see two basic ways of dealing with the primary problem.
(1) Preventing unwanted pregnancies. This includes:
(a) abstinence and sex education that includes the proper use of contraceptives
(b) the availability of contraceptives
(2) Helping women with unwanted pregnancies to want to give birth, such as:
(a) providing ways that giving birth will not drastically impact their education or careers
(b) having insurance that will cover the costs of the pregnancy, birth, and infant care
(c) having schools and businesses that offer free child-care
(d) providing counseling and financial incentives for giving birth that leads to adoptions
If we accomplish these two steps, I believe that the need for most abortions will disappear.
Thanks for confirming Pr. Fienen's point, by giving us some of the details about the "entire progressive Democratic social agenda". Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, the touchstone of modern progressive government action to eliminate poverty, has not accomplished what he claimed it would. (I just read the section of George Will's latest book, The Conservative Sensibility (https://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Sensibility-George-F-Will/dp/0316480932), that thoroughly dismantles progressive thinking on this topic.) Not that the Great Society hasn't accomplished any good, but in this particular topic, it's unintended consequences have made the problem worse. So no, I don't believe you that "most abortions will disappear" if we implement your program. Recent history has demonstrated otherwise. Pastor Speckhard is correct that such thinking misdiagnoses the issue.
Maybe we should find the correct federal judge to suspend all state laws against theft, until government implements a universal basic income. After all, theft is a result of extreme poverty, so it's not fair to enforce laws that keep people from surviving, amirite? :o Of course, the poverty angle does not address the moral questions of a well-educated, upper middle class woman of ample means having an abortion. Questions about the legality of abortion do not prevent us, at any moment, from reflecting on the morality of it.
-
I dare to repeat: to consider a party, any party, on just one issue suggests that your brain cells aren’t rubbing against each other in the proper way.
Especially when you are dealing with something ridiculously superfluous. You know, like 65 MILLION MURDERED HUMANS.
But hey, whatever it takes for you to retain your seat at the "cool kids' table."
-
I dare to repeat: to consider a party, any party, on just one issue suggests that your brain cells aren’t rubbing against each other in the proper way.
Like suggesting that a Democrat, any Democrat, would be a superior candidate for President because he/she is not Trump? A primary consideration over on the Democratic side as they march towards their convention is, "Can this candidate beat Trump?" Isn't that single issue voting?
-
Pastor Fienen “asks”:
Can this candidate beat Trump?" Isn't that single issue voting?
I reluctantly respond:
No.
And I said since this discussion began, this is an unusual situation. This is an unusual person in office. This is an unusual danger to our nation.
-
I dare to repeat: to consider a party, any party, on just one issue suggests that your brain cells aren’t rubbing against each other in the proper way.
Charles, must you always insult and demean everyone with whom you disagree? And you wonder why I reply to you so often? It's precisely because you are a mean, nasty, spiteful bully on this forum. How dare you imply those with a different political perspective than you as being somehow brain deficient.
But never mind me. I'll just sit here in the broad rural middle clinging to my guns and religion... ::)
-
Don't forget that according to the pro-life experts like Brian and Charles to be authentically pro-life one must forget about abortion and support the entire progressive Democratic social agenda. Once that has been fully accomplished, then we can talk about abortion realizing that pro-life will always be pro-choice.
We don't forget about abortion, but we don't think that's the primary problem. The primary problem is unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is seen as a solution. I see two basic ways of dealing with the primary problem.
(1) Preventing unwanted pregnancies. This includes:
(a) abstinence and sex education that includes the proper use of contraceptives
(b) the availability of contraceptives
(2) Helping women with unwanted pregnancies to want to give birth, such as:
(a) providing ways that giving birth will not drastically impact their education or careers
(b) having insurance that will cover the costs of the pregnancy, birth, and infant care
(c) having schools and businesses that offer free child-care
(d) providing counseling and financial incentives for giving birth that leads to adoptions
If we accomplish these two steps, I believe that the need for most abortions will disappear.
Rev. Stoffregen, while your opinions are quite popular, I believe that the promotion of contraceptives ensures failure from the start. Here is why. Sexual intercourse belongs to marriage and God blesses marriage with children. The reason there are so many unwanted babies is because people don't believe this or don't behave as if it is true. When we promote contraceptives we are promoting fornication. We are saying that sexual intercourse is not confined to marriage. I know, I know, married couples also use contraceptives. This has led to same sex marriage. After all, if a married couple may choose to sever sexual intimacy from pro-creation, there is no good moral argument against same sex marriage. Marriage is no longer for the benefit of children. This reinforces the cheapening of human life. Children are regarded, not as blessings from God, but as pains to be endured (or pawned off on day care providers) until they grow up.
-
So we've established that while it may be a poor idea to vote for someone based on a single issue (abortion, beating Trump), voting AGAINST someone on that same single basis can be good (abortion is a unique threat to our culture since it de-values life, Trump is a unique threat to our nation).
I'm not endorsing the views espoused, simply noting that a principle has been established. And that principle is one reason why, while I may not vote for Trump (I didn't in 2016), I sure won't be voting for whichever purveyor of our modern death cult is nominated by the Democrats.
Granted, I have other reasons for not voting Democrat, just as I have other reasons for not voting for president Trump. But if those were the only reasons, they are sufficient.
-
Pastor Cottingham (to me, as usual):
How dare you imply those with a different political perspective than you as being somehow brain deficient.
Me:
Wrong again, Pastor Cottingham. Wrong again.
I did not imply that anyone was “brain deficient.” I did suggest, however, that they were not using their brains properly.
I think you Also suggest from time to time that some people are not thinking properly.
So please chill the “Mean, nasty, spiteful bully” language, which is (or ought to be) the kind of language not allowed in this modest forum.
And have a nice day.
-
Pastor Fienen “asks”:
Can this candidate beat Trump?" Isn't that single issue voting?
I reluctantly respond:
No.
And I said since this discussion began, this is an unusual situation. This is an unusual person in office. This is an unusual danger to our nation.
You are simply wrong. Every time someone points out that nothing Trump has done is unique to his presidency, you ignore it or accuse that person of changing the subject. This allows you to cling to the dogma that someone anything or anything is justified in the effort to defeat Trump since he is such a unique threat. It is all nonsense.
-
We are told unless we get on board with the left's constantly shifting social plans (whatever they are this minute, but NOT what they were 5 minutes ago, because that was racist), we are not "really" Pro Life. In addition to my prior comments elsewhere about trying to control the language (and this from the same folks who constantly tell us the Gnostics were really, truly Christian because they said they were and who are we to dispute that?), there is a more simple point to be made.
And just because the anti-abortion folks declare themselves "pro-life" doesn't make it so.
IF the unborn are distinct, living and whole human persons, then their wholesale slaughter does not change if they are unwanted. It does not change if there are other humans being treated poorly in this country. It doesn't change if their mothers cannot afford them. It does not change if someone gets food stamps or doesn't. IF the unborn are distinct, living and whole human persons, their wholesale slaughter is intolerable to any decent human being.
When the wholesale slaughter occurs because the children are unwanted because of poverty, selfishness, or whatever; it doesn't matter if they are considered a distinct, living and whole human person. It becomes my life versus the life in the womb. For many, concern for my quality of life is more important than the budding life in the womb. Given the choice between my life or the baby's life, they choose my life. They can consider it to be a bit like self-defense: killing another person to protect my life is justifiable.
There are good and valid reasons to vote Democrat despite the life issue, and I think Pastor Stoffregen has hit on a few. But I also think his view is naive at best. It presumes "need" is the reason most people have abortions. That is false. Florida keeps up with statistics for reasons given when women seek an abortion. 75% give no reason at all. Another 20% say social or economic reasons. In 2004, Guttenmacher did a survey where nearly half said they were not ready for a child or couldn't afford a baby. 4% said it would interfere with their education or career. 7% said they were not mature enough to be a mother. 8% did not want to be a single mother. 19% said they were simply "done having children."
Just because 75% give no reason doesn't mean that they don't have a reason. If social and economic reasons were removed; that would reduce abortions by 20%. If steps were taken so that a child wouldn't interfere with education, that removes 4%. If the immature and those not wanting to be a mother and those who are done having children made proper use of contraceptives, that eliminates 34%. We can do things to counter the reasons that mothers have abortions.
Now, place that over the veneer of concern that says "if we fix our social structure abortions will just go away." We live in a culture that says if you are poor, or if you don't want to be a single mother, or if you are "done having children," or if you are "not ready for a child," you can murder your offspring. That is horrifying.
I'm arguing that if your are poor, or you don't want to be a single mother, or if you are done having children, or you're not ready for a child, you can prevent getting pregnant. There's an alternative to murdering your offspring.
That is, if you actually believe they are separate, distinct and whole living human persons. If you dispute that, then this is just a way of saying "it's not even a baby stupid" and pretending you are not actually in favor of that which you actively support.
The difference, as I see it, is that you just want to reduce abortions (through legislation?). I want to reduce the need for abortions through preventing unwanted pregnancies. I'm certain that reducing the need for abortions will also accomplish your wish - fewer abortions.
-
To be pro-life is to be on the side of life, even the lives you find problematic to your own goals. One does not obtain the right to life by being wanted by one’s mother.
Our sons were born and loved because we wanted them. Before that time, we took measures not to get pregnant.
-
Rev. Stoffregen, while your opinions are quite popular, I believe that the promotion of contraceptives ensures failure from the start. Here is why. Sexual intercourse belongs to marriage and God blesses marriage with children. The reason there are so many unwanted babies is because people don't believe this or don't behave as if it is true. When we promote contraceptives we are promoting fornication. We are saying that sexual intercourse is not confined to marriage. I know, I know, married couples also use contraceptives. This has led to same sex marriage. After all, if a married couple may choose to sever sexual intimacy from pro-creation, there is no good moral argument against same sex marriage. Marriage is no longer for the benefit of children. This reinforces the cheapening of human life. Children are regarded, not as blessings from God, but as pains to be endured (or pawned off on day care providers) until they grow up.
Teaching abstinence, while popular among some Christian groups, has also failed miserably. (It some cases, it encouraged other forms of non-procreative sex among teens.)
Sexual pleasure is separated from procreation. Men and women have areas of sexual pleasure that are not stimulated by the procreative act.
Views of children have changed over the centuries. In biblical times about half the children didn't survive to adulthood. Couples tried to have many children because they were the social security system. Children took care of parents in their old age. If a couple had no children, old age was a problem.
Back on internship, nearly 50 years ago, another pastor commented that children as assets, i.e., free farm labor had changed to children being liabilities. They cost parents money.
One of the shifts of Christianity is that one's life and name and property ownership no longer depended on having offspring who carried on the life, name, and property. Eternal life was something given by God that was beyond what happened in this world. It was no longer necessary to have sons to carry on the family through eternity.
Yes, society's views of children has changed. Both my father's parents were one of 12 children. My father was one of seven children. My folks had three sons. Between my brothers and I, we have seven children (two are adopted). Family sizes have shrunk. The necessity of many children is no longer present as it was in past centuries.
-
And just because, Mr. Hummel, you keep bellowing your view of “human” and “baby” and “murder” and dismissing my concerns for life and how it is conceived and lived doesn’t make your statements true. It also means there is no point in trying to talk to you. Carry on.
-
And just because, Mr. Hummel, you keep bellowing your view of “human” and “baby” and “murder” and dismissing my concerns for life and how it is conceived and lived doesn’t make your statements true. It also means there is no point in trying to talk to you. Carry on.
And just because you dismiss our concerns about the killing of distinct humans in the womb doesn't make you automatically correct either.
-
You are 70 years or older. That's 70 years of taking up resources. Your quality of life starts to deteriorate (cancer/heart disease/diabetes...). Health care is a right (according to the government) but there is only so much health care available. Keeping you alive might seriously impact the quality of life of immediate family members.
Linda
-
“Everyone’s gangsta until concepts become things.”
Plato
Pro-life here.
Supports CORA which shelters women from abuse.
Supports Support Circle which provides financial, medical, mental-health counseling aide to pregnant women in a Christian environment regardless of the woman’s decision.
Counseled couple to keep a baby from an affair and give the child up for adoption.
Prays for babies in the womb.
Share what your ATP + Glucose does to support life in the womb or destroy it.
Peter (Works Righteousness Can Rock) Garrison
-
And just because the anti-abortion folks declare themselves "pro-life" doesn't make it so.
I don't accept your attempt once again to define for "pro-life" people what they mean by calling themselves "pro-life". This is more of the shameless, fundamental dishonesty you display on this forum opportunistically and inconsistently redefining word meanings, for which you should be embarrassed and ashamed. Especially since you would be the first to object to someone denying the gender identification of a transgender person. >:(
-
When the wholesale slaughter occurs because the children are unwanted because of poverty, selfishness, or whatever; it doesn't matter if they are considered a distinct, living and whole human person. It becomes my life versus the life in the womb. For many, concern for my quality of life is more important than the budding life in the womb. Given the choice between my life or the baby's life, they choose my life. They can consider it to be a bit like self-defense: killing another person to protect my life is justifiable.
I know you like to poke us with questions and then later claim that is not what you believe. So I'm wondering if you support this logic?
If you do, I would challenge you to project this logic outside of unborn life. For example, what about a person who feels trapped caring for a loved one who is severely disabled and in need of 24/7 attention. They put their plans on hold, suspend their education, incur unwanted bills and financial burdens, become fatigued and physically burdened. Since euthanasia has enjoyed growing support in some parts of our world and even in this country, might similar logic declare that allowing this person to die (essentially ending their life by removing needed support like ventilators, etc.) be a form of "self defense"? Why should anyone have to suffer caring for another person who cannot care for themselves and is entirely dependent on them?
Do you support this logic? If not, how does it differ, in your mind, from the scenario painted above in your post?
-
“Everyone’s gangsta until concepts become things.”
Plato
Pro-life here.
Supports CORA which shelters women from abuse.
Supports Support Circle which provides financial, medical, mental-health counseling aide to pregnant women in a Christian environment regardless of the woman’s decision.
Counseled couple to keep a baby from an affair and give the child up for adoption.
Prays for babies in the womb.
Share what your ATP + Glucose does to support life in the womb or destroy it.
Peter (Works Righteousness Can Rock) Garrison
Nope, sorry, it's not enough. It never is. If you don't support Medicare-for-All (even though Obamacare supposedly fixed health care in this country), you want poor people to die. If you don't think the recent ratification by several states of the Equal Rights Amendment, long after the 7 year deadline, is valid (even though Ruth Bader Ginsberg just made public comments to the contrary), you hate women.
I don't make the rules, I just live an world where they are made by others more enlightened. :-\
-
When the wholesale slaughter occurs because the children are unwanted because of poverty, selfishness, or whatever; it doesn't matter if they are considered a distinct, living and whole human person. It becomes my life versus the life in the womb. For many, concern for my quality of life is more important than the budding life in the womb. Given the choice between my life or the baby's life, they choose my life. They can consider it to be a bit like self-defense: killing another person to protect my life is justifiable.
I know you like to poke us with questions and then later claim that is not what you believe. So I'm wondering if you support this logic?
If you do, I would challenge you to project this logic outside of unborn life. For example, what about a person who feels trapped caring for a loved one who is severely disabled and in need of 24/7 attention. They put their plans on hold, suspend their education, incur unwanted bills and financial burdens, become fatigued and physically burdened. Since euthanasia has enjoyed growing support in some parts of our world and even in this country, might similar logic declare that allowing this person to die (essentially ending their life by removing needed support like ventilators, etc.) be a form of "self defense"? Why should anyone have to suffer caring for another person who cannot care for themselves and is entirely dependent on them?
Do you support this logic? If not, how does it differ, in your mind, from the scenario painted above in your post?
"unwanted because of poverty, selfishness, or whatever" So, you posit that if a woman feels for whatever reason (and who may judge her reasons) even selfish reasons, that the child she is carrying has become "my life versus the life in the womb" and the life in the womb is interfering with my quality of life, then abortion is fully justified as self-defense: "killing another person to protect my life is justifiable."
Two coworkers are up for the same promotion in an office. That other coworker is interfering with my life which would be improved by the promotion and endangered by my coworker. Killing the coworker would be justified as self-defense. My marriage has turned sour but divorce would be painful, expensive, and result in giving somethings that I enjoy in life. The spouse has gotten in the way of my life and threatens the life that I want to live. Clear case of self-defense.
How are those cases different from choosing to kill the life in the womb because of poverty, selfishness or whatever?
-
And just because the anti-abortion folks declare themselves "pro-life" doesn't make it so.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper some of them- particularly verbs: they're the proudest- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs- however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"
-
And just because, Mr. Hummel, you keep bellowing your view of “human” and “baby” and “murder” and dismissing my concerns for life and how it is conceived and lived doesn’t make your statements true. It also means there is no point in trying to talk to you. Carry on.
It's not my yelling that makes it so. It's a little something invented in the Middle Ages called "science" (you're welcome, by the way). Read an embryology text book. Talk to actual scientists.
That you get more steamed up over the fact that people might have to visit more than one bakery to get a cake in celebration of their soi-disant wedding than you do the wholesale slaughter of 65 million of your fellow humans and citizens is scary. I have friends and colleagues who look at folks like you and Brian in your blood thirstiness and want to use the label "Moral Monster." I maintain that it is inaccurate and unfair. In accurate since technically monsters abrupt onto the scene. And inaccurate because even in your callousness, you share the Imago Dei, along with, among others, the 65 million children killed. I think a more accurate term is morally disabled. Or, I suppose if I was following 800 Higgins Rd. guidelines, I would say person with a moral challenge.
-
“Everyone’s gangsta until concepts become things.”
Plato
Pro-life here.
Supports CORA which shelters women from abuse.
Supports Support Circle which provides financial, medical, mental-health counseling aide to pregnant women in a Christian environment regardless of the woman’s decision.
Counseled couple to keep a baby from an affair and give the child up for adoption.
Prays for babies in the womb.
Share what your ATP + Glucose does to support life in the womb or destroy it.
Peter (Works Righteousness Can Rock) Garrison
Nope, sorry, it's not enough. It never is. If you don't support Medicare-for-All (even though Obamacare supposedly fixed health care in this country), you want poor people to die. If you don't think the recent ratification by several states of the Equal Rights Amendment, long after the 7 year deadline, is valid (even though Ruth Bader Ginsberg just made public comments to the contrary), you hate women.
I don't make the rules, I just live an world where they are made by others more enlightened. :-\
This is most certainly true...
-
Shot.....
That is, if you actually believe they are separate, distinct and whole living human persons. If you dispute that, then this is just a way of saying "it's not even a baby stupid" and pretending you are not actually in favor of that which you actively support.
Chaser.....
And just because, Mr. Hummel, you keep bellowing your view of “human” and “baby” and “murder” and dismissing my concerns for life and how it is conceived and lived doesn’t make your statements true. It also means there is no point in trying to talk to you. Carry on.
"Human" and "baby" are in scare quotes. We are arguing begged questions here.
-
Abortion results in the deaths of "more than 750,000 children," the bishop [Bishop Robert W. McElroy] said, yet "the long term death toll from unchecked climate change is larger and threatens the very future of humanity."
And while he called contraception "intrinsically evil...it is a far greater moral evil for our country to abandon the Paris Climate Accord than to provide contraceptives in federal health centers."
Bishop McElroy says that to "abandon" the Paris Climate Accord (which I am going to assume is pointed at Pres. Trump who announced withdrawing from it) is a "moral evil." Now the accord is no more than an agreement lacking any real enforcement. That a country would agree but then fail to actually meet the targets to which they agreed would seem to be a "moral evil" as well, under this indictment. But who do we blame for that? The president? Congress? Businesses that produce emissions deemed dangerous for the environment? Those of us who drive and fly in modes of transportation that supposedly contribute to the creation of green house gasses? All of the above?
His statement feels a lot like the blame one tries to place for the supposed exploitation of indigenous people, such as the Native Americans. Who gets to shoulder this great "moral evil"? Do we blame the distant descendants of those who were supposedly responsible? And who exactly from the past should get the lion's share of the blame?
The above, speaking of the election, reminds me of the rhetoric that claims we can't survive four more years of Trump. We are, Biden claims, "in a battle for the soul of America." The rhetoric is too often excessive and over-the-top. But as long as we can have a concrete picture of who the evil is, then we have an enemy we can attack, the defeat of whom will spell happiness and hope for America again....
Trying and failing is different from failing to try.
Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord is different from failing to try.
Global energy-related carbon emissions flat in 2019 (https://news.yahoo.com/global-energy-related-carbon-emissions-141806734.html)
Associated Press • February 11, 2020
BERLIN (AP) — Global energy-related emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide remained steady last year, with declines in rich countries balancing out a rise in poor nations, according to data published Tuesday.
The International Energy Agency said emissions of the main man-made greenhouse gas stayed at 33 gigatons in 2019, even as the world economy grew by 2.9%.
“This was primarily due to declining emissions from electricity generation in advanced economies, thanks to the expanding role of renewable sources (mainly wind and solar), fuel switching from coal to natural gas, and higher nuclear power generation,” the Paris-based agency said. “Other factors included milder weather in several countries, and slower economic growth in some emerging markets.”
The country with the biggest drop in energy-related CO2 emissions was the United States, which recorded a fall of 2.9% to 4.8 gigatons on the back of coal-fired power plant closures and lower demand for electricity. The European Union saw its emissions fall by 5% to 2.9 gigatons, while Japan's dropped 4.3% to just over 1 gigaton in 2019.
By contrast, emissions in the rest of the world rose by almost 400 million tonnes last year, led by higher coal use in Asia.
The IEA's executive director, Fatih Birol, expressed hope that annual emissions of CO2 would only decline in future.
“We now need to work hard to make sure that 2019 is remembered as a definitive peak in global emissions, not just another pause in growth,” Birol said in a statement “We have the energy technologies to do this, and we have to make use of them all."
Reducing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is key to curbing climate change.
spt+
-
Rev. Stoffregen, while your opinions are quite popular, I believe that the promotion of contraceptives ensures failure from the start. Here is why. Sexual intercourse belongs to marriage and God blesses marriage with children. The reason there are so many unwanted babies is because people don't believe this or don't behave as if it is true. When we promote contraceptives we are promoting fornication. We are saying that sexual intercourse is not confined to marriage. I know, I know, married couples also use contraceptives. This has led to same sex marriage. After all, if a married couple may choose to sever sexual intimacy from pro-creation, there is no good moral argument against same sex marriage. Marriage is no longer for the benefit of children. This reinforces the cheapening of human life. Children are regarded, not as blessings from God, but as pains to be endured (or pawned off on day care providers) until they grow up.
Teaching abstinence, while popular among some Christian groups, has also failed miserably. (It some cases, it encouraged other forms of non-procreative sex among teens.)
Sexual pleasure is separated from procreation. Men and women have areas of sexual pleasure that are not stimulated by the procreative act.
Views of children have changed over the centuries. In biblical times about half the children didn't survive to adulthood. Couples tried to have many children because they were the social security system. Children took care of parents in their old age. If a couple had no children, old age was a problem.
Back on internship, nearly 50 years ago, another pastor commented that children as assets, i.e., free farm labor had changed to children being liabilities. They cost parents money.
One of the shifts of Christianity is that one's life and name and property ownership no longer depended on having offspring who carried on the life, name, and property. Eternal life was something given by God that was beyond what happened in this world. It was no longer necessary to have sons to carry on the family through eternity.
Yes, society's views of children has changed. Both my father's parents were one of 12 children. My father was one of seven children. My folks had three sons. Between my brothers and I, we have seven children (two are adopted). Family sizes have shrunk. The necessity of many children is no longer present as it was in past centuries.
You're right. Views of children have indeed changed. Children are not commodities. Their value is not determined by economic considerations. Children are gifts from God. God ~blessed~ Adam and Eve and their children with children. God continues to bless us. With twelve children and sixty three grandchildren I doubt we would receive the approval of Planned Parenthood, but we have been richly blessed by God!
-
You're right. Views of children have indeed changed. Children are not commodities. Their value is not determined by economic considerations. Children are gifts from God. God ~blessed~ Adam and Eve and their children with children. God continues to bless us. With twelve children and sixty three grandchildren I doubt we would receive the approval of Planned Parenthood, but we have been richly blessed by God!
And yet, it wasn't long before God regretted making human beings. It would appear that children were no longer blessings from God, but another evil human being. It seems likely to me that God killed fetuses along with men, women, children, and animals in the flood.
-
I love how this always devolves into how everybody deserves to die.
-
John Hannah-
Here is another perspective on Bloomberg's "centrism" and support of civil and religious liberties. https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/the-worst-candidate-for-civil-liberties
-
I love how this always devolves into how everybody deserves to die.
Do not sinners deserve to die? Are we not sinners from the moment of conception as the psalmist states?
-
I love how this always devolves into how everybody deserves to die.
Do not sinners deserve to die? Are we not sinners from the moment of conception as the psalmist states?
Is it okay for me to kill you?
-
John Hannah-
Here is another perspective on Bloomberg's "centrism" and support of civil and religious liberties. https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/the-worst-candidate-for-civil-liberties
Bloomberg must be gaining "electoral traction." :)
Peace, JOHN
-
John Hannah-
Here is another perspective on Bloomberg's "centrism" and support of civil and religious liberties. https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/the-worst-candidate-for-civil-liberties (https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/the-worst-candidate-for-civil-liberties)
Yes. For those who have been whining about Trump leading to fascism, be careful or you just might get your wish to have one in charge.
-
Since Sen. Sanders is leading at present (with a fair amount of post-Iowa and New Hampshire momentum), it might be nice to focus on some of his goals for reform should he win the presidency.
One of these that he touts loudly is "Medicare for All," a single-payer system run by the government that would largely replace private insurance coverage. Private health care would not be allowed to operate the same way it does now.
This article seems fairly balanced in trying to answer questions of what such a program might look like and how it might be implemented. It is also honest in admitting that the chances of us rolling over to "Medicare for All" in the fear foreseeable future is low.
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#12 (https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#12)
I think that the full implications of such a program have yet to be examined carefully and the hard questions asked. Right now over half of Americans, according to some polls, favor such a program. But I think that is because they see immediate economic benefits to them personally. They really haven't looked at how such a program will affect the country as a whole. Nor do they really understand how such a program looks elsewhere in the world.
For starters, the cost would be huge. Do we have any idea what kind of tax burden we would shoulder if such a program were adopted? And since this tax burden would be targeted, Sanders-style, at the perceived rich and successful, do we have any real idea how this would ultimately impact the economy as businesses and investors start shouldering such a burden and passing it down to consumers?
Government run anything has a checkered history. They're pretty good with what their specialty is, such as the military, law enforcement, etc. But are we convinced they can run the entire healthcare system well?
One of the closest cousins to such a proposed program, many believe, would be what Canada offers. It is often used as an example of what we could have and it is seen as a positive example. But is it? And do we really understand what it is? But the Canadian version is not the Sander's version. In Canada private insurance still exists - along with higher taxes. The UK offers a truer model of universal healthcare. Perhaps we should be looking at how our British counterparts like their system.
https://www.businessinsider.com/american-misconceptions-about-canadian-healthcare-2019-11 (https://www.businessinsider.com/american-misconceptions-about-canadian-healthcare-2019-11)
So would the UK's version be the model Sander's envisions? And is that what we really want?
In an article from Forbes from last year it would appear that there are some issues with their system we might want to look at before jumping on the Sander's bandwagon.
Nearly a quarter of a million British patients have been waiting more than six months to receive planned medical treatment from the National Health Service, according to a recent report from the Royal College of Surgeons. More than 36,000 have been in treatment queues for nine months or more. Long waits for care are endemic to government-run, single-payer systems like the NHS...Consider how long it takes to get care at the emergency room in Britain. Government data show that hospitals in England only saw 84.2% of patients within four hours in February. That's well below the country's goal of treating 95% of patients within four hours -- a target the NHS hasn't hit since 2015....Wait times for cancer treatment -- where timeliness can be a matter of life and death -- are also far too lengthy. According to January NHS England data, almost 25% of cancer patients didn't start treatment on time despite an urgent referral by their primary care doctor. That's the worst performance since records began in 2009...And keep in mind that "on time" for the NHS is already 62 days after referral. Unsurprisingly, British cancer patients fare worse than those in the United States. Only 81% of breast cancer patients in the United Kingdom live at least five years after diagnosis, compared to 89% in the United States. Just 83% of patients in the United Kingdom live five years after a prostate cancer diagnosis, versus 97% here in America. The NHS also routinely denies patients access to treatment. More than half of NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups, which plan and commission health services within their local regions, are rationing cataract surgery. They call it a procedure of "limited clinical value."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2019/04/01/britains-version-of-medicare-for-all-is-collapsing/#71d7c03936b8 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2019/04/01/britains-version-of-medicare-for-all-is-collapsing/#71d7c03936b8)
Our healthcare system is not perfect. It has problems. But is the Sander's model the cure - or something worse?
-
I love how this always devolves into how everybody deserves to die.
Do not sinners deserve to die? Are we not sinners from the moment of conception as the psalmist states?
Is it okay for me to kill you?
Yes, if you were an executioner in a prison facility and authorized by the state to carry out a capital punishment sentence, it would be OK. You would not be charged with a crime.
Was it OK for God to kill off the whole human race except for eight people and pairs of animals? Was it OK for Joshua and the Israelites to kill off every inhabitant in Jericho?
-
I love how this always devolves into how everybody deserves to die.
Do not sinners deserve to die? Are we not sinners from the moment of conception as the psalmist states?
Is it okay for me to kill you?
Yes, if you were an executioner in a prison facility and authorized by the state to carry out a capital punishment sentence, it would be OK. You would not be charged with a crime.
Was it OK for God to kill off the whole human race except for eight people and pairs of animals? Was it OK for Joshua and the Israelites to kill off every inhabitant in Jericho?
So, in your view, abortionists are state-sanctioned executioners, carrying out a capital punishment sentence. For what crime?
-
I love how this always devolves into how everybody deserves to die.
Do not sinners deserve to die? Are we not sinners from the moment of conception as the psalmist states?
Is it okay for me to kill you?
No. Of course not. The law is there to curb that sort of behavior. I thought Pr. Stoffregen was simply applying the "non posse non peccare" of St. Augustine. Just applying the "in force" of original sin.
-
Do not sinners deserve to die? Are we not sinners from the moment of conception as the psalmist states?
Very interesting. A couple of weeks ago you were suggesting that an embryo in the womb is more like its mother's finger than (https://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7327.825) it is a human being.
-
Do not sinners deserve to die? Are we not sinners from the moment of conception as the psalmist states?
Very interesting. A couple of weeks ago you were suggesting that an embryo in the womb is more like its mother's finger than (https://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7327.825) it is a human being.
I raised questions. However, Jesus did say that if your right hand caused you to sin, cut it off. Can the hand really cause a person to sin? (Note: that is a question, not a suggestion.)
-
Do not sinners deserve to die? Are we not sinners from the moment of conception as the psalmist states?
Very interesting. A couple of weeks ago you were suggesting that an embryo in the womb is more like its mother's finger than (https://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7327.825) it is a human being.
I raised questions. However, Jesus did say that if your right hand caused you to sin, cut it off. Can the hand really cause a person to sin? (Note: that is a question, not a suggestion.)
No.
But what does that have to do with the humanity of what is in the womb?
-
Since Sen. Sanders is leading at present (with a fair amount of post-Iowa and New Hampshire momentum), it might be nice to focus on some of his goals for reform should he win the presidency.
I think that the full implications of such a program have yet to be examined carefully and the hard questions asked. Right now over half of Americans, according to some polls, favor such a program. But I think that is because they see immediate economic benefits to them personally. They really haven't looked at how such a program will affect the country as a whole. Nor do they really understand how such a program looks elsewhere in the world.
For starters, the cost would be huge. Do we have any idea what kind of tax burden we would shoulder if such a program were adopted? And since this tax burden would be targeted, Sanders-style, at the perceived rich and successful, do we have any real idea how this would ultimately impact the economy as businesses and investors start shouldering such a burden and passing it down to consumers?
Our healthcare system is not perfect. It has problems. But is the Sander's model the cure - or something worse?
In 1960 Americans spent about 5% of their income on healthcare. Today this has tripled to 18% and shows nows sign of reversing itself absent some major intervention. So is Medicare for All the cure? I do not know. But one can see the appeal of a massive overhaul of the current system.
The US is spending a significantly higher percentage of GDP on healthcare than any other industrialized nation. At the same time, our healthcare system has does not cover all people, leaves tens of millions without insurance, causes over 500,000 bankruptcies per year, and does not provide superior health outcomes than those of other wealthy nations.
When you start with a system that is 2x-3x as expensive as its peers but does not deliver better results, there's a lot of room for reform. One of the main attractions of single-payer is that, in theory, it will be less expensive than our current system. As a country, we are simply paying too much for the care we are receiving, and a single-payer system could remove many of the perverse incentives, administrative overhead, and marketing costs from the system.
Tax increases promote a lot of scary reactions, but all of us are already being "taxed" through rising co-pays, deductibles and premiums. Frankly, as a pastor, I know how much I pay for medicare (which does not cover me or my family) and how much my parish pays for my health care benefits. Even if medicare taxes increased 5x, we'd still come out far ahead with Medicare for All. Compensation is compensation: lower healthcare costs for employers frees up money to offset tax increases by increasing wages. It would not be a perfect or necessarily a smooth transition, but one needs consider all forms of spending rather than just focusing on taxes.
The political challenge is that one person's "waste" is another person's income. Hospitals are the largest employer in countless communities. There is no easy way to cut healthcare spending without cutting jobs in the healthcare industry (which will be politically unpopular, to say the least, even if those jobs do not involve patient care). You are also going to end up with cuts to compensation to providers... doctors do not make as much in countries with universal healthcare systems. So you would be cutting jobs and asking highly trained professional to do the same work for less. Not an easy situation to manage.
So what is the alternative? How much of household income can be consumed by medical care before it becomes unbearable? How big of an impact does rising healthcare costs have on keeping wages down? Those are also hard questions that need to be asked.
-
Two other observations:
When you have a state government offering free vacations to Mexico for their employees (flight + $500) in order to save money on prescription drugs, that's pretty good evidence that our healthcare system is not working well. But this is the kind of direction we will increasingly need to go in order to find savings: medical tourism exists because US healthcare is too expensive.
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/02/14/utah-prescription-drugs-mexico
A lot is made of the fact that single-payer systems like the NHS in Britain have problems that force patients to wait for care. But in the US, 25% of people put off needed medical care each year due to cost. So we have a massive problem with rationing care here in the US as well. The difference is, and this is big, where one falls in our health care hierarchy. If you have high income and good insurance, you are going to get great care under our system. If you don't… you are going to wait or go without.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/269138/americans-delaying-medical-treatment-due-cost.aspx
Cost is the political third rail in this election. No candidate really has a plan to address it comprehensively. Because there are no easy answers.
-
Since Sen. Sanders is leading at present (with a fair amount of post-Iowa and New Hampshire momentum), it might be nice to focus on some of his goals for reform should he win the presidency.
I think that the full implications of such a program have yet to be examined carefully and the hard questions asked. Right now over half of Americans, according to some polls, favor such a program. But I think that is because they see immediate economic benefits to them personally. They really haven't looked at how such a program will affect the country as a whole. Nor do they really understand how such a program looks elsewhere in the world.
For starters, the cost would be huge. Do we have any idea what kind of tax burden we would shoulder if such a program were adopted? And since this tax burden would be targeted, Sanders-style, at the perceived rich and successful, do we have any real idea how this would ultimately impact the economy as businesses and investors start shouldering such a burden and passing it down to consumers?
Our healthcare system is not perfect. It has problems. But is the Sander's model the cure - or something worse?
In 1960 Americans spent about 5% of their income on healthcare. Today this has tripled to 18% and shows nows sign of reversing itself absent some major intervention. So is Medicare for All the cure? I do not know. But one can see the appeal of a massive overhaul of the current system.
The US is spending a significantly higher percentage of GDP on healthcare than any other industrialized nation. At the same time, our healthcare system has does not cover all people, leaves tens of millions without insurance, causes over 500,000 bankruptcies per year, and does not provide superior health outcomes than those of other wealthy nations.
When you start with a system that is 2x-3x as expensive as its peers but does not deliver better results, there's a lot of room for reform. One of the main attractions of single-payer is that, in theory, it will be less expensive than our current system. As a country, we are simply paying too much for the care we are receiving, and a single-payer system could remove many of the perverse incentives, administrative overhead, and marketing costs from the system.
Tax increases promote a lot of scary reactions, but all of us are already being "taxed" through rising co-pays, deductibles and premiums. Frankly, as a pastor, I know how much I pay for medicare (which does not cover me or my family) and how much my parish pays for my health care benefits. Even if medicare taxes increased 5x, we'd still come out far ahead with Medicare for All. Compensation is compensation: lower healthcare costs for employers frees up money to offset tax increases by increasing wages. It would not be a perfect or necessarily a smooth transition, but one needs consider all forms of spending rather than just focusing on taxes.
The political challenge is that one person's "waste" is another person's income. Hospitals are the largest employer in countless communities. There is no easy way to cut healthcare spending without cutting jobs in the healthcare industry (which will be politically unpopular, to say the least, even if those jobs do not involve patient care). You are also going to end up with cuts to compensation to providers... doctors do not make as much in countries with universal healthcare systems. So you would be cutting jobs and asking highly trained professional to do the same work for less. Not an easy situation to manage.
So what is the alternative? How much of household income can be consumed by medical care before it becomes unbearable? How big of an impact does rising healthcare costs have on keeping wages down? Those are also hard questions that need to be asked.
Do other countries have a private health system similar to the United States? If so, then identifying if and why their healthcare costs are lower is a start.
What costs, by how much, and why will health care costs decrease if the government takes over health care?
-
Do not sinners deserve to die? Are we not sinners from the moment of conception as the psalmist states?
Very interesting. A couple of weeks ago you were suggesting that an embryo in the womb is more like its mother's finger than (https://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7327.825) it is a human being.
It is dizzying, isn't it?
-
I love how this always devolves into how everybody deserves to die.
Do not sinners deserve to die? Are we not sinners from the moment of conception as the psalmist states?
Is it okay for me to kill you?
Yes, if you were an executioner in a prison facility and authorized by the state to carry out a capital punishment sentence, it would be OK. You would not be charged with a crime.
Was it OK for God to kill off the whole human race except for eight people and pairs of animals? Was it OK for Joshua and the Israelites to kill off every inhabitant in Jericho?
Why are there "ifs" in your answer? You said we ALL deserve to die. You said it in the context of Pastor Preus' comment that children are gifts from God, and that God blessed Adam and Eve with children. That itself was based on a conversation about contraceptives. It is clear you meant to suggest that God's gift of children is not something to be taken ever so seriously in light of the fact that God destroyed all mankind in the flood, and therefore things like contraception and abortion are not so bad, since God Himself declares us all guilty of death.
Now, if you are changing your answer, and saying only the truly bad people like those who have committed capital crimes (oh, and unborn babies) may be killed, then we have to have yet another discussion. Maybe it's best to simply agree that this point of yours went over like a lead balloon and try again to answer Pastor Preus' initial comment from 2 days ago. It would save us all a lot of time chasing rabbit trails. As it is, your view on this reminds me of P.J. O'Rourke's comment about overpopulation: "just enough of me, WAY too much of you."
-
Do not sinners deserve to die? Are we not sinners from the moment of conception as the psalmist states?
Very interesting. A couple of weeks ago you were suggesting that an embryo in the womb is more like its mother's finger than (https://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7327.825) it is a human being.
No, you really didn't:
https://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7327.msg470318#msg470318
"In the early stages of an embryo, it is more like a finger than the viable fetus it will become."
That's a statement. It's not a question. In fact, in that entire comment, I find neither a question nor any punctuation that would suggest a question. The closest I find is your equivocation, but you punctuated the equivocal "if this, then that" views with a truth claim.
I raised questions. However, Jesus did say that if your right hand caused you to sin, cut it off. Can the hand really cause a person to sin? (Note: that is a question, not a suggestion.)
[/quote]
-
Since Sen. Sanders is leading at present (with a fair amount of post-Iowa and New Hampshire momentum), it might be nice to focus on some of his goals for reform should he win the presidency.
I think that the full implications of such a program have yet to be examined carefully and the hard questions asked. Right now over half of Americans, according to some polls, favor such a program. But I think that is because they see immediate economic benefits to them personally. They really haven't looked at how such a program will affect the country as a whole. Nor do they really understand how such a program looks elsewhere in the world.
For starters, the cost would be huge. Do we have any idea what kind of tax burden we would shoulder if such a program were adopted? And since this tax burden would be targeted, Sanders-style, at the perceived rich and successful, do we have any real idea how this would ultimately impact the economy as businesses and investors start shouldering such a burden and passing it down to consumers?
Our healthcare system is not perfect. It has problems. But is the Sander's model the cure - or something worse?
In 1960 Americans spent about 5% of their income on healthcare. Today this has tripled to 18% and shows nows sign of reversing itself absent some major intervention. So is Medicare for All the cure? I do not know. But one can see the appeal of a massive overhaul of the current system.
The US is spending a significantly higher percentage of GDP on healthcare than any other industrialized nation. At the same time, our healthcare system has does not cover all people, leaves tens of millions without insurance, causes over 500,000 bankruptcies per year, and does not provide superior health outcomes than those of other wealthy nations.
When you start with a system that is 2x-3x as expensive as its peers but does not deliver better results, there's a lot of room for reform. One of the main attractions of single-payer is that, in theory, it will be less expensive than our current system. As a country, we are simply paying too much for the care we are receiving, and a single-payer system could remove many of the perverse incentives, administrative overhead, and marketing costs from the system.
Tax increases promote a lot of scary reactions, but all of us are already being "taxed" through rising co-pays, deductibles and premiums. Frankly, as a pastor, I know how much I pay for medicare (which does not cover me or my family) and how much my parish pays for my health care benefits. Even if medicare taxes increased 5x, we'd still come out far ahead with Medicare for All. Compensation is compensation: lower healthcare costs for employers frees up money to offset tax increases by increasing wages. It would not be a perfect or necessarily a smooth transition, but one needs consider all forms of spending rather than just focusing on taxes.
The political challenge is that one person's "waste" is another person's income. Hospitals are the largest employer in countless communities. There is no easy way to cut healthcare spending without cutting jobs in the healthcare industry (which will be politically unpopular, to say the least, even if those jobs do not involve patient care). You are also going to end up with cuts to compensation to providers... doctors do not make as much in countries with universal healthcare systems. So you would be cutting jobs and asking highly trained professional to do the same work for less. Not an easy situation to manage.
So what is the alternative? How much of household income can be consumed by medical care before it becomes unbearable? How big of an impact does rising healthcare costs have on keeping wages down? Those are also hard questions that need to be asked.
And when did health care costs really skyrocket? When the government got involved in covering expenses. Deep pockets, resulting in elevated bills. Same to a lesser extent with private health insurance. When the individual has to pay personally, he is a bit more cost-conscious. And that leads to lower prices.
-
When you start with a system that is 2x-3x as expensive as its peers but does not deliver better results, there's a lot of room for reform.
Where would you find a good comparison to support this? I don't argue that there is a disparity in cost. However, based on the situation in the UK it would appear that despite our higher costs we do deliver more timely care. This might also be the case with Canada, where there are reports of folks coming south into this country for care. A socialized approach to medicine seems to have produced, perhaps as an unintended side affect, a situation that while promising care to all cannot provide the same level of care to all.
-
It appears that Sanders has clashed with unions in Nevada over his "Medicare for All." The unions feel they fought hard for the plan they now have and don't want to give that up for a single-payer government run system. Should be interesting if that skims some votes from his base....
-
Pastor Bohler:
When the individual has to pay personally, he is a bit more cost-conscious.
Me:
Sure. I’ve got good insurance. But what if I didn’t?
So, when I needed a quadruple heart bypass a few years ago, I would have shopped around, visited a few hospitals, talked to a few doctors, looked for coupons in the newspaper and finally picked the one that was the cheapest. If I lived long enough to do all that.
Oh, and I suppose if I had not been able to pay personally, I would just have died.
-
Pastor Bohler:
When the individual has to pay personally, he is a bit more cost-conscious.
Me:
Sure. I’ve got good insurance. But what if I didn’t?
So, when I needed a quadruple heart bypass a few years ago, I would have shopped around, visited a few hospitals, talked to a few doctors, looked for coupons in the newspaper and finally picked the one that was the cheapest. If I lived long enough to do all that.
Oh, and I suppose if I had not been able to pay personally, I would just have died.
Oh, well, if you were to ask Rev. Stoffregen he might tell you that such is no big deal since you are a sinner who deserves to die anyway.
-
Sure. I’ve got good insurance. But what if I didn’t?
So, when I needed a quadruple heart bypass a few years ago, I would have shopped around, visited a few hospitals, talked to a few doctors, looked for coupons in the newspaper and finally picked the one that was the cheapest. If I lived long enough to do all that.
Oh, and I suppose if I had not been able to pay personally, I would just have died.
One would think the Christian stewardship exercised in choosing the retirement community that you're currently living in ... purchasing the car you currently drive ... indeed all financial decisions that you make should apply in health decisions as well.
With little or no comparative price shopping occurring, doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers have little incentive not to gouge the health care patients.
Yes ... there is a problem ... but placing health care in the hands of the same folks who pay hundreds of dollars for a hammer or thousands of dollars for a toilet is not the answer.
-
Do not sinners deserve to die? Are we not sinners from the moment of conception as the psalmist states?
Very interesting. A couple of weeks ago you were suggesting that an embryo in the womb is more like its mother's finger than (https://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7327.825) it is a human being.
I raised questions.
You're getting sloppy, Brian. You should stick with the plausible deniability you usually weasel into your initial obscenities.
Fraternally, Steven+
-
And when did health care costs really skyrocket? When the government got involved in covering expenses. Deep pockets, resulting in elevated bills. Same to a lesser extent with private health insurance. When the individual has to pay personally, he is a bit more cost-conscious. And that leads to lower prices.
Were individuals to pay personally, many would put off getting health care until an ambulance takes them to the hospital, which will have to care for their needs; even if the hospital doesn't get paid. In order to cover expenses, hospitals have to raise rates for those who are paying and/or raise taxes (if it is a municipal hospital). Either way, the rest of us are paying for those who cannot or do not pay.
-
Do not sinners deserve to die? Are we not sinners from the moment of conception as the psalmist states?
Very interesting. A couple of weeks ago you were suggesting that an embryo in the womb is more like its mother's finger than (https://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7327.825) it is a human being.
I raised questions.
You're getting sloppy, Brian. You should stick with the plausible deniability you usually weasel into your initial obscenities.
Thank you. Your comment implies that there was a time I was not sloppy.
-
The problem with our healthcare system is that there are a lot of problems with our healthcare system so solutions will not be simple. One problem is that healthcare technology has improved so much and we are able to keep more people alive and healthier than we used to. But all this improved technology and medicine also costs more. Decisions made decades ago have encouraged people to be less cost conscious and allowed profits to rise for some in the system unchecked. Medical school has become expensive (along with the rest of higher education) and those costs must be eventually be met by healthcare consumers. Medical malpractice costs have skyrocketed.
It's not just one thing that has jacked up costs, it's many things and all need to be addressed. To add to the fun, whatever measures are proposed to help the situation, some will have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo that benefits them and other will be looking for ways to profit from the change, siphoning off some of the savings to line their pockets, or building up their kingdom.
-
The problem with our healthcare system is that there are a lot of problems with our healthcare system so solutions will not be simple. One problem is that healthcare technology has improved so much and we are able to keep more people alive and healthier than we used to. But all this improved technology and medicine also costs more. Decisions made decades ago have encouraged people to be less cost conscious and allowed profits to rise for some in the system unchecked. Medical school has become expensive (along with the rest of higher education) and those costs must be eventually be met by healthcare consumers. Medical malpractice costs have skyrocketed.
It's not just one thing that has jacked up costs, it's many things and all need to be addressed. To add to the fun, whatever measures are proposed to help the situation, some will have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo that benefits them and other will be looking for ways to profit from the change, siphoning off some of the savings to line their pockets, or building up their kingdom.
I believe Ronald Heifetz in Leadership Without Easy Answers said something like: for every complex problem there is a simple solution … and it's wrong.
-
I raised questions.
You're getting sloppy, Brian. You should stick with the plausible deniability you usually weasel into your initial obscenities.
Thank you. Your comment implies that there was a time I was not sloppy.
I thought I'd apply your standards.
-
https://babylonbee.com/news/new-political-bible-adds-r-or-d-after-each-characters-name
-
James Eiven writes:
Yes ... there is a problem ... but placing health care in the hands of the same folks who pay hundreds of dollars for a hammer or thousands of dollars for a toilet is not the answer.
I comment:
No, right now it is in the hands of big pharmaceutical companies, which charge $25 for an aspiring; hospitals, which charge thousands of dollars for an overnight bed, doctors, and radiologists and others making six or eight times what professionals make elsewhere.
Only the government and insurance companies can "regulate," that is, say "we won't pay those rates." It is to the advantage of the government and the insurance companies to cut costs. It is not in the advantage of big pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and doctors to cut costs.
-
James Eiven writes:
Yes ... there is a problem ... but placing health care in the hands of the same folks who pay hundreds of dollars for a hammer or thousands of dollars for a toilet is not the answer.
I comment:
No, right now it is in the hands of big pharmaceutical companies, which charge $25 for an aspiring; hospitals, which charge thousands of dollars for an overnight bed, doctors, and radiologists and others making six or eight times what professionals make elsewhere.
Only the government and insurance companies can "regulate," that is, say "we won't pay those rates." It is to the advantage of the government and the insurance companies to cut costs. It is not in the advantage of big pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and doctors to cut costs.
1. It is EivAn...not Eiven..but attributing quotations to someone other than the correct person has been a speciality of yours for years. >:(
2. "companies, which charge $25 for an aspiring"[/size][size=78%] Perhaps you mean aspirin ... all the more reason to shop your hospital...and hold your insurance company accountable if this is happening. We plan vacations, retirement etc... but leave health care up to others ... and worse do not question outlandish expenses because "it is not coming out of my pocket" Same problem with the government ... because we fail to realize that WE fund the government.[/size]
[/size][size=78%]We should be active participants in health care .. not passively leaving it to others.[/size]
-
No, right now [health care] is in the hands of big pharmaceutical companies, which charge $25 for an aspiring; hospitals, which charge thousands of dollars for an overnight bed, doctors, and radiologists and others making six or eight times what professionals make elsewhere.
The average family physician in the US makes $205,000 per year. I find it a little surprising that professionals elsewhere have trouble cracking the $35K barrier, but thus we have been assured by A Journalist.
-
James Eiven writes:
Yes ... there is a problem ... but placing health care in the hands of the same folks who pay hundreds of dollars for a hammer or thousands of dollars for a toilet is not the answer.
I comment:
No, right now it is in the hands of big pharmaceutical companies, which charge $25 for an aspiring; hospitals, which charge thousands of dollars for an overnight bed, doctors, and radiologists and others making six or eight times what professionals make elsewhere.
Only the government and insurance companies can "regulate," that is, say "we won't pay those rates." It is to the advantage of the government and the insurance companies to cut costs. It is not in the advantage of big pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and doctors to cut costs.
You are so right! Yes, the government should take over health care! It would be so efficient!
I mean, look at this story for an excellent example of government efficiency. The Washington, DC, Metro has spent five years and $3,800,000 building two bike racks--and they still aren't finished! (https://wjla.com/news/local/metro-38-million-5-years-bike-racks)
OK, that was sarcasm. So let's look at my own Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the Boston MBTA had a "23 and out" program where some men and women retired in their 50s with pensions ranging from $50-$100K yearly. That's a way government cuts costs. Meanwhile, the MBTA has billions in backlogged repairs.
-
For the ten thousandth time, nothing I post here is journalism. It is conversation, schmoozing, provocation, chitchat, just talk.
So let’s not use that easy cheap-shot, stupid trope to attempt to take me down.
-
It is EivAn...not Eiven..but attributing quotations to someone other than the correct person has been a speciality of yours for years. >:(
And yet you've only been on this forum since the end of last summer, James Eivan. I guess you thoroughly researched the Corpus Austintonius in its entirety prior to joining.
Dave Benke
-
It is EivAn...not Eiven..but attributing quotations to someone other than the correct person has been a speciality of yours for years. >:(
And yet you've only been on this forum since the end of last summer, James Eivan. I guess you thoroughly researched the Corpus Austintonius in its entirety prior to joining.
Dave Benke
He's probably like many of us who read the forum for years before registering. It's common enough behavior that there is an internet term for it -- "lurking".
-
It is EivAn...not Eiven..but attributing quotations to someone other than the correct person has been a speciality of yours for years. >:(
And yet you've only been on this forum since the end of last summer, James Eivan. I guess you thoroughly researched the Corpus Austintonius in its entirety prior to joining.
Dave Benke
He's probably like many of us who read the forum for years before registering. It's common enough behavior that there is an internet term for it -- "lurking".
Thank you for the explanation. In my previous posts I have indicated that I know that that Charles Austin received a ‘lifetime’ ban (http://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7369.msg470614#msg470614) from the forum ... which was rescinded to the disappointment of some. Lurking is common ... as I post this there are 75 guests and only 6 users logged on.
It is frustrating that he does not even have the common courtesy and manners (http://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7327.msg470977#msg470977) to acknowledge the fact that he has knowingly slandered (http://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7160.msg457320#msg457320) those who he attributes the words of others to.
Periodically I review years old threads if the topic interests me ... I believe that I have read his slanderous misquotes as far back as 2013 ... I’ll be glad to bring them to your attention since you apparently have ignored his misquotes in the past.
I look forward to joining your efforts for full and complete transparency. ;)
-
In response, … … oh, never mind. It ain't worth it.
This time I'm sticking to my general policy of not responding to dreck from anonymous posters.
-
When you start with a system that is 2x-3x as expensive as its peers but does not deliver better results, there's a lot of room for reform.
Where would you find a good comparison to support this? I don't argue that there is a disparity in cost. However, based on the situation in the UK it would appear that despite our higher costs we do deliver more timely care. This might also be the case with Canada, where there are reports of folks coming south into this country for care. A socialized approach to medicine seems to have produced, perhaps as an unintended side affect, a situation that while promising care to all cannot provide the same level of care to all.
Happy to provide some more information.
According to OECD data, OECD member states (36 countries, including the US) spent on average 8.8% of GDP on healthcare services in 2017. The US had the highest level of spending in terms of GDP, at 17.1%. So healthcare costs literally twice as much in the US (in terms of our overall economy) as in places like Canada or the United Kingdom. And to put it in perspective, the nation that spends the second highest percentage of GDP was Switzerland at 12.3%… it's not just what we are spending more, we're spending a whole lot more. 4.8% of GDP is a huge difference.
https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-expenditure.htm
So what are we getting for all that extra spending? Better health outcomes?
Not really. Here is a good source of summary data… the US is pretty middle of the pack when it comes to outcomes. Noteworthy is that the US actually doesn't rank that well when it comes to quick access to a doctor… US wait times aren't actually better for most patients than they are in other countries.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-start
So we are paying twice as much as the average wealthy nation, but we lag behind in many areas, do not cover everyone, bankrupt 500,000 of our people with medical bills every year, and don't get better results on the whole. "Socialized" medical systems like the NHS preform comparatively or better than the US is virtually every metric while covering their poorest citizens and they do so for less money.
Actually, to get back to the original topic… part of Bernie's rise has been a series of web videos where people in the UK are asked questions about the US healthcare system (how much do you think an inhaler costs? How much does the average ambulance ride cost?). Their outrage reactions drive home his point… the US is the only wealthy nation that regularly bankrupts people for getting sick. American families routinely agonize over healthcare decisions that citizens of other countries do not even have to think about in terms of affordability and access. When US voters see the reactions and hear the experiences from their British and Canadian peers, it's a win for Bernie… which is why his campaign has gone to great lengths to produce these videos.
I will also say this: I lived abroad (Germany, Austria) and the "Bismarck" system had a lot of things going for it. Universal care, greater choice, private insurance, etc. Which is why I am not sure Medicare for all is the right answer. There are other ways to cover everyone and lower costs. I would trade my good ELCA plan for the "poor college student" plan I had in Austria in an instant if that were possible. Having lived abroad, speaking another language, reading international press…the US healthcare system in the envy of exactly zero wealthy nations. The old line was about wealthy international patients coming to the US to get the best care. Now it's Americans going to Canada and Mexico to get high quality care for less money. And meanwhile, Germany's top hospitals can compete with America's best healthcare centers, while the German healthcare system covers all their citizens, costs less, and delivers better outcomes overall.
Finally, we need to be clear what is actually driving up costs. It is not the government. It's the transition of our healthcare system from non-profit insurance companies (BCBS only started offering for-profit plans in 1994), non-profit hospitals, and independent practitioners to larger, for-profit hospital associations, for-profit insurance, etc. The profit motive has proven to make vast areas of life more efficient and higher quality, but it does not seem to work in healthcare or education.
-
Thank you, Dana Lockhart, for this data.
I’ve also lived abroad and have long-time friends in Europe and the UK. Every one of them is shocked about the cost and ineffectiveness of our healthcare system. My family had better, cheaper, and fuller healthcare as non-citizen residents of Switzerland than we have here.
There are further, related costs to our current system. You mentioned “medical bankruptcies.” Add the costs of lost work time, disabilities that could have been prevented or alleviated, families losing wage-earners, costs of care for the uninsured and the costs, availability and trauma of long-term care for the elderly.
Wait times? In Minneapolis try getting a non-emergency appointment with a specialist in less than three or four weeks, even if you are already a patient of that doctor.
And if you have a number of medical needs, or are afflicted with the more serious aspects of aging, navigating the medical care and insurance maze can be a full- time job, even if you are literate and like solving puzzles that could challenge a member of Mensa.
Medicare For All would not be easy and would take time. But it is needed.
-
For the ten thousandth time, nothing I post here is journalism. It is conversation, schmoozing, provocation, chitchat, just talk.
So let’s not use that easy cheap-shot, stupid trope to attempt to take me down.
In response, … … oh, never mind. It ain't worth it.
This time I'm sticking to my general policy of not responding to dreck from anonymous posters.
Since this is not journalism so people should not complain when you misspell names or misattribute quotations you don't get to complain when you think that people are schmoozing anonymously. Lighten up, it's just chitchat isn't it?
-
For the ten thousandth time, nothing I post here is journalism. It is conversation, schmoozing, provocation, chitchat, just talk.
So let’s not use that easy cheap-shot, stupid trope to attempt to take me down.
You've referred to your time working at the New York Times. You've referred to your time as reporter/editor of The Lutheran. You refer to yourself as a "Humble Correspondent."
But when someone refers to you as a "journalist" you get offended.
You made a statement of fact: "No, right now [health care] is in the hands of big pharmaceutical companies, which charge $25 for an aspiring; hospitals, which charge thousands of dollars for an overnight bed, doctors, and radiologists and others making six or eight times what professionals make elsewhere." (emphasis mine)
When he showed that statement to be ludicrous, and pointed out that it was made by "a journalist", you get upset and claim that your statements here are not 'journalism.' Is that an excuse for statements that are verifiably in error?
In the future, if you don't want people to refer to your statements as coming from "a journalist" then don't refer to yourself as a "Humble Correspondent." Try a "Humble Conversator" or a "Humble Schmoozer" or a "Humble Just Talker." But if you refer to yourself as a "Correspondent" then don't be upset that people do the same.
By the way, my congregation is filled with professionals of all sorts, including the dreaded "doctors and radiologists." None of the "doctors and radiologists" make "six to eight times" what the lawyers, architects, dentists, and engineers in my congregation do. But this, I guess, is your form of journalism. You are, after all, a "Humble Correspondent," so you should know.
-
In response, … … oh, never mind. It ain't worth it.
This time I'm sticking to my general policy of not responding to dreck from anonymous posters.
Who is your "anonymous poster"? James Eivan?
-
For the ten thousandth time, nothing I post here is journalism. It is conversation, schmoozing, provocation, chitchat, just talk.
So let’s not use that easy cheap-shot, stupid trope to attempt to take me down.
You've referred to your time working at the New York Times. You've referred to your time as reporter/editor of The Lutheran. You refer to yourself as a "Humble Correspondent."
But when someone refers to you as a "journalist" you get offended.
You made a statement of fact: "No, right now [health care] is in the hands of big pharmaceutical companies, which charge $25 for an aspiring; hospitals, which charge thousands of dollars for an overnight bed, doctors, and radiologists and others making six or eight times what professionals make elsewhere." (emphasis mine)
When he showed that statement to be ludicrous, and pointed out that it was made by "a journalist", you get upset and claim that your statements here are not 'journalism.' Is that an excuse for statements that are verifiably in error?
In the future, if you don't want people to refer to your statements as coming from "a journalist" then don't refer to yourself as a "Humble Correspondent." Try a "Humble Conversator" or a "Humble Schmoozer" or a "Humble Just Talker." But if you refer to yourself as a "Correspondent" then don't be upset that people do the same.
By the way, my congregation is filled with professionals of all sorts, including the dreaded "doctors and radiologists." None of the "doctors and radiologists" make "six to eight times" what the lawyers, architects, dentists, and engineers in my congregation do. But this, I guess, is your form of journalism. You are, after all, a "Humble Correspondent," so you should know.
Exactly. In addition, Rev. Austin wallows in the chance to remind us of his high-level connections via journalism (such as his recent "I-had-a-couple-of-two-hour-talks-with-a-future-pope") and uses that as his credentials for being so much more knowledgable than the rest of us.
-
Wait times? In Minneapolis try getting a non-emergency appointment with a specialist in less than three or four weeks, even if you are already a patient of that doctor.
Quite right. In early January my primary doc wanted me to see my gastroenterologist (and I've been a patient of that practice for twenty years). I called to get the appointment and the woman said, "He's scheduling in March." Fortuntately she added, "unless you could come at 10:30 this morning" (cancellation), which I was able to do.
-
Wait times? In Minneapolis try getting a non-emergency appointment with a specialist in less than three or four weeks, even if you are already a patient of that doctor.
Quite right. In early January my primary doc wanted me to see my gastroenterologist (and I've been a patient of that practice for twenty years). I called to get the appointment and the woman said, "He's scheduling in March." Fortuntately she added, "unless you could come at 10:30 this morning" (cancellation), which I was able to do.
According to the esteemed journalists (so it MUST be true) at the Toronto Sun, the average wait time to see a specialist in Canada is 20 weeks https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/braun-how-much-patience-do-patients-need
Kinda puts your 3-4 week wait to shame.
-
Thank you, Dana Lockhart, for this data.
I’ve also lived abroad and have long-time friends in Europe and the UK. Every one of them is shocked about the cost and ineffectiveness of our healthcare system. My family had better, cheaper, and fuller healthcare as non-citizen residents of Switzerland than we have here.
There are further, related costs to our current system. You mentioned “medical bankruptcies.” Add the costs of lost work time, disabilities that could have been prevented or alleviated, families losing wage-earners, costs of care for the uninsured and the costs, availability and trauma of long-term care for the elderly.
Wait times? In Minneapolis try getting a non-emergency appointment with a specialist in less than three or four weeks, even if you are already a patient of that doctor.
And if you have a number of medical needs, or are afflicted with the more serious aspects of aging, navigating the medical care and insurance maze can be a full- time job, even if you are literate and like solving puzzles that could challenge a member of Mensa.
Medicare For All would not be easy and would take time. But it is needed.
Interesting ... Dana Lockhart is no more a unique name than James Evian ... but no cries of anonymous poster here.
Perhaps the anonymous poster label is really ‘I don’t agree with you and can’t refute your facts.’
Carry on ... I and others will continue to refute the dreck you continually post.
-
Wait times are an effect of too many patients trying to see too few physicians. Who pays, and how, isn't going to change wait times.
spt+.
-
I suspect that availability and wait times vary from one part of the country to the next. I have always been aware that to schedule an appointment with a MD requires a date a ways out into the future.
That said, when needing attention for something between appointments, as I did recently with an irregular heartbeat, they did get me in on shorter notice. Now it did take advantage of a cancelled appointment from another patient, but they still were able to arrange it for me, especially since I was scheduled for another surgical appointment that this might have affected.
I think that availability of doctors points to a larger issue. In recent years my general practitioner has added a couple of PAs to his staff to handle his case load. It is well known that our country suffers from a doctor shortage, a situation that is projected to worsen as the population ages and certain conditions increase related to age. One of the areas impacted most are rural areas such as where I live. But in certain sections of the US the shortage is measured at 10,000 to 30,000. Few physicians prefer to live and work in lower population areas. A relatively new medical school has opened within a hour's drive of my rural house to specifically address this issue. According to one article reporting on a recent AAMC study: "By 2032, AAMC says we can expect the physician shortage to stand at anywhere between 46,900 and 121,900 doctors." They also report: "AAMC points to 'shifting workforce patterns' as one of the reasons behind the shortage of specialists. One of these patterns is the increasing number of physicians who aren’t working full time. AAMC notes that if the current trend of younger and older doctors working fewer hours continues, there will be 20,900 fewer full-time-equivalent (FTE) doctors than if work hours stayed the same. Other shifting workforce patterns cited by AAMC include economic pressure, healthcare delivery structure, burnout, and demographic patterns—all of which require further study."
https://www.mdlinx.com/internal-medicine/article/3888 (https://www.mdlinx.com/internal-medicine/article/3888)
So I don't think we can lay physician availability entirely at the feet of the current healthcare structure in this country. Even if "Medicare for All" was passed and implemented that would not, in itself, stem the shortage of available doctors. In fact, if demand for them increased (as I imagine it would with a large number of people now insured that were not before), I think the problem will only worsen.
-
Health care systems are extremely difficult to compare because there are very few apple-to-apples columns. Even life-expectancy is not necessarily a function of health care unless virtually every aspect of a culture is a function of health care.
I would be more inclined to listen to argument in favor of the cost-reducing potential of public health care if the people arguing for it were just as passionate about cost-savings in areas where reducing or eliminating governmental control would lead to massive cost savings, as in, say, education. As it is, the people arguing for socialized medicine (which we already have to a degree, just in a haphazard way) seem to me to be grabbing at anything that argues for socialism. When socialism costs more, they argue fairness. When socialism costs less, they argue economics. Either way, they do not address the people they/re arguing against, many of whom are not thinking in terms of economics or equality of care, but of a principle of liberty. Who makes decisions?
Justice demands (and reality ensures) that the one footing the bill ultimately makes the decisions unless it is a charity case. If individuals retain the freedom to overeat, never exercise, drink too much, sleep around, etc. well, more power to them, I guess, as long as I'm not paying for their physical therapists, heart doctors, prenatal care (or abortions), etc. etc. But privatizing an individual's health-related decisions while socializing the costs of those decisions ultimately cannot last. It will end in a nanny-state making the health-related decisions for you on the grounds that they're paying your bills, or a system so overwhelmed that it cannot function well. Either way, it undermines individual liberty.
A big part of our health care mess stems from income tax. There is zero reason that health care needs to be related to employment. It came about that way because employers could provide health care as a benefit that wasn't taxed. When that became common enough, employment became the standard route to getting health care.
If we really wanted to try a radical solution, what I propose would be to have the government take the total cost of employment (salary, health care, retirement) of any given employee and declare that as of such and such a date, all federal employees will receive that much money directly in salary, but the government will no longer provide benefits. They will pay their employees enough to save for retirement and pay their medical bills on their own. Employees would have to provide proof of insurance the way drivers have to have proof of insurance. But how good that insurance is and what it cost them vary widely. That would create a huge competitive market among insurance companies, and soon other corporations would follow suit.
Remove employment from the equation entirely. Make health insurance a matter of insurance, like car insurance, not payment for basic care.
-
Thank you, Dana Lockhart, for this data.
I’ve also lived abroad and have long-time friends in Europe and the UK. Every one of them is shocked about the cost and ineffectiveness of our healthcare system. My family had better, cheaper, and fuller healthcare as non-citizen residents of Switzerland than we have here.
There are further, related costs to our current system. You mentioned “medical bankruptcies.” Add the costs of lost work time, disabilities that could have been prevented or alleviated, families losing wage-earners, costs of care for the uninsured and the costs, availability and trauma of long-term care for the elderly.
Wait times? In Minneapolis try getting a non-emergency appointment with a specialist in less than three or four weeks, even if you are already a patient of that doctor.
And if you have a number of medical needs, or are afflicted with the more serious aspects of aging, navigating the medical care and insurance maze can be a full- time job, even if you are literate and like solving puzzles that could challenge a member of Mensa.
Medicare For All would not be easy and would take time. But it is needed.
Interesting ... Dana Lockhart is no more a unique name than James Evian ... but no cries of anonymous poster here.
Perhaps the anonymous poster label is really ‘I don’t agree with you and can’t refute your facts.’
Carry on ... I and others will continue to refute the dreck you continually post.
I'm not posting anonymously: roster status and current call information can be found here: https://www.elca.org/tools/FindAPerson
-
Interesting ... Dana Lockhart is no more a unique name than James Evian ... but no cries of anonymous poster here.
Perhaps the anonymous poster label is really ‘I don’t agree with you and can’t refute your facts.’
Carry on ... I and others will continue to refute the dreck you continually post.
Tough L on Dana Lockhart, James.
BTW is it Evian like the water or Eivan like the civil war private?
M. Staneck
-
So I don't think we can lay physician availability entirely at the feet of the current healthcare structure in this country. Even if "Medicare for All" was passed and implemented that would not, in itself, stem the shortage of available doctors. In fact, if demand for them increased (as I imagine it would with a large number of people now insured that were not before), I think the problem will only worsen.
The shortage is largely the result of capping the number of residencies. There are actually a sizable pool of MD's out there… drowning in debt… who did not "match" to a residency. They can't practice medicine even though they earned the degree. A friend's spouse falls into this category and I was shocked to learn how big of an issue it is.
Since Medicare helps fund residencies, one would assume that any Medicare for All plan that would be adopted would include increasing the number of residencies and training more physicians every year.
-
BTW, Dana, thanks for contributing substantively to this conversation. One of the issues that I am wrestling with and praying about this election cycle is healthcare. It really is a rubber meets the road issue. We all know the heaviness of being present with parishioners who are being overwhelmed by navigating the system to receive adequate care.
M. Staneck
-
Someone writes:
Dana Lockhart is no more a unique name than James Evian ... but no cries of anonymous poster here.
I comment:
A simple search told me who that person is.
-
BTW, Dana, thanks for contributing substantively to this conversation. One of the issues that I am wrestling with and praying about this election cycle is healthcare. It really is a rubber meets the road issue. We all know the heaviness of being present with parishioners who are being overwhelmed by navigating the system to receive adequate care.
M. Staneck
Thank you. I am also praying and wrestling. I would say healthcare is my number one focus this election cycle.
My wife is a non-physician provider who earned a license to practice independently within the last year. So we are learning about the system from the other side. And it really seems to be just as broken. Services with a "list price" of, say, $180 get negotiated down anywhere from $120 to $55 depending on the insurance (with medicaid being the lowest). Cash discounts are hard to come by… it is often excluded by practice rules or agreements with insurance providers. So someone without insurance can easily end up paying considerably more for the same service, squeezing them out of the system. And there is little incentive to take medicaid clients, making access hard for the poorest and highest need client population.
And then add the process of becoming an "in-network provider" which is bureaucratic… every insurance company has its own process, lasting from a few weeks to a few months. A different app for each one. So we have learned that there are actually agencies out there that earn their money by doing the applications for providers… at a cost… so you have a huge, potentially expensive, and time-consuming process to even get into the system. And then you need billing help to submit the claims. So every large practice has employees just to handle getting providers in network, and different employees to handle coding and billing, and all of these people have counterparts at every insurance company… a huge number of people outside of direct patient care. It's not efficient at all.
But as I said at the beginning… the political issue is that these are all jobs. So if Medicare for All simplifies the system and lowers administrative costs (a huge bonus!), it also would result in a lot of people losing decent office jobs (a huge political liability). And lower reimbursement rates for providers. It's not an easy situation to fix.
-
No, right now it is in the hands of big pharmaceutical companies, which charge $25 for an aspiring; hospitals, which charge thousands of dollars for an overnight bed, doctors, and radiologists and others making six or eight times what professionals make elsewhere.
The current per day rate at the hospital I use is $1,309.00. Hardly "thousands of dollars". ICU day rate is $2,121.00, which is technically "thousands of dollars" but that's not the impression you were trying to give.
http://www.cmhosp.com/patients-visitors/usual-customary-charges/
Maybe you were citing NYC pricing?
-
Thank you, Dana Lockhart, for this data.
I’ve also lived abroad and have long-time friends in Europe and the UK. Every one of them is shocked about the cost and ineffectiveness of our healthcare system. My family had better, cheaper, and fuller healthcare as non-citizen residents of Switzerland than we have here.
There are further, related costs to our current system. You mentioned “medical bankruptcies.” Add the costs of lost work time, disabilities that could have been prevented or alleviated, families losing wage-earners, costs of care for the uninsured and the costs, availability and trauma of long-term care for the elderly.
Wait times? In Minneapolis try getting a non-emergency appointment with a specialist in less than three or four weeks, even if you are already a patient of that doctor.
And if you have a number of medical needs, or are afflicted with the more serious aspects of aging, navigating the medical care and insurance maze can be a full- time job, even if you are literate and like solving puzzles that could challenge a member of Mensa.
Medicare For All would not be easy and would take time. But it is needed.
Interesting ... Dana Lockhart is no more a unique name than James Evian ... but no cries of anonymous poster here.
Perhaps the anonymous poster label is really ‘I don’t agree with you and can’t refute your facts.’
Carry on ... I and others will continue to refute the dreck you continually post.
I'm not posting anonymously: roster status and current call information can be found here: https://www.elca.org/tools/FindAPerson (https://www.elca.org/tools/FindAPerson)
My apologies Rev. Lockhart .... I meant absolutely nothing negative or disrespectful by using your name as a random example of the randomness of Rev. Austin’s baseless accusation of anonymous posting.
My knowledge of forum members come from their posts ... I apologize if I missed you self identify yourself as a pastor. Until you posted the link above, I had no idea how to search the ELCA clergy roster.
Most online groups discourage stalking so my knowledge of non LCMS participants on this forum is from their posts.
As to the name Evian, I am much older than the bottled water brand ... have no idea about war private ... apparently Eivan is simply a unique derivation of Evan ... and sorry, I am not ... nor ever have been rostered in any church body.
Finally, to my knowledge, a ‘simple search’ is not a prerequisite for posting in this forum ... some online communities discourage stalking ... though a simple search may not qualify as stalking.
-
My wife is a non-physician provider who earned a license to practice independently within the last year. So we are learning about the system from the other side. And it really seems to be just as broken. Services with a "list price" of, say, $180 get negotiated down anywhere from $120 to $55 depending on the insurance (with medicaid being the lowest). Cash discounts are hard to come by… it is often excluded by practice rules or agreements with insurance providers. So someone without insurance can easily end up paying considerably more for the same service, squeezing them out of the system. And there is little incentive to take medicaid clients, making access hard for the poorest and highest need client population.
My wife received radiation therapy for cancer. The hospital submitted it to insurance with for $35K. Insurance rejected the claim as requiring more documentation. Hospital contacted my wife and threatened legal action if she did not pay a substantial portion by credit card over the phone right then. Wife paid $2,500. A few days later we received another statement from the hospital indicating that they had refiled and the insurance had paid the negotiated rate of $12K - the full amount due as we had blown past the deductible several weeks previous to the radiotherapy. It took three months to get the $2,500 back from the hospital. (I should have disputed the charge but I did not think of that at the time.)
And then add the process of becoming an "in-network provider" which is bureaucratic… every insurance company has its own process, lasting from a few weeks to a few months. A different app for each one. So we have learned that there are actually agencies out there that earn their money by doing the applications for providers… at a cost… so you have a huge, potentially expensive, and time-consuming process to even get into the system. And then you need billing help to submit the claims. So every large practice has employees just to handle getting providers in network, and different employees to handle coding and billing, and all of these people have counterparts at every insurance company… a huge number of people outside of direct patient care. It's not efficient at all.
It's not any better from the other side. I've changed physicians twice now because the insurance company dropped them from their network. Within a year they were back in the network. It seems like the main part of the insurance business is using strong-arm tactics to "negotiate" discounts with medical providers.
I don't really expect anything better to happen under Medicare for All. Patients and doctors will still be arguing with bureaucrats. The only difference will be who hires them.
-
Someone writes:
Dana Lockhart is no more a unique name than James Evian ... but no cries of anonymous poster here.
I comment:
A simple search told me who that person is.
STALKER!!!
-
No doubt there are a number of people who milk the healthcare system for exorbitant profits. There are also many people who make a decent living serving an inefficient system. Correcting the profiteering and the inefficiencies (and helping the people displaced by greater efficiency) will be difficult. Especially since in the current climate our political leaders are likely at least as concerned about how this can be done in ways to benefit themselves and their party while making sure that it will hurt their opponents as they are in creating a system that will take care of the people of our nation.
-
My wife received radiation therapy for cancer. The hospital submitted it to insurance with for $35K. Insurance rejected the claim as requiring more documentation. Hospital contacted my wife and threatened legal action if she did not pay a substantial portion by credit card over the phone right then. Wife paid $2,500. A few days later we received another statement from the hospital indicating that they had refiled and the insurance had paid the negotiated rate of $12K - the full amount due as we had blown past the deductible several weeks previous to the radiotherapy. It took three months to get the $2,500 back from the hospital. (I should have disputed the charge but I did not think of that at the time.)
My brother worked in the finance department of a for profit hospital. One problem: they almost lost their accreditation because they had cut the staff too much. A second problem: if they didn't receive payment within a month, they turned the bill over to a collection agency. The problem was that medicare often took more than a month to pay. The elderly were getting notices from the collection agency that they had to pay. They assumed medicare was paying - and they were right; but they weren't paying quickly enough. My brother got tired of getting the phone calls from confused patients after they received the collection agency notice.
Just lately in the news is a town in Kansas where if people are not paying their medical bills, they can be put in jail. (Actually, if they fail to show up in court to explain why they are behind on their medical bills; they can be arrested with bail at $500 that a lawyer receives.) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coffeyville-kansas-medical-debt-county-in-rural-kansas-is-jailing-people-over-unpaid-medical-debt/
My other brother works in health care. He has learned that the bigger the purchaser, e.g., a clinic or a municipal hospital verses the huge parent company with 55,000 employees and facilities in over 100 cities in northern California. A local, community clinic or hospital cannot compete. They close up or get bought out by the big guys.
-
So here is some more insight into that "moderate" Michael Bloomberg. His words.
http://dlvr.it/RQD5wZ
-
Bloomberg stinks. Douthat had a good editorial this weekend about him (and Sanders and the Democratic Party)
M. Staneck
-
Bloomberg stinks. Douthat had a good editorial this weekend about him (and Sanders and the Democratic Party)
M. Staneck
The Bloomberg campaign is like a some type of parody movie. Think James Bond, but this time the villain is genre savvy so instead of planning world domination and getting on MI6's radar and having a 00 agent eliminate him, he decides to be a businessman, then a mayor, and then run for POTUS. So much easier, and no suave and debonair agent out to get you.
He just doesn't seem to like human beings.
-
My take on the election is that it is essential for Trump to be voted out of office. I can live with any of the candidates on the Democratic side. Whichever candidate can put an end of Trumpism has my support.
-
My take on the election is that it is essential for Trump to be voted out of office. I can live with any of the candidates on the Democratic side. Whichever candidate can put an end of Trumpism has my support.
Pr. Austin, another single issue voter.
-
My take on the election is that it is essential for Trump to be voted out of office. I can live with any of the candidates on the Democratic side. Whichever candidate can put an end of Trumpism has my support.
When we meet in the Gulag, I’m beating you up and taking your blanket.
-
2,000 - repeat 2,000 - Former justice department officials call for the attorney general to resign. Republicans. Democrats. 2,000 of them.
The president’s spokeswoman on television refers to “his” justice department. As if He owns it.
Those calling for Barr’s resignation include the former assistant attorney general under President Bush. The words he uses describing the situation are “Un-American” and “banana republic.”
-
Mr. Hummel to Mr. Teigen:
When we meet in the Gulag, I’m beating you up and taking your blanket.
Me:
Well, If we are going that direction, I am forced to say: I can imagine you doing that.
Now can we get the discussion back on the course?
-
Mr. Hummel to Mr. Teigen:
When we meet in the Gulag, I’m beating you up and taking your blanket.
Me:
Well, If we are going that direction, I am forced to say: I can imagine you doing that.
Now can we get the discussion back on the course?
As I would imagine informing to the guards.
-
It is the President's Justice Department. And too many of those in Justice have forgotten that.
As for "banana republic," I made that observation 4 years ago when our chief presidential candidates were a rich businessman/TV star and the wife of a former president. Meanwhile, too many parts of the Justice Department have been lawlessly out of control for several administrations, both Republican and Democratic. We hear it every day in the national media.
The Declaration's "erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance," applies today in these United States.
Drain the swamp,
Citizen Steven Tibbetts
-
Medicare for All would, albeit in phases, remove the private insurance industry as we know it now. There is no doubt that the job displacement would be sizeable, measured in the millions. The cost, as well, is measured in the trillions.
I don't think we really know the true impact this would have on our overall economy once taxes are significantly increased and jobs are eliminated and various businesses are deeply impacted. I would like to see a good projection - and not by the politicians themselves - of the projected impact this will have on the economy. I realize that some projections would say that cost-savings in one area could off-set cost increases in others. But do we really have an accurate picture of what this looks like?
It's obvious that the Democratic candidates are not all on the same page with this one, so we can't blame the Republicans for being the only naysayers.
-
2,000 - repeat 2,000 - Former justice department officials call for the attorney general to resign. Republicans. Democrats. 2,000 of them.
The president’s spokeswoman on television refers to “his” justice department. As if He owns it.
Those calling for Barr’s resignation include the former assistant attorney general under President Bush. The words he uses describing the situation are “Un-American” and “banana republic.”
A bunch of career bureaucrats who think the justice department is theirs to run a muck. Previous administrations have allowed the unelected bureaucrats to run the department.
Its not news that officials from either of the never Trump Bush administrations would jump at the opportunity to slam President Trump.
-
It is the President's Justice Department. And too many of those in Justice have forgotten that.
As for "banana republic," I made that observation 4 years ago when our chief presidential candidates were a rich businessman/TV star and the wife of a former president. Meanwhile, too many parts of the Justice Department have been lawlessly out of control for several administrations, both Republican and Democratic. We hear it every day in the national media.
The Declaration's "erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance," applies today in these United States.
Drain the swamp,
Citizen Steven Tibbetts
Mon frere, mon concitoyen!
-
He ran on a “drain the swamp” platform. The thousands of entrenched bureaucrats who are appalled by Trump only improve his odds of reelection by saying so. You may as well say, “Nine out of ten Grand Duchesses polled oppose the revolution.” It persuades, but not as intended.
-
And here is some more interesting information on everyone’s favorite moderate-
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholic-business-leaders-respond-to-no-breaks-bloomberg-video-26880
-
Thank you, Dana Lockhart, for this data.
I’ve also lived abroad and have long-time friends in Europe and the UK. Every one of them is shocked about the cost and ineffectiveness of our healthcare system. My family had better, cheaper, and fuller healthcare as non-citizen residents of Switzerland than we have here.
There are further, related costs to our current system. You mentioned “medical bankruptcies.” Add the costs of lost work time, disabilities that could have been prevented or alleviated, families losing wage-earners, costs of care for the uninsured and the costs, availability and trauma of long-term care for the elderly.
Wait times? In Minneapolis try getting a non-emergency appointment with a specialist in less than three or four weeks, even if you are already a patient of that doctor.
And if you have a number of medical needs, or are afflicted with the more serious aspects of aging, navigating the medical care and insurance maze can be a full- time job, even if you are literate and like solving puzzles that could challenge a member of Mensa.
Medicare For All would not be easy and would take time. But it is needed.
Interesting ... Dana Lockhart is no more a unique name than James Evian ... but no cries of anonymous poster here.
Perhaps the anonymous poster label is really ‘I don’t agree with you and can’t refute your facts.’
Carry on ... I and others will continue to refute the dreck you continually post.
I'm not posting anonymously: roster status and current call information can be found here: https://www.elca.org/tools/FindAPerson (https://www.elca.org/tools/FindAPerson)
My apologies Rev. Lockhart .... I meant absolutely nothing negative or disrespectful by using your name as a random example of the randomness of Rev. Austin’s baseless accusation of anonymous posting.
My knowledge of forum members come from their posts ... I apologize if I missed you self identify yourself as a pastor. Until you posted the link above, I had no idea how to search the ELCA clergy roster.
Most online groups discourage stalking so my knowledge of non LCMS participants on this forum is from their posts.
As to the name Evian, I am much older than the bottled water brand ... have no idea about war private ... apparently Eivan is simply a unique derivation of Evan ... and sorry, I am not ... nor ever have been rostered in any church body.
Finally, to my knowledge, a ‘simple search’ is not a prerequisite for posting in this forum ... some online communities discourage stalking ... though a simple search may not qualify as stalking.
No worries. Just wanted to clarify after you raised the concern. I mostly lurk here…and when I comment, it tends to be about social/political issues, where being a pastor gives me little to no special insight or credibility (so I don't see the point of using a style/title). The ELCA clergy finder is just the easiest thing to link to in order to demonstrate that I am not using a pseudonym.
-
Medicare for All would, albeit in phases, remove the private insurance industry as we know it now. There is no doubt that the job displacement would be sizeable, measured in the millions. The cost, as well, is measured in the trillions.
I don't think we really know the true impact this would have on our overall economy once taxes are significantly increased and jobs are eliminated and various businesses are deeply impacted. I would like to see a good projection - and not by the politicians themselves - of the projected impact this will have on the economy. I realize that some projections would say that cost-savings in one area could off-set cost increases in others. But do we really have an accurate picture of what this looks like?
It's obvious that the Democratic candidates are not all on the same page with this one, so we can't blame the Republicans for being the only naysayers.
Vermont and Colorado both attempted a universal healthcare plan at the state level. Vermont successfully passed H.202 in 2011 -- creating Green Mountain Care. They pulled the plug in 2014.
In 2016, Colorado attempted to pass the Colorado State Health Care System Initiative, Amendment 69 (ColoradoCare). It failed by almost 80%.
I believe both states looked at the impact on their respective economies, and this was a large reason why both failed.
-
Thank you, Dana Lockhart, for this data.
I’ve also lived abroad and have long-time friends in Europe and the UK. Every one of them is shocked about the cost and ineffectiveness of our healthcare system. My family had better, cheaper, and fuller healthcare as non-citizen residents of Switzerland than we have here.
There are further, related costs to our current system. You mentioned “medical bankruptcies.” Add the costs of lost work time, disabilities that could have been prevented or alleviated, families losing wage-earners, costs of care for the uninsured and the costs, availability and trauma of long-term care for the elderly.
Wait times? In Minneapolis try getting a non-emergency appointment with a specialist in less than three or four weeks, even if you are already a patient of that doctor.
And if you have a number of medical needs, or are afflicted with the more serious aspects of aging, navigating the medical care and insurance maze can be a full- time job, even if you are literate and like solving puzzles that could challenge a member of Mensa.
Medicare For All would not be easy and would take time. But it is needed.
Interesting ... Dana Lockhart is no more a unique name than James Evian ... but no cries of anonymous poster here.
Perhaps the anonymous poster label is really ‘I don’t agree with you and can’t refute your facts.’
Carry on ... I and others will continue to refute the dreck you continually post.
I'm not posting anonymously: roster status and current call information can be found here: https://www.elca.org/tools/FindAPerson (https://www.elca.org/tools/FindAPerson)
My apologies Rev. Lockhart .... I meant absolutely nothing negative or disrespectful by using your name as a random example of the randomness of Rev. Austin’s baseless accusation of anonymous posting.
My knowledge of forum members come from their posts ... I apologize if I missed you self identify yourself as a pastor. Until you posted the link above, I had no idea how to search the ELCA clergy roster.
Most online groups discourage stalking so my knowledge of non LCMS participants on this forum is from their posts.
As to the name Evian, I am much older than the bottled water brand ... have no idea about war private ... apparently Eivan is simply a unique derivation of Evan ... and sorry, I am not ... nor ever have been rostered in any church body.
Finally, to my knowledge, a ‘simple search’ is not a prerequisite for posting in this forum ... some online communities discourage stalking ... though a simple search may not qualify as stalking.
No worries. Just wanted to clarify after you raised the concern. I mostly lurk here…and when I comment, it tends to be about social/political issues, where being a pastor gives me little to no special insight or credibility (so I don't see the point of using a style/title). The ELCA clergy finder is just the easiest thing to link to in order to demonstrate that I am not using a pseudonym.
You're in Versailles, Kentucky!! Feel free to comment on Bourbon, too....Or UK Basketball/football (BBN!). Or racehorses.
-
2,000 - repeat 2,000 - Former justice department officials call for the attorney general to resign. Republicans. Democrats. 2,000 of them.
The objected to the fact that the Attorney General overruled four prosectors. He changed their recommended sentence of nine years to "No recommendation." The judge is free to do whatever she wants.
Maybe he should have simply called himself the president's "wingman." You didn't object when AG Eric Holder referred to himself that way.
Or maybe Trump should have met with him on the tarmac in an airplane with no witnesses present. You didn't object when President Clinton met with AG Lynch while his wife was being investigated by Justice.
The president’s spokeswoman on television refers to “his” justice department. As if He owns it.
Those calling for Barr’s resignation include the former assistant attorney general under President Bush. The words he uses describing the situation are “Un-American” and “banana republic.”
You know, I'd swear I heard journalists--you know, people like you--make reference to "Bush's Justice Dept." and "Obama's Justice Dept." Did you object then? Of course not.
I've heard previous presidents say things like "My Justice Department will set the following priorities." Did you object then? Of course not.
If you didn't have double standards, you wouldn't have any at all.
-
Just curious as an amateur philologist. How do you pronounce "Versailles" in Kentucky. In Missouri it is "ver-SAY-els". (The French is "ver-SIGH".)
Peace, JOHN
-
Just curious as an amateur philologist. How do you pronounce "Versailles" in Kentucky. In Missouri it is "ver-SAY-els". (The French is "ver-SIGH".)
Peace, JOHN
John- if it’s the same place, one of my former parishioners was from there (or close by) and it she said, “vur SALES.”
-
Just curious as an amateur philologist. How do you pronounce "Versailles" in Kentucky. In Missouri it is "ver-SAY-els". (The French is "ver-SIGH".)
Peace, JOHN
I'm from Eastern Kentucky. We always pronounced it "vur-sails".
....But we also pronounce Appalachia "apple -atcha".
-
I suspect he won't garner a lot of the farm vote if this gets any traction.
But then those of us out in the midwest-northern states are technically 'fly-over' country. At least until the electoral votes are counted....
https://www.newsweek.com/mike-bloomberg-teach-anyone-farm-less-gray-matter-modern-jobs-1487633 (https://www.newsweek.com/mike-bloomberg-teach-anyone-farm-less-gray-matter-modern-jobs-1487633)
-
My take on the election is that it is essential for Trump to be voted out of office. I can live with any of the candidates on the Democratic side. Whichever candidate can put an end of Trumpism has my support.
"The Never Trumpers are a joke kept alive by this structure of self-support. They haven’t been correct on a thing in years, yet continue to earn their supper and an invitation to the party by wholeheartedly agreeing with their new patrons. They predicted ruin when the president was nominated and doom when he was elected, all while his poll numbers have continued to tick upward. They prophesied the shattering of the Republican Party all while it has maintained near-historic discipline in the face of a unified Democrat-media assault. They assumed the end of the economy because America reacted to unfair international trade practices, and terrible global disasters because Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Accords and killed Iran’s terrorist general.
All of their predictions are based on the conventional wisdom and assumptions of an insulted and excluded D.C. intelligentsia, and all are wrong. Indeed, Trump’s above decisions have resulted in the very things the Never-Trump Republicans once called for, including closing America’s sizable income gap and maintaining a strength and deterrence that are independent of entangling foreign powers."
https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/17/the-cruel-reality-of-life-as-one-of-the-medias-never-trump-waterboys/
-
I think I’m getting more and more hints as to who James Eivan really is.
-
Just curious as an amateur philologist. How do you pronounce "Versailles" in Kentucky. In Missouri it is "ver-SAY-els". (The French is "ver-SIGH".)
Peace, JOHN
John- if it’s the same place, one of my former parishioners was from there (or close by) and it she said, “vur SALES.”
Same for the suburb east of Pittsburgh, North Versailles. I thought we were unique there, but on this forum I find it is a common way of de-Frenchifying the name.
Peace,
Michael
-
I think I’m getting more and more hints as to who James Eivan really is.
Why do you post things like this.
You are a sad, strange little man. And you have my pity.
-
Just curious as an amateur philologist. How do you pronounce "Versailles" in Kentucky. In Missouri it is "ver-SAY-els". (The French is "ver-SIGH".)
Peace, JOHN
You’d think that Americans attracted enough to foreign cities to co-opt their names would know how to pronounce those names. That is so very frequently not the case. In Illinois, we had Milan (my-lun) and Cairo (Kay-roe).
-
Peter writes:
Why do you post things like this.
You are a sad, strange little man. And you have my pity.
I comment:
And you have my pity. You are a clueless, pompous, insensitive clod. I do not believe you have a grasp of the real world.
Now we got that out of the way.
Back to election 2020. I hope.
-
I have a strong negative reaction when people are late to an event; don't get things done they have committed to doing (or do a half-ass job), don't think things through before they start and in general you can't count on them. I have such a strong dislike of these traits because I, myself, am lazy, procrastinate something terrible, and have little self-discipline. What I dislike in others I am guilty of in spades.
Linda
-
What is needed is for any leader to practice wisdom and prudence. Trump is a stranger to both. His presidency was won in an 'us' vs. 'them' campaign. He has been a leader for himself. He has subverted the rule of law and made himself the norm for the way things should go. He was impeached.
-
What is needed is for any leader to practice wisdom and prudence. Trump is a stranger to both. His presidency was won in an 'us' vs. 'them' campaign. He has been a leader for himself. He has subverted the rule of law and made himself the norm for the way things should go. He was impeached.
Have you considered it was "us versus them" long before Trump came along?
Because it was. The media, Hollywood, and all the elites have been telling people like me and mine for most of my life that we are rubes, hicks, unworthy of decent conversation. And the target moves constantly -- what the left thought was obvious 20 years ago is now bigoted, unacceptable, Just Like Jim Crow (TM), etc.
Those of us who have long been classified as "them" got more than a little tired of it.
I didn't vote for Trump. But to paraphrase Chris Rock, I understand.
-
What is needed is for any leader to practice wisdom and prudence. Trump is a stranger to both. His presidency was won in an 'us' vs. 'them' campaign. He has been a leader for himself. He has subverted the rule of law and made himself the norm for the way things should go. He was impeached.
Have you considered it was "us versus them" long before Trump came along?
Because it was. The media, Hollywood, and all the elites have been telling people like me and mine for most of my life that we are rubes, hicks, unworthy of decent conversation. And the target moves constantly -- what the left thought was obvious 20 years ago is now bigoted, unacceptable, Just Like Jim Crow (TM), etc.
Those of us who have long been classified as "them" got more than a little tired of it.
I didn't vote for Trump. But to paraphrase Chris Rock, I understand.
Exactly. Identity politics makes everything us vs. them. Trump has added precisely nothing to divisiveness. He just advances the “them” whose leaders had been contentedly retreating for decades.
I’m unconcerned about Trump’s wisdom. His shrewdness is everywhere on display. And he is shrewd enough to stay on the good side of wise people when it comes to his actual governing decisions and appointments. His tweets and rallies have nothing to do with that. They just keep voter interest up.
-
David Garner writes:
The media, Hollywood, and all the elites have been telling people like me and mine for most of my life that we are rubes, hicks, unworthy of decent conversation.
I muse:
And, since the days of Adlai Stevenson, the right, the Republicans, the talk-radio loudmouths, the flag-huggers and super-"patriots" have been telling people like me and mine that we are disloyal, un-American, agents of some international conspiracy, ivory-tower "intellectuals," elitists, "eggheads" and people who read a lot of books, but can't tie their shoes or bake a pie.
But do you know what? Some of us are secure enough in who we are that we do not let others define us or decree what we should do and what our role in society is. We do not become whining crybabies when someone says "Oh, he is so.... and his 'people' are so...."
So if you want to build your politics around a grudge you carry concerning what you believe "other" folks said about you, then just forget discussions of policy or programs or the role of government or what is good for the country.
Just make your plans to get back at the people who you think insulted you at recess on the national playground.
-
You are a clueless, pompous, insensitive clod. I do not believe you have a grasp of the real world.
Looking in the mirror again as you describe others, eh?
Fraternally, S....
-
Some of us are secure enough in who we are that we do not let others define us or decree what we should do and what our role in society is. We do not become whining crybabies when someone says "Oh, he is so.... and his 'people' are so...."
More than 10,000 post to this forum (since your re-admission to this forum) strongly indicate the you are not among those “some of us.). :(
-
There is a fairly wide cultural divide in America. It has been widening for quite a while now, but the distance between the poles seems to be increasing at a faster pace. Given that we should not be surprised that there is a mirror of that in the political realm. I think that Sanders demonstrates this as he taps into the growing acceptance of socialism among those in the younger generations. Since those born only in the last few decades lack a living memory of the USSR and much of the socialistic efforts behind the major military conflicts in the latter half of the 20th century, they tend to see socialism in a much more positive light. They are not as suspicious of the idea of the government running or controlling significant parts of our society. Instead, fueled by political rhetoric, they have become increasingly anti-captitalistic and anti-business. The gun-control debate also reflects some of the cultural divide as well. The debate often fails to appreciate the deep-seated independence within America and how controlling the ownership of guns signals to them a dangerous intrusion within their lives and freedoms. Some are old enough to remember a time when such debates were unknown and guns, at least in the rural areas, were a regular and accepted part of life.
For good or ill Trump exploited this divide and gave voice to a segment of the country that felt silenced and sidelined in the political process. I know some now want to abolish the electoral system so that the popular vote rules, but it was this very system that allowed states like mine (Wisconsin) to once again become players in the national political game.
-
Ignore
-
Rev. Austin, you write:
And, since the days of Adlai Stevenson, the right, the Republicans, the talk-radio loudmouths, the flag-huggers and super-"patriots" have been telling people like me and mine that we are disloyal, un-American, agents of some international conspiracy, ivory-tower "intellectuals," elitists, "eggheads" and people who read a lot of books, but can't tie their shoes or bake a pie.
I'd like to comment on this. The way you define the divide is instructive. The only thing you say about the other side is that they are flag-huggers and super-"patriots". As a person of the right, this doesn't describe me or most other conservatives I know. When I hear a speech interrupted with the chant, U -S - A, I find it annoying. As if our nation is a sports team! Clearly, you don't understand what animates the right.
And you don't understand the right's criticism of the left. You leave out the most important features. The left takes their own righteousness and makes it the defining political virtue. Since they are righteous, when they coerce, it is, as the lady in the Chinese restaurant said, ~good~ for you! Your side despises freedom and relies on coercion. It despises the piety of traditional Christians. It attacks marriage and babies. It is irredeemably arrogant and utterly unteachable. It holds with religious zeal to certain presuppositions of a religious or ideological nature, but it is ignorant of it. It simply assumes that its prejudices are undeniable fact. Its claims cannot be falsified.
You flatter yourself by thinking that we on the right view you on the left as intellectuals. We don't. We see you as members of a clique. The orthodoxies of the clique are adopted by the members. These constitute mostly criticisms of the right. Since Trump is the present representative of the right, the attacks are directed against him. But he fights back against he left with a ferocity we haven't seen from a Republican president. He fights back against the left by showing open disdain for them. This is what they cannot tolerate. Trump brings the arrogance of the left to the surface. Who is this guy to diss us? They are enraged and will remain enraged. That's because their political faith is based on their own righteousness. To challenge it is like telling a Mormon that Joseph Smith was a con artist and a pervert.
-
You flatter yourself by thinking that we on the right view you on the left as intellectuals. We don't. We see you as members of a clique. The orthodoxies of the clique are adopted by the members. These constitute mostly criticisms of the right. Since Trump is the present representative of the right, the attacks are directed against him. But he fights back against he left with a ferocity we haven't seen from a Republican president. He fights back against the left by showing open disdain for them. This is what they cannot tolerate. Trump brings the arrogance of the left to the surface. Who is this guy to diss us? They are enraged and will remain enraged. That's because their political faith is based on their own righteousness. To challenge it is like telling a Mormon that Joseph Smith was a con artist and a pervert.
Speaking of Mormons, it is as I said earlier instructive that the left's favorite Republican right now is Mitt Romney, the guy who wants to put black people back in chains (if Joe Biden circa 2012 can be believed, and he cannot).
They didn't hate Romney then because he was a racist. They hated him because he was between them and power. And they don't love him now because he's honest and independent. They love him because he rolled over and took it in 2012. Like a good boy.
He plays their game. Trump doesn't. And that is one reason among many why Trump won in 2016.
-
Now is there a way to get beyond personalities and talk about programs?
If the current president were personally the kind of guy I might like to have over for dinner, I would still despise almost everything he has done while in office. I would still consider him a considerable threat to our republic.
-
Now is there a way to get beyond personalities and talk about programs?
If the current president were personally the kind of guy I might like to have over for dinner, I would still despise almost everything he has done while in office. I would still consider him a considerable threat to our republic.
What's the matter Charles? Talking personality just not getting it for you? You have been consistently complaining about the personality of Pres. Trump, his personal habits, his was of speaking, his greed, etc. How he, as a person, is not qualified to be president. Now suddenly you want to get beyond personalities and talk programs?
Well, let's talk about programs. The Green New Deal which if it won't bankrupt the nation would bankrupt millions of people as they would need to junk their current vehicles and buy new more expensive electric vehicles, force everybody to undertake expensive renovations of their property, wipe out thousands of jobs, cut the amount of power available to the people of our nation by a very significant amount.
How about turning our economy into some form of unspecified socialism?
How about the promises to abridge the current Constitutional rights of conservative religious people and gun owners?
Yes, we can talk about programs.
-
Now is there a way to get beyond personalities and talk about programs?
If the current president were personally the kind of guy I might like to have over for dinner, I would still despise almost everything he has done while in office. I would still consider him a considerable threat to our republic.
How? He hasn’t done anything that isn’t routinely done by presidents. Granted, he appoints conservative rather than liberal judges, prefers controlled borders to open borders, eschews international intervention in favor of a more isolationist take, is willing to engage in trade wars in a more protectionist way, etc. I get that anyone can disagree with any of all of his policies, but how are they a threat to the republic?
-
Gary Gallagher, who knows a little bit about the history of political divisions in U.S. history, wrote a helpful piece last week that might provide a little perspective. https://theconversation.com/think-the-us-is-more-polarized-than-ever-you-dont-know-history-131600 (https://theconversation.com/think-the-us-is-more-polarized-than-ever-you-dont-know-history-131600) The Jefferson/Burr race of 1800, the “corrupt bargain” of 1824, and the brokered election of Rutherfraud B. Hayes 1876 also come to mind.
-
What is needed is for any leader to practice wisdom and prudence. Trump is a stranger to both. His presidency was won in an 'us' vs. 'them' campaign. He has been a leader for himself. He has subverted the rule of law and made himself the norm for the way things should go. He was impeached.
Have you considered it was "us versus them" long before Trump came along?
Because it was. The media, Hollywood, and all the elites have been telling people like me and mine for most of my life that we are rubes, hicks, unworthy of decent conversation. And the target moves constantly -- what the left thought was obvious 20 years ago is now bigoted, unacceptable, Just Like Jim Crow (TM), etc.
Us vs. them used to be between folks on different sides of issues. My opponent on this issue might be my ally on the next issue. We could be opponents on an issue, and be friends otherwise. The difference, some argue that began with Newt Gingrich, is that us vs. them was no longer about issues, but political parties. Republicans were not supposed to socialize with democrats like they used to outside of chambers.
To use a distinction Russ Saltzman used in an article years ago, opponents (on issues) became enemies. Civil discourse, like between debate teams, became shouting matches.
For just as long as "Hollywood" may have looked down on others, others have dismissed "Hollywood" as elitist, out-of-touch with reality.
-
My dearly departed parents were conservative Republicans. I am still receptive to good conservative Republican ideas. Now, consider, Mark Sanford, a prominent Republican, writing in today's New York Times about Trump's abandonment of fiscal responsibility. Sanford uses the idea of Scottish journalist Charles MacKay, the author of "Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" where he argues that there have been times "when entire societies have set aside their own good judgment under the spell of a charlatan."
Trump is the charlatan of our time. The Trump budget is disastrous. "What if it were President Barack Obama allowing the national debt to grow by a trillion dollars a year, despite the booming economy?" "...such persistent debt will have have enormous consequences for national security...." "...our growing debt makes the American dream more elusive.....a trillion-dollar deficit is nothing more than a deferred tax bill for $1 trillion."
Finally Sanford writes that "too many fellow conservatives, and the Republican Party at large, have chosen to ignore this mounting crisis out of fealty to President Trump."
It's not too late to vote Trump out of office. The public good demands it.
-
My dearly departed parents were conservative Republicans. I am still receptive to good conservative Republican ideas. Now, consider, Mark Sanford, a prominent Republican, writing in today's New York Times about Trump's abandonment of fiscal responsibility. Sanford uses the idea of Scottish journalist Charles MacKay, the author of "Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" where he argues that there have been times "when entire societies have set aside their own good judgment under the spell of a charlatan."
Trump is the charlatan of our time. The Trump budget is disastrous. "What if it were President Barack Obama allowing the national debt to grow by a trillion dollars a year, despite the booming economy?" "...such persistent debt will have have enormous consequences for national security...." "...our growing debt makes the American dream more elusive.....a trillion-dollar deficit is nothing more than a deferred tax bill for $1 trillion."
Finally Sanford writes that "too many fellow conservatives, and the Republican Party at large, have chosen to ignore this mounting crisis out of fealty to President Trump."
It's not too late to vote Trump out of office. The public good demands it.
You realize, of course, that Congress approves any budget. I’d be glad to see deficits go down by slashing government spending. Which candidate do you see replacing Trump and accomplishing that?
-
My dearly departed parents were conservative Republicans. I am still receptive to good conservative Republican ideas. Now, consider, Mark Sanford, a prominent Republican, writing in today's New York Times about Trump's abandonment of fiscal responsibility. Sanford uses the idea of Scottish journalist Charles MacKay, the author of "Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" where he argues that there have been times "when entire societies have set aside their own good judgment under the spell of a charlatan."
Trump is the charlatan of our time. The Trump budget is disastrous. "What if it were President Barack Obama allowing the national debt to grow by a trillion dollars a year, despite the booming economy?" "...such persistent debt will have have enormous consequences for national security...." "...our growing debt makes the American dream more elusive.....a trillion-dollar deficit is nothing more than a deferred tax bill for $1 trillion."
Finally Sanford writes that "too many fellow conservatives, and the Republican Party at large, have chosen to ignore this mounting crisis out of fealty to President Trump."
It's not too late to vote Trump out of office. The public good demands it.
What would happen to the national debt if the multitrillion proposals like the Green New Deal, a total Federal takeover of the healthcare system, free college for all, etc. were to be adopted? Is what Democrats are proposing more fiscally responsible than what Trump is doing?
-
My dearly departed parents were conservative Republicans. I am still receptive to good conservative Republican ideas. Now, consider, Mark Sanford, a prominent Republican, writing in today's New York Times about Trump's abandonment of fiscal responsibility. Sanford uses the idea of Scottish journalist Charles MacKay, the author of "Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" where he argues that there have been times "when entire societies have set aside their own good judgment under the spell of a charlatan."
Trump is the charlatan of our time. The Trump budget is disastrous. "What if it were President Barack Obama allowing the national debt to grow by a trillion dollars a year, despite the booming economy?" "...such persistent debt will have have enormous consequences for national security...." "...our growing debt makes the American dream more elusive.....a trillion-dollar deficit is nothing more than a deferred tax bill for $1 trillion."
Finally Sanford writes that "too many fellow conservatives, and the Republican Party at large, have chosen to ignore this mounting crisis out of fealty to President Trump."
It's not too late to vote Trump out of office. The public good demands it.
The funny thing is, I've been hearing moaning and groaning about the federal deficit my entire adult life. I remember an ad by the Democrats in the 1980s with Uncle Sam holding a baby, pointing out that the Regan deficits would be paid by the next generation.
Mostly, the Democrats only care about deficits when there is a Republican president and Republicans only care when there is a Democratic one. Neither party wants to do the hard work of cutting spending. Even with the train wrecks heading our way--the insolvency of Medicare, Social Security, and many state pension funds--no one wants to make any of the changes necessary.
Sorry, Norm, but if you want to argue the need for changing presidents, budget policy won't do it.
BTW, Congress, not the President, has the power of the purse. When was the last time Congress passed an actual budget and not a continuing spending resolution?
-
My dearly departed parents were conservative Republicans. I am still receptive to good conservative Republican ideas. Now, consider, Mark Sanford, a prominent Republican, writing in today's New York Times about Trump's abandonment of fiscal responsibility. Sanford uses the idea of Scottish journalist Charles MacKay, the author of "Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" where he argues that there have been times "when entire societies have set aside their own good judgment under the spell of a charlatan."
Trump is the charlatan of our time. The Trump budget is disastrous. "What if it were President Barack Obama allowing the national debt to grow by a trillion dollars a year, despite the booming economy?" "...such persistent debt will have have enormous consequences for national security...." "...our growing debt makes the American dream more elusive.....a trillion-dollar deficit is nothing more than a deferred tax bill for $1 trillion."
Finally Sanford writes that "too many fellow conservatives, and the Republican Party at large, have chosen to ignore this mounting crisis out of fealty to President Trump."
It's not too late to vote Trump out of office. The public good demands it.
This comes as a surprise to me. I thought that all of the Teigens were Democrats! But then knowing your dad, being the outstanding theologian he was, I shouldn't be surprised that he was a Republican! :) But seriously, I have also known some Democrats who were excellent theologians.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about the deficit, but it's not just Trump. I watched the presidential debates in the Republican Party back in 2016, and the only candidate that I heard address this crisis was Rand Paul. He didn't get much support. As others have just pointed out above, what the Democrats are promising will increase the deficit. The only solution I can see is to get Democrats to agree to cut back on domestic spending and to get Republicans to agree to cut back on military spending. I don't see that in the cards. I guess our children will have to pay the piper.
-
Now, consider, Mark Sanford, a prominent Republican,
Mark Sanford, who "went missing" while governor of his state, running off as it turned out with his exotic Argentine mistress; the Mark Sanford who later was divorced because of this; who later became engaged to his Argentine friend; who later dumped her (and she found out first from social media...).
Grace and mercy have now been delivered for one who admitted error, and he can reclaim "prominent" since he has helped support the correct cause. Former Democratic Presidential Candidate and prominent media superstar Avenatti (sp?) seems to have a ways to go yet.
-
Just curious as an amateur philologist. How do you pronounce "Versailles" in Kentucky. In Missouri it is "ver-SAY-els". (The French is "ver-SIGH".)
Peace, JOHN
I'm from Eastern Kentucky. We always pronounced it "vur-sails".
....But we also pronounce Appalachia "apple -atcha".
The town of Dubois is pronounced "Dew-boys" in its Wyoming iteration, and "Du-bwa" in the Idaho town.
The differences in pronunciation based upon history and culture are interesting.
There may be a third-cousin version apparent in "Lutheran" in this country. Every Lutheran church (well, almost...) pronounces the word the same (perhaps with a regional inflection), but there are almost as many different versions of what Lutheran means and what Lutheran practices are as there are regions and subdivided based upon immigrant founders' national origins and related church doctrinal/practice mutations over the centuries.
-
Just curious as an amateur philologist. How do you pronounce "Versailles" in Kentucky. In Missouri it is "ver-SAY-els". (The French is "ver-SIGH".)
Peace, JOHN
I'm from Eastern Kentucky. We always pronounced it "vur-sails".
....But we also pronounce Appalachia "apple -atcha".
The town of Dubois is pronounced "Dew-boys" in its Wyoming iteration, and "Du-bwa" in the Idaho town.
The differences in pronunciation based upon history and culture are interesting.
There may be a third-cousin version apparent in "Lutheran" in this country. Every Lutheran church (well, almost...) pronounces the word the same (perhaps with a regional inflection), but there are almost as many different versions of what Lutheran means and what Lutheran practices are as there are regions and subdivided based upon immigrant founders' national origins and related church doctrinal/practice mutations over the centuries.
Very true, Randy. :)
Peace, JOHN
-
What is needed is for any leader to practice wisdom and prudence. Trump is a stranger to both. His presidency was won in an 'us' vs. 'them' campaign. He has been a leader for himself. He has subverted the rule of law and made himself the norm for the way things should go. He was impeached.
Have you considered it was "us versus them" long before Trump came along?
Because it was. The media, Hollywood, and all the elites have been telling people like me and mine for most of my life that we are rubes, hicks, unworthy of decent conversation. And the target moves constantly -- what the left thought was obvious 20 years ago is now bigoted, unacceptable, Just Like Jim Crow (TM), etc.
Us vs. them used to be between folks on different sides of issues. My opponent on this issue might be my ally on the next issue. We could be opponents on an issue, and be friends otherwise. The difference, some argue that began with Newt Gingrich, is that us vs. them was no longer about issues, but political parties. Republicans were not supposed to socialize with democrats like they used to outside of chambers.
To use a distinction Russ Saltzman used in an article years ago, opponents (on issues) became enemies. Civil discourse, like between debate teams, became shouting matches.
For just as long as "Hollywood" may have looked down on others, others have dismissed "Hollywood" as elitist, out-of-touch with reality.
I know Newt Gingrich. Unlike Lloyd Bentsen and JFK, I can't say he is a friend of mine, but I have taken a class with him in college. Trust me on this -- he was plenty cordial with people across the aisle. He had good working relationships with those people. What he did not do is consider compromise for its own sake to be a virtue. He was a visionary, and in some ways a revolutionary. I'm not a particular fan of his, for reasons I think I stated upstream. I don't think I would socialize with him, though I would love to picks brain once more. But the notion that he did not socialize with Democrats, or wasn't friends with any of them, is silly. You can read about one of his across-the-aisle deals here.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/05/29/the-pact-between-bill-clinton-and-newt-gingrich
Gingrich plays hardball politics, no doubt. He was hardly the first to do that. But he respects smart people who work to solve real problems. As I said above, he is a visionary. But he's not a fool. He was not only willing, but often eager to cross the aisle to get things done, even if he did not get full credit for getting them done (as with Clinton and the reforms the two of them hammered out).
-
2,000 - repeat 2,000 - Former justice department officials call for the attorney general to resign. Republicans. Democrats. 2,000 of them.
This letter was organized by a group called "Protect Democracy." This group was founded by Ian Bassein, a former Obama flunky who is a member of the American Constitution Society (the anti-Federalist Society). The other founder is Justin Florence, who also served in the Obama White House and on the staff of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. The rest of their leadership team is made of of people who served in the Obama Justice Dept, the ACLU, and other groups. (https://protectdemocracy.org/meet-the-team/#advisors). Their website states, "Donald Trump poses an immediate, acute, and extreme threat to our democracy..."
Given the make up of this group, and their stated view of the President, I doubt that those who signed the letter are a random group.
But of course, as a "humble correspondent" you already knew all of this.
-
“Obama flunky” So obviously can’t be trusted. I get that.
And of course, the fact that these are 1,000 former employees who presumably know something about how the department of justice works doesn’t mean a damn thing. I get that.
But never mind. It’s a useless discussion.
-
Pr Austin, No, you don't get it. What you fail to grasp is the split within the system. Two competing versions of reality are at work. They are fundamentally incompatible.
-
I know Newt Gingrich. Unlike Lloyd Bentsen and JFK, I can't say he is a friend of mine, but I have taken a class with him in college. Trust me on this -- he was plenty cordial with people across the aisle. He had good working relationships with those people. What he did not do is consider compromise for its own sake to be a virtue. He was a visionary, and in some ways a revolutionary. I'm not a particular fan of his, for reasons I think I stated upstream. I don't think I would socialize with him, though I would love to picks brain once more. But the notion that he did not socialize with Democrats, or wasn't friends with any of them, is silly. You can read about one of his across-the-aisle deals here.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/05/29/the-pact-between-bill-clinton-and-newt-gingrich (https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/05/29/the-pact-between-bill-clinton-and-newt-gingrich)
Gingrich plays hardball politics, no doubt. He was hardly the first to do that. But he respects smart people who work to solve real problems. As I said above, he is a visionary. But he's not a fool. He was not only willing, but often eager to cross the aisle to get things done, even if he did not get full credit for getting them done (as with Clinton and the reforms the two of them hammered out).
Unfortunately, I don't remember the author nor the book title, but on a talk show, he point to Newt's time as speaker of the house as the beginning of animosity between the parties.
However, I did find an article by McKay Coppins that supports the claim (perhaps the same author). https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/
Some quotes:
But few figures in modern history have done more than Gingrich to lay the groundwork for Trump’s rise. During his two decades in Congress, he pioneered a style of partisan combat—replete with name-calling, conspiracy theories, and strategic obstructionism—that poisoned America’s political culture and plunged Washington into permanent dysfunction. Gingrich’s career can perhaps be best understood as a grand exercise in devolution—an effort to strip American politics of the civilizing traits it had developed over time and return it to its most primal essence.
“One of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty,” he told the group. “We encourage you to be neat, obedient, and loyal, and faithful, and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around the campfire but are lousy in politics.”
The way he saw it, Republicans would never be able to take back the House as long as they kept compromising with the Democrats out of some high-minded civic desire to keep congressional business humming along. His strategy was to blow up the bipartisan coalitions that were essential to legislating, and then seize on the resulting dysfunction to wage a populist crusade against the institution of Congress itself. “His idea,” says Norm Ornstein, a political scientist who knew Gingrich at the time, “was to build toward a national election where people were so disgusted by Washington and the way it was operating that they would throw the ins out and bring the outs in.”
Political scientists who study our era of extreme polarization will tell you that the driving force behind American politics today is not actually partisanship, but negative partisanship—that is, hatred of the other team more than loyalty to one’s own. Gingrich’s speakership was both a symptom and an accelerant of that phenomenon.
-
I know Newt Gingrich. Unlike Lloyd Bentsen and JFK, I can't say he is a friend of mine, but I have taken a class with him in college. Trust me on this -- he was plenty cordial with people across the aisle. He had good working relationships with those people. What he did not do is consider compromise for its own sake to be a virtue. He was a visionary, and in some ways a revolutionary. I'm not a particular fan of his, for reasons I think I stated upstream. I don't think I would socialize with him, though I would love to picks brain once more. But the notion that he did not socialize with Democrats, or wasn't friends with any of them, is silly. You can read about one of his across-the-aisle deals here.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/05/29/the-pact-between-bill-clinton-and-newt-gingrich (https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/05/29/the-pact-between-bill-clinton-and-newt-gingrich)
Gingrich plays hardball politics, no doubt. He was hardly the first to do that. But he respects smart people who work to solve real problems. As I said above, he is a visionary. But he's not a fool. He was not only willing, but often eager to cross the aisle to get things done, even if he did not get full credit for getting them done (as with Clinton and the reforms the two of them hammered out).
Unfortunately, I don't remember the author nor the book title, but on a talk show, he point to Newt's time as speaker of the house as the beginning of animosity between the parties.
However, I did find an article by McKay Coppins that supports the claim (perhaps the same author). https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/
Some quotes:
But few figures in modern history have done more than Gingrich to lay the groundwork for Trump’s rise. During his two decades in Congress, he pioneered a style of partisan combat—replete with name-calling, conspiracy theories, and strategic obstructionism—that poisoned America’s political culture and plunged Washington into permanent dysfunction. Gingrich’s career can perhaps be best understood as a grand exercise in devolution—an effort to strip American politics of the civilizing traits it had developed over time and return it to its most primal essence.
“One of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty,” he told the group. “We encourage you to be neat, obedient, and loyal, and faithful, and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around the campfire but are lousy in politics.”
The way he saw it, Republicans would never be able to take back the House as long as they kept compromising with the Democrats out of some high-minded civic desire to keep congressional business humming along. His strategy was to blow up the bipartisan coalitions that were essential to legislating, and then seize on the resulting dysfunction to wage a populist crusade against the institution of Congress itself. “His idea,” says Norm Ornstein, a political scientist who knew Gingrich at the time, “was to build toward a national election where people were so disgusted by Washington and the way it was operating that they would throw the ins out and bring the outs in.”
Political scientists who study our era of extreme polarization will tell you that the driving force behind American politics today is not actually partisanship, but negative partisanship—that is, hatred of the other team more than loyalty to one’s own. Gingrich’s speakership was both a symptom and an accelerant of that phenomenon.
I have a book that makes a pretty good case that Lyndon Johnson was behind the Kennedy assassination.
I tend to not put a lot of stock in 1 book by 1 guy.
-
Look at it this way -- you don't pass the volumes of bipartisan legislation that moved the country rightward that passed under Gingrich's watch without reaching across the aisle.
Welfare reform
Balanced budget
Tax reform
Gingrich passed legislation that was signed into law by President Clinton that required Congress to live under the regulations and laws they impose on others. Notably, this forced Congress to think before delegating Congressional power to unelected bureaucrats to legislate by regulating. It passed 390-0 in the House and 98-1 in the Senate.
He also pushed through reforms of Congress itself. He halted the program where each member had 2 buckets of ice delivered daily. Now, he joked about it in speeches at Democrats' expense. He said he had to show Chuck Schumer how to make ice in the fridge. Everyone laughed, but everyone knew it was a joke, too. The point is, that program cost the American taxpayers $250,000 a year. So members would not have to get their own ice. It was ridiculous and he redlined it out of the Congressional budget. Again, these reforms passed with bipartisan support.
Beyond that, Gingrich was himself the target of horrific attack ads. One showed a would-be Republican pushing an old lady off a cliff in her wheelchair. You blame Gingrich for the tone. He bears some responsibility for that no doubt. But let's not pretend he came into this tranquil town where everyone agreed and got along and threw dynamite in the middle of the room. He was unapologetically Republican, yes. He was intent on succeeding and effective, yes. He is a gigantic jerk, yes, a thousand times. But he is not solely responsible for the decline in tone in Washington.
There is a much simpler, but more plausible explanation for the recent increase in attack ads -- people have forgotten Watergate. In the 1970s and through the early 1980s, the specter of Watergate hung over every politician. Instead of attacking each other, the messages had to be more positive. It's not "you can't trust that guy." It's "you CAN trust me." But as Watergate faded into the rearview mirror, attack ads gained traction again. But it did not start AFTER Gingrich. It started long before. Perhaps you've forgotten this ad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Id_r6pNsus
Or this one from the same race:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM0CBfwI_Ck
These sorts of ads were just as prevalent before Watergate as after. The temporary hiatus reflected the need of politicians to restore faith in the electorate so they could gain office. It's one reason Jimmy Carter won the presidency (a Democrat was almost sure to win in the general, but it didn't have to be him in the primary). That's more complicated too, because a lot of yellow dog Democrats still existed in the south, and Carter (like the 3rd place segregationist George Wallace) was a southerner, and the 2nd place vote getter was Jerry Brown, who Rush Limbaugh once dubbed "Moonbeam." But a huge part of Carter's appeal was "you can trust me." I would place Watergate as the dividing line between attack ads and more relative peace, and the dimmer Watergate gets in the rearview mirror, the closer the country returns to flower girl politics.
Which means we are the problem, not Newt Gingrich. But that's a harder pill to swallow.
-
Did anyone watch the Democratic debate in Los Vegas last night? Bloomberg apparently became Target #1. I suspect he will now have to do what the rest of them do when they enter such a race: face your past and deal with the brutal transparency of modern day elections.
In attacking the wealth of Bloomberg, Sanders also turns a potentially uncomfortable light back on himself. As a Democratic Socialist who often berates the evils of capitalism, he is also a man of considerable wealth himself.
Obviously who ends us as a "winner" or "loser" is in the eye of the pundit. Warren took the gloves off and landed some fairly good punches, it is observed. She was morally incensed at Bloomberg. Not sure he did a very good job of responding. The pile up on Bloomberg took the heat, to some degree, off of Sanders. So he did well, some also observe, if simply dodging the worst of the attacks. The others had their moments, but not sure how much of a 'bounce' they will experience out of this.
-
Did anyone watch the Democratic debate in Los Vegas last night? Bloomberg apparently became Target #1. I suspect he will now have to do what the rest of them do when they enter such a race: face your past and deal with the brutal transparency of modern day elections.
In attacking the wealth of Bloomberg, Sanders also turns a potentially uncomfortable light back on himself. As a Democratic Socialist who often berates the evils of capitalism, he is also a man of considerable wealth himself.
Obviously who ends us as a "winner" or "loser" is in the eye of the pundit. Warren took the gloves off and landed some fairly good punches, it is observed. She was morally incensed at Bloomberg. Not sure he did a very good job of responding. The pile up on Bloomberg took the heat, to some degree, off of Sanders. So he did well, some also observe, if simply dodging the worst of the attacks. The others had their moments, but not sure how much of a 'bounce' they will experience out of this.
A half hour in I had Buttigieg winning and Sanders looking bad, with Bloomberg of course taking by far the most hits. After it was over, I felt Warren and Biden had the best nights, Sanders held serve, Mayor Pete held serve or had a slight decline, Klobuchar is done, and Bloomberg likely needs medical attention after the beating he took.
-
When Biden entered the race it seemed many thought he would end up with the nomination. The problem (well, one among others) is that he is inconsistent. He has one good debate followed by a mediocre showing. I thought he and Warren were the winners last night. Buttigieg is just too scripted. Klobuchar had an awful night. She just couldn't get into the debate. Bloomberg had a brutal night and if I was a member of his staff I think I'd call in sick today ;) But I don't count him out. He may rise above all of the negative baggage (sexism, anti-racism) if the press doesn't play it up. He's a scrappy New Yorker, after all.
-
Weird... I had Warren on top, I thought Klobuchar was solid, Pete was all right. Sanders held serve... but I was completely unimpressed by Biden. Bloomberg took some shots, but also had one of the best singular lines of the night about Sanders and being a millionaire with 3 houses.
-
First, I hate the format. Waving in the hopes of being recognized makes all the candidates look like that annoying student who always sat in front of the class room begging to be called on. And none of them ever really have time to develop substantive arguments. These things wouldn't make the kind of great reading that Messrs. Lincoln and Douglas left for posterity.
That aside, I think that Warren had the best night, but am not sure that that will help her campaign much. I thought that Biden had a successful night mostly because he stayed out of the firing line. Bloomberg, Sanders, and (of all people) Klobuchar seemed to be the biggest targets. Mayor Pete may have taken down the senator from Minnesota, but he looked petty in the process and otherwise looked like a middle-school debater.
Bloomberg took some huge hits. The question, I guess, is whether he can use his money to overcome those hits and gain anti-Sanders voters. I didn't think that Sanders looked great, but his supporters probably are more cultish even than Trump's. I thing that 30-35% will stick with him no matter what he does. To borrow an inartful claim, Bernie could murder someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose voters.
Bernie's great hope has to be that several others stick around long enough to split votes through Super Tuesday or bit beyond. If that happens, Bernie may not go into Milwaukee with a majority of delegates. But if he doesn't, he'll be close. At that point, if delegates come together to nominate somewhat else, there will be hell to pay from the Bernie Bros.
-
One of the blogs that I've read today pointed to this video from the Republican debates in 2016. It does seem as if Rubio and Mayor Pete may have fallen into the same trap with, as Chris Christie put it, drive-by attacks based on incomplete facts followed by memorized sound bites. FWIW (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=145&v=CkdpzRDxTXU&feature=emb_title)
-
Bloomberg had a brutal night and if I was a member of his staff I think I'd call in sick today ;) But I don't count him out. He may rise above all of the negative baggage (sexism, anti-racism) if the press doesn't play it up. He's a scrappy New Yorker, after all.
Part of the problem with Bloomberg was the initial hype, much of it orchestrated by him via millions poured into all those ads. The debate took a lot of wind out of those sails. As an article today from FiveThirtyEight noted:
At the same time, the hype about Bloomberg — a candidate who had yet to compete in any states, to participate in any debates, or to face sustained scrutiny from the media and other candidates — had probably gotten out of hand. Prediction markets have his chances cut almost in half as a result of the debate, from about 30 percent before the debate on Wednesday to only around 15 percent as of early Thursday afternoon. That’s an awfully big correction after a single debate for which we don’t yet have any polling. It may reflect the fact that these markets — and by extension the conventional wisdom generally — had overestimated Bloomberg’s chances to begin with.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-debate-exposed-bloombergs-downside-but-it-was-there-all-along/ (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-debate-exposed-bloombergs-downside-but-it-was-there-all-along/)
But Bloomberg remains a wild card due to his uniqueness: late start and a huge self-funded campaign. He still has yet to compete in the open field. We just don't know yet. The media initially drove his popularity, but now the scrutiny kicks in and it will be interesting if that tempers a bit of the overly positive nature of his own ad campaign.
According to FiveThirtyEight 's projections as to delegate count, Sanders still holds a high lead, followed by Biden, followed by Bloomberg. Of course, anything can happen and polls yet to come do not factor into this scenario. But they do point out some weaknesses Bloomberg has: "...his lack of polish as debater and public speaker, his past as a Republican, his status as a billionaire in the age of Sanders and Warren, his lack of practice as a candidate because of his campaign’s late start, New York’s use of the stop-and-frisk policy during his time as mayor and his relationship to black voters, his age (78)..."
Personally I think this could be Sander's opportunity, but I still believe that only a third of Democrats have truly signed on to a Democratic Socialist. Yes, this could end up a brokered convention in the end.
-
Some paragraphs from the column by David Brooks, a savvy observer, in today’s New York Times, and a link to the column.
Successful presidential candidates are mythmakers. They don’t just tell a story. They tell a story that helps people make meaning out of the current moment; that divides people into heroes and villains; that names a central challenge and explains why they are the perfect person to meet it.
In 2016 Donald Trump told a successful myth: The coastal elites are greedy, stupid people who have mismanaged the country, undermined our values and changed the face of our society. This was not an original myth; it’s been around since at least the populist revolts of the 1890s. But it’s a powerful us vs. them worldview, which resonates with a lot of people.
Trump’s followers don’t merely believe that myth. They inhabit it. It shapes how they see the world, how they put people into this category or that category. Trump can get his facts wrong as long as he gets his myth right. He can commit a million scandals, but his followers don’t see them as long as they stay embedded within that myth.
Bernie Sanders is also telling a successful myth: The corporate and Wall Street elites are rapacious monsters who hoard the nation’s wealth and oppress working families. This is not an original myth, either. It’s been around since the class-conflict agitators of 1848. It is also a very compelling us vs. them worldview that resonates with a lot of people.
....
My takeaway from Wednesday’s hellaciously entertaining Democratic debate is that Sanders is the only candidate telling a successful myth. Bloomberg, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar all make good arguments, but they haven’t organized their worldview into a simple compelling myth. You may look at them, but you don’t see the world through their eyes.
...
I’ve spent much of this election season away from the campaign rallies and interviewing voters embedded in their normal lives. This week, for example, I was in Compton and Watts in and around Los Angeles. The reality I encounter every day has little to do with the us vs. them stories Trump and Sanders are telling.
Everywhere I go I see systems that are struggling — school systems, housing systems, family structures, neighborhoods trying to bridge diversity. These problems aren’t caused by some group of intentionally evil people. They exist because living through a time of economic, technological, demographic and cultural transition is hard. Creating social trust across diversity is hard.
Everywhere I go I see a process that is the opposite of group vs. group war. It is gathering. It is people becoming extra active on the local level to repair the systems in their lives. I see a great yearning for solidarity, an eagerness to come together and make practical change.
These gathering efforts are hampered by rippers at the national level who stoke rage and fear and tell friend/enemy stories. These efforts are hampered by men like Sanders and Trump who have never worked within a party or subordinated themselves to a team — men who are one trick ponies. All they do is stand on a podium and bellow.
In the gathering myth, the heroes have traits Trump and Sanders lack: open-mindedness, flexibility, listening skills, team-building skills and basic human warmth. In this saga, leaders are measured by their ability to expand relationships, not wall them off.
The gathering myth is an alternative myth — one that has the advantage of being true.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/opinion/bernie-sanders-win-2020.html
-
David Brooks makes a good point. This may also help explain the failure of Hillary Clinton's campaign. With her neglect of northern middle America and disdain for those people she fed into Trump's myth.
-
Some paragraphs from the column by David Brooks, a savvy observer, in today’s New York Times, and a link to the column.
Successful presidential candidates are mythmakers. They don’t just tell a story. They tell a story that helps people make meaning out of the current moment; that divides people into heroes and villains; that names a central challenge and explains why they are the perfect person to meet it.
In 2016 Donald Trump told a successful myth: The coastal elites are greedy, stupid people who have mismanaged the country, undermined our values and changed the face of our society. This was not an original myth; it’s been around since at least the populist revolts of the 1890s. But it’s a powerful us vs. them worldview, which resonates with a lot of people.
Trump’s followers don’t merely believe that myth. They inhabit it. It shapes how they see the world, how they put people into this category or that category. Trump can get his facts wrong as long as he gets his myth right. He can commit a million scandals, but his followers don’t see them as long as they stay embedded within that myth.
Bernie Sanders is also telling a successful myth: The corporate and Wall Street elites are rapacious monsters who hoard the nation’s wealth and oppress working families. This is not an original myth, either. It’s been around since the class-conflict agitators of 1848. It is also a very compelling us vs. them worldview that resonates with a lot of people.
....
My takeaway from Wednesday’s hellaciously entertaining Democratic debate is that Sanders is the only candidate telling a successful myth. Bloomberg, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar all make good arguments, but they haven’t organized their worldview into a simple compelling myth. You may look at them, but you don’t see the world through their eyes.
...
I’ve spent much of this election season away from the campaign rallies and interviewing voters embedded in their normal lives. This week, for example, I was in Compton and Watts in and around Los Angeles. The reality I encounter every day has little to do with the us vs. them stories Trump and Sanders are telling.
Everywhere I go I see systems that are struggling — school systems, housing systems, family structures, neighborhoods trying to bridge diversity. These problems aren’t caused by some group of intentionally evil people. They exist because living through a time of economic, technological, demographic and cultural transition is hard. Creating social trust across diversity is hard.
Everywhere I go I see a process that is the opposite of group vs. group war. It is gathering. It is people becoming extra active on the local level to repair the systems in their lives. I see a great yearning for solidarity, an eagerness to come together and make practical change.
These gathering efforts are hampered by rippers at the national level who stoke rage and fear and tell friend/enemy stories. These efforts are hampered by men like Sanders and Trump who have never worked within a party or subordinated themselves to a team — men who are one trick ponies. All they do is stand on a podium and bellow.
In the gathering myth, the heroes have traits Trump and Sanders lack: open-mindedness, flexibility, listening skills, team-building skills and basic human warmth. In this saga, leaders are measured by their ability to expand relationships, not wall them off.
The gathering myth is an alternative myth — one that has the advantage of being true.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/opinion/bernie-sanders-win-2020.html
Thanks for this. David Brooks’ observations resonate with me, and he eloquently articulates the frustration I have with both Trump and Sanders (who seem to differ only in whom they demonize for society’s ills).
Peace,
Jon
-
Some paragraphs from the column by David Brooks, a savvy observer, in today’s New York Times, and a link to the column.
Successful presidential candidates are mythmakers. They don’t just tell a story. They tell a story that helps people make meaning out of the current moment; that divides people into heroes and villains; that names a central challenge and explains why they are the perfect person to meet it.
In 2016 Donald Trump told a successful myth: The coastal elites are greedy, stupid people who have mismanaged the country, undermined our values and changed the face of our society. This was not an original myth; it’s been around since at least the populist revolts of the 1890s. But it’s a powerful us vs. them worldview, which resonates with a lot of people.
Trump’s followers don’t merely believe that myth. They inhabit it. It shapes how they see the world, how they put people into this category or that category. Trump can get his facts wrong as long as he gets his myth right. He can commit a million scandals, but his followers don’t see them as long as they stay embedded within that myth.
Bernie Sanders is also telling a successful myth: The corporate and Wall Street elites are rapacious monsters who hoard the nation’s wealth and oppress working families. This is not an original myth, either. It’s been around since the class-conflict agitators of 1848. It is also a very compelling us vs. them worldview that resonates with a lot of people.
....
My takeaway from Wednesday’s hellaciously entertaining Democratic debate is that Sanders is the only candidate telling a successful myth. Bloomberg, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar all make good arguments, but they haven’t organized their worldview into a simple compelling myth. You may look at them, but you don’t see the world through their eyes.
...
I’ve spent much of this election season away from the campaign rallies and interviewing voters embedded in their normal lives. This week, for example, I was in Compton and Watts in and around Los Angeles. The reality I encounter every day has little to do with the us vs. them stories Trump and Sanders are telling.
Everywhere I go I see systems that are struggling — school systems, housing systems, family structures, neighborhoods trying to bridge diversity. These problems aren’t caused by some group of intentionally evil people. They exist because living through a time of economic, technological, demographic and cultural transition is hard. Creating social trust across diversity is hard.
Everywhere I go I see a process that is the opposite of group vs. group war. It is gathering. It is people becoming extra active on the local level to repair the systems in their lives. I see a great yearning for solidarity, an eagerness to come together and make practical change.
These gathering efforts are hampered by rippers at the national level who stoke rage and fear and tell friend/enemy stories. These efforts are hampered by men like Sanders and Trump who have never worked within a party or subordinated themselves to a team — men who are one trick ponies. All they do is stand on a podium and bellow.
In the gathering myth, the heroes have traits Trump and Sanders lack: open-mindedness, flexibility, listening skills, team-building skills and basic human warmth. In this saga, leaders are measured by their ability to expand relationships, not wall them off.
The gathering myth is an alternative myth — one that has the advantage of being true.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/opinion/bernie-sanders-win-2020.html
Both Sanders and Trump seem to appeal to folks who are tempted to feature themselves as victims. Not all of them are minorities. Not all of them are actual victims.
Peace, JOHN
-
I think Brooks’s article actually validates the myth-makers he decries. Brooks also divides the world into simplistic, us/them terms. Those people, the passionate Trump or Sanders crowds, live by simplistic, us/them myths. Brooks and his ilk, on the other, rise above such such divisive, unnuanced, rhetoric to examine the complex realities rather than the myths. Oddly, Brook’s “us” consists almost entirely of himself and some other highly educated, socially important people. An elite class, if you will.
Brooks is a smart, educated guy who writes well. I really enjoy many of his articles and I liked his latest book. But in reality, his political commentary here is as muddled and pretentious as his commentary about Christianity and Judaism, which he makes without seeming to fully grasp either religion nearly as well as any simple practitioner (practitioner as opposed to thinker and commenter about) of either religion grasps them.
All he really does in this article is change “shape the narrative” into myth making, and declare that everyone’s narrative but his is false.
Yes, when you have to choose between two people, you have to give up a lot of nuance. The amount of hand-wringing or high-fiving with which you cast your ballot is irrelevant. It counts as one vote. To support a candidate while constantly poking holes in that candidates reasons for running is counter-productive. When it comes time for actual action, the standard “Lead, follow, or get out of the way,” applies. Pick a side and fight for it. Or just join the chattering class that has an opinion about everything but actually advances no cause.
-
I believe that Brooks' alternative myth (solidarity) is desirable. None of the drama and dramatic rhetoric we see everyday does anything good for the nation, outside of enhancing our low level of available entertainment. I would like to see a president and legislators who are committed to unifying. Health care, infrastructure, immigration--all need attention and solutions. Maybe it is not to be but it's what I (and a probable majority) would like. :)
Peace, JOHN
-
I believe that Brooks' alternative myth (solidarity) is desirable. None of the drama and dramatic rhetoric we see everyday does anything good for the nation, outside of enhancing our low level of available entertainment. I would like to see a president and legislators who are committed to unifying. Health care, infrastructure, immigration--all need attention and solutions. Maybe it is not to be but it's what I (and a probable majority) would like. :)
Peace, JOHN
I think everyone (with the exception of the most committed Klansmen and/or identity politics oriented Marxists) is committed to unifying. What's stopping everyone from donning a MAGA hat and unifying behind the goal of making America great again? Well, they don't want to. That vision of unity is something they feel separate/divided from. And the same thing would happen with a candidate's "Unify America" slogan. Such a candidate might win an election with 52% of the vote, but that would still mean 48% of the people weren't on board with being unified.
-
I believe that Brooks' alternative myth (solidarity) is desirable. None of the drama and dramatic rhetoric we see everyday does anything good for the nation, outside of enhancing our low level of available entertainment. I would like to see a president and legislators who are committed to unifying. Health care, infrastructure, immigration--all need attention and solutions. Maybe it is not to be but it's what I (and a probable majority) would like.
I think everyone (with the exception of the most committed Klansmen and/or identity politics oriented Marxists) is committed to unifying. What's stopping everyone from donning a MAGA hat and unifying behind the goal of making America great again? Well, they don't want to. That vision of unity is something they feel separate/divided from. And the same thing would happen with a candidate's "Unify America" slogan. Such a candidate might win an election with 52% of the vote, but that would still mean 48% of the people weren't on board with being unified.
Solidarity, by itself, is not a platform. Everyone favors unity in the abstract, but it cannot be successfully pursued purely for its own sake. We all want everyone to agree, but the reality is that people today have sharp and abiding disagreements about fundamental issues. That is obvious not only in society, but also within the church; just read the daily exchanges on this very forum.
-
The lack of unity is evident even within the Democratic party and its constituents. Sanders wants a single-payer health care system run by the government, but he's not on board with all his fellow party members, not to mention the division within the unions.
For good or for ill Trump and Sanders have brought out the deep division within our country that we'd just as soon ignore and pretend is not there. Culturally the division has widened a lot during my lifetime, and I don't see it mending any time soon.
-
Unity and solidarity are easy - everybody agree with me. What's hard is finding common goals and crafting a platform and programs that will support common goals. Everyone ends up giving up something of what they want. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, people generally overestimate what the other should give up and underestimate what they can.
-
Sanders wants a single-payer health care system run by the government, but he's not on board with all his fellow party members, not to mention the division within the unions.
Lest we not forget, he's not even a Democrat. He's an independent who describes himself as a democratic socialist. He doesn't really have a party, except a party of one.
-
The lack of unity is evident even within the Democratic party and its constituents. Sanders wants a single-payer health care system run by the government, but he's not on board with all his fellow party members, not to mention the division within the unions.
For good or for ill Trump and Sanders have brought out the deep division within our country that we'd just as soon ignore and pretend is not there. Culturally the division has widened a lot during my lifetime, and I don't see it mending any time soon.
I actually think it may mend sooner than we realize. Demographics show that progressives don't really have children, ironically they may "cancel" themselves out. As a result, the country may actually be much more conservative in 10-20 years simply through the fact that those who are more traditional tend to have children.
Moreover, there is an embedded flaw in the critical theorist influenced frameworks aka cultural Marxists; they consistently eat their own. That's not sustainable and it's exhausting, which is why Trump was elected and will most likely win re-election.
-
There is a reason for the use of the word “progressives.” Think of progress. Think of going forward.
That is what we do. And the children and grandchildren of today’s “conservative” will find that they do not want to “conserve” the society of their youth but to “progress” to something better.
-
There is a reason for the use of the word “progressives.” Think of progress. Think of going forward.
That is what we do. And the children and grandchildren of today’s “conservative” will find that they do not want to “conserve” the society of their youth but to “progress” to something better.
In what sense is forward different from leftward? Apart from any defined destination, the direction is meaningless. You have no way of knowing whether you're going forward or backward.
-
There is a reason for the use of the word “progressives.” Think of progress. Think of going forward.
That is what we do. And the children and grandchildren of today’s “conservative” will find that they do not want to “conserve” the society of their youth but to “progress” to something better.
Marketing & Propaganda = Truth. Nice one.
-
There is a reason for the use of the word “progressives.” Think of progress. Think of going forward.
That is what we do. And the children and grandchildren of today’s “conservative” will find that they do not want to “conserve” the society of their youth but to “progress” to something better.
In what sense is forward different from leftward? Apart from any defined destination, the direction is meaningless. You have no way of knowing whether you're going forward or backward.
It's the same nonsense as "you're on the wrong side of history." History doesn't have sides. History judges the winners and losers.
-
https://heterodoxacademy.org/social-science-splitting-identity-politics/ Psychotherapist rediscovers ancient heresy....
-
There is a reason for the use of the word “progressives.” Think of progress. Think of going forward.
That is what we do. And the children and grandchildren of today’s “conservative” will find that they do not want to “conserve” the society of their youth but to “progress” to something better.
Yes, progressivism is going forward...to the steak restaurant, where you still owe me a dinner.
When are you going to pay up?
-
There is a reason for the use of the word “progressives.” Think of progress. Think of going forward.
That is what we do. And the children and grandchildren of today’s “conservative” will find that they do not want to “conserve” the society of their youth but to “progress” to something better.
A comedian noted that “pro” and “con” are opposites. So the opposite of “PROgress” would be what?
By looking back we can see what progress has been made. Could we return to the world of slavery? Or the “Trail of Tears”? Or interment camps? Or not allowing women to vote? would we want to return to the time before electricity or running water or no radios or televisions? (Of course, with 60-80 hour work weeks no one had time to sit and watch TV.) An African lady talked about how they had to walk everywhere. Often the roads become so so bad that even those who have cars can’t drive them. I was showing her around a sporting goods store because of the animal displays, and after explaining what it was, she couldn’t fathom why anyone would buy a treadmill to walk and go nowhere. (Perhaps treadmills and stairsteppers aren’t moving us ahead.)
-
There is a reason for the use of the word “progressives.” Think of progress. Think of going forward.
That is what we do. And the children and grandchildren of today’s “conservative” will find that they do not want to “conserve” the society of their youth but to “progress” to something better.
A comedian noted that “pro” and “con” are opposites. So the opposite of “PROgress” would be what?
By looking back we can see what progress has been made. Could we return to the world of slavery? Or the “Trail of Tears”? Or interment camps? Or not allowing women to vote? would we want to return to the time before electricity or running water or no radios or televisions? (Of course, with 60-80 hour work weeks no one had time to sit and watch TV.) An African lady talked about how they had to walk everywhere. Often the roads become so so bad that even those who have cars can’t drive them. I was showing her around a sporting goods store because of the animal displays, and after explaining what it was, she couldn’t fathom why anyone would buy a treadmill to walk and go nowhere. (Perhaps treadmills and stairsteppers aren’t moving us ahead.)
Ah, yes, I remember when Democrats fought for the right to running water and radios and televisions.
Also, when they fought to end slavery.
I sometimes wonder if y'all are serious about this stuff, but you appear to be. Either that or this is once again a comment from you that simply does not address the issue being discussed, even though it appears intended to do so.
-
Well, tell us what conservatives are trying to conserve.
I think of progressivism in general terms, not in political platforms. It means improvements in society, better interpersonal relations, human rights, ability to live safely, fairness and care for those in need, more access to education and to personal and economic opportunity, concern for the future of our society and the environment.
-
So according to intelligence reports the Russians want Sanders to win....so Trump can win.
Interesting.
Biden wonders why they didn't inform him of this (probably because they only informed congress). He says that the Russians don't want him as president because he won't put up with with them (and Sanders would do less?).
Here we go again.
Do we trust the American people to make informed decisions? Or do we believe that the Russians truly can swing an entire presidential election?
-
Well, tell us what conservatives are trying to conserve.
Liberty.
If you want a more expansive answer, I suggest reading this (https://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Sensibility-George-F-Will/dp/0316480932) (as I suggested earlier) by a card carrying Never Trumper. Will makes a point in the beginning to differentiate American conservatism (classical liberalism, upward mobility) from the European conservatives, who were interested in maintaining class distinctions.
Found out on Wednesday night, when I had it with me at church, that my left-of-center pastor (of your generation) has read it and loved it, even as he may not agree with everything in it. Sparked good discussions with some of his conservative friends apparently. He (and I) appreciate the unintended consequences of the welfare state, which carry over into theological considerations, even as we recognize an obligation individually and by government to help the most vulnerable.
-
Trump was an unprincipled Democrat-of-convenience for years before launching his hostile takeover of the GOP. Mike Bloomberg is the opposite-- a GOP mayor merely because he could follow in Rudy's footsteps that way, but with virtually no resemblance to Republicans generally, who is now seeking to become the Dem candidate. Trump has proven remarkably loyal to the GOP base, and it could conceivably turn out that Bloomberg would reward the progressives who hold their noses to vote for him with left wing policy victories. But who knows? He seems to be running on an entirely pragmatist platform-- Mike Will Get It Done!. Seems to me like a stupid slogan; the whole point of the election is to determine what it is that we want to get done.
Bloomberg seems to me to have all the liabilities Trump has. In fact, some of those liabilities that Trump is always accused of having without much by way of evidence, like a long history of racism, Bloomberg has in reality. Bloomberg's religion doesn't appear to be any more coherent or sincere than Trump's. His array of NDAs doesn't speak to any sort of life of personal virtue. So my question to the board, especially for those who genuinely could not in good conscience vote for Trump, is could you vote for Bloomberg?
-
So according to intelligence reports the Russians want Sanders to win....so Trump can win.
Interesting.
Biden wonders why they didn't inform him of this (probably because they only informed congress). He says that the Russians don't want him as president because he won't put up with with them (and Sanders would do less?).
Here we go again.
Do we trust the American people to make informed decisions? Or do we believe that the Russians truly can swing an entire presidential election?
You realize, of course, that intelligence reports of who Russia wants to win would only ever be reported, by Russian or American intelligence, for propaganda purposes? Wondering or caring who Russia wants to win the election is like listening to a radio commercial that begins with, "Call for this information about precious metals that the Big Banks do NOT want you to know..." The listener is just being played by taking it seriously. If they thought the price of gold was going to go way up, they wouldn't be going on the radio trying to convince you to buy it from them.
If we want Russia to have less influence, we'll support energy independence, a strong military, and protectionist trade policies. Presumably, if Russia really is opposed to us, those are all things the Russians wish we didn't have. But Russia also knows they are the bogeyman of American politics, and that letting it be known who they want to win will likely detract from that person's support.
If the RNC leaked, or allowed their internal discussions to be compromised, letting it be known that they're terrified Hillary Clinton will enter the race but they're really hoping Trump gets to face Sanders, would that change how you vote in the primary? If so, I've got the deal of the century for you at this 900 number...
-
Well, tell us what conservatives are trying to conserve.
I think of progressivism in general terms, not in political platforms. It means improvements in society, better interpersonal relations, human rights, ability to live safely, fairness and care for those in need, more access to education and to personal and economic opportunity, concern for the future of our society and the environment.
Conservatives seek to conserve the great deposit of Western Christian civilization. Progressives, as they like to call themselves, find this goal repulsive because they, in fact, hate Western Christian civilization because it is not controllable by ideologues, living, as it does, in the hearts and minds of people, passed down over generations and reminding us always that we stand on the shoulders of giants.
-
There is a reason for the use of the word “progressives.” Think of progress. Think of going forward.
That is what we do.
Here in Illinois, Gov. Pritzker is counting on that use as we vote in November whether or not to permit the state to apply a progressive income tax -- where the state takes a progressively greater portion of one's increasing (progressing) earnings.
It is all too easy to appear to be making progress when actually pushing others backward.
-
There is a reason for the use of the word “progressives.” Think of progress. Think of going forward.
That is what we do. And the children and grandchildren of today’s “conservative” will find that they do not want to “conserve” the society of their youth but to “progress” to something better.
A comedian noted that “pro” and “con” are opposites. So the opposite of “PROgress” would be what?
By looking back we can see what progress has been made. Could we return to the world of slavery? Or the “Trail of Tears”? Or interment camps? Or not allowing women to vote? would we want to return to the time before electricity or running water or no radios or televisions? (Of course, with 60-80 hour work weeks no one had time to sit and watch TV.) An African lady talked about how they had to walk everywhere. Often the roads become so so bad that even those who have cars can’t drive them. I was showing her around a sporting goods store because of the animal displays, and after explaining what it was, she couldn’t fathom why anyone would buy a treadmill to walk and go nowhere. (Perhaps treadmills and stairsteppers aren’t moving us ahead.)
Ah, yes, I remember when Democrats fought for the right to running water and radios and televisions.
Also, when they fought to end slavery.
I sometimes wonder if y'all are serious about this stuff, but you appear to be. Either that or this is once again a comment from you that simply does not address the issue being discussed, even though it appears intended to do so.
This particular thread was about progress. Are we as a nation progressing towards something? I suggest that we can discover somewhat where we are heading by looking back to where we were. One indication is how females and people of color have gained greater equality. I suspect our nation to continue to improve in ways all people are given civil rights. It's even more important as our nation has become more diverse in the number of minorities, in broadening gender identities, greater variety in religions, etc.
-
So according to intelligence reports the Russians want Sanders to win....so Trump can win.
Interesting.
Biden wonders why they didn't inform him of this (probably because they only informed congress). He says that the Russians don't want him as president because he won't put up with with them (and Sanders would do less?).
Here we go again.
Do we trust the American people to make informed decisions? Or do we believe that the Russians truly can swing an entire presidential election?
From the number of erroneous posts I see on facebook that are believed, but could easily checked using Snopes or some other fact site, yes, I'm certain that Russians posting on Facebook can influence people's thinking. (If our opinions are not under the influence of others, why are there so many advertisements trying to influence us? And some succeed.)
-
Well, tell us what conservatives are trying to conserve.
I think of progressivism in general terms, not in political platforms. It means improvements in society, better interpersonal relations, human rights, ability to live safely, fairness and care for those in need, more access to education and to personal and economic opportunity, concern for the future of our society and the environment.
Conservatives seek to conserve the great deposit of Western Christian civilization. Progressives, as they like to call themselves, find this goal repulsive because they, in fact, hate Western Christian civilization because it is not controllable by ideologues, living, as it does, in the hearts and minds of people, passed down over generations and reminding us always that we stand on the shoulders of giants.
The Western Christian civilization that enslaved blacks, treated Natives they found in the New World as less than human? (There were discussions about whether or not the Natives had souls and thus could be saved.) There was also that period where Western Christians killed Eastern Christians on their way to kill Muslims.
Much of Western Christian history needs to be undone. It needs to be replaced with biblical Christianity that follows the teachings of Jesus. As one write describes it, the original Christianity that believers were willing to die for turned into a Christianity that believers were willing to kill for.
-
Well, tell us what conservatives are trying to conserve.
I think of progressivism in general terms, not in political platforms. It means improvements in society, better interpersonal relations, human rights, ability to live safely, fairness and care for those in need, more access to education and to personal and economic opportunity, concern for the future of our society and the environment.
Conservatives seek to conserve the great deposit of Western Christian civilization. Progressives, as they like to call themselves, find this goal repulsive because they, in fact, hate Western Christian civilization because it is not controllable by ideologues, living, as it does, in the hearts and minds of people, passed down over generations and reminding us always that we stand on the shoulders of giants.
The Western Christian civilization that enslaved blacks, treated Natives they found in the New World as less than human? (There were discussions about whether or not the Natives had souls and thus could be saved.) There was also that period where Western Christians killed Eastern Christians on their way to kill Muslims.
Much of Western Christian history needs to be undone. It needs to be replaced with biblical Christianity that follows the teachings of Jesus. As one write describes it, the original Christianity that believers were willing to die for turned into a Christianity that believers were willing to kill for.
Although yes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia_semper_reformanda_est , I would suggest your view of history stated above is not entirely accurate or helpful. A great read on at least the first 16 centuries of Christian history can be found here:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1681921480?pf_rd_p=ab873d20-a0ca-439b-ac45-cd78f07a84d8&pf_rd_r=APBNTN4A6YJ5P85YPJGG
And if you are of the view that God at some point ceased to guide His Church (as he promised He would do until the end of time), and that it is not only in need of reform, but is corrupt and a force for evil needing to be rebuilt and purified by 'us' and our enlightened understanding of 'the bible', then I would have to disagree.
Let us pray that God provide the true reformation and that we remain open to His will. May we be contrite enough to recognize our own failings in this day and age, even as we ask mercy for the failings (in practice, not teaching) of all who have gone before us, failing in their own ways. We too, fail an entire class of people today by our silence and complicity, that is the unborn. Some 'true believers' celebrate their own taking of human life as sacred and freeing (the vast, vast majority do not, they experience great pain). Some Christians even practice it, as they did slavery. Some Christians even teach that this is an option open to them, that the child within them is less than human, and therefore can be treated as refuge. If we who claim to follow Christ cannot be one on this, then the reform clearly needs to begin right here with us in our own hearts.
"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me. Father, they are your gift to me. I wish that where I am* they also may be with me, that they may see my glory that you gave me, because you loved me before the foundation of the world" ~ John 17
"May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to think in harmony with one another, in keeping with Christ Jesus, that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." ~ Romans 15:5
-
Well, tell us what conservatives are trying to conserve.
I think of progressivism in general terms, not in political platforms. It means improvements in society, better interpersonal relations, human rights, ability to live safely, fairness and care for those in need, more access to education and to personal and economic opportunity, concern for the future of our society and the environment.
Well, yeah, it's easy to thin of "progressivism in general terms." That way, you can fill it with whatever you want. You know, like betting a steak dinner when you have no intention of actually keeping the terms of your bet.
But the reality of progressivism is another matter. Let's look at the hero of the progressive movement: Woodrow Wilson. He resegrated civil service, even segregating bathrooms. You ever read "Hidden Figures"? Black women had to run across the federal campus to use the black bathroom. That was courtesy of Progressive Wilson.
He also threw civil rights leader William Monroe Trotter out of the Oval Office, because he had the audacity to object to Jim Crow and the segregation of the Federal work force under Wilson. As the New York Press headline read, "Wilson Rebukes Negro Who ‘Talks Up’ to Him.”
Let's look at another progressive hero: Edward Kennedy. Yep, the liberal lion, who allowed Mary Jo Kopechne to drown in his car in 1969 (obviously, he was a great promoter of equal rights: women could drown, he could run off). Then, in 1985, he and fellow progressive senator Chris Dodd took part in a "waitress sandwich" (https://www.courant.com/opinion/op-ed/hc-op-rennie-dodd-kennedy-waitress-sandwich-1119-20171115-column.html). Once again, his progressive support for women is obvious.
Finally, let's look at progressive hero Bill DeBlasio's mayoralty in New York City. The homicide rate is up, the subways are being spray painted, and the squeegee boys are back.
But let's leave the progressive men. Let's look at wonderful progressive paradises like...San Francisco. Here's your progressive poop detector. Make sure you take along a scooper. https://wmmr.com/2019/04/17/someone-made-an-interactive-san-francisco-poop-map/ We won't talk about the cost of housing and the number of homeless.
Baltimore: here's your database of Progressive homicides (https://homicides.news.baltimoresun.com; notice that most are minority.)
Then there is Illinois, the state that I lived in for seven years. Chicago has one of the highest homicide rates in the country (although has dropped in recent years). It has a looming pension crisis which is going to cause all kinds of trouble.
I won't even mention my current home commonwealth of Massachusetts. But I could tell plenty of stories (like progressive riots over busing the 1970s, the progressive Bulger brothers, etc.) Ah heck. You want some cool free stuff? Go to Boston. Shop lift whatever you want. The progressive DA has made it clear that she won't prosecute. You can also receive stolen property.
Finally, let's look at progressive hero Bill DeBlasio's mayoralty in New York City. The homicide rate is up, the subways are being spray painted, and the squeegee boys are back.
Then there are the progressive policy winners throughout time, e.g. Prohibition. That was a winner if ever there was one!
And Jim Crow.
But by all means, let's talk about progressivism in "general terms." It's much better than the specific realities.
And you owe me a steak dinner.
-
The recent Democratic candidates' debates showcase a heavily Progressive cast. All of those currently in the mix (as of Las Vegas) are progressive enough to celebrate the progress of having totally free (read: taxpayer funded) full term abortion, and some indicate that post-partum decision making is part of that package.
It seems that another definition of Progress/Progressive = Absolute Freedom to Murder the Innocents.
True totalitarians (most who self-identify as "Progressives") smile.
-
My whimsical bet, jebutler, was precisely:
There are a lot of pastors in the LCMS, and I’d bet a good steak dinner that some of them deny certain “doctrines” that you and/or the Synod consider essential.
When you have proven that there are no such pastors in the beloved synod, I invite you to dinner at Murray's in Minneapolis. Or maybe at Jax.
-
So my question to the board, especially for those who genuinely could not in good conscience vote for Trump, is could you vote for Bloomberg?
I fervently pray that is not my choice in November. It is hard to figure out whether Bloomberg or Sanders would be the most disastrous candidate.
I'm still trying to figure out whom to vote for in the California Democratic primary in ten days. (As an aside, our local paper reports today that 20% of registered voters in our county have already returned their ballots . . . which seems to indicate that a heck of a lot of people are more firmly decided than I.)
I am leaning toward Klobochar, primarily because she seems to be the only one who doesn't want to expel pro-life people from the party. (Well, I say primarily, but I also think on a whole range of issues she's the most attractive candidate.)
-
"In a searing op-ed, the former head of US Special Operations Command, who supervised the 2011 Navy Seal raid in Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden, has slammed Donald Trump’s reckless attitude towards the intelligence community saying that Americans should be afraid of the president’s actions.
Retired navy admiral William McRaven, writing in The Washington Post about the dismissal of director of national intelligence Joe Maguire, decries the fact that Mr Maguire was apparently ousted simply for doing his job – the dissemination of intelligence to elected officials.
He writes: “As Americans, we should be frightened – deeply afraid for the future of the nation. When good men and women can’t speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and character no longer matter, when presidential ego and self-preservation are more important than national security – then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil.”
Admiral McRaven opens with the famous quote from Irish statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
He lists the good men and women that have come and gone in the Trump administration: Jim Mattis, John Kelly, HR McMaster, Sue Gordon, Dan Coats, and now Joe Maguire, and later mournfully says that “in this administration, good men and women don’t last long”.
-
Well, tell us what conservatives are trying to conserve.
I think of progressivism in general terms, not in political platforms. It means improvements in society, better interpersonal relations, human rights, ability to live safely, fairness and care for those in need, more access to education and to personal and economic opportunity, concern for the future of our society and the environment.
Conservatives seek to conserve the great deposit of Western Christian civilization. Progressives, as they like to call themselves, find this goal repulsive because they, in fact, hate Western Christian civilization because it is not controllable by ideologues, living, as it does, in the hearts and minds of people, passed down over generations and reminding us always that we stand on the shoulders of giants.
The Western Christian civilization that enslaved blacks, treated Natives they found in the New World as less than human? (There were discussions about whether or not the Natives had souls and thus could be saved.) There was also that period where Western Christians killed Eastern Christians on their way to kill Muslims.
Much of Western Christian history needs to be undone. It needs to be replaced with biblical Christianity that follows the teachings of Jesus. As one write describes it, the original Christianity that believers were willing to die for turned into a Christianity that believers were willing to kill for.
You're waving the flag of historical ignorance. Can you truly believe that the "ideas" underlying much of the social views of this generation can on any level be compared to that which laid the basis of our civilization. Who is your John Locke? Where is your Martin Luther? Which politician can ever do for this country what Alfred the Great did for England? Ranting about the misdeeds of the past is generally the actions of people who know little and understand less about the sweep of history. You speak of Biblical Christianity but over and again on this forum you disagree with plain words of Scripture and substitute the latest fad in what passes for thought in this country. BTW, just what will happen when you and your cohorts "undo" our civilization, if you think those running for the Democratic nomination for president will lead the way into some sort of utopia where everybody will be happy, every professed need met and no one will try to mug you on the street, well, you're wrong.
-
My whimsical bet, jebutler, was precisely:
There are a lot of pastors in the LCMS, and I’d bet a good steak dinner that some of them deny certain “doctrines” that you and/or the Synod consider essential.
When you have proven that there are no such pastors in the beloved synod, I invite you to dinner at Murray's in Minneapolis. Or maybe at Jax.
You still haven't said why you put "doctrine" in scare quotes.
Thank you for quoting your words. You will note that you used the word "essential" at the end. (“doctrines” that you and/or the Synod consider essential.) That is the key word. You did not say "doctrine" in general, but doctrines that I and/or the Synod would "consider essential."
You listed five examples. I noted that I did not consider many of them to be essential. There may be pastors who, for example, support women's ordination or same sex marriage in our Synod. But I do not consider those to be essential doctrines nor has the Synod said they are essential doctrines.
You then listed the Virgin Birth of Christ. Since that is confessed in the Creed, of course it is essential. But I doubt you will find any LCMS pastor who denies it. The same with the two natures of Christ.
What is considered "essential" in the LCMS is defined in Article II of the Synod's Constitution:
The Synod, and every member of the Synod, accepts without reservation:
1. The Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament as the written Word of
God and the only rule and norm of faith and of practice;
2. All the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God, to wit: the three Ecumenical Creeds (the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed), the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the Large Catechism of
Luther, the Small Catechism of Luther, and the Formula of Concord.
So, all you need to do is find LCMS pastors who denies these two articles. I doubt you will do that.
Not interested in Minnesota steak. Kansas City steak is all I'd travel for. You can send me gift cards to Ruth's Chris in Boston or Del Frisco in Westwood, MA.
You set the essential parameters for the debate. I won following your own essential rules. Essentially, can pay up or you can show that your word is essentially worth nothing. After all, is there anything more essential than honoring promises you made publicly?
Aren't you glad you chose to use the adjective "essential" in your bet? I am.
-
Well, tell us what conservatives are trying to conserve.
I think of progressivism in general terms, not in political platforms. It means improvements in society, better interpersonal relations, human rights, ability to live safely, fairness and care for those in need, more access to education and to personal and economic opportunity, concern for the future of our society and the environment.
Conservatives seek to conserve the great deposit of Western Christian civilization. Progressives, as they like to call themselves, find this goal repulsive because they, in fact, hate Western Christian civilization because it is not controllable by ideologues, living, as it does, in the hearts and minds of people, passed down over generations and reminding us always that we stand on the shoulders of giants.
The Western Christian civilization that enslaved blacks, treated Natives they found in the New World as less than human? (There were discussions about whether or not the Natives had souls and thus could be saved.) There was also that period where Western Christians killed Eastern Christians on their way to kill Muslims.
Much of Western Christian history needs to be undone. It needs to be replaced with biblical Christianity that follows the teachings of Jesus. As one write describes it, the original Christianity that believers were willing to die for turned into a Christianity that believers were willing to kill for.
Some enlightened thinkers throwing off that burdensome yoke of Christianity attempted this during the twentieth century...the body count was even more appalling. :'(
Your "faith" in progress, as well as your willful, selective ignorance of history, chills me to the core. I don't know why you think your theocracy will be different than all it precedes. It does accurately reflect the progressive conceit that the only thing which prevented prior attempts succeeding was not having the right technocrats running it. If there is one indisputable truth Christianity teaches, it's that such people can never exist.
-
"In a searing op-ed, the former head of US Special Operations Command, who supervised the 2011 Navy Seal raid in Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden, has slammed Donald Trump’s reckless attitude towards the intelligence community saying that Americans should be afraid of the president’s actions.
Retired navy admiral William McRaven, writing in The Washington Post about the dismissal of director of national intelligence Joe Maguire, decries the fact that Mr Maguire was apparently ousted simply for doing his job – the dissemination of intelligence to elected officials.
He writes: “As Americans, we should be frightened – deeply afraid for the future of the nation. When good men and women can’t speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and character no longer matter, when presidential ego and self-preservation are more important than national security – then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil.”
Admiral McRaven opens with the famous quote from Irish statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
He lists the good men and women that have come and gone in the Trump administration: Jim Mattis, John Kelly, HR McMaster, Sue Gordon, Dan Coats, and now Joe Maguire, and later mournfully says that “in this administration, good men and women don’t last long”.
Various news reports stated that an Acting DNI can only serve for a specified time period, and that Mr. Maguire's legal tenure is about over. The required action is to appoint a new Acting DNI until a permanent DNI nominee can be approved by Congress.
Could current/expiring term Acting DNI be reappointed, or not.
-
Admiral Maguire's tenure would have ended soon because he was only an interim appointee. It makes little difference; he has resigned effective yesterday.
Peace, JOHN
-
So my question to the board, especially for those who genuinely could not in good conscience vote for Trump, is could you vote for Bloomberg?
I fervently pray that is not my choice in November. It is hard to figure out whether Bloomberg or Sanders would be the most disastrous candidate.
I'm still trying to figure out whom to vote for in the California Democratic primary in ten days. (As an aside, our local paper reports today that 20% of registered voters in our county have already returned their ballots . . . which seems to indicate that a heck of a lot of people are more firmly decided than I.)
I am leaning toward Klobochar, primarily because she seems to be the only one who doesn't want to expel pro-life people from the party. (Well, I say primarily, but I also think on a whole range of issues she's the most attractive candidate.)
People say all kinds of things in primaries. Were I choosing a Democrat, it would be her or Mayor Pete (full disclosure, I have a relative who lives in South Bend and who might be getting a job with his campaign.)
-
Trump was an unprincipled Democrat-of-convenience for years before launching his hostile takeover of the GOP. Mike Bloomberg is the opposite-- a GOP mayor merely because he could follow in Rudy's footsteps that way, but with virtually no resemblance to Republicans generally, who is now seeking to become the Dem candidate. Trump has proven remarkably loyal to the GOP base, and it could conceivably turn out that Bloomberg would reward the progressives who hold their noses to vote for him with left wing policy victories. But who knows? He seems to be running on an entirely pragmatist platform-- Mike Will Get It Done!. Seems to me like a stupid slogan; the whole point of the election is to determine what it is that we want to get done.
Bloomberg seems to me to have all the liabilities Trump has. In fact, some of those liabilities that Trump is always accused of having without much by way of evidence, like a long history of racism, Bloomberg has in reality. Bloomberg's religion doesn't appear to be any more coherent or sincere than Trump's. His array of NDAs doesn't speak to any sort of life of personal virtue. So my question to the board, especially for those who genuinely could not in good conscience vote for Trump, is could you vote for Bloomberg?
If any of the other Democrats get the nod, I'll just sit out the dance. I'll pray and at the last moment, cast my ballot. If the Democrats show themselves stupid enough to go with Bloomberg, I'll have to think about giving money and time to the Trump campaign. Look at his authoritarian rule in NYC. Imagine giving him some real power. Trump is a charlatan, a grifter, and someone with a pathological need to be loved and admired. Bloomberg? He has a pathological need to impose his will on the underclasses. Don't let the whiny nebbishy voice disguise the words of someone who sees himself as an, if not the, ubermensch.
-
From the early returns on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News it appears that Bernie Sanders will win decisively in Nevada. Perhaps no Democrat can stop him and he gets the nomination. Say the election comes down to Trump versus Sanders. Would anyone here vote for Sanders? Is socialism preferable to a guy who has done a good job but talks too much and shoots from the hip?
-
Can we stop with the “socialism” threat?
Sanders is not going to impose socialism, he speaking in the broadest possible sense. I wish he hadn’t used the term, because some people are so hung up on the word that they think it means the 1920s and 1930s communism. That’s just stupid.
You got your Social Security card? Are you counting on social security to support you when you retire? That was called socialism back in the day when it was proposed.
-
From the early returns on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News it appears that Bernie Sanders will win decisively in Nevada. Perhaps no Democrat can stop him and he gets the nomination. Say the election comes down to Trump versus Sanders. Would anyone here vote for Sanders? Is socialism preferable to a guy who has done a good job but talks too much and shoots from the hip?
Supposedly he has an early "double digit lead" over his nearest rival. Biden is his nearest contender, but not too near from results so far. According to USA Today: "Entrance poll results from NBC show Sanders trouncing the field among white and Hispanic voters and holding his own among black voters. Sanders was also running neck-and-neck with Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg among voters who described themselves as moderate or conservative."
I find that last sentence surprising. Sanders doesn't impress me as anything near a "moderate or conservative." I'm not sure if some people simply think he's the most viable of the candidates and best able to face off with Trump. Interesting....
-
The Western Christian civilization that enslaved blacks, treated Natives they found in the New World as less than human?
One might note that the blacks who were slaves in parts of "Western Christian civilization" had already been enslaved by other Black and Muslim-Arab civilizations, who then sold them to Christian Europeans. One might note that native Amerindians on both continents viewed native Amerindians from other "nations" as less than "human," enslaving them and/or sacrificing them to their gods. That Western Christians even bothered to argue over the matter shows an improvement in their status.
Pax, Steven+
-
Although Sanders does not disavow the label "socialist," he doesn't seem to represent it in its purer form - the Marxist variety, if you will.
He wrongly labels the Scandinavian nations as being socialistic, and as we have discussed here before that label is not accurate. But he seems to admire what they do in terms of their social-welfare programs, which are much more extensive than what we have in the US. They practice what is sometimes called the "Nordic Model" that involves a comprehensive welfare state. They are highly democratic, but they are not, technically socialist states.
Perhaps it might help if Sanders simply said he wants an extensive welfare state where the state promotes equal distribution of wealth and guaranteed social welfare programs for all. Of course the word "welfare" might not be received any better than socialist, but then again maybe it might. And "equal distribution of wealth" always has a socialistic ring to it.
Yet setting aside the socialist label might focus the debate a bit better. We already have social-welfare programs, so that is not the issue. Social Security is not up for dissolution. We don't have to debate that. But in this country the debate does often involve taxation. How much are we willing to pay? Or is it more of a Robin Hood approach of 'robbing from the rich to give to the poor'? And if the demonized rich are taxed more heavily will the burden simply be passed down the line in higher prices for services, etc.?
And when he speaks of free college education for all, are there drawbacks? I realize that cost for higher education is out of control. Do students value what they pay for more than what is simply given to them free?
-
Well, tell us what conservatives are trying to conserve.
I think of progressivism in general terms, not in political platforms. It means improvements in society, better interpersonal relations, human rights, ability to live safely, fairness and care for those in need, more access to education and to personal and economic opportunity, concern for the future of our society and the environment.
Conservatives seek to conserve the great deposit of Western Christian civilization. Progressives, as they like to call themselves, find this goal repulsive because they, in fact, hate Western Christian civilization because it is not controllable by ideologues, living, as it does, in the hearts and minds of people, passed down over generations and reminding us always that we stand on the shoulders of giants.
The Western Christian civilization that enslaved blacks, treated Natives they found in the New World as less than human? (There were discussions about whether or not the Natives had souls and thus could be saved.) There was also that period where Western Christians killed Eastern Christians on their way to kill Muslims.
Much of Western Christian history needs to be undone. It needs to be replaced with biblical Christianity that follows the teachings of Jesus. As one write describes it, the original Christianity that believers were willing to die for turned into a Christianity that believers were willing to kill for.
You're waving the flag of historical ignorance. Can you truly believe that the "ideas" underlying much of the social views of this generation can on any level be compared to that which laid the basis of our civilization. Who is your John Locke? Where is your Martin Luther? Which politician can ever do for this country what Alfred the Great did for England? Ranting about the misdeeds of the past is generally the actions of people who know little and understand less about the sweep of history. You speak of Biblical Christianity but over and again on this forum you disagree with plain words of Scripture and substitute the latest fad in what passes for thought in this country. BTW, just what will happen when you and your cohorts "undo" our civilization, if you think those running for the Democratic nomination for president will lead the way into some sort of utopia where everybody will be happy, every professed need met and no one will try to mug you on the street, well, you're wrong.
I'm just hoping that a more Christian nation will do more for "the least of these" than what is presently being done. We lost utopia when we were kicked out of the Garden of Eden. Jesus said that we will always have poor among us - so, what are we going to do about the poor among us? We are long past the time when the appropriate action was to anoint his body for burial. He died. He was buried. He rose. He ascended.
I recently visited with a lady who had emergency surgery in the hospital. This year she's covered by medicare. Last year she had no insurance. They couldn't afford it. What are we doing to help "the least of these"? That's a plain word of scriptures. We are failing miserably when I see the homeless sleeping in our parks; when I see the refugees stuck at the border sleeping in tents; when I hear how the Native people and their sacred lands are being treated.
-
Can we stop with the “socialism” threat?
Sure, oppose the socialist Senator from Vermont and his proposals for governing the nation.
-
Well, tell us what conservatives are trying to conserve.
I think of progressivism in general terms, not in political platforms. It means improvements in society, better interpersonal relations, human rights, ability to live safely, fairness and care for those in need, more access to education and to personal and economic opportunity, concern for the future of our society and the environment.
Conservatives seek to conserve the great deposit of Western Christian civilization. Progressives, as they like to call themselves, find this goal repulsive because they, in fact, hate Western Christian civilization because it is not controllable by ideologues, living, as it does, in the hearts and minds of people, passed down over generations and reminding us always that we stand on the shoulders of giants.
The Western Christian civilization that enslaved blacks, treated Natives they found in the New World as less than human? (There were discussions about whether or not the Natives had souls and thus could be saved.) There was also that period where Western Christians killed Eastern Christians on their way to kill Muslims.
Much of Western Christian history needs to be undone. It needs to be replaced with biblical Christianity that follows the teachings of Jesus. As one write describes it, the original Christianity that believers were willing to die for turned into a Christianity that believers were willing to kill for.
You're waving the flag of historical ignorance. Can you truly believe that the "ideas" underlying much of the social views of this generation can on any level be compared to that which laid the basis of our civilization. Who is your John Locke? Where is your Martin Luther? Which politician can ever do for this country what Alfred the Great did for England? Ranting about the misdeeds of the past is generally the actions of people who know little and understand less about the sweep of history. You speak of Biblical Christianity but over and again on this forum you disagree with plain words of Scripture and substitute the latest fad in what passes for thought in this country. BTW, just what will happen when you and your cohorts "undo" our civilization, if you think those running for the Democratic nomination for president will lead the way into some sort of utopia where everybody will be happy, every professed need met and no one will try to mug you on the street, well, you're wrong.
I'm just hoping that a more Christian nation will do more for "the least of these" than what is presently being done. We lost utopia when we were kicked out of the Garden of Eden. Jesus said that we will always have poor among us - so, what are we going to do about the poor among us? We are long past the time when the appropriate action was to anoint his body for burial. He died. He was buried. He rose. He ascended.
I recently visited with a lady who had emergency surgery in the hospital. This year she's covered by medicare. Last year she had no insurance. They couldn't afford it. What are we doing to help "the least of these"? That's a plain word of scriptures. We are failing miserably when I see the homeless sleeping in our parks; when I see the refugees stuck at the border sleeping in tents; when I hear how the Native people and their sacred lands are being treated.
I agree that we as saved saints of Christ have a task to serve the least, the last and the lost. That's not the point of the conversation which is whether the civilization passed down by our ancestors, a civilization shaped by Christianity in significant ways, is worth preserving. You seem to think it is not. I'd like to know which non-Christian civilization you think did a better job of things.
-
Although Sanders does not disavow the label "socialist," he doesn't seem to represent it in its purer form - the Marxist variety, if you will.
He wrongly labels the Scandinavian nations as being socialistic, and as we have discussed here before that label is not accurate. But he seems to admire what they do in terms of their social-welfare programs, which are much more extensive than what we have in the US. They practice what is sometimes called the "Nordic Model" that involves a comprehensive welfare state. They are highly democratic, but they are not, technically socialist states.
What determines a socialist state?
My New Oxford American dictionary gives the following for socialism (boldface added):
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
• policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
• (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
The term “socialism” has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market.The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended toward social democracy.
I added the boldface because the definition doesn't require "the community as a whole" to be the government. It can be a family that decides how their family income is spent. It can be a farmers' co-op that decides what they will buy and sell as a group.
It isn't about giving free stuff; but more like parents giving their children who are not yet able to work what they need. A church, a city, a state, and the federal government may have different definition of who the needy are among us and what is the best way to help them with their needs.
Perhaps it might help if Sanders simply said he wants an extensive welfare state where the state promotes equal distribution of wealth and guaranteed social welfare programs for all. Of course the word "welfare" might not be received any better than socialist, but then again maybe it might. And "equal distribution of wealth" always has a socialistic ring to it.
As the definition indicates, socialism is not about an "equal distribution of wealth" - unless the community as a whole decides it. Socialism is about who makes the decisions.
Yet setting aside the socialist label might focus the debate a bit better. We already have social-welfare programs, so that is not the issue. Social Security is not up for dissolution. We don't have to debate that. But in this country the debate does often involve taxation. How much are we willing to pay? Or is it more of a Robin Hood approach of 'robbing from the rich to give to the poor'? And if the demonized rich are taxed more heavily will the burden simply be passed down the line in higher prices for services, etc.?
Socialism isn't about taxation. It's about who makes the decisions. When a city brings a school bond issue to the families in the school district to have them make the decision about raising their taxes for a better education for the children in the district - I see that as socialism. (They may also decide not to raise their taxes, but then I don't think they should complain when the grocery teller can't count back change.)
And when he speaks of free college education for all, are there drawbacks? I realize that cost for higher education is out of control. Do students value what they pay for more than what is simply given to them free?
The higher education of my brothers and me was free. Our mother paid for it. We value it. We value getting through college (and two of us, graduate schools) with no student debt.
Our sons weren't as fortunate. What they value is having good jobs (paying more than twice what I ever received) because of their education, that allow them to live comfortably while paying off their college debts. (They did not become ordained minister nor work for the church in any way.)
-
Do we trust the American people to make informed decisions? Or do we believe that the Russians truly can swing an entire presidential election?
From the number of erroneous posts I see on facebook that are believed, but could easily checked using Snopes or some other fact site, yes, I'm certain that Russians posting on Facebook can influence people's thinking. (If our opinions are not under the influence of others, why are there so many advertisements trying to influence us? And some succeed.)
A serious question — Do you think universal suffrage was a mistake? The original restriction of suffrage to property owners was based on the theory that voting should only be entrusted to those with a sufficient “stake in society” to use the suffrage wisely. If large numbers of Americans base their votes on foolish, easily-falsifiable claims they see on social media, we have a problem that is too big to be solved simply by regulating Facebook more aggressively. It is a little rich to hear the same people argue both that (1) Americans are too-easily duped by what they see on social media, and (2) it is outrageous that some states have voter registration requirements that require a modicum of public engagement and planning ability.
Peace,
Jon
-
We are failing miserably when I see the homeless sleeping in our parks; when I see the refugees stuck at the border sleeping in tents; when I hear how the Native people and their sacred lands are being treated.
We need to be careful not to overlook the issues that are often behind some of these situations. Like the homeless man sleeping in the park. I remember when Michigan de-institutionalized the mental health system in the 1980s and decided that housing the mentally ill was not proper. They created a homeless crisis since many of these people lacked the skills and abilities to adapt to regular living arrangements. Or alcoholism and drug addiction. Some people will not submit to treatment and refuse help and become homeless as they spend whatever they have on the next hit or drink.
The refugee situation is a lot more complex as well. Yes, there are people fleeing dangerous living situations. But that does not define them all. Some simply leave with a hope that a better life awaits them (or one where they can earn more), but they leave without any real planning on how they will work and live once they get there. They leave without understanding immigration restrictions and are not properly informed on what they will face once they reach the border. Is it our responsibility to make sure every potential immigrant knows what the laws are at our border, or should their own countries assume some responsibility?
As for Native Americans your area must be different than mine. We have a number of native reservations in Wisconsin, one merely 5 miles from my home (the Menominee Reservation). I don't hear about any problems with their "sacred" places being mistreated. The tribes seem to co-exist with non-natives well in this area. Of course the casinos provide a reason to maintain a good economic relationship with those outside their area.
-
I agree that we as saved saints of Christ have a task to serve the least, the last and the lost. That's not the point of the conversation which is whether the civilization passed down by our ancestors, a civilization shaped by Christianity in significant ways, is worth preserving. You seem to think it is not. I'd like to know which non-Christian civilization you think did a better job of things.
The "Christianity" that shaped Western civilization was flawed. Martin Luther pointed out some of the flaws. Martin Luther King, Jr. pointed out some others. God's people have never been very good at living the lives God intended for them/us. Adam and Eve failed. Cain failed. The people in Noah's day failed. There was the golden calf. The kings and people of the northern kingdom failed so badly, that they ceased to exist. That was nearly the fate of the southern kingdom, too. Of Jesus' selected followers, Judas betrayed. Peter denied. All ran away.
We work to create a nation with the best and most just laws possible to curb our sinful ways; to punish those who do evil; to encourage righteous deeds like caring for the least of these.
-
Do we trust the American people to make informed decisions? Or do we believe that the Russians truly can swing an entire presidential election?
From the number of erroneous posts I see on facebook that are believed, but could easily checked using Snopes or some other fact site, yes, I'm certain that Russians posting on Facebook can influence people's thinking. (If our opinions are not under the influence of others, why are there so many advertisements trying to influence us? And some succeed.)
A serious question — Do you think universal suffrage was a mistake? The original restriction of suffrage to property owners was based on the theory that voting should only be entrusted to those with a sufficient “stake in society” to use the suffrage wisely. If large numbers of Americans base their votes on foolish, easily-falsifiable claims they see on social media, we have a problem that is too big to be solved simply by regulating Facebook more aggressively. It is a little rich to hear the same people argue both that (1) Americans are too-easily duped by what they see on social media, and (2) it is outrageous that some states have voter registration requirements that require a modicum of public engagement and planning ability.
Universal suffrage goes hand-in-hand with free, quality public education. An uninformed, too-easily duped population is one result of poor education. Another one we face in our community is the recruitment of health professionals. Those with children look at our poor education system, and take their skills elsewhere.
Having communities vote to raise taxes so that teachers, buildings, curriculums, etc. are improved for the education of our youth is socialism in my understanding of the word. It is good for the nation.
-
Although Sanders does not disavow the label "socialist," he doesn't seem to represent it in its purer form - the Marxist variety, if you will.
He wrongly labels the Scandinavian nations as being socialistic, and as we have discussed here before that label is not accurate. But he seems to admire what they do in terms of their social-welfare programs, which are much more extensive than what we have in the US. They practice what is sometimes called the "Nordic Model" that involves a comprehensive welfare state. They are highly democratic, but they are not, technically socialist states.
What determines a socialist state?
My New Oxford American dictionary gives the following for socialism (boldface added):
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
• policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
• (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
The term “socialism” has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market.The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended toward social democracy.
I added the boldface because the definition doesn't require "the community as a whole" to be the government. It can be a family that decides how their family income is spent. It can be a farmers' co-op that decides what they will buy and sell as a group.
It isn't about giving free stuff; but more like parents giving their children who are not yet able to work what they need. A church, a city, a state, and the federal government may have different definition of who the needy are among us and what is the best way to help them with their needs.
Perhaps it might help if Sanders simply said he wants an extensive welfare state where the state promotes equal distribution of wealth and guaranteed social welfare programs for all. Of course the word "welfare" might not be received any better than socialist, but then again maybe it might. And "equal distribution of wealth" always has a socialistic ring to it.
As the definition indicates, socialism is not about an "equal distribution of wealth" - unless the community as a whole decides it. Socialism is about who makes the decisions.
Yet setting aside the socialist label might focus the debate a bit better. We already have social-welfare programs, so that is not the issue. Social Security is not up for dissolution. We don't have to debate that. But in this country the debate does often involve taxation. How much are we willing to pay? Or is it more of a Robin Hood approach of 'robbing from the rich to give to the poor'? And if the demonized rich are taxed more heavily will the burden simply be passed down the line in higher prices for services, etc.?
Socialism isn't about taxation. It's about who makes the decisions. When a city brings a school bond issue to the families in the school district to have them make the decision about raising their taxes for a better education for the children in the district - I see that as socialism. (They may also decide not to raise their taxes, but then I don't think they should complain when the grocery teller can't count back change.)
And when he speaks of free college education for all, are there drawbacks? I realize that cost for higher education is out of control. Do students value what they pay for more than what is simply given to them free?
The higher education of my brothers and me was free. Our mother paid for it. We value it. We value getting through college (and two of us, graduate schools) with no student debt.
Our sons weren't as fortunate. What they value is having good jobs (paying more than twice what I ever received) because of their education, that allow them to live comfortably while paying off their college debts. (They did not become ordained minister nor work for the church in any way.)
I believe that it is fair to say that Sanders wishes to see the one paying for these services as the government, and by extension the tax payers. Medicare for All is not simply a community health insurance co-op. And so, yes, taxes do enter into the question. A lot of taxes. As to exactly who will pay these increased taxes is up for debate. Democrats insist that it is the "billionaires" and the "corporations" that will pay them. One possible tax solution Sanders has suggested is a 4% "income based premium" assessed on all households making over $29,000.
Again, if we want to be accurate, what Sanders is pushing is a welfare state. But such a state must be paid for, and the main way it is paid for is in taxes.
-
We are failing miserably when I see the homeless sleeping in our parks; when I see the refugees stuck at the border sleeping in tents; when I hear how the Native people and their sacred lands are being treated.
We need to be careful not to overlook the issues that are often behind some of these situations. Like the homeless man sleeping in the park. I remember when Michigan de-institutionalized the mental health system in the 1980s and decided that housing the mentally ill was not proper. They created a homeless crisis since many of these people lacked the skills and abilities to adapt to regular living arrangements. Or alcoholism and drug addiction. Some people will not submit to treatment and refuse help and become homeless as they spend whatever they have on the next hit or drink.
So we then, as a community of concerned citizens, vote to raise taxes so that the mentally ill can be housed and treated? When I worked at an alcoholic rehab hospital, we had many clients who were forced to be there. They couldn't refuse treatment. (Well, they could, but then they would go to jail.) Both treatment and jail require someone to pay for it. More taxes.
The refugee situation is a lot more complex as well. Yes, there are people fleeing dangerous living situations. But that does not define them all. Some simply leave with a hope that a better life awaits them (or one where they can earn more), but they leave without any real planning on how they will work and live once they get there. They leave without understanding immigration restrictions and are not properly informed on what they will face once they reach the border. Is it our responsibility to make sure every potential immigrant knows what the laws are at our border, or should their own countries assume some responsibility?
Our laws keep changing. Actually, as I see it, Trump's policies are trying to skirt the laws that we have. Anyone from any country except Mexico and Canada, on American land and asks for asylum is to be given a court hearing and is allowed to stay in America legally until the court date. It doesn't matter if they got onto American land legally or illegally, the asylum rule applies. Keeping them in Mexico means that we don't have to follow our rules. Requiring them to seek asylum in Mexico and be refused first, is changing our rules.
The backlash our ministerial association received in working with the Border Patrol to house, feed, clothe, clean, help with transportation, those refugee-seekers; showed that many Americans don't know what our immigration laws are. The place they were being housed was raided by the FBI. The volunteers called the head of the Border Patrol to deal with the FBI.
As for Native Americans your area must be different than mine. We have a number of native reservations in Wisconsin, one merely 5 miles from my home (the Menominee Reservation). I don't hear about any problems with their "sacred" places being mistreated. The tribes seem to co-exist with non-natives well in this area. Of course the casinos provide a reason to maintain a good economic relationship with those outside their area.
The Navajo Nation is the largest reservation in the U.S. It is mostly in Arizona, but also extends into New Mexico and Utah. For nearly 11 years, I had lunch nearly every week with a minister who was Navajo (the first female Navajo ordained in the United Methodist Church.) On a part of the reservation, their water supply was polluted. In many areas, they are more like a third-world country than in the United States: no running water; no television.
More to my post, the "Wall" is going through and destroying sacred lands. https://www.azfamily.com/video/native-american-tribe-says-border-wall-construction-destroyed-sacred-land/video_68bd71be-0dd3-5a77-8b94-5d918e33b26d.html
If I remember right, part of the pipeline controversy was the desecration of sacred native lands that it would cause.
There are two different tribes in our area with three casinos.
-
I believe that it is fair to say that Sanders wishes to see the one paying for these services as the government, and by extension the tax payers. Medicare for All is not simply a community health insurance co-op. And so, yes, taxes do enter into the question. A lot of taxes. As to exactly who will pay these increased taxes is up for debate. Democrats insist that it is the "billionaires" and the "corporations" that will pay them. One possible tax solution Sanders has suggested is a 4% "income based premium" assessed on all households making over $29,000.
Again, if we want to be accurate, what Sanders is pushing is a welfare state. But such a state must be paid for, and the main way it is paid for is in taxes.
Yes, the government is us. Too often we talk about the government as them. (This can also happen in congregations where there are factions.) We, as a nation of people, could decide that universal health care is the best thing for our nation - and that we are willing to pay for it in some way. We, as a nation of people, could decide that free college education is good for our nation - and that we are willing to pay for it in some way.
We don't get to personally make such decisions for the whole nation; but we elect representatives who are supposed to make the decisions on behalf of their constituents. They represent us. They are to work for us. This system is not perfect, but as Churchill said:
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
-
Well, tell us what conservatives are trying to conserve.
I think of progressivism in general terms, not in political platforms. It means improvements in society, better interpersonal relations, human rights, ability to live safely, fairness and care for those in need, more access to education and to personal and economic opportunity, concern for the future of our society and the environment.
Conservatives seek to conserve the great deposit of Western Christian civilization. Progressives, as they like to call themselves, find this goal repulsive because they, in fact, hate Western Christian civilization because it is not controllable by ideologues, living, as it does, in the hearts and minds of people, passed down over generations and reminding us always that we stand on the shoulders of giants.
The Western Christian civilization that enslaved blacks, treated Natives they found in the New World as less than human? (There were discussions about whether or not the Natives had souls and thus could be saved.) There was also that period where Western Christians killed Eastern Christians on their way to kill Muslims.
Much of Western Christian history needs to be undone. It needs to be replaced with biblical Christianity that follows the teachings of Jesus. As one write describes it, the original Christianity that believers were willing to die for turned into a Christianity that believers were willing to kill for.
You're waving the flag of historical ignorance. Can you truly believe that the "ideas" underlying much of the social views of this generation can on any level be compared to that which laid the basis of our civilization. Who is your John Locke? Where is your Martin Luther? Which politician can ever do for this country what Alfred the Great did for England? Ranting about the misdeeds of the past is generally the actions of people who know little and understand less about the sweep of history. You speak of Biblical Christianity but over and again on this forum you disagree with plain words of Scripture and substitute the latest fad in what passes for thought in this country. BTW, just what will happen when you and your cohorts "undo" our civilization, if you think those running for the Democratic nomination for president will lead the way into some sort of utopia where everybody will be happy, every professed need met and no one will try to mug you on the street, well, you're wrong.
I'm just hoping that a more Christian nation will do more for "the least of these" than what is presently being done. We lost utopia when we were kicked out of the Garden of Eden. Jesus said that we will always have poor among us - so, what are we going to do about the poor among us? We are long past the time when the appropriate action was to anoint his body for burial. He died. He was buried. He rose. He ascended.
I recently visited with a lady who had emergency surgery in the hospital. This year she's covered by medicare. Last year she had no insurance. They couldn't afford it. What are we doing to help "the least of these"? That's a plain word of scriptures. We are failing miserably when I see the homeless sleeping in our parks; when I see the refugees stuck at the border sleeping in tents; when I hear how the Native people and their sacred lands are being treated.
Is it all up to us? Who are these “Us”? These projections are yours and those who share them. Help happens here and there. I don’t think social planning can do it however.
-
What determines a socialist state?
...
I added the boldface because the definition doesn't require "the community as a whole" to be the government. It can be a family that decides how their family income is spent. It can be a farmers' co-op that decides what they will buy and sell as a group.
In the course of defining what a socialist state is, again you jump from "the community as a whole" to a family or a farmer's co-op. A family is awfully small to be described as "the community as a whole". A "farmer's co-op" is a corporation (e.g., Land O'Lakes, Inc. (https://www.landolakesinc.com/) is a co-op).
Your understanding of "socialism" is flawed.
-
Yes, the government is us. Too often we talk about the government as them.
This, barely 45 minutes after declaring
I added the boldface because the definition doesn't require "the community as a whole" to be the government. It can be a family that decides how their family income is spent. It can be a farmers' co-op that decides what they will buy and sell as a group.
So what the dictionary giveth the Constitution taketh away?
It is always a joy attempting meaningful dialogue with you. Not.
-
Steven writes (to Brian):
It is always a joy attempting meaningful dialogue with you. Not.
I comment:
Then don’t. Ignore. Your one-line shots are not meaningful dialogue Either and are very tiresome.
-
My estimate is that it is unlikely that Sanders or Warren could win in November. Perhaps one could; I confess that I didn't think Trump could on 23 February 2016.
But then it is even more unlikely that any radical proposals could pass the Congress. Remember, "repeal and replace Obamacare" or "a great, beautiful wall."
Peace, JOHN
-
"Universal suffrage goes hand-in-hand with free, quality public education." To say that something is both "free" and "quality" is an oxymoron.
-
My estimate is that it is unlikely that Sanders or Warren could win in November. Perhaps one could; I confess that I didn't think Trump could on 23 February 2016.
But then it is even more unlikely that any radical proposals could pass the Congress. Remember, "repeal and replace Obamacare" or "a great, beautiful wall."
Peace, JOHN
As much seeming momentum as Sanders now seems to have at the moment, I think that even liberal/progressive pundits realize come November there could very well be push-back. The label "socialists" resonates differently in different age groups and different parts of the country.
-
Of course education “costs.”
“Free” means you don’t have to have pockets full of money to get it.
And such education can indeed be good.
-
Can we stop with the “socialism” threat?
Sanders is not going to impose socialism, he speaking in the broadest possible sense. I wish he hadn’t used the term, because some people are so hung up on the word that they think it means the 1920s and 1930s communism. That’s just stupid.
You got your Social Security card? Are you counting on social security to support you when you retire? That was called socialism back in the day when it was proposed.
Sanders may well not be the kind of socialist exemplified by Venezuela or Zimbabwe. He may well be more in line with the Scandinavian welfare states, which contrary to much popular myth are not socialist. Nevertheless Sanders himself has chosen to embrace the socialist brand, a brand that has had many spectacular failures. It will be up to him to specify how his programs differ from the failed socialisms that litter the pages of history and the contemporary scene. He has embraced the label, he will need to demonstrate why his socialism differs from the failures that are rightly feared.
-
Of course education “costs.”
“Free” means you don’t have to have pockets full of money to get it.
And such education can indeed be good.
Free college education will likely also mean governmental controlled education (he who pays the piper...). It will also likely all but eliminate private higher education, especially religious higher education. Why pay good money for students to obtain a private higher education (scholarships, Pell Grant's, student loans, etc.) when you're already providing free tuition to state schools.
By the by, the Left has shown no less of an inclination to authoritarianism than the right.
-
Pastor Fienen:
It will also likely all but eliminate private higher education, especially religious higher education.
Me:
Why? If we Really want a certain kind of “religious” higher education, we can provide it on our own.
-
"Universal suffrage goes hand-in-hand with free, quality public education." To say that something is both "free" and "quality" is an oxymoron.
The gospel is free and quality. (Jesus paid for it.)
We offer free worship service. Hopefully, they are also quality. (Members should be paying so that it can be offered for free to those who cannot afford to give generously.)
-
Can we stop with the “socialism” threat?
Sanders is not going to impose socialism, he speaking in the broadest possible sense. I wish he hadn’t used the term, because some people are so hung up on the word that they think it means the 1920s and 1930s communism. That’s just stupid.
You got your Social Security card? Are you counting on social security to support you when you retire? That was called socialism back in the day when it was proposed.
Sanders may well not be the kind of socialist exemplified by Venezuela or Zimbabwe. He may well be more in line with the Scandinavian welfare states, which contrary to much popular myth are not socialist. Nevertheless Sanders himself has chosen to embrace the socialist brand, a brand that has had many spectacular failures. It will be up to him to specify how his programs differ from the failed socialisms that litter the pages of history and the contemporary scene. He has embraced the label, he will need to demonstrate why his socialism differs from the failures that are rightly feared.
I believe that he is looking back to the '50s & '60s in our country when tax rates were much, much higher for the wealthy, and the federal government was able to do much, much more for the good of our country; like putting a man on the moon, building the interstate highway system. (Granted, there were also some not-so-good things, too, like Vietnam, and later Watergate that eroded the people's trust in the government.
-
Of course education “costs.”
“Free” means you don’t have to have pockets full of money to get it.
And such education can indeed be good.
Free college education will likely also mean governmental controlled education (he who pays the piper...). It will also likely all but eliminate private higher education, especially religious higher education. Why pay good money for students to obtain a private higher education (scholarships, Pell Grant's, student loans, etc.) when you're already providing free tuition to state schools.
By the by, the Left has shown no less of an inclination to authoritarianism than the right.
Perhaps religious education should be put back into the churches.
-
Of course education “costs.”
“Free” means you don’t have to have pockets full of money to get it.
And such education can indeed be good.
Free college education will likely also mean governmental controlled education (he who pays the piper...). It will also likely all but eliminate private higher education, especially religious higher education. Why pay good money for students to obtain a private higher education (scholarships, Pell Grant's, student loans, etc.) when you're already providing free tuition to state schools.
By the by, the Left has shown no less of an inclination to authoritarianism than the right.
Perhaps religious education should be put back into the churches.
I think he is talking about institutions like: https://www.ajcunet.edu/institutions
Just what period were these "in the churches", and would love to hear you unpack what you mean by that statement. These institutions, while born of the church, have always been at the service of all and been in the world. The Jesuits, who came on the scene post reformation, founded the schools above (and many many more). They went to the ends of the Earth. While they were of the church, they were most certainly living out their calling in the world, not restrained or confined 'in the church'.
Many of them have made enormous contributions to academia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists
Your reaction reminds me of Pierce - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_v._Society_of_Sisters
-
Pastor Fienen:
It will also likely all but eliminate private higher education, especially religious higher education.
Me:
Why? If we Really want a certain kind of “religious” higher education, we can provide it on our own.
Do you really think students will pay fo that "certain kind of 'religious' higher education" when they can get the government kind for free?
Or are you expecting that those offering that "certain kind of 'religious' higher education" will pay for it themselves on top of paying for the government kind?
-
Of course education “costs.”
“Free” means you don’t have to have pockets full of money to get it.
And such education can indeed be good.
Free college education will likely also mean governmental controlled education (he who pays the piper...). It will also likely all but eliminate private higher education, especially religious higher education. Why pay good money for students to obtain a private higher education (scholarships, Pell Grant's, student loans, etc.) when you're already providing free tuition to state schools.
By the by, the Left has shown no less of an inclination to authoritarianism than the right.
Perhaps religious education should be put back into the churches.
I think he is talking about institutions like: https://www.ajcunet.edu/institutions (https://www.ajcunet.edu/institutions)
Just what period were these "in the churches", and would love to hear you unpack what you mean by that statement. These institutions, while born of the church, have always been at the service of all and been in the world. The Jesuits, who came on the scene post reformation, founded the schools above (and many many more). They went to the ends of the Earth. While they were of the church, they were most certainly living out their calling in the world, not restrained or confined 'in the church'.
Many of them have made enormous contributions to academia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists)
Your reaction reminds me of Pierce - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_v._Society_of_Sisters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_v._Society_of_Sisters)
A good friend of our son went to Creighton University. He did not go there for a religious education. He is Jewish. His original plan was to get his bachelors and then go to their medical school. He consulted me on one of his religious classes. Afterwards I asked, "What grade did we get." "We got an A."
What I would call a religious education is studying scriptures, studying the Church Fathers, the origins and importance of the Creeds. For Lutherans it would also include Martin Luther, our Lutheran Confessions, the spread of Lutheranism through Europe, in America, and around the world. People would learn what the differences are between the ELCA, LCMS, and all the other Lutheran bodies in America.
Just yesterday a man came to our door. He had a tract from Faith Baptist Church. He asked the question on the back: "Do you know for sure that heaven will be your home?"
Below the question are four statements with scripture verses (from KJV).
KNOW THAT GOD LOVES YOU (John 3:16)
KNOW THAT ALL HAVE SINNED (Romans 3:23)
KNOW THAT SIN HAS A PRICE (Romans 6:23)
kNOW THAT JESUS PAID THE PRICE FOR YOU (Romans 10:9-10)
After he asked the question and I assured him that I knew for sure that I was going to heaven. He asked, "Why?"
"Jesus died for my sins."
Then what surprised me a bit: "Does salvation come as a gift or do you have to work for it?" Of course the right answer is "a gift."
Are there differences in the way Baptist understand salvation as a gift and not by works and the way Lutherans understand it? Certainly; but one is not likely to learn those religious differences in a college course. It's in our churches where it should take place.
While, perhaps not true in all places, when we lived 200 miles form Salt Lake City, every high school at a Latter Day Saints "seminary" nearby. Their youth were expected to attend classes at "seminary" after to school, or if allowed, during a study period. (In earlier days I was told, they could do it during school time and get credit for it. That had changed.) They don't expect the public schools to properly give religious training to their youth. The Catholic church in town tried something similar. It didn't work. Their youth weren't as committed to attend another class as the Mormons.
My sister-in-law got her masters at Concordia, Portland. She has never had any connection to the Lutheran Church. We have had many religious discussions in her living room, but that wasn't why she went to Concordia. It was a convenient place to get her advanced teaching degree. The kinds of discussions we had - a lot over baptism - were not happening at the Lutheran college.
-
James Rustad writes:
Do you really think students will pay fo that "certain kind of 'religious' higher education" when they can get the government kind for free?
Or are you expecting that those offering that "certain kind of 'religious' higher education" will pay for it themselves on top of paying for the government kind?
I comment:
I am saying that if we want a certain kind of Christian education, one that suits all our needs, and expresses our faith in the way in which we want it expressed, and if we truly believe that this is important, we will pay for it. As for students, same thing applies. If they want a Christian education of a certain type, they and their parents would be willing to sacrifice to pay for it.
-
James Rustad writes:
Do you really think students will pay fo that "certain kind of 'religious' higher education" when they can get the government kind for free?
Or are you expecting that those offering that "certain kind of 'religious' higher education" will pay for it themselves on top of paying for the government kind?
I comment:
I am saying that if we want a certain kind of Christian education, one that suits all our needs, and expresses our faith in the way in which we want it expressed, and if we truly believe that this is important, we will pay for it. As for students, same thing applies. If they want a Christian education of a certain type, they and their parents would be willing to sacrifice to pay for it.
The flip side of that is those who want some other kind of education should be willing to pay for that as well.
There would be a variation of Gresham's law at work. Bad education provided free of charge will drive out good education that costs money.
-
Plus, the growth of free quality education will never stop. Somebody will offer private education, it will be seen to be better by virtue of excluding people who aren’t serious about education, and then the free public education will want to raise taxes to pay for more quality, quality being defined as that which the private schools cannot be better than.
-
The flip side of that is those who want some other kind of education should be willing to pay for that as well.
A society that wants an educated and capable populace should be willing to help pay for it.
-
The flip side of that is those who want some other kind of education should be willing to pay for that as well.
A society that wants an educated and capable populace should be willing to help pay for it.
What is society? It is a construct that doesn't actually correspond to anything concrete. Is it a nation? A government? A people? Groups of families and tribes? Or a collection of atomistic individuals? Can anyone speak for "society"? I submit that the word "society" doesn't refer to anything that actually exists in the real world. "Society" is a word used by who in the name of "society" wish to gain control over their neighbors, often by means of using the government to take their money to pay for whatever the power seekers think is good for them. Where did this word originate and why?
-
James Rustad writes:
Do you really think students will pay fo that "certain kind of 'religious' higher education" when they can get the government kind for free?
Or are you expecting that those offering that "certain kind of 'religious' higher education" will pay for it themselves on top of paying for the government kind?
I comment:
I am saying that if we want a certain kind of Christian education, one that suits all our needs, and expresses our faith in the way in which we want it expressed, and if we truly believe that this is important, we will pay for it. As for students, same thing applies. If they want a Christian education of a certain type, they and their parents would be willing to sacrifice to pay for it.
Interesting … the government will tax us to provide free government education … and Christians who desire a Christian education (even from an ELCA institution) will benefit nothing from those education taxes they are required pay to give others a free education, and should pay additional education dollars over and above the taxes for their Christian education.
I’m sure you would encourage a voucher system so that those wishing to attend a private school can apply their education tax dollars to their education :)
-
I am not an economist, I don't play one on TV, I haven't even stayed recently at a Holiday Inn Express. Not the economists are always correct in their assessments. As I recall, economists have accurately predicted 9 of the last 6 recessions. Economics is a soft science and there are far too many variables and unknown factors to be able to make precise predictions. YMMV.
So, I don't know how any given economic proposal will work out in the real world and it is unlikely that any change or maintaining the status quo will benefit everybody. I do not argue that the status quo should be maintained, but I do have questions that I think should be considered when contemplating what politicians promise and propose.
The Democrats by and large want to greatly increase social welfare spending, whether some form of universal health care, free public higher education tuition, greatly relaxed immigration standards with extensive assistance for immigrants, or whatever is on their laundry list of desirables. The kicker, as always, is how to pay for it. Generally the idea has been to let the 1% pay for it in higher taxes. But there are some questions:
*Can the 1% be taxed enough to generate the revenue needed to pay for all this increased spending. Or to put it another way, how far down the income spectrum are we going to need to go to generate the revenue. Tax the rich is a simple situation, but who becomes the rich that needs to be taxed?
*When we syphon large amounts of money form the rich to fund these social programs, at what point do we end up syphoning off so much money that the businesses which produce that money become crippled and no longer produce as much wealth that we are depending on to fund this? Are we killing the golden goose? I don't pretend to know. Likely more taxes are possible, but how much?
*At what point do we make it desirable for the rich to leave and take their money with them?
One of the side effects of the welfare state supported by taxes is that it places the government in competition with private organizations that would provide social welfare programs for contributions to support those programs. It is easy for some, like Charles and Brian, to simply say, that if organizations want to provide these programs for the public good, they can pay for them themselves without any public support. But the reality is that with any tax increase to support these public programs, there will be less disposable income that people can decide to use to fund these programs. The government is asking for contributions to support these programs just as private organizations or religious organizations ask for contributions. Except that when private organizations ask, people can simply say "No." When the government asks for donations it is as taxes and no one can say no. In essence, people who contribute to private welfare programs support two programs, the governmental one and the private. Makes it even harder for the private ones to do their task. If one of the intentions is to reduce or eliminate private social welfare programs in favor of governmental ones, fine. But do we really want that.
It is easy to say that in the face of proposed free public college tuition, if you really want to go to a private college, you'll just pay the extra. But more complicated than that. Currently students have a variety of programs that can help fund their education that they can take virtually anywhere. Many of these have governmental funding. Federally supported student loans and Pell Grants are a couple of examples. Would these still be available if state school tuition is provided free? Doubt it. Taxes will likely to need to go up. So not only will a private education be harder to finance, there will likely less money available to do so. It's not a level playing field.
Can we do a better job of taking care of people, probably. But no solution will be easy or simple. Taxing the rich to pay for all the goodies that people want is likely too simple a plan in itself to solve all the problems.
-
The flip side of that is those who want some other kind of education should be willing to pay for that as well.
A society that wants an educated and capable populace should be willing to help pay for it.
What is society?
You could look up the word in a dictionary.
It is a construct that doesn't actually correspond to anything concrete. Is it a nation? A government? A people? Groups of families and tribes?
Yes, to all of those.
Or a collection of atomistic individuals?
Not according to the dictionary.
Can anyone speak for "society"?
The group of people living together in a more or less ordered community can decide who speaks for them and how the speaker comes to know what the group of people want said.
I submit that the word "society" doesn't refer to anything that actually exists in the real world. "Society" is a word used by who in the name of "society" wish to gain control over their neighbors, often by means of using the government to take their money to pay for whatever the power seekers think is good for them. Where did this word originate and why?
The meanings and origin from the New Oxford American dictionary
1 the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community: drugs, crime, and other dangers to society.
• the community of people living in a particular country or region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations: modern industrial societies | the high incidence of violence in American society.
• [with adjective] a specified section of a community: no one in polite society uttered the word.
• (also high society) the aggregate of people who are fashionable, wealthy, and influential, regarded as forming a distinct group in a community: [as modifier] : a society wedding.
• a plant or animal community: the analogy between insect society and human city is not new.
2 an organization or club formed for a particular purpose or activity: [in names] : the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
3 the situation of being in the company of other people: she shunned the society of others.
ORIGIN mid 16th century (in the sense ‘companionship, friendly association with others’): from French société, from Latin societas, from socius ‘companion’.
-
James Rustad writes:
Do you really think students will pay fo that "certain kind of 'religious' higher education" when they can get the government kind for free?
Or are you expecting that those offering that "certain kind of 'religious' higher education" will pay for it themselves on top of paying for the government kind?
I comment:
I am saying that if we want a certain kind of Christian education, one that suits all our needs, and expresses our faith in the way in which we want it expressed, and if we truly believe that this is important, we will pay for it. As for students, same thing applies. If they want a Christian education of a certain type, they and their parents would be willing to sacrifice to pay for it.
Interesting … the government will tax us to provide free government education … and Christians who desire a Christian education (even from an ELCA institution) will benefit nothing from those education taxes they are required pay to give others a free education, and should pay additional education dollars over and above the taxes for their Christian education.
I’m sure you would encourage a voucher system so that those wishing to attend a private school can apply their education tax dollars to their education :)
We, the people, pay for free, quality secular education for the good of all people. Christians and Jews and Muslims and Hindus and other religious groups attend their worship centers for the religious education they desire in addition to the secular education of the state.
-
My granddaughter graduated from a Christian high school last year. I paid for her to attend that school. She got a good education and was surrounded for 6 years by people who showed the love of Christ every day. She is stronger today for that experience. I also paid taxes some of which supported the public high school she would have attended. That was on us and so I don't regret paying for her school or paying my share of the cost of the local high school. My decision. Luckily I could afford it. Not everyone can so that is a decision many people cannot make because they lack the resources. I'm sorry they can't choose what we chose, but I still have a hard time seeing how vouchers would actually change anything. Sad to say, but true.
-
Of course education “costs.”
“Free” means you don’t have to have pockets full of money to get it.
And such education can indeed be good.
Free college education will likely also mean governmental controlled education (he who pays the piper...). It will also likely all but eliminate private higher education, especially religious higher education. Why pay good money for students to obtain a private higher education (scholarships, Pell Grant's, student loans, etc.) when you're already providing free tuition to state schools.
By the by, the Left has shown no less of an inclination to authoritarianism than the right.
Perhaps religious education should be put back into the churches.
I think he is talking about institutions like: https://www.ajcunet.edu/institutions (https://www.ajcunet.edu/institutions)
Just what period were these "in the churches", and would love to hear you unpack what you mean by that statement. These institutions, while born of the church, have always been at the service of all and been in the world. The Jesuits, who came on the scene post reformation, founded the schools above (and many many more). They went to the ends of the Earth. While they were of the church, they were most certainly living out their calling in the world, not restrained or confined 'in the church'.
Many of them have made enormous contributions to academia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists)
Your reaction reminds me of Pierce - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_v._Society_of_Sisters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_v._Society_of_Sisters)
A good friend of our son went to Creighton University. He did not go there for a religious education. He is Jewish. ....
So in your secular dominated view of education, would schools like Creighton need to cease their activities such as the following, or lose any public funding?
http://moses.creighton.edu/CSRS/
https://www.creighton.edu/ministry/deglmancenter/
Would CUA have to shut down the following?
https://www.cuapress.org/books/series/
https://trs.catholic.edu/academics/graduate/church-history/index.html
How about Notre Dame's department of Theology
https://theology.nd.edu/
If Concordia Portland was not shutting down, would they be deserving of any funding if they continued to offer the following?
https://www.cu-portland.edu/academics/colleges/lutheran-institute-theology-culture
Trinity?
https://divinity.tiu.edu/degree/master-of-arts-church-history/
I guess George Fox would have to cut all the content under the title "Christian Studies"
https://www.georgefox.edu/college-admissions/academics/majors-minors.html
I wonder just how far the radical secularist would go, and just how tolerant of non-secular agendas they would be...
-
We do have actual history to suggest what could happen to private colleges when the state provides free (or essentially free) higher education.
Until the early 1980s, for California residents the Community Colleges were free, California State University tuition was really a token (our full-time tuition doubled my last semester, Fall '81, to $250), and by the mid-70s even the University of California cost had risen to perhaps a quarter of what California Lutheran College tuition was. When CLC (now CLU) was being planned and first built in the '50s and '60s, the University of California was essentially free.
Granted, by the end of the '70s, the economics of free higher education in California was collapsing. And then came a change in attitude where financial aid in both public and private higher education moved from scholarships to student loans. But in the years higher education was free in California, private colleges and universities thrived.
Granted, price is only one of many factors in that...
Pax, Steven+
-
James Eivan:
Interesting … the government will tax us to provide free government education … and Christians who desire a Christian education (even from an ELCA institution) will benefit nothing from those education taxes they are required pay to give others a free education, and should pay additional education dollars over and above the taxes for their Christian education.
Me:
So should non-Christian members of our society our fellow citizens, be forced to pay so that others could get a Christian education?
-
James Eivan:
Interesting … the government will tax us to provide free government education … and Christians who desire a Christian education (even from an ELCA institution) will benefit nothing from those education taxes they are required pay to give others a free education, and should pay additional education dollars over and above the taxes for their Christian education.
Me:
So should non-Christian members of our society our fellow citizens, be forced to pay so that others could get a Christian education?
Why not? It is in the interest of the state to support education. If I lived and worked in Saudi Arabia, I would expect my tax dollars to provide a Sunni Muslim education to Saudi citizens. I wouldn't complain. Here in America, in our pluralistic society, I would expect us to accommodate the religious preferences of our citizenry.
-
Studying Christianity or other religions is not the same thing as being trained in the faith. A friend started with a Jewish studies major at Bringham Young University. He spent time in Israel to better learn the language and the history of that religion. He later switched to Islamic studies. He spent time in Saudi Arabia to learn the language and the history of that religion. He is neither. He probably knows more about those religions than most folks who follow the religions and attend synagogues or mosques. Knowing about a religion doesn't make one a follower or believer.
What is "Christian education"? It seems to me that it is something like Christian morals - it's something that doesn't exist. Christians have morals, but it's like Christians who cook or do surgery. We don't talk about Christian cooking or Christian surgery. There are good cooks and good surgeons (and some who might not be so good). There are good morals and bad morals. There is good education and bad education.
A friend taught at a "Christian High School." It culture of the administration of that place was so bad that she quit a month before the end of the school year. In her mind, there was nothing Christian about the way they ran the school and treated the staff.
Another friend's wife taught at a church-related grade school. She was paid half of what the public school teachers were getting. Is that the Christian way of doing things? Is that abusing one's commitment and desire to serve Christ as a teacher?
-
Another friend's wife taught at a church-related grade school. She was paid half of what the public school teachers were getting. Is that the Christian way of doing things? Is that abusing one's commitment and desire to serve Christ as a teacher?
It is regrettable that both Pastors and parochial school teachers rarely are compensated as well as their secular counterparts.
At the same time, if they are compensated according to agreements made at the time of the call/contracting, it is wrong to label it as abuse.
-
James Eivan:
Interesting … the government will tax us to provide free government education … and Christians who desire a Christian education (even from an ELCA institution) will benefit nothing from those education taxes they are required pay to give others a free education, and should pay additional education dollars over and above the taxes for their Christian education.
Me:
So should non-Christian members of our society our fellow citizens, be forced to pay so that others could get a Christian education?
How about everyone pay for what they use? Those who utilize government (i.e., public) schools pay the costs for public education; and those who utilize private schools pay the costs for private education. I understand that in some cases, costs may have to be shared. But as a basic model: why not?
Tom Pearson
-
What is "Christian education"? It seems to me that it is something like Christian morals - it's something that doesn't exist. Christians have morals, but it's like Christians who cook or do surgery. We don't talk about Christian cooking or Christian surgery. There are good cooks and good surgeons (and some who might not be so good). There are good morals and bad morals. There is good education and bad education.
A friend taught at a "Christian High School." It culture of the administration of that place was so bad that she quit a month before the end of the school year. In her mind, there was nothing Christian about the way they ran the school and treated the staff.
Your friend’s experience at a “Christian High School” is unfortunate. I can offer a more positive example of how I would describe Christian education:
As I mentioned on the Valpo thread, my oldest son is a junior there, majoring in physics and math. I agree that there is no specifically Christian way to study these subjects. However, one of his physics profs is married to a Lutheran pastor, and the prof sings in one of the chapel choirs. The president of the university was a lector at the Christmas vespers. As my son walks across campus, he may pass a sculpture of homeless Jesus. The words of Psalm 36:9 are prominently displayed on the student center building. The core degree requirements include at least one or two courses about Christian history or theology. My second son attends a Jesuit University where the witness of Archbishop Oscar Romero is prominently commemorated, where the freshman honors philosophy seminar is taught by a Jesuit priest who happens to be the son of a Protestant minister.
None of the above examples is essential to a “Christian” education. Some of them might occur by happenstance at a public university. But I think there is something distinctive in an environment where Christian worship is viewed as normal and beautiful rather than as a potential micro aggression; where curricular requirements reflect a world view that sees Christian history and theology as subjects with something valuable to teach us rather than merely the story of how power-hungry oppressors perpetuated dangerous ideologies; where faith and reason are assumed to be compatible.
Peace,
Jon
-
To say Christian education doesn’t exist is just stupid. Baptize and teach. Teaching without education doesn’t exist.
-
What is "Christian education"? It seems to me that it is something like Christian morals - it's something that doesn't exist. Christians have morals, but it's like Christians who cook or do surgery. We don't talk about Christian cooking or Christian surgery. There are good cooks and good surgeons (and some who might not be so good). There are good morals and bad morals. There is good education and bad education.
A friend taught at a "Christian High School." It culture of the administration of that place was so bad that she quit a month before the end of the school year. In her mind, there was nothing Christian about the way they ran the school and treated the staff.
Your friend’s experience at a “Christian High School” is unfortunate. I can offer a more positive example of how I would describe Christian education:
As I mentioned on the Valpo thread, my oldest son is a junior there, majoring in physics and math. I agree that there is no specifically Christian way to study these subjects. However, one of his physics profs is married to a Lutheran pastor, and the prof sings in one of the chapel choirs. The president of the university was a lector at the Christmas vespers. As my son walks across campus, he may pass a sculpture of homeless Jesus. The words of Psalm 36:9 are prominently displayed on the student center building. The core degree requirements include at least one or two courses about Christian history or theology. My second son attends a Jesuit University where the witness of Archbishop Oscar Romero is prominently commemorated, where the freshman honors philosophy seminar is taught by a Jesuit priest who happens to be the son of a Protestant minister.
None of the above examples is essential to a “Christian” education. Some of them might occur by happenstance at a public university. But I think there is something distinctive in an environment where Christian worship is viewed as normal and beautiful rather than as a potential micro aggression; where curricular requirements reflect a world view that sees Christian history and theology as subjects with something valuable to teach us rather than merely the story of how power-hungry oppressors perpetuated dangerous ideologies; where faith and reason are assumed to be compatible.
I attended the Lutheran Bible Institute in Seattle for a year. All the classes were Bible centered. It was not an accredited school. We had daily worship. There were devotions in the dorms. There were school sponsored ministries: gospel singing teams, service ministries around Seattle.
I attended Concordia Jr College for two years, then went to a state school. At Concordia, we had required chapel. At these first two institutions, it was pretty much assumed that everyone who attended was not only Christian, but a Lutheran Christian. There were classes connected to the Christian/Lutheran faith, e.g., Confessions.
At the state school, the assumption was that students were not active in the faith. Those who were, banded together. They organized a morning prayer around the flag event. We wore symbols, e.g., a fish, to identify ourselves as Christians. The Assemblies of God church was the popular one among the students who attended church. I went there sometimes and also volunteered at the Lutheran church with their youth. There was an evening charismatic worship. I believe that while "head knowledge" grew at Concordia about the faith; my faith grew at the state school because it was challenged by professors and other students. It was strengthened by the body of Christ that was also present on campus and in the congregations.
Jesus' preparation for his public ministry involved both time in the synagogue teaching and learning; and also time in the wilderness being tested by the one who wanted to destroy his faith.
-
To say Christian education doesn’t exist is just stupid. Baptize and teach. Teaching without education doesn’t exist.
How is Christian math different from secular math? How is Christian English different than secular English?
Baptizing and teaching what Jesus has done for us is the job of the church, not colleges.
-
To say Christian education doesn’t exist is just stupid. Baptize and teach. Teaching without education doesn’t exist.
How is Christian math different from secular math? How is Christian English different than secular English?
Baptizing and teaching what Jesus has done for us is the job of the church, not colleges.
You clearly have too many miles in your rearview mirror between you and government schooling.
It isn't that you teach "Christian English" or "Christian math." It's that you can use those subjects, and others, to not only teach, but model, the Christian faith. More, it is that you do not have active hostility to the faith coming from the school district. As one example, when we do Holy Week, we have 2 services a day Sunday through Thursday, 3 on Friday, 2 on Saturday and 1 on Sunday. It's a pretty busy week. We always took our kids out of school entirely for Holy Friday services. Our middle child was unable to keep up with her homework that week. She was in 4th grade at the time. We sent her back on Monday with a note asking the teacher to give her until Wednesday to complete her assignments. The teacher -- in front of the entire class -- said "what's going on in your house -- nobody goes to church that much!"
My middle child has anxiety disorder. The worst thing you can do to her is single her out in front of others for humiliation. The teacher knew this. The teacher was ignorant of Christian principles, even though she was probably a nominal Christian herself. But she was certainly not used to supporting a Christian lifestyle with exceptions from the school. Soccer practice? No problem. Band or orchestra recitals? Absolutely! Church? Nobody goes to church that much. This is unacceptable. This justifies humiliating a child with anxiety disorder in front of her entire class. An example must be made here.
As public schools have drifted further and further from support of Christianity (which I favor, since I don't want your religion imposed on my children against my will either), and into open hostility to Christianity (which I think is unconstitutional and ought to be abolished), our society has drifted likewise. We have people miss church on Sunday because of soccer games, or basketball games, or cheerleading, or just about anything but the one thing Christians are supposed to do on Sunday morning. We had our kids in an Upward soccer league when they were much younger. They held the awards banquet at the sponsoring church, on Sunday morning. It didn't occur to them we might want our own kids in their own church on Sunday morning. To them, we were the mission field. It was assumed we were not Christian and they were all going to save us.
Now that we homeschool, catechesis is a big part of what we do. We teach the lives of the saints. We teach the writings of the Fathers. I am heavily involved in teaching the teens at our church about the basics of Orthodox Christian theology. I think the biggest problem with your view on this is not so much that you separate "secular" education from "Christian" education. I think it's that you fail to appreciate the fact that a true Christian education is immersive. It ought to permeate all other forms of education, and it ought to be done by word and deed. For example, your kids might not understand the finer points of doctrinal distinctions. But they can see their father pray. They can see us go to Church. They can see how we treat their mother. They can see how we relate to them. They can see how we react to worldly temptations. That is education every bit as much as subjects in school.
Of course, that is not a "Christian education," but make no mistake -- you can effect that as well. You can teach 2 + 2 = 4 by counting apples, Paschal eggs or condoms. So the question is whether we want to exclude the last one or include the second one, or just pretend the faith doesn't exist by sticking with the first one. A big part of Common Core is overlapping reading with other subjects, so that when you have an assignment to read about science or history that also counts as a reading assignment. The idea is, you should be reading all the time because this is how you learn. Now imagine if our kids were reading Lewis or Chesterton in high school alongside Hemingway or whatever secularist nonsense they decided to put alongside him instead of Lewis?
Christian education is certainly something that exists. You simply have to appreciate Christianity enough to incorporate it into the curriculum. It isn't hard either. It is in fact very easy. But it requires that you don't put an artificial wedge of separation between secular things and Christian things. The heavens declare the glory of God. All of creation is redeemed. Math belongs to God every bit as much as soteriology or ecclesiology.
-
It is regrettable that both Pastors and parochial school teachers rarely are compensated as well as their secular counterparts.
What is the secular counterpart of a pastor?
-
It is regrettable that both Pastors and parochial school teachers rarely are compensated as well as their secular counterparts.
What is the secular counterpart of a pastor?
Over the years compensation (and respect?) has gone from a school superintendent, to a school principal, to a teacher, so next must be the janitor.
-
To say Christian education doesn’t exist is just stupid. Baptize and teach. Teaching without education doesn’t exist.
How is Christian math different from secular math? How is Christian English different than secular English?
Baptizing and teaching what Jesus has done for us is the job of the church, not colleges.
You clearly have too many miles in your rearview mirror between you and government schooling.
It isn't that you teach "Christian English" or "Christian math." It's that you can use those subjects, and others, to not only teach, but model, the Christian faith. More, it is that you do not have active hostility to the faith coming from the school district. As one example, when we do Holy Week, we have 2 services a day Sunday through Thursday, 3 on Friday, 2 on Saturday and 1 on Sunday. It's a pretty busy week. We always took our kids out of school entirely for Holy Friday services. Our middle child was unable to keep up with her homework that week. She was in 4th grade at the time. We sent her back on Monday with a note asking the teacher to give her until Wednesday to complete her assignments. The teacher -- in front of the entire class -- said "what's going on in your house -- nobody goes to church that much!"
My middle child has anxiety disorder. The worst thing you can do to her is single her out in front of others for humiliation. The teacher knew this. The teacher was ignorant of Christian principles, even though she was probably a nominal Christian herself. But she was certainly not used to supporting a Christian lifestyle with exceptions from the school. Soccer practice? No problem. Band or orchestra recitals? Absolutely! Church? Nobody goes to church that much. This is unacceptable. This justifies humiliating a child with anxiety disorder in front of her entire class. An example must be made here.
As public schools have drifted further and further from support of Christianity (which I favor, since I don't want your religion imposed on my children against my will either), and into open hostility to Christianity (which I think is unconstitutional and ought to be abolished), our society has drifted likewise. We have people miss church on Sunday because of soccer games, or basketball games, or cheerleading, or just about anything but the one thing Christians are supposed to do on Sunday morning. We had our kids in an Upward soccer league when they were much younger. They held the awards banquet at the sponsoring church, on Sunday morning. It didn't occur to them we might want our own kids in their own church on Sunday morning. To them, we were the mission field. It was assumed we were not Christian and they were all going to save us.
Now that we homeschool, catechesis is a big part of what we do. We teach the lives of the saints. We teach the writings of the Fathers. I am heavily involved in teaching the teens at our church about the basics of Orthodox Christian theology. I think the biggest problem with your view on this is not so much that you separate "secular" education from "Christian" education. I think it's that you fail to appreciate the fact that a true Christian education is immersive. It ought to permeate all other forms of education, and it ought to be done by word and deed. For example, your kids might not understand the finer points of doctrinal distinctions. But they can see their father pray. They can see us go to Church. They can see how we treat their mother. They can see how we relate to them. They can see how we react to worldly temptations. That is education every bit as much as subjects in school.
Of course, that is not a "Christian education," but make no mistake -- you can effect that as well. You can teach 2 + 2 = 4 by counting apples, Paschal eggs or condoms. So the question is whether we want to exclude the last one or include the second one, or just pretend the faith doesn't exist by sticking with the first one. A big part of Common Core is overlapping reading with other subjects, so that when you have an assignment to read about science or history that also counts as a reading assignment. The idea is, you should be reading all the time because this is how you learn. Now imagine if our kids were reading Lewis or Chesterton in high school alongside Hemingway or whatever secularist nonsense they decided to put alongside him instead of Lewis?
Christian education is certainly something that exists. You simply have to appreciate Christianity enough to incorporate it into the curriculum. It isn't hard either. It is in fact very easy. But it requires that you don't put an artificial wedge of separation between secular things and Christian things. The heavens declare the glory of God. All of creation is redeemed. Math belongs to God every bit as much as soteriology or ecclesiology.
You're preaching to the choir. When I started the ordained ministry in 1976 in California; they were already holding soccer practices on Sunday morning. That's when fields were available. At a later congregation in Wyoming, there was a hockey tournament over Easter weekend. Our organist's son was in it. She hoped they would lose so he wouldn't have to play on Easter morning. Also, in trying to find a night for confirmation classes, the only time that all the students had no activities was Sunday evening - and some years that wasn't even true.
Conversely, at my second call, in rural Nebraska, they still had a "church night." The schools' policy was to schedule nothing on Wednesday evening so that students could attend church services, confirmation classes, etc. When something at the school came up, someone would talk to the ministerial association and explain why they broke their policy. Unfortunately, this also meant that outside organizations, like the karate school or dance classes, knew that Wednesday night was free for their programs.
I don't blame the schools or sports teams, but the Christians who tell their church, "I can't be there, because I have a conflict," rather than tell a coach, "I can't be there because I have a church commitment."
Growing up, when we had relatives or friends visiting us, we invited them to go to church with us. If they didn't want to go, we went anyway. Nowadays, members will tell me, "We won't be at church next week because we have company visiting."
Why can't our youth read the Bible and Christian authors on their own? I read through the Bible in junior high because I wanted to, not because it was an assignment. I read Lewis because I wanted to, not because it was an assignment. Conversely, the professor of my first year Greek class - for pre-seminary students - did not have us translating the Bible, but secular works. In his opinion, that was necessary for us to learn Greek because most of us were quite familiar with English translations of the Bible. What we produced might not really be translating the Greek so much as recalling the verse from our memories. We didn't know Xenophon's Anabasis. We had to translate that.
Incarnational theology that comes from Jesus' life means that we are to take the faith we've given into the sinful world; not withdraw from the sinful world. AA provides a good model. They gather regularly to be strengthened in their sobriety with the support of one another; then return to the world where they seek to live sober lives in the midst of the world that can encourage drinking. We gather regularly to be strengthened in our faith, confessing our creeds, etc. so that we can go out into the world to live lives that witness to the grace God has given us and the world through Jesus in a world that rejected Jesus.
-
Well the latest debate is again in the books. It is being described as "bruising" and "chaotic." There is a desperate need for some to break from the pack and pull ahead - ahead of Sanders. In 2016 Clinton and the DNC were able to contain Sanders, but it seems that they are somewhat helpless to do it this time around. Biden is boldly claiming that he will win the South Carolina primary, but I don't think that will materialize. Bloomberg may have the money of a Trump, but he definitely lacks the stage presence. I really don't think that the massive infusion of millions in TV ads all over the country will put him in the lead.
The largest voting block in the country are the millennials — those born between 1981 and 1996. Ironically the poling the best with young voters is - you guessed it - the white haired 78 year old, Bernie Sanders. Sander's "democratic socialism" will no doubt resonate with younger voters bowed down with heavy educational loan debt. Watching him on the debate stage I think he's the only one who can hold his own with Trump. He's a scrapper and not easily intimidated by Trump's 'in-your-face' style.
In the end it may again come down to the simple reality of voter turn out and voter location, and the electoral college. It would be entertaining to see a Sanders-Trump contest. It would be revealing to see if his idea of an expanded welfare state will be embraced by both a plurality and majority of voters. Believe it or not it could be tight. The US has changed. But, are they willing to pay for the changes? And with less paying into the system as the Baby Boomers die off, can they really afford what they want?
-
Tom Friedman in The New York Times has an idea of how Democrats could unite the party and "win in a landslide."
The nominee, Bloomberg or Bernie perhaps, announces he will take Klobuchar as veep, and appoint all the other contenders to the cabinet. His column offers good reasons for why these people should serve.
Bloomberg or Bernie as secretary of Treasury
Joe Biden, Secretary of State
Elizabeth Warren, Health and Human Services
Kamala Harris, Attorney General
Mayor Pete, Homeland Security
Mitt Romney, Secretary of Commerce
Andrew Yang, Energy Secretary
Cory Booker, Housing Secretary
Admiral William McGraven, Defense Secretary
Tom Steyer, new cabinet position as secretary of infrastructure to rebuild America
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to serve as our U.N. ambassador.
I comment:
It sort of giggles me to know what shakes and screams run through the "conservative" crowd while they look at this list. But I can hope, can't I?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/opinion/democratic-primary-candidates.html
-
Tom Friedman in The New York Times has an idea of how Democrats could unite the party and "win in a landslide."
The nominee, Bloomberg or Bernie perhaps, announces he will take Klobuchar as veep, and appoint all the other contenders to the cabinet. His column offers good reasons for why these people should serve.
Bloomberg or Bernie as secretary of Treasury
Joe Biden, Secretary of State
Elizabeth Warren, Health and Human Services
Kamala Harris, Attorney General
Mayor Pete, Homeland Security
Mitt Romney, Secretary of Commerce
Andrew Yang, Energy Secretary
Cory Booker, Housing Secretary
Admiral William McGraven, Defense Secretary
Tom Steyer, new cabinet position as secretary of infrastructure to rebuild America
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to serve as our U.N. ambassador.
I comment:
It sort of giggles me to know what shakes and screams run through the "conservative" crowd while they look at this list. But I can hope, can't I?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/opinion/democratic-primary-candidates.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/opinion/democratic-primary-candidates.html)
Whatever floats your boat. Enjoy your giggles. I'm sure it says something that you delight in the thought of discomfort to people you disagree with. Kind of like giving them the finger isn't it?
-
Personally I think AOC would fit in very well at the UN. She seems as ignorant and ridiculous as the rest of the body which believes the likes of Cuba and Venezuela could oversee international human rights violations. ::)
-
Tom Friedman in The New York Times has an idea of how Democrats could unite the party and "win in a landslide."
The nominee, Bloomberg or Bernie perhaps, announces he will take Klobuchar as veep, and appoint all the other contenders to the cabinet. His column offers good reasons for why these people should serve.
Bloomberg or Bernie as secretary of Treasury
Joe Biden, Secretary of State
Elizabeth Warren, Health and Human Services
Kamala Harris, Attorney General
Mayor Pete, Homeland Security
Mitt Romney, Secretary of Commerce
Andrew Yang, Energy Secretary
Cory Booker, Housing Secretary
Admiral William McGraven, Defense Secretary
Tom Steyer, new cabinet position as secretary of infrastructure to rebuild America
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to serve as our U.N. ambassador.
I comment:
It sort of giggles me to know what shakes and screams run through the "conservative" crowd while they look at this list. But I can hope, can't I?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/opinion/democratic-primary-candidates.html
Honestly, Charles, this is yet another example of why Trump is President. Another example of the disconnect between the elites and everyone else. Never mind the fact that many of the candidates are simply unappealing for very good reasons. For example, Kamala Harris' atrocious record as a DA or the fact that Bloomberg is simply trying to buy his way to the White House. People see through these things and the fact that the likes of a Friedman or some well known news anchor can't seem to understand that reveals much more than anything they might write or say.
Peace and a blessed Lent to you!
Scott+
-
Tom Friedman in The New York Times has an idea of how Democrats could unite the party and "win in a landslide."
The nominee, Bloomberg or Bernie perhaps, announces he will take Klobuchar as veep, and appoint all the other contenders to the cabinet. His column offers good reasons for why these people should serve.
Bloomberg or Bernie as secretary of Treasury
Joe Biden, Secretary of State
Elizabeth Warren, Health and Human Services
Kamala Harris, Attorney General
Mayor Pete, Homeland Security
Mitt Romney, Secretary of Commerce
Andrew Yang, Energy Secretary
Cory Booker, Housing Secretary
Admiral William McGraven, Defense Secretary
Tom Steyer, new cabinet position as secretary of infrastructure to rebuild America
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to serve as our U.N. ambassador.
I comment:
It sort of giggles me to know what shakes and screams run through the "conservative" crowd while they look at this list. But I can hope, can't I?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/opinion/democratic-primary-candidates.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/opinion/democratic-primary-candidates.html)
That would be an impressive mix of communism, authoritarianism, and senility.
-
From a famed historian, Pulitzer Prize winner for biography, who has written a devotional book:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/opinion/christianity-trump.html
A few paragraphs:
I am a Christian (a very poor one, but there we are), but I am also a historian, and contemplating the beginnings of the story of my ancestral faith has led me to think about the uses of Jesus down the eons. Yes, Christianity has been an instrument of repression, but in the living memory of Americans it has also been deployed as a means of liberation and progress — which feeds the hope that it can become a force for good once more.
The secular wish to banish religion from the public square is perennial but doomed; one might as well try to eliminate economic, geographic or partisan concerns. “All men,” Homer wrote, “have need of the gods,” and the more productive task is to manage and marshal the effects of religious feeling on the broader republic. “In ages of faith the final aim of life is placed beyond life,” Alexis de Tocqueville said in “Democracy in America,” written in the Age of Jackson. “The men of these ages,” he added, “learn by insensible degrees to repress a multitude of petty, passing desires.”
Don’t take my word for it. Take, instead, that of John Lewis and of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., men whose Christian belief brought America to account on the question of domestic apartheid just over a half century ago. Their words and actions can be traced directly from the words and actions of Jesus. King’s vision was grounded in both the Bible and in Gandhi. “It was the Sermon on the Mount, rather than a doctrine of passive resistance, that initially inspired the Negroes of Montgomery to dignified social action,” King recalled of the Montgomery bus boycott.
I have not read the article that Pr. Austin's referring to, I'm not a NYT subscriber, so my comments are not an in depth comment on the opinion piece. However, the title of the article, "Why Religion Is the Best Hope against Trump" struck me as fundamentally wrong. If the goal is to defeat Trump and the tool is religion, then it is a betrayal of religion. God and our faith in God and our relationship to God is never the means to an end but always the ultimate end for which everything else is the means, tool, or obstacle. I'm reminded of the response attributed to Abraham Lincoln to the question of whether or not God was on the North's side in the Civil War. "Sir," Lincoln replied, "my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right."
In general, my Christian faith not only informs me about who God is and what He has done for me, but also how He wants me to live in this world and treat the people around me and the world in which I live. God is concerned that I live a good life and that includes behaving in certain ways. In general, I would like for the government under whose rule I live to encourage good behavior and discourage bad behavior, as I understand what good and bad behavior to be. Especially in this contemporary age where the Government is involved in so much of life, regulating behavior, establishing social welfare programs and policies, and the like, I would like the government to promote those things that I believe encourage good behavior and discourage bad. Not only because that makes it easier for me to live out my Christian life, but because I believe that what God promotes and discourages actually makes for good living. Since in this representative democracy I do have a say in what the government does, I should exercise that say in the political process.
So, why would my religion encourage me to vote for or against Donald Trump? Could it be that I should vote for Donald Trump because he is "one of us" a fellow believer, a co-religionist? A couple of comments. 1) Tribalism is dangerous in a pluralistic democracy. There are far more important factors to consider than whether the candidate is part of my tribe. I am a white, protestant male. Should I only, therefor vote for whites, protestants, males? Should I only vote for co-religionists? 2) I would have to agree that Donald Trump dos not impress me by his speech, actions, or history as being a faithful, committed, devout Christian. However, as I look at the rest of the field, where is the evidence that they in their speech, actions, or history have comported themselves as faithful, committed, devout Christians? (I make no judgement as to the state of any of their souls, not even Trump's, I can only go by how they seem.)
That leaves me asking which candidate in their proposed plans, programs, and policies and that of the party in whose name they will run, is most compatible with what I believe God wants us as a people to do. So far, none of the candidates or parties seem especially satisfactory. And although it drives our progressive posters nuts to say this, one factor that affects me in my faith life is the fact that none of the candidates from one of the parties, for all of their concern for the neighbor, seem at all interested in even considering the needs and protection of the neighbor in the womb. Rather they seem to make a virtue out of opposing any concern for those most vulnerable neighbors.
-
Tom Friedman in The New York Times has an idea of how Democrats could unite the party and "win in a landslide."
The nominee, Bloomberg or Bernie perhaps, announces he will take Klobuchar as veep, and appoint all the other contenders to the cabinet. His column offers good reasons for why these people should serve.
Bloomberg or Bernie as secretary of Treasury
Joe Biden, Secretary of State
Elizabeth Warren, Health and Human Services
Kamala Harris, Attorney General
Mayor Pete, Homeland Security
Mitt Romney, Secretary of Commerce
Andrew Yang, Energy Secretary
Cory Booker, Housing Secretary
Admiral William McGraven, Defense Secretary
Tom Steyer, new cabinet position as secretary of infrastructure to rebuild America
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to serve as our U.N. ambassador.
I comment:
It sort of giggles me to know what shakes and screams run through the "conservative" crowd while they look at this list. But I can hope, can't I?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/opinion/democratic-primary-candidates.html
Win in a "landslide"? Wow. I think that's quite optimistic and even unrealistic. It's possible to have a tight race; I'm not sure. But a "landslide"? No.
-
The problem is Bloomberg and Sanders are mutually exclusive. Sanders' supporters would not accept Bloomberg anywhere near his presidency (nor would Sanders, for that matter -- he is after all a man of principle). Bloomberg's supporters, that is to say, corporate interests and his billionaire buddies, will have nothing to do with Sanders.
For lesser reasons, since let's be honest, Sanders is going to be the nominee, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Biden, Romney (LOL) and Steyer are not going to be in the cabinet either.
The best chance Democrats have to win, landslide or otherwise, is to rally behind Bernie Sanders and make the case that his policies are better than Trump's. It's not a bad case. And since Sanders is basically the only one running not named Tulsi Gabbard (whose omission from this list is as laughable as Romney's inclusion) who is sincere and connects with non-elites, filling his cabinet with elitist Washington insiders and billionaire entrepreneurs would be the worst possible thing he could do. Which is why he won't.
-
Pastor Fienen:
Whatever floats your boat. Enjoy your giggles. I'm sure it says something that you delight in the thought of discomfort to people you disagree with. Kind of like giving them the finger isn't it?
Me:
Take a breath. I didn’t make a malicious comment, and there’s nothing wrong with me wanting to give you guys a little bit of a jab. I do that with words rather than fingers.
And it is so easy to dismiss all these comments as being out of touch. That’s sort of what the Democrats unfortunately did concerning Trump in 2016.
-
Tom Friedman in The New York Times has an idea of how Democrats could unite the party and "win in a landslide."
The nominee, Bloomberg or Bernie perhaps, announces he will take Klobuchar as veep, and appoint all the other contenders to the cabinet. His column offers good reasons for why these people should serve.
Bloomberg or Bernie as secretary of Treasury
Joe Biden, Secretary of State
Elizabeth Warren, Health and Human Services
Kamala Harris, Attorney General
Mayor Pete, Homeland Security
Mitt Romney, Secretary of Commerce
Andrew Yang, Energy Secretary
Cory Booker, Housing Secretary
Admiral William McGraven, Defense Secretary
Tom Steyer, new cabinet position as secretary of infrastructure to rebuild America
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to serve as our U.N. ambassador.
I comment:
It sort of giggles me to know what shakes and screams run through the "conservative" crowd while they look at this list. But I can hope, can't I?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/opinion/democratic-primary-candidates.html
The only issues I see:
Bernie Sanders as Secretary of Treasury? I think I'd rather see Tom Steyer.
Kamala Harris as Attorney General.
This would leave a few seats in the Senate to fill. Maybe that's a good thing.
-
What is (democratic) socialism? Some memes from Facebook.
“Socialism is a scareword they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years. Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called Social Security. Socialism is what they called farm price supports. Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance. Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations. Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.”
— Harry S. Truman, Oct. 10, 1952
[Snopes confirms this quote: https://www.snopes.com/fact.../truman-socialism-scare-word/]
I don't know the source of this, but I think it's accurate in describing the "socialism" many of us are talking about.
A simple explanation of Democratic Socialism.
Sometimes it’s much more efficient and cost-effective to pool our resources together and use them for our common good. For example, police, education, fire department, garbage collection, libraries and snow removal.
These are not nefarious attempts to control your life or redistribute your wealth. They are simply the most cost-effective way to provide these services to you, paid for by your tax dollars.
Most countries have found that access to health care is better when handled this way as well.
One of the problems I've run into in discussing this topic is widely different understandings of "socialism". Some immediately jump to communist Russia or Venezuela, rather than look at federal and state "social" programs that we already enjoy in the U.S.
-
Realistically, let's say that leftist All-Star lineup did win in a landslide. What would be different in 2024 vs. whether they lost in a landslide? Don't include things like mood, attitude, etc, but things that are objectively, measurably different-- employment levels/average income, deficits, tax codes, life expectancy, stock markets, laws/policies passed and being enforced, specific things legalized or illegalized, carbon emission levels, inflation, interest rates, crime and incarceration rates, defense readiness, areas or war/combat, immigration levels, etc.
I suspect, if partisans of either side set aside wishful thinking, the real difference in 2024 between those scenarios would be smaller than anyone is currently acting like it would be. In general, the differences would be more favorable if Trump wins.
What I object to in our elections is the constant scare-mongering. I plan to vote Republican. I'm not scared of a Bernie Sanders presidency even if it would come to pass. I would largely ignore it, and to the degree I couldn't, I would be annoyed by it. Annoyed, not terrified. When people tell me they're terrified of a Trump reelection or a Sanders election, they're either spreading partisan propaganda or else are totally unhinged. As long as you don't insist on having 24/7 news commentary playing in your house, who the president is shouldn't affect the typical person's day all that much.
-
Socialism is not just a scare word used to label and discredit Bernie Sanders, it is the label that he has chosen for himself. Experience has shown that some things are better done collectively, like policing, national defense and the like. However, for other things, like running the industrial sector of the economy or agriculture, collectivism and governmental control has proven less than successful. If Sanders does not want to raise the hackles that socialism raises, then why embrace that label and speak of revolutionary changes (such as the Political Action Organization, Our Revolution, spun out of his 2016 presidential campaign)? Sounds like more is intended than just an incremental increase in the social safety net.
-
One of the problems I've run into in discussing this topic is widely different understandings of "socialism". Some immediately jump to communist Russia or Venezuela, rather than look at federal and state "social" programs that we already enjoy in the U.S.
If there is confusion, part of that lies with Sanders who prefers to label himself a "democratic socialist." There is added confusion because he identifies his brand of this with the Nordic Model which is not socialism. It might not be any more popular with a certain segment of the US, but I think he should simply say that he favors a much expanded welfare state.
-
Socialism is not just a scare word used to label and discredit Bernie Sanders, it is the label that he has chosen for himself. Experience has shown that some things are better done collectively, like policing, national defense and the like. However, for other things, like running the industrial sector of the economy or agriculture, collectivism and governmental control has proven less than successful. If Sanders does not want to raise the hackles that socialism raises, then why embrace that label and speak of revolutionary changes (such as the Political Action Organization, Our Revolution, spun out of his 2016 presidential campaign)? Sounds like more is intended than just an incremental increase in the social safety net.
My use of "socialism" comes from its connection with "society." Both stem from the same Latin word, socius, which means "friend" or "companion." It seeks to do what is good for "society" (rather than just making profits for the stock holders).
-
Why not just avoid all derivatives of "social" and the pseudo-sciency, early 20th Century philosophical materlialism that nearly always attaches as baggage?
-
One of the problems I've run into in discussing this topic is widely different understandings of "socialism". Some immediately jump to communist Russia or Venezuela, rather than look at federal and state "social" programs that we already enjoy in the U.S.
If there is confusion, part of that lies with Sanders who prefers to label himself a "democratic socialist." There is added confusion because he identifies his brand of this with the Nordic Model which is not socialism. It might not be any more popular with a certain segment of the US, but I think he should simply say that he favors a much expanded welfare state.
Why isn't the Nordic model "socialism"? By the definitions I gave above (and what I read in the dictionary,) it sure seems like it is doing what is good for society as a whole.
-
Why not just avoid all derivatives of "social" and the pseudo-sciency, early 20th Century philosophical materlialism that nearly always attaches as baggage?
Because derivatives of "social," connect us with the philosophical Christian compassion: ("suffering with" others). When members of society are suffering, we suffer with them.
-
Socialism is not just a scare word used to label and discredit Bernie Sanders, it is the label that he has chosen for himself. Experience has shown that some things are better done collectively, like policing, national defense and the like. However, for other things, like running the industrial sector of the economy or agriculture, collectivism and governmental control has proven less than successful. If Sanders does not want to raise the hackles that socialism raises, then why embrace that label and speak of revolutionary changes (such as the Political Action Organization, Our Revolution, spun out of his 2016 presidential campaign)? Sounds like more is intended than just an incremental increase in the social safety net.
My use of "socialism" comes from its connection with "society." Both stem from the same Latin word, socius, which means "friend" or "companion." It seeks to do what is good for "society" (rather than just making profits for the stock holders).
Quite frankly, your use of "socialism" is irrelevant to a discussion of the "Democratic Socialist" candidate Bernie Sanders. Use the word any way you want so long as you are willing to make clear what you mean. But what I at least am discussing is not your use, but that of Bernie Sanders who is the one who wants me to vote for him and his Democratic Socialism for president.
-
One of the problems I've run into in discussing this topic is widely different understandings of "socialism". Some immediately jump to communist Russia or Venezuela, rather than look at federal and state "social" programs that we already enjoy in the U.S.
If there is confusion, part of that lies with Sanders who prefers to label himself a "democratic socialist." There is added confusion because he identifies his brand of this with the Nordic Model which is not socialism. It might not be any more popular with a certain segment of the US, but I think he should simply say that he favors a much expanded welfare state.
Why isn't the Nordic model "socialism"? By the definitions I gave above (and what I read in the dictionary,) it sure seems like it is doing what is good for society as a whole.
By the commonly accepted definition of socialism as a political system the Nordic Model is not socialism.
The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning government exerting control or ownership of businesses, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs...To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/#28a1421e74ad (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/#28a1421e74ad)
-
Socialism is not just a scare word used to label and discredit Bernie Sanders, it is the label that he has chosen for himself. Experience has shown that some things are better done collectively, like policing, national defense and the like. However, for other things, like running the industrial sector of the economy or agriculture, collectivism and governmental control has proven less than successful. If Sanders does not want to raise the hackles that socialism raises, then why embrace that label and speak of revolutionary changes (such as the Political Action Organization, Our Revolution, spun out of his 2016 presidential campaign)? Sounds like more is intended than just an incremental increase in the social safety net.
My use of "socialism" comes from its connection with "society." Both stem from the same Latin word, socius, which means "friend" or "companion." It seeks to do what is good for "society" (rather than just making profits for the stock holders).
Quite frankly, your use of "socialism" is irrelevant to a discussion of the "Democratic Socialist" candidate Bernie Sanders. Use the word any way you want so long as you are willing to make clear what you mean. But what I at least am discussing is not your use, but that of Bernie Sanders who is the one who wants me to vote for him and his Democratic Socialism for president.
I believe that he is using it as many others in America use it. Consider this essay about ways socialism is already present and has improved life in America.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/3/29/1078852/-75-Ways-Socialism-Has-Improved-America?fbclid=IwAR0oVWHGhluyxPmbhmyQ6AaRHNQI5f3irTnWgUyEa8QFwoxt7oWg2Ys-XHE
Expanding it to include more education and health care could improve life even more for all living in our nation.
-
One of the problems I've run into in discussing this topic is widely different understandings of "socialism". Some immediately jump to communist Russia or Venezuela, rather than look at federal and state "social" programs that we already enjoy in the U.S.
If there is confusion, part of that lies with Sanders who prefers to label himself a "democratic socialist." There is added confusion because he identifies his brand of this with the Nordic Model which is not socialism. It might not be any more popular with a certain segment of the US, but I think he should simply say that he favors a much expanded welfare state.
Why isn't the Nordic model "socialism"? By the definitions I gave above (and what I read in the dictionary,) it sure seems like it is doing what is good for society as a whole.
Why isn't the Nordic model socialism? For one thing, they, the Nordics, say that it is not. You seem to want to define socialism as whatever is done for the good of society as a whole. Such a definition is virtually meaningless. Republicans in proposing their "trickle down economics" "a rising tide lifts all boats" thought that their policies to improve the economy would be good for the whole of society. Therefore, by your definition that would be socialism since everyone would benefit. The way you are using socialism may make a good slogan, but little else.
-
Why not just avoid all derivatives of "social" and the pseudo-sciency, early 20th Century philosophical materlialism that nearly always attaches as baggage?
Because derivatives of "social," connect us with the philosophical Christian compassion: ("suffering with" others). When members of society are suffering, we suffer with them.
What are you talking about?
-
One of the problems I've run into in discussing this topic is widely different understandings of "socialism". Some immediately jump to communist Russia or Venezuela, rather than look at federal and state "social" programs that we already enjoy in the U.S.
If there is confusion, part of that lies with Sanders who prefers to label himself a "democratic socialist." There is added confusion because he identifies his brand of this with the Nordic Model which is not socialism. It might not be any more popular with a certain segment of the US, but I think he should simply say that he favors a much expanded welfare state.
Why isn't the Nordic model "socialism"? By the definitions I gave above (and what I read in the dictionary,) it sure seems like it is doing what is good for society as a whole.
Why isn't the Nordic model socialism? For one thing, they, the Nordics, say that it is not. You seem to want to define socialism as whatever is done for the good of society as a whole. Such a definition is virtually meaningless. Republicans in proposing their "trickle down economics" "a rising tide lifts all boats" thought that their policies to improve the economy would be good for the whole of society. Therefore, by your definition that would be socialism since everyone would benefit. The way you are using socialism may make a good slogan, but little else.
"Trickle down economics" would be socialism if they actually did it. If the super-wealthy used their wealth to create job opportunities, education opportunities, paid for health and child-care benefits; I would call that a form of socialism. There are some large companies who do that. It is beneficial for the "society" that works in those companies.
If it works well in a company to build morale, allegiance to the company, productivity, longevity; why wouldn't it work for the nation?
-
Once again for the willfully ignorant, socialism is an economic system in which the government owns and/or directs the means of production/economic activity rather than allowing the market place to determine what is made, sold and at what cost. The Swedes, Norwegians and Danes are all capitalistic economies with high tax rates to support social welfare programs. If the Norwegians lose North Sea oil--bye bye government give-aways. If the Swedes and Danes (along with the rest of Western Europe) ever have to provide their national defense from their own resources, their giveaways will also disappear. Europe has been able to provide these benefits largely because the US has essentially been their defense department for the last 70 years.
Socialism has failed wherever it has been tried and it has nearly always degenerated into despotism because it requires people to do as they're told more than most people want to do.
-
"Trickle down economics" would be socialism if they actually did it. If the super-wealthy used their wealth to create job opportunities, education opportunities, paid for health and child-care benefits; I would call that a form of socialism. There are some large companies who do that. It is beneficial for the "society" that works in those companies.
If it works well in a company to build morale, allegiance to the company, productivity, longevity; why wouldn't it work for the nation?
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
-
The problem is Bloomberg and Sanders are mutually exclusive. Sanders' supporters would not accept Bloomberg anywhere near his presidency (nor would Sanders, for that matter -- he is after all a man of principle). Bloomberg's supporters, that is to say, corporate interests and his billionaire buddies, will have nothing to do with Sanders.
[snip]
The best chance Democrats have to win, landslide or otherwise, is to rally behind Bernie Sanders and make the case that his policies are better than Trump's. It's not a bad case.
While I agree with your overall analysis here, your last statement I quoted caught my eye, in light of your earlier comments about Bloomberg's authoritarian streak. Perhaps you mean that in the context of the Democratic Party, the case for Sanders policies isn't bad. I wouldn't disagree with that. I think much of the opposition to Sanders is ultimately about the judgment of other politicians about his electability. Many of them would like to achieve what Sanders openly advocates for, but they're just not brave enough to risk their political careers.
The problem with all that is what is necessary to achieve it. The level of government action necessary requires an unprecedented level of authoritarianism in peace time, and would meet great resistance. I thought I read you in prior comments about Bloomberg and Trump that their authoritarian streak offends you. Maybe that's because both are perceived as taking executive action. I get the impression that you are less bothered by Sanders' authoritarianism because he talks about achieving it through law and congressional action. Like the good progressive he ultimately is, Sanders finds the morality of big business and the rich lacking, and wants to use government to "correct" them. That terrifies me, every bit as much as Bloomberg's anti-soda campaign. Perhaps even more so.
I don't make any distinction between executive or legislative authoritarianism. If anything, the legislative variety is specifically what Madison was concerned about in the Federalist Papers.
-
One of the problems I've run into in discussing this topic is widely different understandings of "socialism". Some immediately jump to communist Russia or Venezuela, rather than look at federal and state "social" programs that we already enjoy in the U.S.
If there is confusion, part of that lies with Sanders who prefers to label himself a "democratic socialist." There is added confusion because he identifies his brand of this with the Nordic Model which is not socialism. It might not be any more popular with a certain segment of the US, but I think he should simply say that he favors a much expanded welfare state.
Why isn't the Nordic model "socialism"? By the definitions I gave above (and what I read in the dictionary,) it sure seems like it is doing what is good for society as a whole.
Why isn't the Nordic model socialism? For one thing, they, the Nordics, say that it is not. You seem to want to define socialism as whatever is done for the good of society as a whole. Such a definition is virtually meaningless. Republicans in proposing their "trickle down economics" "a rising tide lifts all boats" thought that their policies to improve the economy would be good for the whole of society. Therefore, by your definition that would be socialism since everyone would benefit. The way you are using socialism may make a good slogan, but little else.
"Trickle down economics" would be socialism if they actually did it. If the super-wealthy used their wealth to create job opportunities, education opportunities, paid for health and child-care benefits; I would call that a form of socialism. There are some large companies who do that. It is beneficial for the "society" that works in those companies.
If it works well in a company to build morale, allegiance to the company, productivity, longevity; why wouldn't it work for the nation?
Spoken like a true national socialist! ::) 8)
My issue with your framing (and others who share your worldview) is that you assume the failure of "trickle down" capitalism, and the success of any government architected socialism. History tells us otherwise, though the ideology of the academia goes to great lengths to obscure this. I don't accept your premise that the good things you mention don't happen. Capitalism has created more wealth than any other economic system. Of course, not every last person benefits. No supporter of free markets has ever suggested that. It's not perfect--nothing ever is. Ultimately more people suffer deprivation under other systems, because economies stagnate without profit incentives.
-
The problem is Bloomberg and Sanders are mutually exclusive. Sanders' supporters would not accept Bloomberg anywhere near his presidency (nor would Sanders, for that matter -- he is after all a man of principle). Bloomberg's supporters, that is to say, corporate interests and his billionaire buddies, will have nothing to do with Sanders.
[snip]
The best chance Democrats have to win, landslide or otherwise, is to rally behind Bernie Sanders and make the case that his policies are better than Trump's. It's not a bad case.
While I agree with your overall analysis here, your last statement I quoted caught my eye, in light of your earlier comments about Bloomberg's authoritarian streak. Perhaps you mean that in the context of the Democratic Party, the case for Sanders policies isn't bad. I wouldn't disagree with that. I think much of the opposition to Sanders is ultimately about the judgment of other politicians about his electability. Many of them would like to achieve what Sanders openly advocates for, but they're just not brave enough to risk their political careers.
The problem with all that is what is necessary to achieve it. The level of government action necessary requires an unprecedented level of authoritarianism in peace time, and would meet great resistance. I thought I read you in prior comments about Bloomberg and Trump that their authoritarian streak offends you. Maybe that's because both are perceived as taking executive action. I get the impression that you are less bothered by Sanders' authoritarianism because he talks about achieving it through law and congressional action. Like the good progressive he ultimately is, Sanders finds the morality of big business and the rich lacking, and wants to use government to "correct" them. That terrifies me, every bit as much as Bloomberg's anti-soda campaign. Perhaps even more so.
I don't make any distinction between executive or legislative authoritarianism. If anything, the legislative variety is specifically what Madison was concerned about in the Federalist Papers.
It's not a case I agree with, but there is a reasonable case to be made. If I have time later I will expound, but the main point is simply this -- Bernie Sanders connects with actual, real, working people in a way that other mainstream candidates do not. For the same reason Trump won over people like Jeb Bush, Bernie will win over people like Mayor Pete and Biden and certainly Bloomberg, who in any event is just a Republican with an authoritarian streak and liberal social views.
And it is precisely for that reason -- that authenticity and lack of connection to DC insiders -- that Bernie Sanders has the best chance to win over Trump. He can make a case that other candidates simply cannot, because he has been preaching this same sermon for decades.
-
Once again for the willfully ignorant, socialism is an economic system in which the government owns and/or directs the means of production/economic activity rather than allowing the market place to determine what is made, sold and at what cost. The Swedes, Norwegians and Danes are all capitalistic economies with high tax rates to support social welfare programs. If the Norwegians lose North Sea oil--bye bye government give-aways. If the Swedes and Danes (along with the rest of Western Europe) ever have to provide their national defense from their own resources, their giveaways will also disappear. Europe has been able to provide these benefits largely because the US has essentially been their defense department for the last 70 years.
Socialism has failed wherever it has been tried and it has nearly always degenerated into despotism because it requires people to do as they're told more than most people want to do.
There's nothing in the definitions I've read of socialism that it has to be the government owns and/or directs the means of production/economy activity. The definitions just state that such decisions are made "by the community as a whole." Private business owners, e.g., farmers; can join together and make such decisions as a "community of the whole." Cities and states make economic decisions for their populations all the time.
-
"Trickle down economics" would be socialism if they actually did it. If the super-wealthy used their wealth to create job opportunities, education opportunities, paid for health and child-care benefits; I would call that a form of socialism. There are some large companies who do that. It is beneficial for the "society" that works in those companies.
If it works well in a company to build morale, allegiance to the company, productivity, longevity; why wouldn't it work for the nation?
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
Often, when I use a word I don't look to Humpty, but to a reliable English dictionary. It is not just what I choose it to mean; but what experts say it means in regular conversation.
-
Once again for the willfully ignorant, socialism is an economic system in which the government owns and/or directs the means of production/economic activity rather than allowing the market place to determine what is made, sold and at what cost. The Swedes, Norwegians and Danes are all capitalistic economies with high tax rates to support social welfare programs. If the Norwegians lose North Sea oil--bye bye government give-aways. If the Swedes and Danes (along with the rest of Western Europe) ever have to provide their national defense from their own resources, their giveaways will also disappear. Europe has been able to provide these benefits largely because the US has essentially been their defense department for the last 70 years.
Socialism has failed wherever it has been tried and it has nearly always degenerated into despotism because it requires people to do as they're told more than most people want to do.
There's nothing in the definitions I've read of socialism that it has to be the government owns and/or directs the means of production/economy activity. The definitions just state that such decisions are made "by the community as a whole." Private business owners, e.g., farmers; can join together and make such decisions as a "community of the whole." Cities and states make economic decisions for their populations all the time.
Try reading definitions from a reliable English Dictionary.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
-
Once again for the willfully ignorant, socialism is an economic system in which the government owns and/or directs the means of production/economic activity rather than allowing the market place to determine what is made, sold and at what cost. The Swedes, Norwegians and Danes are all capitalistic economies with high tax rates to support social welfare programs. If the Norwegians lose North Sea oil--bye bye government give-aways. If the Swedes and Danes (along with the rest of Western Europe) ever have to provide their national defense from their own resources, their giveaways will also disappear. Europe has been able to provide these benefits largely because the US has essentially been their defense department for the last 70 years.
Socialism has failed wherever it has been tried and it has nearly always degenerated into despotism because it requires people to do as they're told more than most people want to do.
There's nothing in the definitions I've read of socialism that it has to be the government owns and/or directs the means of production/economy activity. The definitions just state that such decisions are made "by the community as a whole." Private business owners, e.g., farmers; can join together and make such decisions as a "community of the whole." Cities and states make economic decisions for their populations all the time.
Then sign me up! Voluntary socialism is what I'm all about. The problem is that mandatory socialism is all I ever hear being proposed by candidates. But then, the distinction between voluntary and involuntary might not matter to people who say things like "Government just refers to what we choose to do together." The reality, that is the exact opposite of the truth. Everything else besides government is what we choose to do together. Government is what we coerce each other into doing together.
-
One of the problems I've run into in discussing this topic is widely different understandings of "socialism". Some immediately jump to communist Russia or Venezuela, rather than look at federal and state "social" programs that we already enjoy in the U.S.
If there is confusion, part of that lies with Sanders who prefers to label himself a "democratic socialist." There is added confusion because he identifies his brand of this with the Nordic Model which is not socialism. It might not be any more popular with a certain segment of the US, but I think he should simply say that he favors a much expanded welfare state.
Why isn't the Nordic model "socialism"? By the definitions I gave above (and what I read in the dictionary,) it sure seems like it is doing what is good for society as a whole.
Why isn't the Nordic model socialism? For one thing, they, the Nordics, say that it is not. You seem to want to define socialism as whatever is done for the good of society as a whole. Such a definition is virtually meaningless. Republicans in proposing their "trickle down economics" "a rising tide lifts all boats" thought that their policies to improve the economy would be good for the whole of society. Therefore, by your definition that would be socialism since everyone would benefit. The way you are using socialism may make a good slogan, but little else.
"Trickle down economics" would be socialism if they actually did it. If the super-wealthy used their wealth to create job opportunities, education opportunities, paid for health and child-care benefits; I would call that a form of socialism. There are some large companies who do that. It is beneficial for the "society" that works in those companies.
If it works well in a company to build morale, allegiance to the company, productivity, longevity; why wouldn't it work for the nation?
Spoken like a true national socialist! ::) 8)
My issue with your framing (and others who share your worldview) is that you assume the failure of "trickle down" capitalism, and the success of any government architected socialism. History tells us otherwise, though the ideology of the academia goes to great lengths to obscure this. I don't accept your premise that the good things you mention don't happen. Capitalism has created more wealth than any other economic system. Of course, not every last person benefits. No supporter of free markets has ever suggested that. It's not perfect--nothing ever is. Ultimately more people suffer deprivation under other systems, because economies stagnate without profit incentives.
Capitalism works because people are greedy. Being motivated by what I get might work until I don't need more of what I've got. A few years ago I saw this video on what really motivates people - and it isn't capital (at least beyond what people require for the necessities).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc)
It also squares with the research I heard on NPR a few years ago on "Does money buy happiness?" and "Does more money make people happier?"
Their first answer is, "Yes, money does buy happiness." Those who had enough money to buy the necessities were happier than those who didn't have enough.
The second answer is, "No, more money doesn't buy more happiness." Once people are beyond the threshold of necessities; having more money didn't make them happier. That threshold for happiness varies greatly where one lives in the U.S. The average they found (in the year that they did the study) was about $50,000.
What this suggests is that once the person is at or beyond the threshold, increase pay (profits) is not a primary motivating force.
-
Once again for the willfully ignorant, socialism is an economic system in which the government owns and/or directs the means of production/economic activity rather than allowing the market place to determine what is made, sold and at what cost. The Swedes, Norwegians and Danes are all capitalistic economies with high tax rates to support social welfare programs. If the Norwegians lose North Sea oil--bye bye government give-aways. If the Swedes and Danes (along with the rest of Western Europe) ever have to provide their national defense from their own resources, their giveaways will also disappear. Europe has been able to provide these benefits largely because the US has essentially been their defense department for the last 70 years.
Socialism has failed wherever it has been tried and it has nearly always degenerated into despotism because it requires people to do as they're told more than most people want to do.
There's nothing in the definitions I've read of socialism that it has to be the government owns and/or directs the means of production/economy activity. The definitions just state that such decisions are made "by the community as a whole." Private business owners, e.g., farmers; can join together and make such decisions as a "community of the whole." Cities and states make economic decisions for their populations all the time.
Try reading definitions from a reliable English Dictionary.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism)
From the New Oxford American Dictionary (that my MacBook uses online)
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
• policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
• (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
The term “socialism” has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market.The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended toward social democracy.
This one doesn't mention "government ownership" as Merriam did, although a government could fall under "collective as a whole".
-
Once again for the willfully ignorant, socialism is an economic system in which the government owns and/or directs the means of production/economic activity rather than allowing the market place to determine what is made, sold and at what cost. The Swedes, Norwegians and Danes are all capitalistic economies with high tax rates to support social welfare programs. If the Norwegians lose North Sea oil--bye bye government give-aways. If the Swedes and Danes (along with the rest of Western Europe) ever have to provide their national defense from their own resources, their giveaways will also disappear. Europe has been able to provide these benefits largely because the US has essentially been their defense department for the last 70 years.
Socialism has failed wherever it has been tried and it has nearly always degenerated into despotism because it requires people to do as they're told more than most people want to do.
There's nothing in the definitions I've read of socialism that it has to be the government owns and/or directs the means of production/economy activity. The definitions just state that such decisions are made "by the community as a whole." Private business owners, e.g., farmers; can join together and make such decisions as a "community of the whole." Cities and states make economic decisions for their populations all the time.
Then sign me up! Voluntary socialism is what I'm all about. The problem is that mandatory socialism is all I ever hear being proposed by candidates. But then, the distinction between voluntary and involuntary might not matter to people who say things like "Government just refers to what we choose to do together." The reality, that is the exact opposite of the truth. Everything else besides government is what we choose to do together. Government is what we coerce each other into doing together.
Yup democracy does that. The majority force their opinion onto the minority. However, Roberts Rules makes sure that the minority have a voice in the decision-making process.
Many of the examples given of socialism in America are what cities do for its citizens. Cities have governments that run them. Churches have governments. I think most congregations I've served, 10% of the voting membership was a quorum at a congregational meeting, which means that one more than 5% of the members could make a decision for the whole congregation.
Also, in contrast to the capitalist model, people work and volunteer in churches not because of profits.
-
Capitalism works because it unleashes motive power. Greedy people are motivated by greed, but everyone is motivated by something— pleasure, good works, familial love, zeal for their field of endeavor, or whatever. In capitalism, it doesn’t matter in the slightest why you do what you do. The fact is, when people’s motives are their own, they tend to produce what they want, and in the aggregate everyone is better off. Socialism demonstrably does not work as efficiently, interferes with personal liberty, and does nothing whatsoever about greed.
-
From the New Oxford American Dictionary (that my MacBook uses online)
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
• policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
• (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
The term “socialism” has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market.The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended toward social democracy.
This one doesn't mention "government ownership" as Merriam did, although a government could fall under "collective as a whole".
The Oxford University Press Oxford Advanced American Dictionary states:
"a set of political and economic theories based on the belief that everyone has an equal right to a share of a country's wealth and that the government should own and control the main industries"
Consider changing your MacBook settings.
-
Capitalism works because it unleashes motive power. Greedy people are motivated by greed, but everyone is motivated by something— pleasure, good works, familial love, zeal for their field of endeavor, or whatever. In capitalism, it doesn’t matter in the slightest why you do what you do. The fact is, when people’s motives are their own, they tend to produce what they want, and in the aggregate everyone is better off. Socialism demonstrably does not work as efficiently, interferes with personal liberty, and does nothing whatsoever about greed.
So why are the folks in Scandinavian countries (with their social welfare system, if you want to use that phrase) happier than folks under are capitalist system? For many people in American, their motivation is survival. They will work two or three jobs to survive. That is not what they want. It's what they have to do. If they knew that they could get the education that they wanted and work at the job that they want and earn enough to provide for themselves and their family; then they and the world would be better off. Socialism can provide that. Capitalism does not.
-
Socialism can provide that. Capitalism does not.
Here's what capitalism does: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2018/09/27/a-global-tipping-point-half-the-world-is-now-middle-class-or-wealthier/
Socialism has never done that. Anywhere.
Pax, Steven+
-
Once again for the willfully ignorant, socialism is an economic system in which the government owns and/or directs the means of production/economic activity rather than allowing the market place to determine what is made, sold and at what cost. The Swedes, Norwegians and Danes are all capitalistic economies with high tax rates to support social welfare programs. If the Norwegians lose North Sea oil--bye bye government give-aways. If the Swedes and Danes (along with the rest of Western Europe) ever have to provide their national defense from their own resources, their giveaways will also disappear. Europe has been able to provide these benefits largely because the US has essentially been their defense department for the last 70 years.
Socialism has failed wherever it has been tried and it has nearly always degenerated into despotism because it requires people to do as they're told more than most people want to do.
There's nothing in the definitions I've read of socialism that it has to be the government owns and/or directs the means of production/economy activity. The definitions just state that such decisions are made "by the community as a whole." Private business owners, e.g., farmers; can join together and make such decisions as a "community of the whole." Cities and states make economic decisions for their populations all the time.
What you describe is corporatism which is the economic model of traditional fascism
-
Socialism can provide that. Capitalism does not.
Here's what capitalism does: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2018/09/27/a-global-tipping-point-half-the-world-is-now-middle-class-or-wealthier/
Socialism has never done that. Anywhere.
Pax, Steven+
Pr. Tibbetts, the article makes it clear that the recent middle class growth is a product of both autocratic governments and liberal democracies. And much of the growth is found in China and Southeast Asia (Vietnam?). So the growth to which you refer is largely occurring in Communist countries that have adopted state capitalism as their economic policy - their version of a mixed economy, I suppose.
I don't think it's very helpful to speak of capitalist versus socialist countries anymore. Most countries have found a way to adopt mixed economies of one form or another. And, of course, there are plenty of ways to screw everything up - excessive spending, over-taxation, foreign adventurism, ethnic strife, abuse or neglect of natural resources, corruption...etc.
-
Good Comment, mj4.
To say socialism is communism and is always bad doesn't help; and to say capitalism is free enterprise and is always good doesn't help either.
The "socialism" we speak of today is not what was shouted in the streets in the early part of the 20th Century.
Free-market capitalism brought us the railroad, steel and mining barons; even as it enabled the entrepreneurs to start things up and make money. (If that has to be the measure of things.)
"Mixed" is the right way to describe most economies today, especially the ones that seem to thrive and survive.
Does socialism cost? Of course it costs. It costs a lot.
Free-market capitalism costs a lot, too, but in very different ways.
I think I'd take the high-taxation socialism of some Scandinavian countries over free-market capitalism. The former provides things for the people; the latter things for some of the people.
-
Many of the examples given of socialism in America are what cities do for its citizens. Cities have governments that run them. Churches have governments. I think most congregations I've served, 10% of the voting membership was a quorum at a congregational meeting, which means that one more than 5% of the members could make a decision for the whole congregation.
A church is not a government. If you choose not to pay taxes, a government will take the money from you anyway. If you choose not to contribute, a church will not.
Have you been hanging out with Humpty again?
-
So why are the folks in Scandinavian countries (with their social welfare system, if you want to use that phrase) happier than folks under are capitalist system? For many people in American, their motivation is survival. They will work two or three jobs to survive. That is not what they want. It's what they have to do. If they knew that they could get the education that they wanted and work at the job that they want and earn enough to provide for themselves and their family; then they and the world would be better off. Socialism can provide that. Capitalism does not.
For one thing, their capitalist economy is working well.
"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy”, Rasmussen said.
“The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security for its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish,” he added.
- Danish PM Lars Løkke Rasmussen speaking at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist (https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist)
-
Many of the examples given of socialism in America are what cities do for its citizens. Cities have governments that run them. Churches have governments. I think most congregations I've served, 10% of the voting membership was a quorum at a congregational meeting, which means that one more than 5% of the members could make a decision for the whole congregation.
A church is not a government. If you choose not to pay taxes, a government will take the money from you anyway. If you choose not to contribute, a church will not.
For many years I did not pay taxes. My income was so low that I had no federal tax liability. Making enough money so that I could pay taxes was a thrill. I was contributing to the good of our nation. Why shouldn’t that be the attitude of Americans to contribute for the good our nation and states and counties and cities? That is our privilege and responsibility as people living and working in this nation.
If folks don’t contribute to church it will not exist. Although weekly offerings is fairly recent event in church history. Required pew rentals was common in colonial America. The wealthy were expected to pay for those who couldn’t afford it. From what I understand, in Luther’s day benefactors, e.g. a prince, financed the church, built the building and paid the staff.
-
Here's a calmer look at the coronavirus and its effect on the market; (from the NY Times):
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/26/your-money/stock-market-changes-virus.html
Peace, JOHN
-
Before we decide (as if it was up to us to do so) to switch to the "Nordic Model" in the US, we might want to actually compare and contrast the existing models and see if they are really compatible. As the US is considerably larger and more diverse than the Nordic nations, the idea that we could simply impose their system on our ours is unrealistic, and probably not going to be as effective. When we line the two up we are often comparing "apples and oranges," as they say? These nations are smaller and less diverse (both politically and ethnically) than the US. Just comparing our sprawling and diversified governing system with theirs should give us reason to wonder just how we would impose their model on us in any realistic way (politically speaking). We often live in a perpetual political gridlock where so little can be accomplished by only two opposing parties. So, do we honestly trust our government to have the efficiency and competency to run an entire health care system and control education besides?
This article in National Review brings up important points of comparison that should be considered:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/ten-reasons-we-cant-and-shouldnt-be-nordic/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/ten-reasons-we-cant-and-shouldnt-be-nordic/)
We like to paint the Nordic countries as a kind of utopian system, where finally someone 'got it right.' Yet have we taken a truly honest look at their problems as well as their successes, or do we conveniently ignore the former? Is their per capita debt load really lower than ours? Is productivity and creativity and innovation better under their system? Let's see some honest and open comparisons.
-
Biden won the South Carolina primary by double digits - as he predicted. But it doesn't seem that his path to the nomination is anywhere close to being clinched. It appears that Sanders still has great momentum. He is also beating Biden big time in fund raising.
I still think that a Trump - Sanders race this fall would be far more entertaining than a Trump - Biden one.
-
Indeed. But I'm about done with "entertaining."
-
For many years I did not pay taxes. My income was so low that I had no federal tax liability. Making enough money so that I could pay taxes was a thrill.
If paying taxes is so thrilling, why did you opt out of the Social Security system?
s a clergy, you can opt out of Social Security and medicare.
If the "you" is Peter, not ethically.
Why is it unethical to opt out of Social Security and medicare?
You've been a Lutheran minister all these years, and you don't know?
As my mother usually told me, "Look it up."
No, I don't. I opted out 41 years ago. (It was a much different form back then than it is today, and it applied only to retirement benefits.) A generation earlier, clergy were all automatically out of it and had to opt in.
-
Given Biden's success in South Carolina and potential wins in Super Tuesday, it is possible that Democrats might have the first contested convention since 1952 when Adlai Stevenson won over Kefauver, even though Kefauver technically came into the convention with more delegates. One can imagine such a situation between Sanders and Biden, where Biden is eventually chosen even if Sanders secures more delegates coming into the convention. I don't think that establishment Democrats care much for Sanders (who seems to parallel with Kefauver for his brashness and unconventionality), and they are all about finding someone who has a chance of beating Trump.
Will 1952 be repeated?
http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/March-2020/What-Happens-If-Theres-a-Contested-Convention-Bernie-Sanders-Estes-Kefauver/?utm_source=pocket-newtab (http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/March-2020/What-Happens-If-Theres-a-Contested-Convention-Bernie-Sanders-Estes-Kefauver/?utm_source=pocket-newtab)
-
For many years I did not pay taxes. My income was so low that I had no federal tax liability. Making enough money so that I could pay taxes was a thrill.
If paying taxes is so thrilling, why did you opt out of the Social Security system?
I was young and foolish and poor. I was often paid below district/synod guidelines for a first year pastor. At one point, I had two outside jobs to help pay the bills (necessary without paying the 15.3% on salary and housing to SSA). As I said, our income was so low we didn't owe any federal taxes. It's only with my last call, after 31 years of ministry, that I needed to make quarterly payments to the U.S. Treasury.
Once out of Social Security, the only way back in is to get a secular job where it is required. My clergy uncle had to do that. In his later years he had a second job as a bus driver until he had paid enough quarters to be covered by Social Security. His wife had been his volunteer secretary, so she didn't have enough quarters for coverage either - and they always lived in parsonages - so there was also the issue of housing when he retired.
-
Pete Buttigieg is out. The field is narrowing further. It looks like there's pressure to throw their support behind Biden as the favored moderate against Sanders.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/election-2020/ct-pete-buttigieg-ends-democratic-presidential-nomination-20200301-gd36gw3drvelnbdtmfcvmy2lyq-story.html (https://www.chicagotribune.com/election-2020/ct-pete-buttigieg-ends-democratic-presidential-nomination-20200301-gd36gw3drvelnbdtmfcvmy2lyq-story.html)
-
When we have come to a place where Biden and Buttigieg are referred to as "moderates" we are in a sad state. The Democrat party used to have real moderates, such as Scoop Jackson, Joe Lieberman, Daniel Patrick Moynahan, etc. There is scarcely any such thing today. The choice today is between radical leftists and less radical leftists. It's a shame.
IMO, it's also a shame that Christians flocked so heavily into the GOP, so much so that we no longer have any moderating influence among Democrats.
-
When we have come to a place where Biden and Buttigieg are referred to as "moderates" we are in a sad state. The Democrat party used to have real moderates, such as Scoop Jackson, Joe Lieberman, Daniel Patrick Moynahan, etc. There is scarcely any such thing today. The choice today is between radical leftists and less radical leftists. It's a shame.
IMO, it's also a shame that Christians flocked so heavily into the GOP, so much so that we no longer have any moderating influence among Democrats.
This article is from last year, but it's interesting that at that point "a survey by Gallup in December found 54 percent of Democratic respondents wanted a 'more moderate' party." Yet they also note that "often lost in the discussion is what the term 'moderate Democrat' even means at a time where many of the party's old ideological divides are collapsing and unexpected new ones are popping up." It appears that the idea of being a "moderate" in the Democrat party means trying to cooperate or work with Republicans.
Biden:
"We don’t demonize our opponents, we don't belittle them, we don't question their motive, we question their judgment, but not their motive, we don't treat the opposition as the enemy," Biden said. "We might even say a nice word every once and a while about a Republican when they do something good."
Not sure that really held.....
One area that divides the 'far left' from 'moderate' is Sander's idea of "Medicare for All." But issues that once may have been seen as 'radical' for Democrats are no longer, and issues that were more common are also no longer: "...many issues like gay marriage and legalizing marijuana that distinguished centrist Democrats from progressives have disappeared...Pro-life Democratic politicians, once a significant faction, are nearly extinct."
Whoever the candidate is, the House will remain tilted well to the left. If the new president is Democrat then the agenda that leans far left will get much more support. If Trump retains the White House the division will go on as before.
Either way if you are a Republican things look less than positive....
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/what-moderate-democrat-anyway-n981931 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/what-moderate-democrat-anyway-n981931)
-
There are always alternatives.
"Yeah. I certainly feel the urge because I feel the 2016 election was a really odd time and an odd outcome." - Hillary Clinton (https://nypost.com/2020/01/28/hillary-clinton-admits-she-feels-an-urge-to-run-against-trump-again/)
-
One area that divides the 'far left' from 'moderate' is Sander's idea of "Medicare for All." But issues that once may have been seen as 'radical' for Democrats are no longer, and issues that were more common are also no longer: "...many issues like gay marriage and legalizing marijuana that distinguished centrist Democrats from progressives have disappeared...Pro-life Democratic politicians, once a significant faction, are nearly extinct."
I made this point earlier, but your comments give me another opportunity for a second "hot take": I think Medicare-for-All is a lot like gay marriage for Democratic politicians--they are probably all pretty much in favor of it, but their current elective office constituencies are not, and therefore they won't support it publicly to avoid losing the next election. Bernie being Bernie has no such inhibitions.
-
When we have come to a place where Biden and Buttigieg are referred to as "moderates" we are in a sad state. The Democrat party used to have real moderates, such as Scoop Jackson, Joe Lieberman, Daniel Patrick Moynahan, etc. There is scarcely any such thing today. The choice today is between radical leftists and less radical leftists. It's a shame.
IMO, it's also a shame that Christians flocked so heavily into the GOP, so much so that we no longer have any moderating influence among Democrats.
Best I can tell "moderate" means "not socialist economically and neocon war hawk on foreign policy, but with very liberal social views and also we're coming to get your guns" these days.
-
IMO, it's also a shame that Christians flocked so heavily into the GOP, so much so that we no longer have any moderating influence among Democrats.
Flocked to the GOP, or driven from the Democratic Party? I recall how my former governor, Bob Casey Sr., was ostracized by his party and delivering a pro-life speech to a national convention. Yes, the "Moral Majority" was certainly a political faction that coalesced in the Republican Party, and would never have been at home in the other party. However, it helped turn the formerly "Solid South" Red.
Hillary Clinton is a proud Methodist. Pete Buttigieg talked about his Episcopalian faith throughout his presidential campaign. Both of their beliefs conformed to acceptable Democrat orthodoxies, every bit as much as Republican candidates fit within Ralph Reed's (formerly of the Christian Coalition) faith parameters.
-
IMO, it's also a shame that Christians flocked so heavily into the GOP, so much so that we no longer have any moderating influence among Democrats.
Flocked to the GOP, or driven from the Democratic Party? I recall how my former governor, Bob Casey Sr., was ostracized by his party and delivering a pro-life speech to a national convention. Yes, the "Moral Majority" was certainly a political faction that coalesced in the Republican Party, and would never have been at home in the other party. However, it helped turn the formerly "Solid South" Red.
Hillary Clinton is a proud Methodist. Pete Buttigieg talked about his Episcopalian faith throughout his presidential campaign. Both of their beliefs conformed to acceptable Democrat orthodoxies, every bit as much as Republican candidates fit within Ralph Reed's (formerly of the Christian Coalition) faith parameters.
Honestly, I remain disappointed that more Christians pick a team and ride with that team no matter what, instead of calling out their side.
Imagine a world where a significant number of pro life Democrats and economically moderate Republicans pressed their parties to enact policies that are compassionate, family centered and life affirming? Policies that reduce the school to prison pipeline, eschew foreign wars, and allow families to flourish on one income instead of requiring mothers to work.
Marco Rubio made some noise about this a few years ago, but he's since gone back into hiding. I haven't seen a Democrat stand up for such policies in years. The closest is Tulsi Gabbard, but she is roundly despised by Democrats and she remains pro choice, even though she is not absolutely insane on the issue like most of her fellow candidates.
We need more Jack Kemps and David Boniors. We have, instead, people who play to the most extreme portions of their base in order to get nominated, and then govern as if they had no choice but to follow through on the insanity of said base.
-
Pastor Culler writes:
IMO, it's also a shame that Christians flocked so heavily into the GOP, so much so that we no longer have any moderating influence among Democrats.
I comment:
You are welcome to come back. Would be glad to have you.
-
Pastor Culler writes:
IMO, it's also a shame that Christians flocked so heavily into the GOP, so much so that we no longer have any moderating influence among Democrats.
I comment:
You are welcome to come back. Would be glad to have you.
Wow, it's like you didn't read my previous:
I recall how my former governor, Bob Casey Sr., was ostracized by his party and delivering a pro-life speech to a national convention.
So no, I don't believe you, or more specifically I don't believe you speak for "your" party. Much like the ELCA, you are welcome as long as you keep your mouth shut and go along with the zeitgeist. :-\
-
Pastor Culler writes:
IMO, it's also a shame that Christians flocked so heavily into the GOP, so much so that we no longer have any moderating influence among Democrats.
I comment:
You are welcome to come back. Would be glad to have you.
It's too late for that, you might as well ask me to return to using an outhouse on a regular basis in the winter without toilet paper.
I do have a fantasy in which large numbers of believers join with like minded folks to form a new political party somewhat like the People's Party in Austria. We would never be able to elect a president or maybe even a governor except here and there. But we could possibly elect enough legislators that we could be the balance in those chambers, nothing serious passing without the party's support or restraint in opposition. Thus we could rid ourselves of the unholy alliance with folks who refuse to care for the poor and needy, those who think a nice little war is an answer to everything and those who never met an abortion they disapproved of. It's a fantasy and nearly 250 years of experience show it couldn't happen in our system. Still, it's a nice dream rather than a nightmare.
-
Honestly, I remain disappointed that more Christians pick a team and ride with that team no matter what, instead of calling out their side.
Imagine a world where a significant number of pro life Democrats and economically moderate Republicans pressed their parties to enact policies that are compassionate, family centered and life affirming? Policies that reduce the school to prison pipeline, eschew foreign wars, and allow families to flourish on one income instead of requiring mothers to work.
While you honestly shared you disappointment, I'm sure you also understand the reasons for this, the biggest being the ideological sorting of the two major parties, coupled with weakening of their power from campaign finance "reforms".
Marco Rubio made some noise about this a few years ago, but he's since gone back into hiding.
Interesting tidbit about Rubio, to put his hiding in context. During the 2016 primary, the New York Times did an expose of him highlighting that he owned...a fishing boat! The horror! Not a 57 foot yacht, but the kind of modest boat many middle class Floridians own. The not so hidden implication was that he was out of touch with the common man.
Bernie Sanders owns 3 houses. He's a millionaire. If you can find a similar skeptical story from any high reputable organization, please let me know.
-
Thus we could rid ourselves of the unholy alliance with folks who refuse to care for the poor and needy, those who think a nice little war is an answer to everything and those who never met an abortion they disapproved of.
While I recognize that snark is part and parcel of our engagement here, I find the way you have phrased these 3 things thoroughly unhelpful. I can make arguments in good faith as to why a person might hold such views which could be interpreted negatively as you just have.
-
Mr Spatz:
So no, I don't believe you, or more specifically I don't believe you speak for "your" party. Much like the ELCA, you are welcome as long as you keep your mouth shut and go along with the zeitgeist.
Me:
Then it seems to me that you do not care enough about either the ELCA or the Democratic Party to struggle to make them the way you think they should be. You aren’t willing to take the criticism or even the undeserved hostility you might encounter if you speak up.
That’s OK. Enjoy being a Republican or something other than ELCA, living where everyone agrees with you and you - poor dear! - won’t have to “suffer” criticism or struggle.
-
Honestly, I remain disappointed that more Christians pick a team and ride with that team no matter what, instead of calling out their side.
Imagine a world where a significant number of pro life Democrats and economically moderate Republicans pressed their parties to enact policies that are compassionate, family centered and life affirming? Policies that reduce the school to prison pipeline, eschew foreign wars, and allow families to flourish on one income instead of requiring mothers to work.
While you honestly shared you disappointment, I'm sure you also understand the reasons for this, the biggest being the ideological sorting of the two major parties, coupled with weakening of their power from campaign finance "reforms".
I do, and I sympathize more than my earlier comments may have let on. I understand the why. I wish we would all do more to call out whichever team we pick, though. People tend to be defensive about their party and offensive about the other party. I would love to see Christian conservatives call on Republicans to take more stock of their own pantry, and the same with Christian liberals vis a vis Democrats.
Interesting tidbit about Rubio, to put his hiding in context. During the 2016 primary, the New York Times did an expose of him highlighting that he owned...a fishing boat! The horror! Not a 57 foot yacht, but the kind of modest boat many middle class Floridians own. The not so hidden implication was that he was out of touch with the common man.
Bernie Sanders owns 3 houses. He's a millionaire. If you can find a similar skeptical story from any high reputable organization, please let me know.
Oh, I grant there are a ton of double standards in the media.
-
Bernie Sanders owns 3 houses. He's a millionaire. If you can find a similar skeptical story from any high reputable organization, please let me know.
What's wrong with being a millionaire? Had I been paid guidelines and the higher contributions into the pension plan, there would have been over $1 million at my retirement after 43 years. As it is, there was over 3/4 of a million in my pension when I decided it was time to retire. A million dollars isn't what it used to be.
There are lots of people in our town who have two houses. One or both may be mobile homes or park models. That doesn't make them wealthy folks.
-
When we have come to a place where Biden and Buttigieg are referred to as "moderates" we are in a sad state. The Democrat party used to have real moderates, such as Scoop Jackson, Joe Lieberman, Daniel Patrick Moynahan, etc. There is scarcely any such thing today. The choice today is between radical leftists and less radical leftists. It's a shame.
IMO, it's also a shame that Christians flocked so heavily into the GOP, so much so that we no longer have any moderating influence among Democrats.
I find the last sentence of this post intriguing. We run into the idea that those opposed to the way the group that they have turned should stick with them nonetheless to be a "moderating influence." When CWA 2009 took the ELCA into a new reality with the ordination of partnered homosexuals, those who lost the vote and considered leaving the ELCA were encouraged to stay, continue to be a part of the conversation and be a moderating influence. That many left because of the decision was then blamed for the intolerance that some who did stay reported since they were no longer around to be that moderating influence and those who remained were even more of minority.
I wonder if many of those who left the LCMS for the AELC and ultimately the ELCA if they had stayed could have been a moderating influence in the LCMS. Should we blame them for the hard right turn that some in the LCMS have taken?
What might have been is always an interesting and ultimately futile speculation. There is no way to tell what might have been. It makes an interesting cop out for those who won to excuse any bad behavior on their side. When the liberals win, any bad treatment of the loosing conservatives is not the fault of the victorious libs, it's all the fault of the cowardly. intolerant conservatives who cut and run.
Could moderate Democrats who left the Democratic Party after its hard left turn and repudiation of pro-life Democrats have moderated the party and maintained an effective (rather than merely token) voice in the platform of Democrats? Good question. It is always difficult to distinguish between a hard fight and a futile fight.
-
Bernie Sanders owns 3 houses. He's a millionaire. If you can find a similar skeptical story from any high reputable organization, please let me know.
What's wrong with being a millionaire? Had I been paid guidelines and the higher contributions into the pension plan, there would have been over $1 million at my retirement after 43 years. As it is, there was over 3/4 of a million in my pension when I decided it was time to retire. A million dollars isn't what it used to be.
There are lots of people in our town who have two houses. One or both may be mobile homes or park models. That doesn't make them wealthy folks.
Do you consider Bernie Sanders to be a person of moderate means, not wealthy? That would be a stretch. So he remains a wealthy person who has built his political career on class warfare.
The issue is not whether or not some of us consider wealth a sure sign of moral degeneration, it is the double standard that is too often applied.
Interesting tidbit about Rubio, to put his hiding in context. During the 2016 primary, the New York Times did an expose of him highlighting that he owned...a fishing boat! The horror! Not a 57 foot yacht, but the kind of modest boat many middle class Floridians own. The not so hidden implication was that he was out of touch with the common man.
Bernie Sanders owns 3 houses. He's a millionaire. If you can find a similar skeptical story from any high reputable organization, please let me know.
If Rubio owning a fishing boat a sign of excessive wealth that makes him a class enemy, why should being a millionaire with three houses be accepted matter of factly?
-
Bernie Sanders owns 3 houses. He's a millionaire. If you can find a similar skeptical story from any high reputable organization, please let me know.
What's wrong with being a millionaire? Had I been paid guidelines and the higher contributions into the pension plan, there would have been over $1 million at my retirement after 43 years. As it is, there was over 3/4 of a million in my pension when I decided it was time to retire. A million dollars isn't what it used to be.
There are lots of people in our town who have two houses. One or both may be mobile homes or park models. That doesn't make them wealthy folks.
Bernie Sander's Vermont lake beach house cost $600,000 in 2016.
His other house in Chittenden County, Vermont, had a purchase price of $405,000 in 2009.
The townhouse he owns in DC? $488,999.
So -- No "mobile homes or park models" for Bernie.
But you knew that.
-
I do, and I sympathize more than my earlier comments may have let on. I understand the why. I wish we would all do more to call out whichever team we pick, though. People tend to be defensive about their party and offensive about the other party. I would love to see Christian conservatives call on Republicans to take more stock of their own pantry, and the same with Christian liberals vis a vis Democrats.
Don't focus so much on the "see" aspect of it. Some things rightfully happen behind closed doors. Disagreement in private. Unity in public. That's how healthy organizations operate. Any "calling out" of your own teammates in public needs to be handled very, very delicately.
Regardless of whether all politics are local, all politics are certainly political. For the purposes of winning office, the other guy on the ballot is the enemy. He isn't really your enemy any more than the opposing quarterback is your enemy. You don't have to hate him. But you do have to be hoping he loses and your guy wins; both can't win. So setting aside any personal animosity, the point is that calling out your own party in public is precisely what the other party wants you to do. It makes the other party more likely to win the election. That's why aiding and abetting the enemy is a crime.
Very few political issues offer a Christian and a non-Christian position to choose from. Not open borders, not Obamacare, not tax rates, for example. Christians can be as economically Libertarian or Socialist as they think prudent without compromising their faith. It all amounts to what you think will work best, and whether individual liberty, social security, or economic equality matter most to you, since they often conflict.
Religious liberty, civil rights, abortion, assisted-suicide, gay marriage-- the "culture war" issues-- do, it seems clear to me, have a Christian and a non-Christian side. And frankly, I wouldn't be surprised at data showing that non-Christian, non-practicing Christians, and generally irreligious people have gravitated to the non-Christian side of those issues with even greater unity than Christians have gravitated to the Christian side. It isn't that the religious people suddenly decided to argue against gay marriage. It is that the irreligious all started arguing for it.
And yes, I am saying that being pro-choice, for gay marriage, or opposed to religious liberty are compromising (in the bad sense) positions for any Christian to take and inconsistent with Christianity. Being for a flat tax or the nationalizing of health care may or may not be stupid, but it isn't matter of faith.
-
Pete Buttigieg is out. The field is narrowing further. It looks like there's pressure to throw their support behind Biden as the favored moderate against Sanders.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/election-2020/ct-pete-buttigieg-ends-democratic-presidential-nomination-20200301-gd36gw3drvelnbdtmfcvmy2lyq-story.html (https://www.chicagotribune.com/election-2020/ct-pete-buttigieg-ends-democratic-presidential-nomination-20200301-gd36gw3drvelnbdtmfcvmy2lyq-story.html)
Amy Klobuchar has dropped out as well.
-
Pete Buttigieg is out. The field is narrowing further. It looks like there's pressure to throw their support behind Biden as the favored moderate against Sanders.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/election-2020/ct-pete-buttigieg-ends-democratic-presidential-nomination-20200301-gd36gw3drvelnbdtmfcvmy2lyq-story.html (https://www.chicagotribune.com/election-2020/ct-pete-buttigieg-ends-democratic-presidential-nomination-20200301-gd36gw3drvelnbdtmfcvmy2lyq-story.html)
Amy Klobuchar has dropped out as well.
And she plans to endorse Joe Biden in order to unify moderate voters behind the former VP. The Democratic wagons are circling and Bernie is on the outside of the party power brokers.
-
Pastor Engebretson:
And she plans to endorse Joe Biden in order to unify moderate voters behind the former VP. The Democratic wagons are circling and Bernie is on the outside of the party power brokers.
Me:
And that is not a bad thing. At least in the Democratic Party you can have some opposition to the party “leadership” without being trashed by the president, losing your job, Or threatened.
-
and Bernie is on the outside of the party power brokers.
Which, by refusing to join the Democratic Party, is exactly how he has wanted it.
Pax, Steven+
-
If Rubio owning a fishing boat a sign of excessive wealth that makes him a class enemy, why should being a millionaire with three houses be accepted matter of factly?
Not to defend Sanders, for I fervently hope he is not the nominee (though, full disclosure, I voted for him in the California primary four years ago because he wasn't Clinton), but my understanding is that he's got a house in Vermont, a condo in DC (where he works), and a vacation cabin back in Vermont (or somewhere up there). I couldn't afford it, but he probably gets paid enough as a Senator to afford it. Doesn't make him a plutocrat.
-
Bernie Sanders owns 3 houses. He's a millionaire. If you can find a similar skeptical story from any high reputable organization, please let me know.
What's wrong with being a millionaire? Had I been paid guidelines and the higher contributions into the pension plan, there would have been over $1 million at my retirement after 43 years. As it is, there was over 3/4 of a million in my pension when I decided it was time to retire. A million dollars isn't what it used to be.
There are lots of people in our town who have two houses. One or both may be mobile homes or park models. That doesn't make them wealthy folks.
Bernie Sander's Vermont lake beach house cost $600,000 in 2016.
His other house in Chittenden County, Vermont, had a purchase price of $405,000 in 2009.
The townhouse he owns in DC? $488,999.
So -- No "mobile homes or park models" for Bernie.
But you knew that.
Doesn't sound like a lot of money to me, but then I live in California.
-
I'm sorry she's dropped out, but I wish she'd done it yesterday. I voted for her and turned in my ballot last night.
-
Bernie Sanders owns 3 houses. He's a millionaire. If you can find a similar skeptical story from any high reputable organization, please let me know.
What's wrong with being a millionaire? Had I been paid guidelines and the higher contributions into the pension plan, there would have been over $1 million at my retirement after 43 years. As it is, there was over 3/4 of a million in my pension when I decided it was time to retire. A million dollars isn't what it used to be.
There are lots of people in our town who have two houses. One or both may be mobile homes or park models. That doesn't make them wealthy folks.
Bernie Sander's Vermont lake beach house cost $600,000 in 2016.
His other house in Chittenden County, Vermont, had a purchase price of $405,000 in 2009.
The townhouse he owns in DC? $488,999.
So -- No "mobile homes or park models" for Bernie.
But you knew that.
Doesn't sound like a lot of money to me, but then I live in California.
The problem is one of perception. If you're going to rail against the evils of wealth and accumulation of wealth and wealth inequality, having 3 homes that collectively total about $1.5 million is a bad look. It's like Tom Morello living in a multi-million dollar mansion in L.A. He rages against the machine, but he is the machine.
-
I oppose early voting in principle. It shouldn’t be allowed. Events leading up to an election should matter, at least potentially.
-
Thus we could rid ourselves of the unholy alliance with folks who refuse to care for the poor and needy, those who think a nice little war is an answer to everything and those who never met an abortion they disapproved of.
While I recognize that snark is part and parcel of our engagement here, I find the way you have phrased these 3 things thoroughly unhelpful. I can make arguments in good faith as to why a person might hold such views which could be interpreted negatively as you just have.
And I can turn to the Word of God to show that all 3 of those things are repulsive in His eyes
-
So Senator Sanders has a home worth $405,000, a beach house worth $600,000 and a townhouse in D.C. worth $438,999.
I have some solidly "middle class" friends in New Jersey who have homes about equaling the first two of those possessions. The houses they bought years ago at probably one-fourth of what they are worth now; ditto for the beach houses. They are likely to sell one or the other to help finance a comfortable retirement. So what?
There wasn't a single house in the neighborhood where this humble correspondent used to live that wasn't valued at about $450,000. Maybe there were some old, poorly maintained "fixer-uppers" that would sell for less, but not very many of them.
OTOH, the median value of houses in Sioux City, Iowa, where my brother lives, is about $150,000. Sioux Falls, SD, about $210,000.
Value of homes is not a good way to determine where one is on the economic scale.
-
Me:
And that is not a bad thing. At least in the Democratic Party you can have some opposition to the party “leadership” without being trashed by the president, losing your job, Or threatened.
Unlike the ELCA (according to forum posts) where speaking against or ever speaking in "opposition to the party leadership" has indeed resulted in the loss or inability to get a job.
-
Someone writes:
Unlike the ELCA (according to forum posts) where speaking against or ever speaking in "opposition to the party leadership" has indeed resulted in the loss or inability to get a job.
I comment:
Someone hasn't been here very long and doesn't know we have been over this many times. Just because one is on a certain "side" in an ELCA dispute may not be the sole reason they have difficulty finding a call. And we have many people, some of them posting here, who are in ELCA calls even though they have been vocally against certain ELCA policies.
-
Bernie Sanders owns 3 houses. He's a millionaire. If you can find a similar skeptical story from any high reputable organization, please let me know.
What's wrong with being a millionaire? Had I been paid guidelines and the higher contributions into the pension plan, there would have been over $1 million at my retirement after 43 years. As it is, there was over 3/4 of a million in my pension when I decided it was time to retire. A million dollars isn't what it used to be.
There are lots of people in our town who have two houses. One or both may be mobile homes or park models. That doesn't make them wealthy folks.
Bernie Sander's Vermont lake beach house cost $600,000 in 2016.
His other house in Chittenden County, Vermont, had a purchase price of $405,000 in 2009.
The townhouse he owns in DC? $488,999.
So -- No "mobile homes or park models" for Bernie.
But you knew that.
Doesn't sound like a lot of money to me, but then I live in California.
The problem is one of perception. If you're going to rail against the evils of wealth and accumulation of wealth and wealth inequality, having 3 homes that collectively total about $1.5 million is a bad look. It's like Tom Morello living in a multi-million dollar mansion in L.A. He rages against the machine, but he is the machine.
Yes, a problem of perception. I don't imagine that Bernie considers himself one of the super-wealthy - not a billionaire; and not the wealthy that he rails against. I'm more troubled by folks collecting Social Security, either in retirement or disability, and then railing against socialism.
-
So Senator Sanders has a home worth $405,000, a beach house worth $600,000 and a townhouse in D.C. worth $438,999.
I have some solidly "middle class" friends in New Jersey who have homes about equaling the first two of those possessions. The houses they bought years ago at probably one-fourth of what they are worth now; ditto for the beach houses. They are likely to sell one or the other to help finance a comfortable retirement. So what?
There wasn't a single house in the neighborhood where this humble correspondent used to live that wasn't valued at about $450,000. Maybe there were some old, poorly maintained "fixer-uppers" that would sell for less, but not very many of them.
OTOH, the median value of houses in Sioux City, Iowa, where my brother lives, is about $150,000. Sioux Falls, SD, about $210,000.
Value of homes is not a good way to determine where one is on the economic scale.
I agree with you regarding the “three-house” argument. His place in DC is small—just one bedroom and 1.5 bathrooms.
I also think that Bernie’s persistent attacks on millionaires are tiresome. He is one, after all.
-
Someone writes:
Unlike the ELCA (according to forum posts) where speaking against or ever speaking in "opposition to the party leadership" has indeed resulted in the loss or inability to get a job.
I comment:
Someone hasn't been here very long and doesn't know we have been over this many times. Just because one is on a certain "side" in an ELCA dispute may not be the sole reason they have difficulty finding a call. And we have many people, some of them posting here, who are in ELCA calls even though they have been vocally against certain ELCA policies.
Some of us have been vocally supportive of certain ELCA policies and had troubles getting a Call. I had 11 face-to-face interviews before the 12th one resulted in a Call. These were in ten different synods. I suspect that my age had much more to do with it than positions; also being desperate for a full-time Call, since the one I had had become half-time and half-pay, so that they wouldn't default on their mortgage. Many of those interviews were not good matches that I might not have considered otherwise.
-
So Senator Sanders has a home worth $405,000, a beach house worth $600,000 and a townhouse in D.C. worth $438,999.
I have some solidly "middle class" friends in New Jersey who have homes about equaling the first two of those possessions. The houses they bought years ago at probably one-fourth of what they are worth now; ditto for the beach houses. They are likely to sell one or the other to help finance a comfortable retirement. So what?
There wasn't a single house in the neighborhood where this humble correspondent used to live that wasn't valued at about $450,000. Maybe there were some old, poorly maintained "fixer-uppers" that would sell for less, but not very many of them.
OTOH, the median value of houses in Sioux City, Iowa, where my brother lives, is about $150,000. Sioux Falls, SD, about $210,000.
Value of homes is not a good way to determine where one is on the economic scale.
I agree with you regarding the “three-house” argument. His place in DC is small—just one bedroom and 1.5 bathrooms.
I also think that Bernie’s persistent attacks on millionaires are tiresome. He is one, after all.
As I recall, he attacks those making more than 50 million a year. I believe he told Stephen Colbert that Stephen was safe under his program.
-
So Senator Sanders has a home worth $405,000, a beach house worth $600,000 and a townhouse in D.C. worth $438,999.
I have some solidly "middle class" friends in New Jersey who have homes about equaling the first two of those possessions. The houses they bought years ago at probably one-fourth of what they are worth now; ditto for the beach houses. They are likely to sell one or the other to help finance a comfortable retirement. So what?
There wasn't a single house in the neighborhood where this humble correspondent used to live that wasn't valued at about $450,000. Maybe there were some old, poorly maintained "fixer-uppers" that would sell for less, but not very many of them.
OTOH, the median value of houses in Sioux City, Iowa, where my brother lives, is about $150,000. Sioux Falls, SD, about $210,000.
Value of homes is not a good way to determine where one is on the economic scale.
I agree with you regarding the “three-house” argument. His place in DC is small—just one bedroom and 1.5 bathrooms.
I also think that Bernie’s persistent attacks on millionaires are tiresome. He is one, after all.
As I recall, he attacks those making more than 50 million a year. I believe he told Stephen Colbert that Stephen was safe under his program.
Attacking anyone on the basis of wealth is repugnant. And if Stephen Colbert is, as you put it, “safe,” there will be very few people to bear the burden of paying for all sorts of free stuff.
-
I don’t object at all to Sanders owning three homes. My objection is that his policies would cripple the efforts of anyone else who aspired to do the same.
-
I comment:
Someone hasn't been here very long and doesn't know we have been over this many times. Just because one is on a certain "side" in an ELCA dispute may not be the sole reason they have difficulty finding a call. And we have many people, some of them posting here, who are in ELCA calls even though they have been vocally against certain ELCA policies.
I've been around long enough not only to know that an ELCA seminary president lost her position because of her opposition to the party line YEARS before it was the party line ... but also that you were given a life time ban from this forum for rude and unbecoming conduct.
Having witnessed the above and much more, perhaps I have been around too long. ;)
-
I oppose early voting in principle. It shouldn’t be allowed. Events leading up to an election should matter, at least potentially.
I basically agree with you, provided there are provisions for absentee voting ahead of time.
-
I oppose early voting in principle. It shouldn’t be allowed. Events leading up to an election should matter, at least potentially.
I basically agree with you, provided there are provisions for absentee voting ahead of time.
As a former employee of our county elections division, I'm curious how you can agree with Rev Speckhard who opposes early voting...and support absentee voting.
Unless I am missing something, absentee voting by definition is early voting (casting a ballot prior to election day).
-
Someone hasn't been here very long and doesn't know we have been over this many times. Just because one is on a certain "side" in an ELCA dispute may not be the sole reason they have difficulty finding a call.
Yet sometimes, Charles, it truly has been the sole reason. And much more often than you're willing to acknowledge.
But, that's another topic from "Election 2020."
-
I basically agree with you, provided there are provisions for absentee voting ahead of time.
As a former employee of our county elections division, I'm curious how you can agree with Rev Speckhard who opposes early voting...and support absentee voting.
Unless I am missing something, absentee voting by definition is early voting (casting a ballot prior to election day).
Absentee voting, at least in California and Illinois, has been available for decades to those who could demonstrate they would not be able to access their polling place on Election Day and met certain conditions. Nowadays, at least in California and Illinois, one may vote early (29 days in Illinois, 40 days in California) without meeting any conditions for being an "absentee" voter. Furthermore, it is encouraged by our election officials.
Pax, Steven+
-
Some of us have been vocally supportive of certain ELCA policies and had troubles getting a Call. I had 11 face-to-face interviews before the 12th one resulted in a Call. These were in ten different synods. I suspect that my age had much more to do with it than positions; also being desperate for a full-time Call, since the one I had had become half-time and half-pay, so that they wouldn't default on their mortgage. Many of those interviews were not good matches that I might not have considered otherwise.
Thank you Rev. Tibbetts for reminding the forum that the experience of Rev Stoffregen and the rosy image Charles Austin attempts to paint of life in the ELCA is far from the reality that others have experienced.
-
I basically agree with you, provided there are provisions for absentee voting ahead of time.
As a former employee of our county elections division, I'm curious how you can agree with Rev Speckhard who opposes early voting...and support absentee voting.
Unless I am missing something, absentee voting by definition is early voting (casting a ballot prior to election day).
Absentee voting, at least in California and Illinois, has been available for decades to those who could demonstrate they would not be able to access their polling place on Election Day and met certain conditions. Nowadays, at least in California and Illinois, one may vote early (29 days in Illinois, 40 days in California) without meeting any conditions for being an "absentee" voter. Furthermore, it is encouraged by our election officials.
Pax, Steven+
Thanks for the insight...I suppose that was the case in my state years ago (probably pre voting machines). Our in person early voting ran February 18 - 28 this election ... paper ballot by mail ballots have been available since late January.
Perhaps the question then becomes why Rev Speckhard would oppose early voting ... it is not mandatory ... those who oppose early voting are free to vote on election day ... and thank those who voted early for not being in line with him on election day. ;D
-
I repeat once more what I have said here for years. Sometimes there are reasons other than one’s opposition to certain ELCA policies that keep someone from getting a call. But it’s easy to dodge those reasons and blame it on bias from the ELCA itself.
And, if you denounce your bishop, refuse to take part in synodical activities, and in general badmouth the work of your synod, it’s not surprising that a bishop would not be too interested in putting you in another church under his or her jurisdiction.
But we drift on the topic of this thread. Let’s get back on track.
Biden is getting some considerable help these days. It will be interesting to see how much help he has received by convention time.
-
I basically agree with you, provided there are provisions for absentee voting ahead of time.
As a former employee of our county elections division, I'm curious how you can agree with Rev Speckhard who opposes early voting...and support absentee voting.
Unless I am missing something, absentee voting by definition is early voting (casting a ballot prior to election day).
Absentee voting, at least in California and Illinois, has been available for decades to those who could demonstrate they would not be able to access their polling place on Election Day and met certain conditions. Nowadays, at least in California and Illinois, one may vote early (29 days in Illinois, 40 days in California) without meeting any conditions for being an "absentee" voter. Furthermore, it is encouraged by our election officials.
Pax, Steven+
In the old days in Illinois, you could vote by absentee ballot only upon submitting a certification that you would be unable to vote in person on election day. If one was away at college, on vacation, working throughout election day, or too sick to get out, the county clerk would send you an absentee ballot that you would return by mail. You could not simply choose to vote early.
In most places, at least, that's changed. And in some places--Colorado comes to mind--almost everyone now votes early. Most submit ballots either by mail or dropping them in drop boxes located around the state.
Old-fashioned absentee voting was indeed early voting. However, when people today talk about early voting, they typically mean an option open not just to those who have need of it, but to all.
-
I repeat once more what I have said here for years. Sometimes there are reasons other than one’s opposition to certain ELCA policies that keep someone from getting a call.
The issue at hand NOW is your despicable refusal to acknowledge that far too many have been black balled by those within the ELCA solely because their belief and confession was in "opposition to the party line".
Your abominable refusal to acknowledge this fact and consistent efforts to deflect from this fact simply prolong this discussion.
-
Someone writes:
The issue at hand NOW is your despicable refusal to acknowledge that far too many have been black balled by those within the ELCA solely because their belief and confession was in "opposition to the party line".
I comment:
No. What is despicable is your mean-spirited posts and personal attacks while posting anonymously.
But read carefully and think back to the times when, I think, you may have haunted these woods before.
I admit, repeat I ADMIT, that some in the ELCA were blackballed for their views contrary to our policies.
“Far too many”? I don’t think so, and how would you know? I think I do.
“solely because their belief and confession was in ‘opposition to the party line’”? No. Not always.
Some didn’t get calls because they were jerks who didn’t know how to be “loyal opposition” or threatened to take their congregations out of the ELCA.
Some didn’t get calls because of trouble in previous parishes or because bishops and call committees did not find them to be competent pastors.
Now. How about those Democrats this Super Tuesday?
-
Yes, a problem of perception. I don't imagine that Bernie considers himself one of the super-wealthy - not a billionaire; and not the wealthy that he rails against. I'm more troubled by folks collecting Social Security, either in retirement or disability, and then railing against socialism.
Perhaps those folks don't consider themselves troubling either.
-
There is an article this morning in The Week about Chris Matthews retiring, and it contained the following quote, which is what many of us here have been saying for ages.
"My biggest piece of media advice would be for people to stop watching cable news," Oliver Willis, a progressive journalist, wrote on Monday before Matthews announced his retirement. "A lot of you on here do it a LOT and it isn't good for you. As someone who has watched it 'professionally' for years, I can tell you it doesn't inform or illuminate."
He added: "I learn more from a quick 15 minute headline scan than I do from 5-6 hours of cable news."
-
There is an article this morning in The Week about Chris Matthews retiring, and it contained the following quote, which is what many of us here have been saying for ages.
"My biggest piece of media advice would be for people to stop watching cable news," Oliver Willis, a progressive journalist, wrote on Monday before Matthews announced his retirement. "A lot of you on here do it a LOT and it isn't good for you. As someone who has watched it 'professionally' for years, I can tell you it doesn't inform or illuminate."
He added: "I learn more from a quick 15 minute headline scan than I do from 5-6 hours of cable news."
And, I might add, this forum might serve as a similar addiction to some of its participants. A good test is the one Oliver Willis put to cable news in the quote above-- does it "inform or illuminate." When you're posting, ask yourself what information or insight your post will offer the reader. Without that, it is just a bunch of partisan cable news hosts bashing each other for entertainment, except on theological topics.
-
There is an article this morning in The Week about Chris Matthews retiring, and it contained the following quote, which is what many of us here have been saying for ages.
"My biggest piece of media advice would be for people to stop watching cable news," Oliver Willis, a progressive journalist, wrote on Monday before Matthews announced his retirement. "A lot of you on here do it a LOT and it isn't good for you. As someone who has watched it 'professionally' for years, I can tell you it doesn't inform or illuminate."
He added: "I learn more from a quick 15 minute headline scan than I do from 5-6 hours of cable news."
And, I might add, this forum might serve as a similar addiction to some of its participants. A good test is the one Oliver Willis put to cable news in the quote above-- does it "inform or illuminate." When you're posting, ask yourself what information or insight your post will offer the reader. Without that, it is just a bunch of partisan cable news hosts bashing each other for entertainment, except on theological topics.
When I launched this thread on Feb. 12, thirty pages of posts ago, I envisioned that it could be a place to keep tract of the ongoing election from the primaries (mainly the Democratic) through the general election in November. I hope that it still can be such a place. Admittedly we have a penchant here for distraction and occasional 'rabbit holes,' and I'm sure we will find multiple ways of wandering. I'm a bit of a political junkie and take interest in the unfolding story of who is running for this nation's highest office. But I agree that we should stick to facts instead of hype.
-
The issue at hand NOW is your despicable refusal to acknowledge that far too many have been black balled by those within the ELCA solely because their belief and confession was in "opposition to the party line".
In fairness, what you state above would likewise be a reasonable description of what happened in the LCMS in 1973-1974.
Now, I've got to go vote. On the designated voting day.
Tom Pearson
-
The issue at hand NOW is your despicable refusal to acknowledge that far too many have been black balled by those within the ELCA solely because their belief and confession was in "opposition to the party line".
In fairness, what you state above would likewise be a reasonable description of what happened in the LCMS in 1973-1974.
Tom Pearson
True, indeed. History is often repeated in unlikely and unpredictable places. (Who would have thought that the ELCA would copy one of the sinister habits of the LCMS?) ;D
Peace, JOHN
-
I comment:
No. What is despicable is your mean-spirited posts and personal attacks while posting anonymously.
If being mean spirited is refusing to accept your white washed version of the facts, I plead guilty ... your baseless accusation of anonymous posting continues your despicable personal attacks against me probably because of your apparent inability to refute the fact presented
I admit, repeat I ADMIT, that some in the ELCA were blackballed for their views contrary to our policies.
“Far too many”? I don’t think so, and how would you know?
I value the knowledge of well respected forum members....
Yet sometimes, Charles, it truly has been the sole reason. And much more often than you're willing to acknowledge.
-
Someone writes:
The issue at hand NOW is your despicable refusal to acknowledge that far too many have been black balled by those within the ELCA solely because their belief and confession was in "opposition to the party line".
I comment:
No. What is despicable is your mean-spirited posts and personal attacks while posting anonymously.
But read carefully and think back to the times when, I think, you may have haunted these woods before.
I admit, repeat I ADMIT, that some in the ELCA were blackballed for their views contrary to our policies.
“Far too many”? I don’t think so, and how would you know? I think I do.
“solely because their belief and confession was in ‘opposition to the party line’”? No. Not always.
Some didn’t get calls because they were jerks who didn’t know how to be “loyal opposition” or threatened to take their congregations out of the ELCA.
Some didn’t get calls because of trouble in previous parishes or because bishops and call committees did not find them to be competent pastors.
Now. How about those Democrats this Super Tuesday?
Rev. Austin,
Is he posting anonymously? I assumed "James Eivan" was his name. Why do you not?
-
The issue at hand NOW is your despicable refusal to acknowledge that far too many have been black balled by those within the ELCA solely because their belief and confession was in "opposition to the party line".
In fairness, what you state above would likewise be a reasonable description of what happened in the LCMS in 1973-1974.
Tom Pearson
True, indeed. History is often repeated in unlikely and unpredictable places. (Who would have thought that the ELCA would copy one of the sinister habits of the LCMS?) ;D
Peace, JOHN
Or those connected in any way with the so-called "Anderson Lawsuit" during the Kieschnick administration.
-
True, indeed. History is often repeated in unlikely and unpredictable places. (Who would have thought that the ELCA would copy one of the sinister habits of the LCMS?) ;D
Peace, JOHN
Regrettably you must consider the loss of the hetrodox members of Missouri in the '70s 'sinister'.
Many consider them "false sons within her pale" (TLH 473 v3)
Tragically those who left Missouri are largely responsible for the theological problems of the ELCA today.
-
I oppose early voting in principle. It shouldn’t be allowed. Events leading up to an election should matter, at least potentially.
I basically agree with you, provided there are provisions for absentee voting ahead of time.
Early voting and voting by postal ballot (as in Oregon) may be increasingly needed as states chop the number of polling places available on the voting day itself: https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-polling-place-closures/ (https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-polling-place-closures/):The report, titled “Democracy Diverted: Polling Place Closures and the Right to Vote,” looked at 757 of the 861 counties and county-level equivalents across the nation that were previously covered by Section 5, and found that 750 polling places in Texas have been shuttered since Shelby. That constitutes almost half of all polling places in the U.S. closed since 2013. Fourteen Texas counties closed at least 50 percent of their polling places after Shelby, and 590 have been shuttered since the 2014 midterm election.
Maricopa County in Arizona had the most polling place closures, but that was followed by six counties in Texas: Dallas lost 74 places; Travis lost 67; Harris shuttered 52; Brazoria closed 37; and Nueces closed 37.
Peace,
Michael
-
An additional difficulty is finding people to work the polling places. While in Oklahoma, I often served as an election official. The pay when considered per hour was lousy (less than minimum wage), the work was long (arrive no later than 6:30am, polls open from 7:00am-7:00pm, then closing down the polls, gathering the paper ballots, making sure the facility where we were was back in order), and either the actual work was boring (on those days where there was only one thing to be voted on, for example) or extremely hectic (the March 2016 presidential primary was particularly crazy). You throw those things together, along with the schedule which makes it nearly impossible for anyone but retired folks (or those who are self-employed and willing/able to give up all day) to work and it is a recipe for the closing of polling places.
I really am in favor in having at least the November elections be a declared holiday for as many people as possible, not only so more people are able to vote, but also so that more people can work the polls, so there is more access to voting for more people.
Also, when you vote, please be aware that the election official is a 1) a person and 2) has to follow the state's rules, whatever they may be. If you are offered a provisional ballot because your id is expired, that isn't the official's fault. If you aren't able to vote for your preferred candidate in the primary because you aren't a registered member of that candidate's party, that isn't the fault of the official. Take it up with that state political party's rule or else change your own party affiliation. I write that because we had an absolutely incensed voter at the March presidential primary. The voter was a registered Independent but wanted to vote for Trump in the primary. The problem for the voter is that in the state of Oklahoma, the Republican Primary is a closed primary, so only voters registered as Republican can vote. It was quite a scene. Each state's party sets their rules as to who can or cannot participate in the primaries, and each state has their own election rules. The person who is taking your name and issuing the ballot has to follow the rules so be kind.
-
I oppose early voting in principle. It shouldn’t be allowed. Events leading up to an election should matter, at least potentially.
I basically agree with you, provided there are provisions for absentee voting ahead of time.
As a former employee of our county elections division, I'm curious how you can agree with Rev Speckhard who opposes early voting...and support absentee voting.
Unless I am missing something, absentee voting by definition is early voting (casting a ballot prior to election day).
In my recollection, absentee voting, as it was originally conceived, required a voter to state the specific reason for the request for an absentee ballot. The reasons were limited: I'm going to be out of town on election day, or I'm too infirm to go to the polls. The absentee ballot had to be requested (as opposed to our county now, where every ballot is a mail-in ballot). So while there were some "early" absentee votes, they were a much smaller number, and only for legitimate reasons.
-
An additional difficulty is finding people to work the polling places. While in Oklahoma, I often served as an election official.
You reminded me of an election many years ago now. I was pastor in a college town, and the campus ministry made an arrangement with the county such that students (and other ministry supporters) took over the "set up and take down" responsibilities (not the actually poll supervising), which made the poll worker responsibilities at least a little less burdensome. I believe the county then paid the campus ministry what it would have cost to pay the poll workers for those jobs.
-
In addition to early voters not receiving up to date "final days" news or candidate information (assuming the positive here...), many jurisdictions do not count the early ballots until after the election day ballots are counted - sometimes, apparently days or even weeks after election day.
Almost gone are the days when you knew your polling place workers - often volunteers or expenses paid - often your neighbors.
One could be first/early in line and see the empty ballot box inspected, sealed and signed. At the endo of the day, you could see the ballot box opened, ballots counted, and the precinct reports recorded and verified. A democracy in action / all politics are local sort of thing in front of your eyes.
Now, many jurisdictions collect the sealed ballot boxes for delivery to the Election Commission/ Office for counting.
A few seem to ride around in car trunks for a while until needed... The voter no longer has proof that their vote was received, let alone counted.
Now, many jurisdictions have voting "machines" in the precincts, with individual results sent electronically to HQ for counting.
The labor of precinct voting day workers - whether volunteers or minimum pay under supervision of a certified official - is great.
The loss to democratic accountability and transparency is huge.
-
Members of our armed forces may vote only as an absentee, unless they are in their hometown on election day. "Hometown" is the last address before entry into the service.
Peace, JOHN
-
I oppose early voting in principle. It shouldn’t be allowed. Events leading up to an election should matter, at least potentially.
I basically agree with you, provided there are provisions for absentee voting ahead of time.
Early voting and voting by postal ballot (as in Oregon) may be increasingly needed as states chop the number of polling places available on the voting day itself: https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-polling-place-closures/ (https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-polling-place-closures/):The report, titled “Democracy Diverted: Polling Place Closures and the Right to Vote,” looked at 757 of the 861 counties and county-level equivalents across the nation that were previously covered by Section 5, and found that 750 polling places in Texas have been shuttered since Shelby. That constitutes almost half of all polling places in the U.S. closed since 2013. Fourteen Texas counties closed at least 50 percent of their polling places after Shelby, and 590 have been shuttered since the 2014 midterm election.
Maricopa County in Arizona had the most polling place closures, but that was followed by six counties in Texas: Dallas lost 74 places; Travis lost 67; Harris shuttered 52; Brazoria closed 37; and Nueces closed 37.
Peace,
Michael
It is telling that the Texas Observer included Travis County...while Texas is trending a bit more purple today, at one time Travis County was known as a "blueberry in the middle of a tomato"... a strongly Democratic County in the midst of a Republican State.
Review the Travis County Sample Ballots (https://countyclerk.traviscountytx.gov/elections/current-election/what-s-on-the-ballot.html)for both parties (4 Democrat pages vs 2 Republican pages) ... specifically the county specific ballot positions ... many positions ... specifically judgeships have no Republicans on the ballot because they have a snowballs chance in hell of being elected because as a county, Travis is a Democrat stronghold.
Add to that the fact that in Texas the County Clerk is the Chief Election Official, it is totally laughable to blame Republicans for decreasing the number of poling locations as the County Clerk of Travis County has been a Democrat dating prior to 2000.
Standing in line this morning at my neighborhood polling location, I overheard a voter claim that having to stand in line is 'voter suppression' :'( Some are simply not happy unless they are complaining.
-
Perhaps the question then becomes why Rev Speckhard would oppose early voting ... it is not mandatory ... those who oppose early voting are free to vote on election day ... and thank those who voted early for not being in line with him on election day. ;D
Pastors Johnson and Speckhard can speak for themselves. As for me, Illinois' primary is 2 weeks away, and I found it really annoying to hear the local registrar on the radio this morning trying to shame people into voting now rather than waiting until Election Day. Voting is a community activity, a shared part of being citizens. For Democrats voting for a presidential nominee, too much can change between now (or weeks ago) and March 17. Similarly for Republicans who will be nominating someone to run against powerful incumbent Democratic U. S. Senator -- a "race" that has thus far received no media attention at all, at least in my part of the state, nor have I (whose e-mail and address receive all sorts of things from Republican candidates across the state and nation) thus far received a single communication from any of candidates appearing on the ballot.
Yes, we make accommodation for those who are unable to come to the polls on Election Day -- those away serving in the armed forces, students away at school, those traveling (for work or for pleasure), those who can't actually get to the polls (homebound, etc.), etc. But all these are exceptions from the norm.
Pax, Steven+
-
Members of our armed forces may vote only as an absentee, unless they are in their hometown on election day. "Hometown" is the last address before entry into the service.
Peace, JOHN
Yes ... and rightly so the Ballots of armed forces have a few extra days to be received at our county clerks office ... I believe our election results are not finally certified until the Monday following the election to insure that those Ballots are counted.
-
Perhaps the question then becomes why Rev Speckhard would oppose early voting ... it is not mandatory ... those who oppose early voting are free to vote on election day ... and thank those who voted early for not being in line with him on election day. ;D
Pastors Johnson and Speckhard can speak for themselves. As for me, Illinois' primary is 2 weeks away, and I found it really annoying to hear the local registrar on the radio this morning trying to shame people into voting now rather than waiting until Election Day. Voting is a community activity, a shared part of being citizens. For Democrats voting for a presidential nominee, too much can change between now (or weeks ago) and March 17. Similarly for Republicans who will be nominating someone to run against powerful incumbent Democratic U. S. Senator -- a "race" that has thus far received no media attention at all, at least in my part of the state, nor have I (whose e-mail and address receive all sorts of things from Republican candidates across the state and nation) thus far received a single communication from any of candidates appearing on the ballot.
Yes, we make accommodation for those who are unable to come to the polls on Election Day -- those away serving in the armed forces, students away at school, those traveling (for work or for pleasure), those who can't actually get to the polls (homebound, etc.), etc. But all these are exceptions from the norm.
Pax, Steven+
Precisely why when I vote early I vote the last day despite knowing that the lines will be long on the last day.
At least one election I worked, more voted the last day than the preceeding 10-12 days of early voting.
It is wrong to shame or pressure voters to Vote at any time ... I'd be interested in a link to the shaming effort ... by pm if you don't wish to include it in a post. Thanks
This is one of a very few elections I have voted in where voting early would have been regretted.
-
I repeat once more what I have said here for years. Sometimes there are reasons other than one’s opposition to certain ELCA policies that keep someone from getting a call. But it’s easy to dodge those reasons and blame it on bias from the ELCA itself.
Charles, no one here has ever denied that there are reasons other than one's opposition to certain ELCA policies or practices that keep someone from getting a call. But you and I are both personally acquainted with pastors who have been denied the call process solely because that opposition, even when it hasn't been loudly proclaimed. And, apart from your own personal experience in an LCA Synod 50 years ago, you aren't willing to acknowledge that.
This is but one manifestation of the increasing lack of trust (https://pastorzip.blogspot.com/2009/04/gift-and-trust.html) we have in the ELCA.
To fit these thoughts within this subject, Election 2020, there's a similar dynamic between the supporters of Sen. Sanders and the Democratic Party, as there was in 2016 (and sometimes still is) between supporters of Mr. Trump and the Republican Party (though at least the President, unlike the Senator, actually became a member of the party whose nomination he's sought).
Pax, Steven+
-
Someone writes:
Your continued rudeness to James Eivan and everyone else who reads this forum is noted.
-
I'd be interested in a link to the shaming effort
http://www.altondailynews.com/news/details.cfm?clientid=17&id=299780#.Xl6dhEBFyUk
-
Steven writes:
But you and I are both personally acquainted with pastors who have been denied the call process solely because that opposition, even when it hasn't been loudly proclaimed.
I comment:
Did you not read what I just posted? I admit this is happened. But it hasn’t happened as much as some people think. And I know, and I suspect that you know pastors who have difficulties getting call and blame it on the fact that they hold certain views when it is perfectly clear that those certain views are not the reason they have a hard time getting a call.
-
Steven writes:
But you and I are both personally acquainted with pastors who have been denied the call process solely because that opposition, even when it hasn't been loudly proclaimed.
I comment:
Did you not read what I just posted? I admit this is happened. But it hasn’t happened as much as some people think. And I know, and I suspect that you know pastors who have difficulties getting call and blame it on the fact that they hold certain views when it is perfectly clear that those certain views are not the reason they have a hard time getting a call.
I am confused. You agree that it has happened that pastors have been denied the call process in the ELCA because they have opposed "the party line" on certain issues. You just assert that it has not happened as often as some people think. Does that make it when that has happened OK, acceptable, not something bad that happened? Should we just shrug our shoulders and think, "too bad, but nothing to complain about?"
You also assert that sometimes when pastors have had a hard time getting a call that it was at least in part because of things that they have done or said that were unacceptable? (Something that Steven Tibbetts has agreed has also happened.) Does that somehow make the discrimination against pastors in dissent OK since some have acted badly, they should simply accept their blackballing as justified because others have behaved badly?
So, that's it? Move along now, nothing to see here, some people have been treated badly but since others have deserved to be treated badly, they do too?
-
Voting is a community activity, a shared part of being citizens.
Exactly so, and precisely why I don't think early voting is a good idea. I never feel more patriotic than when I stand in line at a polling place, joining my fellow citizens in choosing directions for our community or country.
So why did I vote early? Well, only because in our county EVERYONE votes by "mail" now, so there are no polling places. I could have (should have, in this case) waited until Tuesday, marked my ballot . . . and then trotted off to a "drop-off" location and put my ballot in the box, or to the Post Office and put it in the mail. Not quite the same emotional impact.
-
I don’t object at all to Sanders owning three homes. My objection is that his policies would cripple the efforts of anyone else who aspired to do the same.
...And Bernie just broke up Public Enemy. He'll never get my vote.
Don't believe the hype.
-
I don’t object at all to Sanders owning three homes. My objection is that his policies would cripple the efforts of anyone else who aspired to do the same.
...And Bernie just broke up Public Enemy. He'll never get my vote.
Don't believe the hype.
Hmmm. Not sure I’m getting it.
-
I don’t object at all to Sanders owning three homes. My objection is that his policies would cripple the efforts of anyone else who aspired to do the same.
...And Bernie just broke up Public Enemy. He'll never get my vote.
Don't believe the hype.
Hmmm. Not sure I’m getting it.
Here’s a link (https://www.nbcnewyork.com/entertainment/entertainment-news/flavor-flav-on-being-fired-from-public-enemy-you-kidding-me-over-bernie-sanders/2310980/).
-
Someone writes:
Your continued rudeness to James Eivan and everyone else who reads this forum is noted.
It's rude to post under a pseudonym.
If "James Eivan" was blackballed by the ELCA, he seems to have been blackballed by the LCMS, NALC, and LCMC, too. None of them have a clergy with that name. Facebook doesn't even have an American with that name. So, as a clergy in the major Lutheran denominations, he doesn't exist. As an American he might not exist. Google finds a James Eivan on You Tube. The site has nothing to do with church.
His "facts" are like the church member who complains, "Some people are upset over …." While it may be true that some people are upset over …," but we'll never be able to deal with it without actual names. I've had congregation councils approve a resolution that they would not listen to any anonymous complaints.
-
Someone writes:
Your continued rudeness to James Eivan and everyone else who reads this forum is noted.
It's rude to post under a pseudonym.
If "James Eivan" was blackballed by the ELCA, he seems to have been blackballed by the LCMS, NALC, and LCMC, too. None of them have a clergy with that name. Facebook doesn't even have an American with that name. So, as a clergy in the major Lutheran denominations, he doesn't exist. As an American he might not exist. Google finds a James Eivan on You Tube. The site has nothing to do with church.
His "facts" are like the church member who complains, "Some people are upset over …." While it may be true that some people are upset over …," but we'll never be able to deal with it without actual names. I've had congregation councils approve a resolution that they would not listen to any anonymous complaints.
James has stated he was never rostered by any church body.
Google also tells us “Charles Austin” won a gold medal in the 1996 Olympics.
And apparently John Oates and I were the most successful musical duo of all time.
-
My name is easily accessible on the ELCA clergy roster. And elsewhere.
-
Someone writes:
Your continued rudeness to James Eivan and everyone else who reads this forum is noted.
It's rude to post under a pseudonym.
If "James Eivan" was blackballed by the ELCA, he seems to have been blackballed by the LCMS, NALC, and LCMC, too. None of them have a clergy with that name. Facebook doesn't even have an American with that name. So, as a clergy in the major Lutheran denominations, he doesn't exist. As an American he might not exist. Google finds a James Eivan on You Tube. The site has nothing to do with church.
His "facts" are like the church member who complains, "Some people are upset over …." While it may be true that some people are upset over …," but we'll never be able to deal with it without actual names. I've had congregation councils approve a resolution that they would not listen to any anonymous complaints.
James has stated he was never rostered by any church body.
So how can he claim to be blackballed by the ELCA?
-
Or even have any authentic knowledge about what goes on among rostered clergy?
-
Someone writes:
Your continued rudeness to James Eivan and everyone else who reads this forum is noted.
It's rude to post under a pseudonym.
If "James Eivan" was blackballed by the ELCA, he seems to have been blackballed by the LCMS, NALC, and LCMC, too. None of them have a clergy with that name. Facebook doesn't even have an American with that name. So, as a clergy in the major Lutheran denominations, he doesn't exist. As an American he might not exist. Google finds a James Eivan on You Tube. The site has nothing to do with church.
His "facts" are like the church member who complains, "Some people are upset over …." While it may be true that some people are upset over …," but we'll never be able to deal with it without actual names. I've had congregation councils approve a resolution that they would not listen to any anonymous complaints.
James has stated he was never rostered by any church body.
So how can he claim to be blackballed by the ELCA?
I’ll let him speak for himself, but the only comment I saw was where he stated “far too many” had been blackballed by the ELCA.
-
Or even have any authentic knowledge about what goes on among rostered clergy?
Well, I’ve never been on a clergy roster or blackballed by the ELCA, but I personally know rostered clergy, and I’m sure they’d answer any questions I have.
I can also read the comments here from both current and former ELCA rostered clergy. I’m willing to bet some would answer my questions were I to ask.
You willing to bet a steak dinner that they won’t?
-
Someone writes:
Your continued rudeness to James Eivan and everyone else who reads this forum is noted.
It's rude to post under a pseudonym.
If "James Eivan" was blackballed by the ELCA, he seems to have been blackballed by the LCMS, NALC, and LCMC, too. None of them have a clergy with that name. Facebook doesn't even have an American with that name. So, as a clergy in the major Lutheran denominations, he doesn't exist. As an American he might not exist. Google finds a James Eivan on You Tube. The site has nothing to do with church.
His "facts" are like the church member who complains, "Some people are upset over …." While it may be true that some people are upset over …," but we'll never be able to deal with it without actual names. I've had congregation councils approve a resolution that they would not listen to any anonymous complaints.
James has stated he was never rostered by any church body.
So how can he claim to be blackballed by the ELCA?
Did he say that he was? I do not recall that. He did, however, write this to Rev. Austin: "The issue at hand NOW is your despicable refusal to acknowledge that far too many have been black balled by those within the ELCA solely because their belief and confession was in 'opposition to the party line'."
-
So how can he claim to be blackballed by the ELCA?
Where did he claim that of himself?
-
So how can he claim to be blackballed by the ELCA?
Where did he claim that of himself?
He wrote as if he had personal knowledge of many being blackballed. In my experience, lay people have very limited contact with large number of clergy. Many of us clergy gather regularly: pericope studies, conference meetings, and synod events.
-
So how can he claim to be blackballed by the ELCA?
Where did he claim that of himself?
He wrote as if he had personal knowledge of many being blackballed. In my experience, lay people have very limited contact with large number of clergy. Many of us clergy gather regularly: pericope studies, conference meetings, and synod events.
So he didn't "claim to be blackballed by the ELCA." Thank you.
-
So how can he claim to be blackballed by the ELCA?
Where did he claim that of himself?
He wrote as if he had personal knowledge of many being blackballed. In my experience, lay people have very limited contact with large number of clergy. Many of us clergy gather regularly: pericope studies, conference meetings, and synod events.
Perhaps he googled it.
-
Now that the "Super Tuesday" results are in it sounds like this election is pretty much a two horse race: Biden vs. Sanders. Warren is done, as far as I can tell. Bloomberg demonstrated that you can spend nearly half a billion dollars and still come in third.
There's obviously some enthusiasm among the younger set for Sanders. If the voter turnout rises in that demographic that could help him.
Biden is clearly the 'safe' candidate for the establishment. I think that a lot of mainline Democrats would prefer to see him on the ticket opposing Trump in November. I'm sure they are worried that Sanders is just too 'radical' to have enough broad based support in the general election.
-
Did he say that he was? I do not recall that. He did, however, write this to Rev. Austin: "The issue at hand NOW is your despicable refusal to acknowledge that far too many have been black balled by those within the ELCA solely because their belief and confession was in 'opposition to the party line'."
How many is "too many"? How many can he actually name? Perhaps his knowledge comes from websites that may not be the most accurate.
-
Now that the "Super Tuesday" results are in it sounds like this election is pretty much a two horse race: Biden vs. Sanders. Warren is done, as far as I can tell. Bloomberg demonstrated that you can spend nearly half a billion dollars and still come in third.
There's obviously some enthusiasm among the younger set for Sanders. If the voter turnout rises in that demographic that could help him.
Biden is clearly the 'safe' candidate for the establishment. I think that a lot of mainline Democrats would prefer to see him on the ticket opposing Trump in November. I'm sure they are worried that Sanders is just too 'radical' to have enough broad based support in the general election.
Bloomberg just dropped out - after spending roughly $500 million of his own money on his campaign. He is endorsing Biden.
-
What does everyone think of Tulsi Gabbard? I'm intrigued by her. She appears to be the most open to religious liberty. She also appears to be the most pro-life of all the Democratic candidates for the nomination. (That's a very low bar to clear but I have to start somewhere.) She does not appear to be as hawkish/interventionist as the other Democratic candidates. I'm intrigued by her.
Of course, my intrigue doesn't mean much. I'm always intrigued by losers. In 2016 I had to keep switching my allegiances because my preferred candidates kept dropping out one by one. Fiorina 2016!
Jeremy
-
What does everyone think of Tulsi Gabbard? I'm intrigued by her. She appears to be the most open to religious liberty. She also appears to be the most pro-life of all the Democratic candidates for the nomination. (That's a very low bar to clear but I have to start somewhere.) She does not appear to be as hawkish/interventionist as the other Democratic candidates. I'm intrigued by her.
Of course, my intrigue doesn't mean much. I'm always intrigued by losers. In 2016 I had to keep switching my allegiances because my preferred candidates kept dropping out one by one. Fiorina 2016!
Jeremy
One view: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/why-conservatives-should-stop-being-cheerleaders-for-tulsi-gabbard
-
What does everyone think of Tulsi Gabbard? I'm intrigued by her. She appears to be the most open to religious liberty. She also appears to be the most pro-life of all the Democratic candidates for the nomination. (That's a very low bar to clear but I have to start somewhere.) She does not appear to be as hawkish/interventionist as the other Democratic candidates. I'm intrigued by her.
Of course, my intrigue doesn't mean much. I'm always intrigued by losers. In 2016 I had to keep switching my allegiances because my preferred candidates kept dropping out one by one. Fiorina 2016!
Jeremy
I suspect that most people don't think about Rep. Gabbard much at all.
-
Did he say that he was? I do not recall that. He did, however, write this to Rev. Austin: "The issue at hand NOW is your despicable refusal to acknowledge that far too many have been black balled by those within the ELCA solely because their belief and confession was in 'opposition to the party line'."
How many is "too many"? How many can he actually name? Perhaps his knowledge comes from websites that may not be the most accurate.
Right back at you: How many is too many? Charles has already indicated that he knows of multiple cases. So you tell us: what is the acceptable level of injustice in the ELCA?
-
Did he say that he was? I do not recall that. He did, however, write this to Rev. Austin: "The issue at hand NOW is your despicable refusal to acknowledge that far too many have been black balled by those within the ELCA solely because their belief and confession was in 'opposition to the party line'."
How many is "too many"? How many can he actually name? Perhaps his knowledge comes from websites that may not be the most accurate.
Right back at you: How many is too many? Charles has already indicated that he knows of multiple cases. So you tell us: what is the acceptable level of injustice in the ELCA?
I don't know of any level of injustice. I've heard reports from one or two clergy who claim discrimination because of of their views. I haven't heard from their bishops to hear if there were other issues that were behind the "blackballing." Hearing only from those who believe that they were victimize may not be the whole story - especially if there are no names by which we can verify the account.
A predecessor at a congregation I served was removed from the LCA roster. He believed he was blackballed - that he had done nothing wrong. Both a member of the congregation and the bishop told a different story. One side is not likely the whole story.
-
I don't know of any level of injustice. I've heard reports from one or two clergy who claim discrimination because of of their views. I haven't heard from their bishops to hear if there were other issues that were behind the "blackballing." Hearing only from those who believe that they were victimize may not be the whole story - especially if there are no names by which we can verify the account.
A predecessor at a congregation I served was removed from the LCA roster. He believed he was blackballed - that he had done nothing wrong. Both a member of the congregation and the bishop told a different story. One side is not likely the whole story.
Ask Charles -- apparently he knows of multiple cases. Perhaps he can enlighten you.
-
Mr. Hummel:
Charles has already indicated that he knows of multiple cases.
Me:
I don’t know if “multiple“ is the proper word. Back 8-10 years ago, I knew of some clergy who claimed to have been blackballed from calls because they opposed the decision of 2009. I heard about them at synod assemblies, at ELCA churchwide assemblies and through online conversations with ELCA friends. At ELCA assemblies, I occasionally asked bishops and others about some of these cases.
It is quite likely that a few may have been blackballed simply because of their opposition to the decisions of 2009.
But there are many sides to anyone’s story about being blackballed. And for most, and I believe it is most of the cases I heard about, the reason they had difficulty getting the call was not simply because they opposed the decisions of 2009.
Some who opposed those decisions did so in ways that were very nasty towards clergy colleagues and synodical and ELCA leadership. You’re not likely to get a “job” if you’ve already called your future boss names and said the company he works for is a God-awful mess.
And some who claimed they were being persecuted, were pastors who, in my not so humble opinion and in what I heard from bishops, were not very competent pastors, people who might have had trouble getting a call Even if they had not opposed the decisions of 2009.
Now can we get back on topic? I thought I have explained this many times over the years.
-
So, what I am hearing from Prs. Stoffregen and Austin, is that while it may be that there were a few who were treated badly because of their opposition to the changes of the CWA 2009, there are always two sides to every story so we really cannot trust that their opposition was the real reason for their treatment, their bishops no doubt had a different point of view so we really should trust that the church government did it right and dismiss the complaints of dissenters. Trust The Administration! Trust The Establishment!
-
Mr. Hummel:
Charles has already indicated that he knows of multiple cases.
Me:
I don’t know if “multiple“ is the proper word. Back 8-10 years ago, I knew of some clergy who claimed to have been blackballed from calls because they opposed the decision of 2009. I heard about them at synod assemblies, at ELCA churchwide assemblies and through online conversations with ELCA friends. At ELCA assemblies, I occasionally asked bishops and others about some of these cases.
It is quite likely that a few may have been blackballed simply because of their opposition to the decisions of 2009.
But there are many sides to anyone’s story about being blackballed. And for most, and I believe it is most of the cases I heard about, the reason they had difficulty getting the call was not simply because they opposed the decisions of 2009.
Some who opposed those decisions did so in ways that were very nasty towards clergy colleagues and synodical and ELCA leadership. You’re not likely to get a “job” if you’ve already called your future boss names and said the company he works for is a God-awful mess.
And some who claimed they were being persecuted, were pastors who, in my not so humble opinion and in what I heard from bishops, were not very competent pastors, people who might have had trouble getting a call Even if they had not opposed the decisions of 2009.
Now can we get back on topic? I thought I have explained this many times over the years.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
-
What does everyone think of Tulsi Gabbard? I'm intrigued by her. She appears to be the most open to religious liberty. She also appears to be the most pro-life of all the Democratic candidates for the nomination. (That's a very low bar to clear but I have to start somewhere.) She does not appear to be as hawkish/interventionist as the other Democratic candidates. I'm intrigued by her.
Of course, my intrigue doesn't mean much. I'm always intrigued by losers. In 2016 I had to keep switching my allegiances because my preferred candidates kept dropping out one by one. Fiorina 2016!
Jeremy
I think her platform (as stated on her website, https://www.tulsi2020.com/ ) is better than that of her peers. Particularly appealing to me is her stance on:
Civil Liberties & Protection
Veteran care, services, and benefits
War, Diplomacy, & International Trade
So, I've probably doomed her campaign.
-
What does everyone think of Tulsi Gabbard? I'm intrigued by her. She appears to be the most open to religious liberty. She also appears to be the most pro-life of all the Democratic candidates for the nomination. (That's a very low bar to clear but I have to start somewhere.) She does not appear to be as hawkish/interventionist as the other Democratic candidates. I'm intrigued by her.
Of course, my intrigue doesn't mean much. I'm always intrigued by losers. In 2016 I had to keep switching my allegiances because my preferred candidates kept dropping out one by one. Fiorina 2016!
Jeremy
She’s my number one choice. I think she’s great; truly a person of integrity. The only presidential candidate I’ve ever donated to. I’ve supported her from the start but what really endeared me to her was when she took out Kamala Harris for her atrocious record as AG. If I can I’ll write her in on Election Day.
Tulsi2020.
Peace,
Scott+
-
What does everyone think of Tulsi Gabbard? I'm intrigued by her. She appears to be the most open to religious liberty. She also appears to be the most pro-life of all the Democratic candidates for the nomination. (That's a very low bar to clear but I have to start somewhere.) She does not appear to be as hawkish/interventionist as the other Democratic candidates. I'm intrigued by her.
Of course, my intrigue doesn't mean much. I'm always intrigued by losers. In 2016 I had to keep switching my allegiances because my preferred candidates kept dropping out one by one. Fiorina 2016!
Jeremy
I like Rep. Gabbard. She seems to be an honest and courageous person. I could be wrong, but she seems less calculating than other candidates. Maybe that's why she's losing.
I respect her past and current military service, and how persistent she has been to draw our attention to the normalization of endless war.
-
PastorvFienen:
So, what I am hearing from Prs. Stoffregen and Austin, is that while it may be that there were a few who were treated badly because of their opposition to the changes of the CWA 2009, there are always two sides to every story so we really cannot trust that their opposition was the real reason for their treatment, their bishops no doubt had a different point of view so we really should trust that the church government did it right and dismiss the complaints of dissenters.
Me:
Hogwash! And you always choose to read my comments in the worst possible light. It is really tiresome.
What I said, for the thousandth time, is that there are many sides to every story and we cannot make a decision based on hearing only one side.
Can you possibly admit that some of those who claim they were being “persecuted” for one reason might not be telling us the whole story?
I will not give you the name of one pastor I know, and I’ve even met him on one occasion, who claimed loud and long That he was being persecuted because of his opposition to the decision of 2009. Totally untrue. He was not getting a call because he’s a jerk, and because he’s an incompetent Pastor who probably never should’ve been ordained.
And I heard from people I trust about others who tried to make a career out of being persecuted.
Dammit, that’s not trusting the establishment. That’s not trusting the administration. Nor should we simply always trust the one who complains.
Not can we please let this old, worn out, and now irrelevant topic go?
-
So, what I am hearing from Prs. Stoffregen and Austin, is that while it may be that there were a few who were treated badly because of their opposition to the changes of the CWA 2009, there are always two sides to every story so we really cannot trust that their opposition was the real reason for their treatment, their bishops no doubt had a different point of view so we really should trust that the church government did it right and dismiss the complaints of dissenters. Trust The Administration! Trust The Establishment!
"Two sides" means that there's two sides. Neither Charles nor I have said that the bishop's (the administration's, the establishment's) view is any more correct than those who feel that they have been treated badly. I've also seen bishop's make poor decisions.
-
When we have come to a place where Biden and Buttigieg are referred to as "moderates" we are in a sad state. The Democrat party used to have real moderates, such as Scoop Jackson, Joe Lieberman, Daniel Patrick Moynahan, etc. There is scarcely any such thing today. The choice today is between radical leftists and less radical leftists. It's a shame.
IMO, it's also a shame that Christians flocked so heavily into the GOP, so much so that we no longer have any moderating influence among Democrats.
When we have come to a place where moderate republicans are referred to as RINOs and there are no more republicans like Eisenhower and other moderates we are in an equally sad state. Both parties are being held hostage by their fringe elements.
-
When we have come to a place where Biden and Buttigieg are referred to as "moderates" we are in a sad state. The Democrat party used to have real moderates, such as Scoop Jackson, Joe Lieberman, Daniel Patrick Moynahan, etc. There is scarcely any such thing today. The choice today is between radical leftists and less radical leftists. It's a shame.
IMO, it's also a shame that Christians flocked so heavily into the GOP, so much so that we no longer have any moderating influence among Democrats.
When we have come to a place where moderate republicans are referred to as RINOs and there are no more republicans like Eisenhower and other moderates we are in an equally sad state. Both parties are being held hostage by their fringe elements.
I would rather offer a perspective that the "fringe elements" on both sides are good things, and in fact the happy middle is comprised mostly of corporatists who protect the status quo. The "fringe elements" in the Republican and Democratic parties tend to disagree on solutions, but agree on the core problems. If you ask Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders what is wrong in this country, they'll give shockingly similar answers.
What do the "fringe elements" disagree on? Mostly economic policy -- whether to get government out or get government more fully in, social policy, including things like gay rights or abortion, etc. But if you think about what else we consider "fringe" about each side, it's pretty telling.
Providing universal healthcare
Lowering the cost of a college education
Student loan debt forgiveness
Criminal justice reform
True equality of opportunity in the form of UBI or something along those lines
Versus
Protecting unborn life
Not allowing men to compete against women in sporting competitions
Not allowing men to force women to share a bathroom or locker room with them
Preserving the 2nd Amendment
Protection of religious freedom and the 1st Amendment
Then, consider what both sides' "moderates" tend to agree on:
Bailing out automakers, banks and Wall Street with taxpayer money
Endless foreign wars
Don't raise taxes on billionaires or corporations
Byzantine tax code that allows some economic actors to avoid taxes altogether
Status quo criminal justice system or worse, a more punitive system
More prisons, private prison contractors
Bankruptcy "reform" to protect credit card companies
Status quo drug laws
"Free" trade policy
The thing that strikes me most clearly is the so-called "moderate" wing of the two major parties have a stake in protecting the larger economic stakeholders at the expense of the vast majority of Americans. Wal-Mart employees are subsidized by Medicaid and food stamps while the Waltons get richer and richer. Amazon employees are similarly low pay and low benefits, and also rely on subsidies. We are literally funding cheap labor to these companies and we are literally paying the bill for it.
I'd much rather have an honest conversation between true hard right and hard left candidates than more of the same. Thank God for Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump, and their predecessors like Mike Gravel and Ron Paul and others. Our government needs a good cleansing. I won't weigh in on whether President Trump is doing an adequate job or whether Sanders would, and I won't ask anyone else to speculate either. We can differ on the prescription. But I will say they are identifying problems that others are not identifying. And this country could use more of that.
-
I might be willing to grant what you say David, except that the fringe elements on both sides have an all or nothing approach and have no interest in doing the hard work that leads to legislation and governing in my opinion. It is the middle if you will where the work gets done, the fringes are too interested in vilifying the other side.
What I liked about John McCain, Pete, and Amy, and a host of republican candidates in the previous election was a host of practical common sense ideas, and approaches. There was a willingness to be pragmatic and to a certain extent honest that to me is missing from the fringe. My larger point was to point out that if the dems have moved too the left, the repubs have moved as far to the right.
-
I might be willing to grant what you say David, except that the fringe elements on both sides have an all or nothing approach and have no interest in doing the hard work that leads to legislation and governing in my opinion. It is the middle if you will where the work gets done, the fringes are too interested in vilifying the other side.
What I liked about John McCain, Pete, and Amy, and a host of republican candidates in the previous election was a host of practical common sense ideas, and approaches. There was a willingness to be pragmatic and to a certain extent honest that to me is missing from the fringe. My larger point was to point out that if the dems have moved too the left, the repubs have moved as far to the right.
When pragmatism results in maintenance of status quo, a lot of folks decide (rightly, IMO) that pragmatism isn't really a benefit to anyone except those who benefit from the status quo.
-
Well this is as good a thread as any. Will either major candidate decry the scurrilous and threatening attack made by the Senate Minority Leader on the steps of the Supreme Court, calling justices by their last name only? Will Democrats as a party castigate in Schumer for the type of behavior they [rightfully] deride in Trump? Or is the fact that the issue is Pro-Abortion mean he gets a pass?
-
I might be willing to grant what you say David, except that the fringe elements on both sides have an all or nothing approach and have no interest in doing the hard work that leads to legislation and governing in my opinion. It is the middle if you will where the work gets done, the fringes are too interested in vilifying the other side.
What I liked about John McCain, Pete, and Amy, and a host of republican candidates in the previous election was a host of practical common sense ideas, and approaches. There was a willingness to be pragmatic and to a certain extent honest that to me is missing from the fringe. My larger point was to point out that if the dems have moved too the left, the repubs have moved as far to the right.
I'b interested to know where exactly the GOP has moved rightward. they've changed on foreign policy from neocon to more isolationists, and from free trade toward more protectionism, but those are hardly rightward shifts in any meaningful sense the way the terms right and left generally get used in political discussion. Reagan appointed Bork-- have moved rightward from there? What issues are today's Republicans to the right of, say, Newt Gingrich in the 90's or Reagan in the 80's? Or Goldwatet in the 60's for that matter? It seem to me people tend to see the GOP moving to the right only by assuming a certain amount of leftward drift over time as the status quo, such that staying where you are, especially on taxation, size of government, and social issues, seems more and more right wing as time goes on because the left wing gets further and further removed from it.
Opposing Obamacare is something specific, as is wanting out of the Paris climate thing, but in general, seeking energy independence, lowering taxes-- those are things the GOP has always been for and still is for. Where is the rightward drift?
-
The thing that strikes me most clearly is the so-called "moderate" wing of the two major parties have a stake in protecting the larger economic stakeholders at the expense of the vast majority of Americans. Wal-Mart employees are subsidized by Medicaid and food stamps while the Waltons get richer and richer. Amazon employees are similarly low pay and low benefits, and also rely on subsidies. We are literally funding cheap labor to these companies and we are literally paying the bill for it.
So, where would you put raising the minimum wage and requiring companies to offer benefits (the things that unions fight for)? Are they on the fringe or moderate?
-
The thing that strikes me most clearly is the so-called "moderate" wing of the two major parties have a stake in protecting the larger economic stakeholders at the expense of the vast majority of Americans. Wal-Mart employees are subsidized by Medicaid and food stamps while the Waltons get richer and richer. Amazon employees are similarly low pay and low benefits, and also rely on subsidies. We are literally funding cheap labor to these companies and we are literally paying the bill for it.
So, where would you put raising the minimum wage and requiring companies to offer benefits (the things that unions fight for)? Are they on the fringe or moderate?
So, the minimum wage goes up. And then so does the price of everything. And the McDonald's hamburger flipper is just where he was before. Or, at least, his buying power is. Because when wages go up, then so does the cost for products/services. Do people really think that Walmart is just going to take a smaller cut and NOT pass the increased costs on to the consumer?
-
So, where would you put raising the minimum wage and requiring companies to offer benefits (the things that unions fight for)? Are they on the fringe or moderate?
Speaking just for myself, I am entirely in favor of unions negotiating with employers for a higher minimum wage and for greater benefits (and other "things that unions fight for"). Capital and labor have a very long history of that sort of thing. What I am not in favor of is government sabotaging those kind of negotiations by arbitrarily imposing a minimum wage floor or a mandated assortment of benefits. The former invites shared governance of the community's economy; the latter is simply political bullying.
Tom Pearson
-
Did he say that he was? I do not recall that. He did, however, write this to Rev. Austin: "The issue at hand NOW is your despicable refusal to acknowledge that far too many have been black balled by those within the ELCA solely because their belief and confession was in 'opposition to the party line'."
Perhaps his knowledge comes from websites that may not be the most accurate.
The vast majority of my knowledge of the ELCA has been gleaned from the posts of ELCA and former ELCA participants of the ALPB Forum.
Apparently my only error is to doubt and question the Austin/Stoffregen mob party line ... and thus am subjected to their mobbing/stalking antics.
-
“Mobbing/stalking”?
Don’t flatter yourself. You ain’t that important.
And if all you know of the ELCA is from this forum, you ain’t very well-informed or savvy about learning things either.
-
“Mobbing/stalking”?
Don’t flatter yourself. You ain’t that important.
And if all you know of the ELCA is from this forum, you ain’t very well-informed or savvy about learning things either.
How do you know he is not that important, if you don't know who he is? And, since you apparently are convinced he is not a layman named James Eivan (I say that because you have not retracted, or apologized for, your earlier accusation in that vein) then how do you know HOW important he might be? Perhaps he is really your Presiding Bishop using that pseudonym to smoke out folks? Or maybe he is wicked ol' Trump -- the devil incarnate, for you -- slumming it amongst us Lutherans? Might even be your beloved wife, just trying to rile up the old man for kicks!
-
I never thought I’d say this, but either talk about politics in this thread or stop posting.
-
There is a serious problem with government by the "fringes". Constitutional republics function on compromise. No compromise, no function, just anger. A perfect example of what we would call a moderate today is Ronald Reagan. There were several things on which he would never compromise, but the number was a small one. He would negotiate on everything else and he did so without having his sense of self determined by whether he "whipped" his opponents. I've been a government political appointee and I have seen the system work. Now we are frankly seeing the system fail. Can the American experiment continue? I grow more and more concerned that it can't.
-
I oppose early voting in principle. It shouldn’t be allowed. Events leading up to an election should matter, at least potentially.
I basically agree with you, provided there are provisions for absentee voting ahead of time.
Early voting and voting by postal ballot (as in Oregon) may be increasingly needed as states chop the number of polling places available on the voting day itself: https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-polling-place-closures/ (https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-polling-place-closures/):The report, titled “Democracy Diverted: Polling Place Closures and the Right to Vote,” looked at 757 of the 861 counties and county-level equivalents across the nation that were previously covered by Section 5, and found that 750 polling places in Texas have been shuttered since Shelby. That constitutes almost half of all polling places in the U.S. closed since 2013. Fourteen Texas counties closed at least 50 percent of their polling places after Shelby, and 590 have been shuttered since the 2014 midterm election.
Maricopa County in Arizona had the most polling place closures, but that was followed by six counties in Texas: Dallas lost 74 places; Travis lost 67; Harris shuttered 52; Brazoria closed 37; and Nueces closed 37.
Peace,
Michael
Looks like California has voting issues (https://www.statesville.com/news/state/ap/voting-changes-computer-glitches-mar-california-primary/article_eeeab773-c882-5e2d-a30e-5f0e93baec9c.amp.html) similar to those cited in your article.
-
The thing that strikes me most clearly is the so-called "moderate" wing of the two major parties have a stake in protecting the larger economic stakeholders at the expense of the vast majority of Americans. Wal-Mart employees are subsidized by Medicaid and food stamps while the Waltons get richer and richer. Amazon employees are similarly low pay and low benefits, and also rely on subsidies. We are literally funding cheap labor to these companies and we are literally paying the bill for it.
So, where would you put raising the minimum wage and requiring companies to offer benefits (the things that unions fight for)? Are they on the fringe or moderate?
So, the minimum wage goes up. And then so does the price of everything. And the McDonald's hamburger flipper is just where he was before. Or, at least, his buying power is. Because when wages go up, then so does the cost for products/services. Do people really think that Walmart is just going to take a smaller cut and NOT pass the increased costs on to the consumer?
When my wife worked at Walmart, her hourly pay went up every year. The price of what they sold didn’t change. Her 401 K and stocks went up. The price of goods didn’t change. When we moved to Arizona (that had a lower minimum wage than California) the Walmart here cut her wages by $2.00 an hour. The price of goods wasn’t any cheaper. We just couldn’t buy as much. When she left and went to another business, she was making half of what Walmart was paying her with no retirement or stocks.
We could also argue that when minimum wage goes up, people buy more things so stores make more money. Henry Ford made sure his employees could afford to buy the cars they were making. If hourly employees couldn’t afford their cars, they wouldn’t be selling many of them.
-
The thing that strikes me most clearly is the so-called "moderate" wing of the two major parties have a stake in protecting the larger economic stakeholders at the expense of the vast majority of Americans. Wal-Mart employees are subsidized by Medicaid and food stamps while the Waltons get richer and richer. Amazon employees are similarly low pay and low benefits, and also rely on subsidies. We are literally funding cheap labor to these companies and we are literally paying the bill for it.
So, where would you put raising the minimum wage and requiring companies to offer benefits (the things that unions fight for)? Are they on the fringe or moderate?
So, the minimum wage goes up. And then so does the price of everything. And the McDonald's hamburger flipper is just where he was before. Or, at least, his buying power is. Because when wages go up, then so does the cost for products/services. Do people really think that Walmart is just going to take a smaller cut and NOT pass the increased costs on to the consumer?
When my wife worked at Walmart, her hourly pay went up every year. The price of what they sold didn’t change. Her 401 K and stocks went up. The price of goods didn’t change. When we moved to Arizona (that had a lower minimum wage than California) the Walmart here cut her wages by $2.00 an hour. The price of goods wasn’t any cheaper. We just couldn’t buy as much. When she left and went to another business, she was making half of what Walmart was paying her with no retirement or stocks.
We could also argue that when minimum wage goes up, people buy more things so stores make more money. Henry Ford made sure his employees could afford to buy the cars they were making. If hourly employees couldn’t afford their cars, they wouldn’t be selling many of them.
I would think that as someone who “studied statistics in college”, you would recognize the limits of economic analysis by anecdote. If not, however, I have my own anecdote, with double the sample size:
Two of my sons have had summer jobs at a local, family-operated small business. They started at $9 an hour; with more experience and responsibilities, they eventually got to $11 an hour. They weren’t trying to support a family; after tithing, they used their earnings for college expenses and some socializing with friends. I think their boss sees himself as a mentor to young adults, and he frequently brought in lunchtime speakers to talk about career planning and development. One section of the business employed mostly individuals with Down Syndrome or other developmental delays, and the business was active in raising money for local charities. My sons worked hard and hopefully developed a good work ethic. I have no doubt that raising the minimum wage to $15/hr would have meant the end of this particular small business.
It is a real problem that many in our society work full time and are still unable to support a family. However, most economists, even those who support increasing the minimum wage, recognize that there are more targeted and efficient ways to address this problem. As one example, the Earned Income Tax Credit is widely considered to be an effective anti-poverty policy.
Peace,
Jon
-
Well this is as good a thread as any. Will either major candidate decry the scurrilous and threatening attack made by the Senate Minority Leader on the steps of the Supreme Court, calling justices by their last name only? Will Democrats as a party castigate in Schumer for the type of behavior they [rightfully] deride in Trump? Or is the fact that the issue is Pro-Abortion mean he gets a pass?
As one who has been critical of the President for divisive rhetoric and verbal attacks on judges, I have to admit that Senator Schumer’s conduct was deplorable, and I’m glad the Chief Justice called him out.
Peace,
Jon
-
Apparently for Sen. Schumer at least the principle of the independence of the judiciary applies only when he thinks it likely that they'll rule the way he wants them to do.
-
Senator Schumer has explained that he meant Republicans would suffer the reactions, not the Justices.
-
Senator Schumer has explained that he meant Republicans would suffer the reactions, not the Justices.
He should have done a better job of expressing that when he stood on the steps of the Supreme Court and threatened the Justices by name. If he wanted to speak to the Republicans in the Senate, he has plenty of opportunity to do so informally or formally in the Senate. If he was issuing a warning to the Senate Republicans, what did he expect them to do in response to his warning, lean on the Justices to vote on a case in a way that would benefit them politically? Hardly a way to uphold an independent judiciary.
Whether he was speaking to the Justices that he called out by name, or the Republican Senators who confirmed their nominations, it sure sounded like Sen. Schumer was applying political pressure to influence the votes of Supreme Court Justices. If Sen. Schumer is that concerned about insuring the legal status of abortion and abortion providers, why doesn't he gather his coalition and legislate a national law on abortion instead of trying to intimidate Supreme Court Justices either directly or through those who voted to confirm their nominations to voting according to his position? If the case for guaranteeing easy access to abortion with few restrictions is so strong, why doesn't he argue that case, even file an amicus brief, rather than threatening political retribution against whoever he was really speaking to when he stood on the steps of the Supreme Court and addressed two Justices by name?
-
Henry Ford made sure his employees could afford to buy the cars they were making. If hourly employees couldn’t afford their cars, they wouldn’t be selling many of them.
A very successful private employer choosing to pay his employees well does not make a case for the govenment requiring all employers to pay their employees an amount it thinks is fair.
When your wife started working at Wal-mart, the company proudly advertised that what was on the shelves was made in America.
Pax, Steven+
-
Senator Schumer has explained that he meant Republicans would suffer the reactions, not the Justices.
That's not what he said. He named two Supreme Court justices and said that they would pay the price.
-
Senator Schumer has explained that he meant Republicans would suffer the reactions, not the Justices.
That's not what he said. He named two Supreme Court justices and said that they would pay the price.
It's pretty clear just how important abortion is to the Left when public threats are made by government officials against other government officials, and their pets in the media eat up and spit back their ludicrous spin as truth. Should things go against them this election cycle, there is a very good chance that things could get truly ugly. Remember that the Left is traditionally given a pass on violence; I highly recommend Bryan Burrough's Days of Rage (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143107976/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i2) as a bracing wake-up as to where things have been and could go again.
-
Senator Schumer has explained that he meant Republicans would suffer the reactions, not the Justices.
That's not what I heard in his rant. He was fairly explicit that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch would not know what hit them. And I note that they were not referred to by their correct title, but wee named dismissively only by last name.
-
Senator Schumer has explained that he meant Republicans would suffer the reactions, not the Justices.
That's not what he said. He named two Supreme Court justices and said that they would pay the price.
It is common to all politicians that if they say something questionable and are called on it, they backtrack and correct the hearers as to what they "really" said that would have been more acceptable.
-
The toxic nature of political discourse is seen here. We are in a critical period in our national history.
-
Now that the "Super Tuesday" results are in it sounds like this election is pretty much a two horse race: Biden vs. Sanders. Warren is done, as far as I can tell. Bloomberg demonstrated that you can spend nearly half a billion dollars and still come in third.
There's obviously some enthusiasm among the younger set for Sanders. If the voter turnout rises in that demographic that could help him.
Biden is clearly the 'safe' candidate for the establishment. I think that a lot of mainline Democrats would prefer to see him on the ticket opposing Trump in November. I'm sure they are worried that Sanders is just too 'radical' to have enough broad based support in the general election.
Bloomberg just dropped out - after spending roughly $500 million of his own money on his campaign. He is endorsing Biden.
According to the New York Times, Senator Elizabeth Warren plans to drop out of the presidential race today. No word yet on who she will be endorsing.
-
And now we will get the usual howls about the fact that there are just two “old, white guys” running.
Let’s just ignore that for the nonsense which it is.
-
And now we will get the usual howls about the fact that there are just two “old, white guys” running.
Let’s just ignore that for the nonsense which it is.
Out of curiosity, who are you expecting the howls to come from?
-
You're talking about the nonsense that has been emanating from the Democrats, right? The folks that have been howling about the lack of diversity since Cory Booker and Julio Castro dropped out before Iowa, right? I agree that it is silly, but if there are going to be complaints about diversity, those complaints have to be legitimate. By polling and by votes, these are the candidates that have managed to stay in the race. The Democrats are reaping the whirlwind of identity politics. Good luck to them. I hope they have enough pepper because eating your own always requires a little extra spice.
Jeremy
-
One of the areas that Democrats have to work on is voter turnout. Sanders has the strongest appeal to the young. They come to his mass events and cheer. But they don't show up at the voting booth in as predictable numbers, otherwise he would have run right over Biden. Voter apathy is one of the greatest enemies of a candidate.
-
I might be willing to grant what you say David, except that the fringe elements on both sides have an all or nothing approach and have no interest in doing the hard work that leads to legislation and governing in my opinion. It is the middle if you will where the work gets done, the fringes are too interested in vilifying the other side.
What I liked about John McCain, Pete, and Amy, and a host of republican candidates in the previous election was a host of practical common sense ideas, and approaches. There was a willingness to be pragmatic and to a certain extent honest that to me is missing from the fringe. My larger point was to point out that if the dems have moved too the left, the repubs have moved as far to the right.
I'b interested to know where exactly the GOP has moved rightward. they've changed on foreign policy from neocon to more isolationists, and from free trade toward more protectionism, but those are hardly rightward shifts in any meaningful sense the way the terms right and left generally get used in political discussion. Reagan appointed Bork-- have moved rightward from there? What issues are today's Republicans to the right of, say, Newt Gingrich in the 90's or Reagan in the 80's? Or Goldwatet in the 60's for that matter? It seem to me people tend to see the GOP moving to the right only by assuming a certain amount of leftward drift over time as the status quo, such that staying where you are, especially on taxation, size of government, and social issues, seems more and more right wing as time goes on because the left wing gets further and further removed from it.
Opposing Obamacare is something specific, as is wanting out of the Paris climate thing, but in general, seeking energy independence, lowering taxes-- those are things the GOP has always been for and still is for. Where is the rightward drift?
I was thinking mostly of the Tea Party Caucus and the growing movement to dismantle what is called "large government" in spite of the good that some of that "large govt" has done; like health and food safety regulations, maintaining public infrastructure etc. Or the move away from the idea of fiscal responsibility; They tout it but don't really practice it.
-
And now we will get the usual howls about the fact that there are just two “old, white guys” running.
Let’s just ignore that for the nonsense which it is.
You're right. It's nonsense. In addition to the two "old, white guys," the race also still includes Tulsi Gabbard.
-
I might be willing to grant what you say David, except that the fringe elements on both sides have an all or nothing approach and have no interest in doing the hard work that leads to legislation and governing in my opinion. It is the middle if you will where the work gets done, the fringes are too interested in vilifying the other side.
What I liked about John McCain, Pete, and Amy, and a host of republican candidates in the previous election was a host of practical common sense ideas, and approaches. There was a willingness to be pragmatic and to a certain extent honest that to me is missing from the fringe. My larger point was to point out that if the dems have moved too the left, the repubs have moved as far to the right.
I'b interested to know where exactly the GOP has moved rightward. they've changed on foreign policy from neocon to more isolationists, and from free trade toward more protectionism, but those are hardly rightward shifts in any meaningful sense the way the terms right and left generally get used in political discussion. Reagan appointed Bork-- have moved rightward from there? What issues are today's Republicans to the right of, say, Newt Gingrich in the 90's or Reagan in the 80's? Or Goldwatet in the 60's for that matter? It seem to me people tend to see the GOP moving to the right only by assuming a certain amount of leftward drift over time as the status quo, such that staying where you are, especially on taxation, size of government, and social issues, seems more and more right wing as time goes on because the left wing gets further and further removed from it.
Opposing Obamacare is something specific, as is wanting out of the Paris climate thing, but in general, seeking energy independence, lowering taxes-- those are things the GOP has always been for and still is for. Where is the rightward drift?
I was thinking mostly of the Tea Party Caucus and the growing movement to dismantle what is called "large government" in spite of the good that some of that "large govt" has done; like health and food safety regulations, maintaining public infrastructure etc. Or the move away from the idea of fiscal responsibility; They tout it but don't really practice it.
I think that was the point of the Tea Party rebellion against the GOP. The leaders talked a good game, but didn't play it. And it is a hard game to play. Once government starts providing something, it is rare to a program go away. But the talk of wanting smaller government, and the inability to to actually make the government smaller, are the same today as in the 80's. Again, where is the rightward drift?
The leftward drift of the Dems is obvious. Single payer health care, for example, would have been a non-starter even among Democrats in previous decades. Free college. Forcing Catholic organizations to offer abortion in health care packages. Gay marriage. These are all things that John Kerry would never have dreamed of proposing in 2004, but are not perfectly mainstream Dem positions.
-
It's all about voter turnout. I think that the lines between the two competing factions are sharply drawn. I don't see the sides talking together any time soon. The divisiveness is a threat to the nature of our country.
-
Henry Ford made sure his employees could afford to buy the cars they were making. If hourly employees couldn’t afford their cars, they wouldn’t be selling many of them.
A very successful private employer choosing to pay his employees well does not make a case for the government requiring all employers to pay their employees an amount it thinks is fair.
When your wife started working at Wal-mart, the company proudly advertised that what was on the shelves was made in America.
Yes, made in America when possible. They never claimed that everything was made in America.
When folks are not paid a livable wage, some will seek the benefits that welfare provides; so the government (that is, we) are paying the price. As a single mother on welfare told me a number of years ago, "I need at least $13.00/hour and medical benefits for my son in order to get off welfare." Her main concern was medical coverage for a son, which she got on welfare, but she wouldn't have working for minimum wages at a fast-food place. She was able to get a job that offered what she needed. In my mind, it is better for the government to make sure that folks have a living wage and benefits than to be giving handouts to folks in need.
We are supporting those in poverty. We can do it through higher minimum wages which might raise the cost of products we buy; or through taxes and donations to charities to feed, clothe, and shelter those who do not have their own funds; or by having grown children mooch off parents because they cannot afford to live on their own with the pay they are making.
-
It's all about voter turnout. I think that the lines between the two competing factions are sharply drawn. I don't see the sides talking together any time soon. The divisiveness is a threat to the nature of our country.
I went and perused your latest posts. If you don't like divisiveness, the best thing you can do is stop being divisive.
-
Henry Ford made sure his employees could afford to buy the cars they were making. If hourly employees couldn’t afford their cars, they wouldn’t be selling many of them.
A very successful private employer choosing to pay his employees well does not make a case for the government requiring all employers to pay their employees an amount it thinks is fair.
When your wife started working at Wal-mart, the company proudly advertised that what was on the shelves was made in America.
Yes, made in America when possible. They never claimed that everything was made in America.
When folks are not paid a livable wage, some will seek the benefits that welfare provides; so the government (that is, we) are paying the price. As a single mother on welfare told me a number of years ago, "I need at least $13.00/hour and medical benefits for my son in order to get off welfare." Her main concern was medical coverage for a son, which she got on welfare, but she wouldn't have working for minimum wages at a fast-food place. She was able to get a job that offered what she needed. In my mind, it is better for the government to make sure that folks have a living wage and benefits than to be giving handouts to folks in need.
We are supporting those in poverty. We can do it through higher minimum wages which might raise the cost of products we buy; or through taxes and donations to charities to feed, clothe, and shelter those who do not have their own funds; or by having grown children mooch off parents because they cannot afford to live on their own with the pay they are making.
When I started working in the social service field after college, one of my co-workers quit. She found she made more on welfare than by administering it. So, why work? Yet her wages were considered "livable". It's just that the welfare state made not working even more "livable".
-
Henry Ford made sure his employees could afford to buy the cars they were making. If hourly employees couldn’t afford their cars, they wouldn’t be selling many of them.
A very successful private employer choosing to pay his employees well does not make a case for the government requiring all employers to pay their employees an amount it thinks is fair.
When your wife started working at Wal-mart, the company proudly advertised that what was on the shelves was made in America.
Yes, made in America when possible. They never claimed that everything was made in America.
When folks are not paid a livable wage, some will seek the benefits that welfare provides; so the government (that is, we) are paying the price. As a single mother on welfare told me a number of years ago, "I need at least $13.00/hour and medical benefits for my son in order to get off welfare." Her main concern was medical coverage for a son, which she got on welfare, but she wouldn't have working for minimum wages at a fast-food place. She was able to get a job that offered what she needed. In my mind, it is better for the government to make sure that folks have a living wage and benefits than to be giving handouts to folks in need.
We are supporting those in poverty. We can do it through higher minimum wages which might raise the cost of products we buy; or through taxes and donations to charities to feed, clothe, and shelter those who do not have their own funds; or by having grown children mooch off parents because they cannot afford to live on their own with the pay they are making.
When I started working in the social service field after college, one of my co-workers quit. She found she made more on welfare than by administering it. So, why work? Yet her wages were considered "livable". It's just that the welfare state made not working even more "livable".
What about benefits? The major concern of the lady I talked to was the health benefits for her toddler. She had them with welfare. She wouldn't have them working at McDonald's.
-
Henry Ford made sure his employees could afford to buy the cars they were making. If hourly employees couldn’t afford their cars, they wouldn’t be selling many of them.
A very successful private employer choosing to pay his employees well does not make a case for the government requiring all employers to pay their employees an amount it thinks is fair.
When your wife started working at Wal-mart, the company proudly advertised that what was on the shelves was made in America.
Yes, made in America when possible. They never claimed that everything was made in America.
When folks are not paid a livable wage, some will seek the benefits that welfare provides; so the government (that is, we) are paying the price. As a single mother on welfare told me a number of years ago, "I need at least $13.00/hour and medical benefits for my son in order to get off welfare." Her main concern was medical coverage for a son, which she got on welfare, but she wouldn't have working for minimum wages at a fast-food place. She was able to get a job that offered what she needed. In my mind, it is better for the government to make sure that folks have a living wage and benefits than to be giving handouts to folks in need.
We are supporting those in poverty. We can do it through higher minimum wages which might raise the cost of products we buy; or through taxes and donations to charities to feed, clothe, and shelter those who do not have their own funds; or by having grown children mooch off parents because they cannot afford to live on their own with the pay they are making.
When I started working in the social service field after college, one of my co-workers quit. She found she made more on welfare than by administering it. So, why work? Yet her wages were considered "livable". It's just that the welfare state made not working even more "livable".
What about benefits? The major concern of the lady I talked to was the health benefits for her toddler. She had them with welfare. She wouldn't have them working at McDonald's.
She had family health insurance provided by our employer, the county Dept. of Social Services. Those working for government usually have pretty good benefits.
-
One of the unique problems in our system of social welfare is it rewards the wrong things (out of wedlock children, joblessness, being single, having no concrete assets) and punishes the right things (marriage, work, home ownership). It's pathetic.
You want welfare? Sign up! But don't get a job, or get married, or do anything to become more self-sufficient. Because then we'll have to stop your check immediately. If we transitioned people we'd have fewer of them in the system and a more robust and effective system.
-
The things which you are angry and upset about have been put in place by politicians who have enacted such practices in an orderly way.
-
Well this is as good a thread as any. Will either major candidate decry the scurrilous and threatening attack made by the Senate Minority Leader on the steps of the Supreme Court, calling justices by their last name only? Will Democrats as a party castigate in Schumer for the type of behavior they [rightfully] deride in Trump? Or is the fact that the issue is Pro-Abortion mean he gets a pass?
As one who has been critical of the President for divisive rhetoric and verbal attacks on judges, I have to admit that Senator Schumer’s conduct was deplorable, and I’m glad the Chief Justice called him out.
Peace,
Jon
Schumer's statement was ill-advised. He explained later that he didn't quite mean it the way he said it, which is fair enough. Fair enough also for Roberts to call him out on it, though it would be more credible if he had also called out the president's demand that two justices recuse themselves from any cases involving him.
-
Senator Schumer has explained that he meant Republicans would suffer the reactions, not the Justices.
That's not what he said. He named two Supreme Court justices and said that they would pay the price.
It is common to all politicians that if they say something questionable and are called on it, they backtrack and correct the hearers as to what they "really" said that would have been more acceptable.
Except, of course, President Trump, who never backtracks and corrects.
-
One of the unique problems in our system of social welfare is it rewards the wrong things (out of wedlock children, joblessness, being single, having no concrete assets) and punishes the right things (marriage, work, home ownership). It's pathetic.
You want welfare? Sign up! But don't get a job, or get married, or do anything to become more self-sufficient. Because then we'll have to stop your check immediately. If we transitioned people we'd have fewer of them in the system and a more robust and effective system.
Heck ... I see ads for an 'Obama phone' (the ads words, not mine) with more generous data plans than our house hold PAYS for. Apparently cell phone and generous data plans have become a 'human right'. :P
-
No, not a human right, don’t be silly.
do you object to providing aid, including a cell phone, to people in need?
-
No, not a human right, don’t be silly.
do you object to providing aid, including a cell phone, to people in need?
OK. Let's give everyone a new Ford pickup too. And a lake home. Why not? Do you object to aiding people in need?
-
No, not a human right, don’t be silly.
do you object to providing aid, including a cell phone, to people in need?
Yes I object to giving non necessities ... even luxuries away ... there have been ample examples given in the last day or so on this forum of people who do not work because they life better off the welfare system.
When is enough enough?? I believe you have traveled overseas during your retirement ... and I am happy for you because it brings you happiness .... but I do NOT believe you, I and others owe anyone the ability to make such trips ... If God did not provide them the means to travel the way you have traveled in your retirement, it is NOT our responsibility to provide the means for non necessities such as cellphones and overseas travel ... and many other things that the government currently provides.
In short ... people may WANT a cell phone ... they may think that the NEED a cell phone ... but the reality is that life will continue even of they (or I) do not have a cell phone.
-
No, not a human right, don’t be silly.
do you object to providing aid, including a cell phone, to people in need?
Yes I object to giving non necessities ... even luxuries away ... there have been ample examples given in the last day or so on this forum of people who do not work because they life better off the welfare system.
When is enough enough?? I believe you have traveled overseas during your retirement ... and I am happy for you because it brings you happiness .... but I do NOT believe you, I and others owe anyone the ability to make such trips ... If God did not provide them the means to travel the way you have traveled in your retirement, it is NOT our responsibility to provide the means for non necessities such as cellphones and overseas travel ... and many other things that the government currently provides.
In short ... people may WANT a cell phone ... they may think that the NEED a cell phone ... but the reality is that life will continue even of they (or I) do not have a cell phone.
In today’s world a cell phone is essential. It’s needed to find housing and employment. Our son didn’t think he needed a cell phone until he was homeless and unemployed. Now that he is well-employed, his company communicates through texts. Like many high-tech companies in Seattle, non-essential people are to work at home. His job was seen as essential. He had to go into work. (He does survive without a car.)
-
A phone is a necessity for life. Land lines are expensive, fading away or depend on very expensive cable subscriptions.
Cell phones are cheaper, but still costly. They are a necessity for life today. We must help some people have them.
-
A phone is a necessity for life. Land lines are expensive, fading away or depend on very expensive cable subscriptions.
Cell phones are cheaper, but still costly. They are a necessity for life today. We must help some people have them.
Hyperbole. A “necessity for life” would be something needed to avoid death.
-
In today’s world a cell phone is essential. It’s needed to find housing and employment. Our son didn’t think he needed a cell phone until he was homeless and unemployed. Now that he is well-employed, his company communicates through texts. Like many high-tech companies in Seattle, non-essential people are to work at home. His job was seen as essential. He had to go into work. (He does survive without a car.)
I can see how subsidizing or providing cell phones might be valuable in helping people find and keep stable jobs and housing. This seems like a program that would be amenable to quantitative analysis. Are there any data on the impact of this program on rates of housing and employment? If so, at what cost? How does that cost compare with the cost of other programs, such as funding or partnering with Lutheran Social Services or Catholic Charities?
Peace,
Jon
-
DeHall1 writes:
Hyperbole. A “necessity for life” would be something needed to avoid death.
I comment:
Balderdash, And yours is the worst kind of nit pickery.
But, my bad. I’ll take the blame. I should have said a cell phone is necessary for living in today’s world. work.
Safe contact with family.
Healthcare.
Emergencies.
Civic alerts.
Job searches.
Banking.(ever try to do your banking when you don’t have access to a car to get to the bank?)
-
Cell phones have gone in my lifetime from a dream, the stuff of sci fi, to a novelty luxury, to a ubiquitous part of daily living. It is hard to take part in daily life anymore, finding and keeping employment, etc. without a cell phone. It also has gone from being an expensive and luxurious oddity to being a reasonable expense. Try finding a public pay phone anymore.
-
Not sure if it's been noted here, but Elizabeth Warren has officially ended her candidacy. But unlike the others, who probably felt their endorsements of Biden would directly influence Super Tuesday, Warren is holding off on any endorsement. According to USA Today: "A Morning Consult poll found Sanders and Biden would benefit roughly equally from Warren's departure. The poll says 43% of Warren's supporters choose Sanders as their second choice, compared with 36% who say Biden is their second option. A Democratic friend of Sanders who has worked with him said people shouldn't assume he will win the endorsement of Warren. There is a definite party shift to Biden, he said, and Warren has her own future to think about: "If she wants to stay viable, she'll endorse Biden."
So it's truly a two horse race now. And although I don't think anyone would dare call the final result at this point, Biden is clearly the favored front-runner. I believe Sanders may have indicated that if Biden comes to the convention with more delegates, even if its a plurality and not a majority, he'll still acquiesce to Biden as the party's choice.
While a Sanders - Trump contest would have had entertainment quality (however you want to define that!), I wonder what a Biden - Trump showdown would look like. While Biden has a more polished presence (to some degree as he does seem rather prone to gaffs of his own) I don't think, based on previous debate performance, that he's at all prepared for what it means to 'debate' Trump. No one was prepared for him in 2016 either. He has his own 'style' and it's hard to go head-to-head with him if you are a 'classic debater.'
-
I believe Sanders may have indicated that if Biden comes to the convention with more delegates, even if its a plurality and not a majority, he'll still acquiesce to Biden as the party's choice.
I hadn't heard that, but at least he has said that whoever has a plurality of delegates should be the nominee. Of course that was when that person was himself.
-
I don't have a smart phone. I've never had one. I manage to get by. When I see people glued to that little gizmo in their hands, oblivious to the world around them, enslaved to a habit that places them into an alternate reality, and then I read pastors on this forum say that this is ~necessary~ and we should make sure that everyone has one of these things, I think I have entered la la land. :)
-
Part of the myth in the myth of the Welfare Queen to makes a very comfortable living gaming the welfare system is that it is not always a myth. A few do just that. Probably not nearly as many as detractors of welfare imagine.
The fact of the matter is that no matter what we do, what programs we put in place to help people, some will find ways to exploit the system for their own benefit to get benefits for which they are not really entitled or to get more benefits than they should. Safeguards need to enacted to detect and prosecute especially the big time cheats. For example Doctors who run prescription mills or fake practices to scam millions out of Medicare.
But on a lower level, some gaming of the system is inevitable. It's part of human nature, and to a certain extent it can not, practically speaking, be prevented. There comes a point where the amount of resources (time, money, effort) spent on ferreting out and removing cheats will exceed the amount of resources that would otherwise be "wasted" on people obtaining help that they do not "need" or "deserve." On the other side of things, the more rules and procedures that we put in place to safeguard welfare (whether public welfare programs or private charitable programs) from cheating, the more cumbersome it becomes to administer and for people in need to successfully apply for and obtain aid. We run the very real risk of preventing people who are in genuine need from obtaining the aid that we are trying to supply to people in need.
A balance of effort is needed. There do need to be guidelines and procedures to direct the aid being given to people in genuine need. But in general it is more important that aid be given to those in need than that the aid not be wasted on the undeserving. Better that some "slip through the cracks" and get aid even though they could just as well go out a work for a living, than that some "slip through the cracks" and don't get the aid they truly need.
-
Not sure if it's been noted here, but Elizabeth Warren has officially ended her candidacy. But unlike the others, who probably felt their endorsements of Biden would directly influence Super Tuesday, Warren is holding off on any endorsement. According to USA Today: "A Morning Consult poll found Sanders and Biden would benefit roughly equally from Warren's departure. The poll says 43% of Warren's supporters choose Sanders as their second choice, compared with 36% who say Biden is their second option. A Democratic friend of Sanders who has worked with him said people shouldn't assume he will win the endorsement of Warren. There is a definite party shift to Biden, he said, and Warren has her own future to think about: "If she wants to stay viable, she'll endorse Biden."
So it's truly a two horse race now. And although I don't think anyone would dare call the final result at this point, Biden is clearly the favored front-runner. I believe Sanders may have indicated that if Biden comes to the convention with more delegates, even if its a plurality and not a majority, he'll still acquiesce to Biden as the party's choice.
While a Sanders - Trump contest would have had entertainment quality (however you want to define that!), I wonder what a Biden - Trump showdown would look like. While Biden has a more polished presence (to some degree as he does seem rather prone to gaffs of his own) I don't think, based on previous debate performance, that he's at all prepared for what it means to 'debate' Trump. No one was prepared for him in 2016 either. He has his own 'style' and it's hard to go head-to-head with him if you are a 'classic debater.'
https://babylonbee.com/news/warren-returns-to-tribe-in-shame-after-failing-to-retake-land-from-the-white-man (https://babylonbee.com/news/warren-returns-to-tribe-in-shame-after-failing-to-retake-land-from-the-white-man)
-
I have a smart phone. I rarely use it to make phone calls. When I do I am often near a land-line phone. I occasionally receive a phone call or a text from my wife, my son, or my sister. I *NEVER* send or receive a cell phone call or text for work purposes. Lest you think I am an anti-tech person, you'll need to know that I am a software engineer.
-
I believe Sanders may have indicated that if Biden comes to the convention with more delegates, even if its a plurality and not a majority, he'll still acquiesce to Biden as the party's choice.
I hadn't heard that, but at least he has said that whoever has a plurality of delegates should be the nominee. Of course that was when that person was himself.
I remember in 2016 the shock and horror when Trump suggested that he might not immediately accept a loss in the election. How could he say anything like that!?! Then when Hillary lost, the Dems have spent the last four years contesting that election. The shoe can look a whole lot different when it is on the other foot.
-
Senator Schumer has explained that he meant Republicans would suffer the reactions, not the Justices.
That's not what he said. He named two Supreme Court justices and said that they would pay the price.
It is common to all politicians that if they say something questionable and are called on it, they backtrack and correct the hearers as to what they "really" said that would have been more acceptable.
Except, of course, President Trump, who never backtracks and corrects.
I can imagine President Trump saying something like, "I never ever backtrack and when I do I'm the greatest backtracker in history."
-
Well this is as good a thread as any. Will either major candidate decry the scurrilous and threatening attack made by the Senate Minority Leader on the steps of the Supreme Court, calling justices by their last name only? Will Democrats as a party castigate in Schumer for the type of behavior they [rightfully] deride in Trump? Or is the fact that the issue is Pro-Abortion mean he gets a pass?
As one who has been critical of the President for divisive rhetoric and verbal attacks on judges, I have to admit that Senator Schumer’s conduct was deplorable, and I’m glad the Chief Justice called him out.
Peace,
Jon
Schumer's statement was ill-advised. He explained later that he didn't quite mean it the way he said it, which is fair enough. Fair enough also for Roberts to call him out on it, though it would be more credible if he had also called out the president's demand that two justices recuse themselves from any cases involving him.
You likely are right that a broader statement by CJ Roberts would have had more credibility, at least with Democrats. His statement certainly have had greater force if all the justices had joined it. All that said, Senator Schumer's comments were of a different sort from President Trump's ham-handed calls for two justices to recuse themselves. Standing just outside the Court and speaking to a raucous crowd, Schumer used words and gestures to directly threaten two justices who at the time were hearing arguments a couple hundred yards away. His later explanation that he was directing his comments to GOP lawmakers is simply not credible after taking into account the video.
-
I find it hard to believe that Schumer did not mean exactly what he said. Not only is he an experienced pol, but he may have had more time before the cameras than anyone else in Washington. It used to be said that the most dangerous place to stand in Washington was between Chuck Schumer and a television camera, and that was before he became Minority Leader.
The Democrat party is becoming increasingly volatile, their language is increasingly violent, their "base" now seems to have a notable number of deranged people who believe attacking speakers they disagree with is their right. The world's oldest political party appears to me to be in the biggest state of flux they've had since the Civil War.
-
I don't have a smart phone. I've never had one. I manage to get by. When I see people glued to that little gizmo in their hands, oblivious to the world around them, enslaved to a habit that places them into an alternate reality, and then I read pastors on this forum say that this is ~necessary~ and we should make sure that everyone has one of these things, I think I have entered la la land. :)
There's a difference between a cell phone and a smart phone.
-
I find it hard to believe that Schumer did not mean exactly what he said. Not only is he an experienced pol, but he may have had more time before the cameras than anyone else in Washington. It used to be said that the most dangerous place to stand in Washington was between Chuck Schumer and a television camera, and that was before he became Minority Leader.
The Democrat party is becoming increasingly volatile, their language is increasingly violent, their "base" now seems to have a notable number of deranged people who believe attacking speakers they disagree with is their right. The world's oldest political party appears to me to be in the biggest state of flux they've had since the Civil War.
Lock her up!
-
I find it hard to believe that Schumer did not mean exactly what he said. Not only is he an experienced pol, but he may have had more time before the cameras than anyone else in Washington. It used to be said that the most dangerous place to stand in Washington was between Chuck Schumer and a television camera, and that was before he became Minority Leader.
The Democrat party is becoming increasingly volatile, their language is increasingly violent, their "base" now seems to have a notable number of deranged people who believe attacking speakers they disagree with is their right. The world's oldest political party appears to me to be in the biggest state of flux they've had since the Civil War.
I don't know about that. We human beings seem to have very short memories. We also seem to need an existential crisis to overcome. If no current crisis is grave enough, we'll invent one.
Political parties change. Sometimes the process is ugly. Between WWII and about 1980, the Democratic Party went through enormous turmoil. George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, Scoop Jackson, George McGovern, and Eugene McCarthy represented an array of views that did not reside easily under the same tent. For a long time, this didn't matter much in local or state elections. But at the national level--in the halls of Congress and when selecting nominees for President and Vice President--it was a very different story.
Is today's Democratic Party divided? Absolutely. And those divisions might well cost the Democrats this fall (just as Ted Kennedy's run damaged Carter in 1980). But I don't see Bernie's supporters walking out of the Convention or recreating the Grant Park riots in Milwaukee. Bernie will begrudgingly support Biden, assuming that Biden wins the nomination, and his supporters in the hall mostly will applaud unenthusiastically but politely.
The Republican Party, for what it's worth, is also very divided. However, the GOP's divisions are suppressed for now and will remain mostly in hibernation until either later this year (if Trump loses) or until about 2022 (if Trump wins).)
-
Well this is as good a thread as any. Will either major candidate decry the scurrilous and threatening attack made by the Senate Minority Leader on the steps of the Supreme Court, calling justices by their last name only? Will Democrats as a party castigate in Schumer for the type of behavior they [rightfully] deride in Trump? Or is the fact that the issue is Pro-Abortion mean he gets a pass?
As one who has been critical of the President for divisive rhetoric and verbal attacks on judges, I have to admit that Senator Schumer’s conduct was deplorable, and I’m glad the Chief Justice called him out.
Peace,
Jon
Schumer's statement was ill-advised. He explained later that he didn't quite mean it the way he said it, which is fair enough. Fair enough also for Roberts to call him out on it, though it would be more credible if he had also called out the president's demand that two justices recuse themselves from any cases involving him.
Maybe so. But it's not like chief justice hasn't ever called out Trump.
NBC News: In rare rebuke, Chief Justice Roberts slams Trump for comment about 'Obama judge' (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-chief-justice-roberts-slams-trump-comment-about-obama-n939016)
Nov. 21, 2018
By Pete Williams and Associated Press
WASHINGTON — In a highly unusual public statement, Chief Justice John Roberts rebutted President Donald Trump's statement that a ruling against the administration was made by "an Obama judge."
Asked Wednesday by the Associated Press about the president's comment, Roberts responded, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."
He added on the day before Thanksgiving that an "independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."
What Schumer said was more than merely challenging a judge's partiality, which politicians like to do from time to time.
-
Pastor Preus:
I don't have a smart phone. I've never had one. I manage to get by. When I see people glued to that little gizmo in their hands, oblivious to the world around them, enslaved to a habit that places them into an alternate reality, and then I read pastors on this forum say that this is ~necessary~ and we should make sure that everyone has one of these things, I think I have entered la la land
Me:
For heaven sake! It’s a phone! It’s a means to keep in touch. It’s a means to get emergency information. It’s a way to look up an address if you’re lost. The fact that some people may overuse it or misuse it doesn’t mean a thing.
Maybe where you are, and maybe with what you do, you can get along without it. Good on you. Most of the world…not so easy.
-
In today’s world a cell phone is essential. It’s needed to find housing and employment.
I've learned in the last 3-4 years this is especially the case for transients (either homeless or those who end up moving frequently) and unskilled laborers -- and those are the sort of people most often seeking assistance -- at least those wish to do something for themselves. For those who work schedules are often irregular and change frequently, and if an employer can't reach you, he'll find someone else who'll work when he wants. More and more social services, both public and private, are accessible only by phone. And while one can usually negotiate the essentials of such things with a plain cel phone, with a smart phone one can go online to apply for a job -- and with more and more firms online is their preferred, or only, way to receive applications -- or take care of social service matters.
Pax, Steven+
-
A phone is a necessity for life. Land lines are expensive, fading away or depend on very expensive cable subscriptions.
Cell phones are cheaper, but still costly. They are a necessity for life today. We must help some people have them.
Hyperbole. A “necessity for life” would be something needed to avoid death.
No one avoids death. The quality of life between now and then can vary greatly. Finding housing and employment requires a phone.
-
I have a smart phone. I rarely use it to make phone calls. When I do I am often near a land-line phone. I occasionally receive a phone call or a text from my wife, my son, or my sister. I *NEVER* send or receive a cell phone call or text for work purposes. Lest you think I am an anti-tech person, you'll need to know that I am a software engineer.
Our son is a senior software engineer, and he will say that he is anti-tech, although he just built himself a new computer and installed both Windows and Linux on it. He's not on Facebook. He doesn't twitter. He doesn't text. As I mentioned earlier, he only agreed to his first cell phone when he was homeless and out of work. It was necessary.
-
I believe Sanders may have indicated that if Biden comes to the convention with more delegates, even if its a plurality and not a majority, he'll still acquiesce to Biden as the party's choice.
I hadn't heard that, but at least he has said that whoever has a plurality of delegates should be the nominee. Of course that was when that person was himself.
I remember in 2016 the shock and horror when Trump suggested that he might not immediately accept a loss in the election. How could he say anything like that!?! Then when Hillary lost, the Dems have spent the last four years contesting that election. The shoe can look a whole lot different when it is on the other foot.
I do not see the democrats contesting the election. Trump received a majority of the electoral college votes. He was elected president. I see them contesting his competency and legalities as president.
-
I do not see the democrats contesting the election.
You have a very selective vision.
-
The Trump campaign tactical plan includes disinformation. Facebook took down an ad which Facebook said caused confusion between the government's census program and the President's campaign. Dirty tricks and disinformation.
-
The Trump campaign tactical plan includes disinformation. Facebook took down an ad which Facebook said caused confusion between the government's census program and the President's campaign. Dirty tricks and disinformation.
So unlike those wonderful Democrats of say, 1960.
-
I have a smart phone. I rarely use it to make phone calls. When I do I am often near a land-line phone. I occasionally receive a phone call or a text from my wife, my son, or my sister. I *NEVER* send or receive a cell phone call or text for work purposes. Lest you think I am an anti-tech person, you'll need to know that I am a software engineer.
Our son is a senior software engineer, and he will say that he is anti-tech, although he just built himself a new computer and installed both Windows and Linux on it. He's not on Facebook. He doesn't twitter. He doesn't text. As I mentioned earlier, he only agreed to his first cell phone when he was homeless and out of work. It was necessary.
My son just was hired to be a "Lube Tech" at a dealership (he's going to school to be an Industrial Electrician). He is a technophile like many other young people. He has a smart phone and uses it incessantly. He did not need his phone to get his new job and does not need it to function at this job.
-
I have a smart phone. I rarely use it to make phone calls. When I do I am often near a land-line phone. I occasionally receive a phone call or a text from my wife, my son, or my sister. I *NEVER* send or receive a cell phone call or text for work purposes. Lest you think I am an anti-tech person, you'll need to know that I am a software engineer.
Our son is a senior software engineer, and he will say that he is anti-tech, although he just built himself a new computer and installed both Windows and Linux on it. He's not on Facebook. He doesn't twitter. He doesn't text. As I mentioned earlier, he only agreed to his first cell phone when he was homeless and out of work. It was necessary.
My son just was hired to be a "Lube Tech" at a dealership (he's going to school to be an Industrial Electrician). He is a technophile like many other young people. He has a smart phone and uses it incessantly. He did not need his phone to get his new job and does not need it to function at this job.
Does he have access to a land line? How did he find out that he was hired?
-
The past several posts illustrate the dangers of discussing issues on the basis of anecdote. YMMV Your Mileage May Vary. Some people can get along very well without cell phone, smart phone, or others of the technological gadgets ubiquitous today. Others would find not having access to such gadgets a real detriment. Another issue on the electronic divides is access to the internet. People without ready access to the internet often find themselves at a distinct disadvantage when looking for housing, employment, or social services. Children in particular often find themselves at an educational disadvantage if they have no access to the internet. Making internet available to underserved communities has become for some a cause well worth working for. Yet there are those who get by quite well without.
Rather than basing social policy on anecdote hard data would be welcome. Also deciding what people need on the basis of what I use and what I think that I need often provides poor data for decision making. The question that we should be asking is not how much can people do without and still get by, or how little can we provide for people in need, but what is it practical for us to do to help people get out of whatever pit that they have gotten into, get on their feet and thrive as productive members of the community.
-
When folks are not paid a livable wage, some will seek the benefits that welfare provides; so the government (that is, we) are paying the price. As a single mother on welfare told me a number of years ago, "I need at least $13.00/hour and medical benefits for my son in order to get off welfare." Her main concern was medical coverage for a son, which she got on welfare, but she wouldn't have working for minimum wages at a fast-food place. She was able to get a job that offered what she needed. In my mind, it is better for the government to make sure that folks have a living wage and benefits than to be giving handouts to folks in need.
I don't have easy answers to many of the policy questions that arise in the context of how to lift people out of poverty. I do notice, however, that such discussions often reference what a single mother needs to get by. Single mothers certainly deserve compassion and support, but if single motherhood is so frequently associated with difficult financial circumstances, shouldn't part of our policy response be to figure out how to reduce single motherhood?
Lung cancer is a big public health problem. The vast majority of cases of lung cancer are caused by smoking. Everyone with lung cancer, whether a never smoker, former smoker, or current smoker, deserves compassion and our best efforts to mitigate suffering. If your goal is a global reduction in suffering from lung cancer, research into better chemotherapy for lung cancer has some benefit, but from a system standpoint the most effective strategy is to invest in efforts to discourage smoking and assist smokers who are trying to quit. Likewise, rather than focusing solely on how to ameliorate the consequences of single motherhood, should we be more focused on policies that encourage marriage and stable families?
Peace,
Jon
-
The Trump campaign tactical plan includes disinformation. Facebook took down an ad which Facebook said caused confusion between the government's census program and the President's campaign. Dirty tricks and disinformation.
So unlike those wonderful Democrats of say, 1960.
Or 1996. Or this year.
-
A phone is a necessity for life. Land lines are expensive, fading away or depend on very expensive cable subscriptions.
Cell phones are cheaper, but still costly. They are a necessity for life today. We must help some people have them.
Hyperbole. A “necessity for life” would be something needed to avoid death.
No one avoids death. The quality of life between now and then can vary greatly. Finding housing and employment requires a phone.
I have thus far. So I got that going for me, which is good. Maybe it's the Chik-Fil-A sauce painted over the door.....
How about this -- Stop breathing for while...Stop eating...Stop drinking....And stop using your cell phone. Have you spouse let us know which one killed you.
-
I do agree with Pastor Stoffregen on this however -- "necessities of life" is not merely those things that stop you from dying (and even if it were, that includes things like healthcare). What we ought to aspire to as Christians in this society is a society where everyone has certain basic needs covered. Food, shelter, housing, the ability to earn income to pay for those things, etc. A cellphone might or might not be classified as a "necessity of life" depending on how finely one wants to parse things. But it is instrumental in obtaining food, shelter, housing, clothing, etc. in our modern world.
It's like telling someone a car is a luxury item. In 1920 it might have been. In 2020 it (or other suitable public transportation) is not. We are not in the pioneer days any longer.
Whether government is the answer to that question or not is open to debate. I think government has a role to play, but I am also a man without a home politically speaking. Some of you might consider my economic views to be socialist (I favor a mixed economy and greater social welfare protections). Those of you who do not would probably consider my social views to be bordering in fascistic.
I miss Jack Kemp and David Bonior.
-
DeHall1 writes:
Hyperbole. A “necessity for life” would be something needed to avoid death.
I comment:
Balderdash, And yours is the worst kind of nit pickery.
But, my bad. I’ll take the blame. I should have said a cell phone is necessary for living in today’s world. work.
Safe contact with family.
Healthcare.
Emergencies.
Civic alerts.
Job searches.
Banking.(ever try to do your banking when you don’t have access to a car to get to the bank?)
Really? Tell that to the people that live in Green Bank, West Virginia (inside the National Radio Quiet Zone).
-
DeHall1 writes:
Hyperbole. A “necessity for life” would be something needed to avoid death.
I comment:
Balderdash, And yours is the worst kind of nit pickery.
But, my bad. I’ll take the blame. I should have said a cell phone is necessary for living in today’s world. work.
Safe contact with family.
Healthcare.
Emergencies.
Civic alerts.
Job searches.
Banking.(ever try to do your banking when you don’t have access to a car to get to the bank?)
Really? Tell that to the people that live in Green Bank, West Virginia (inside the National Radio Quiet Zone).
It's worth noting that even people in Green Bank get iPhones for Christmas…
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/06/us/green-bank-west-virginia-quiet-zone.html?searchResultPosition=1
Otherwise, I think it's ridiculous to suggest that the unique conditions of a tiny community apply to the rest of the country. That the good folks in Green Bank make do is not an argument that people outside of a legally mandated quiet zone can as well.
(As the article recounts, the people in Green Bank face very real challenges because of the restrictions… including academic probation for a college student unable to complete an assignment online, difficulty getting help after accidents, people moving out of the community and others refusing to visit. "It's a nightmare," as one puts it. )
-
DeHall1 writes:
Hyperbole. A “necessity for life” would be something needed to avoid death.
I comment:
Balderdash, And yours is the worst kind of nit pickery.
But, my bad. I’ll take the blame. I should have said a cell phone is necessary for living in today’s world. work.
Safe contact with family.
Healthcare.
Emergencies.
Civic alerts.
Job searches.
Banking.(ever try to do your banking when you don’t have access to a car to get to the bank?)
Really? Tell that to the people that live in Green Bank, West Virginia (inside the National Radio Quiet Zone).
It's worth noting that even people in Green Bank get iPhones for Christmas…
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/06/us/green-bank-west-virginia-quiet-zone.html?searchResultPosition=1
Otherwise, I think it's ridiculous to suggest that the unique conditions of a tiny community apply to the rest of the country. That the good folks in Green Bank make do is not an argument that people outside of a legally mandated quiet zone can as well.
I think it's ridiculous to suggest that a cell phone is a "necessity for life". A tiny community just proved that you CAN live without one in "today's world" -- or, if you prefer, one that you only use as a clock and calculator.
-
I have a smart phone. I rarely use it to make phone calls. When I do I am often near a land-line phone. I occasionally receive a phone call or a text from my wife, my son, or my sister. I *NEVER* send or receive a cell phone call or text for work purposes. Lest you think I am an anti-tech person, you'll need to know that I am a software engineer.
Our son is a senior software engineer, and he will say that he is anti-tech, although he just built himself a new computer and installed both Windows and Linux on it. He's not on Facebook. He doesn't twitter. He doesn't text. As I mentioned earlier, he only agreed to his first cell phone when he was homeless and out of work. It was necessary.
My son just was hired to be a "Lube Tech" at a dealership (he's going to school to be an Industrial Electrician). He is a technophile like many other young people. He has a smart phone and uses it incessantly. He did not need his phone to get his new job and does not need it to function at this job.
Does he have access to a land line? How did he find out that he was hired?
He went there. He applied. They hired him on the spot. Economy is perking right along, although who knows what tomorrow may bring.
-
I think it's ridiculous to suggest that a cell phone is a "necessity for life".
Yes, we get that.
-
I think it's ridiculous to suggest that a cell phone is a "necessity for life".
Yes, we get that.
Congratulations.
-
A phone is a necessity for life. Land lines are expensive, fading away or depend on very expensive cable subscriptions.
Cell phones are cheaper, but still costly. They are a necessity for life today. We must help some people have them.
Hyperbole. A “necessity for life” would be something needed to avoid death.
No one avoids death. The quality of life between now and then can vary greatly. Finding housing and employment requires a phone.
I have thus far. So I got that going for me, which is good. Maybe it's the Chik-Fil-A sauce painted over the door.....
How about this -- Stop breathing for while...Stop eating...Stop drinking....And stop using your cell phone. Have you spouse let us know which one killed you.
Where are they going to get the money to buy food? Where will they get water to drink? Those are not always available to the poor and homeless.
-