A tale of two Pauls

I am a socialist. I am a Christian. I am not hidden about the fact that I believe the Bible is (first a document of love, but secondarily) a document of socioeconomic *equality*, aka socialism. While not a central theme in scripture, I have made it a central theme in my personal Christian paradigm for two reasons: 1. I believe that advocating for the poor is simply a more relevant, modern expression of who Christ is (more-so than saying non-Christians will burn) and 2. because the vitriolic rhetoric from the right, beneath the flag of Christianity, is so antithetical to who Jesus is that I must raise my voice. The best example of the latter is Paul Ryan's recent use of his "Catholicism" to justify cutting $133 billion in food stamps while cutting taxes for the rich.

I have always pointed toward the early Acts church as the prime example of what a God-centered socialist community should look like, when Peter and Luke were swashbuckling church planters collecting and distributing wealth (and God striking down dead folks who lied about about their wealth in order to give less). But, I just stumbled across this scripture, which, I have found to be an even more precise thesis of where the bible stands on Socialism v. Capitalism... and it's from the words of Paul:

"Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: 'The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.'"

-2 Cor. 8 13-15, reference in v. 15 is from Ex. 16:18 

Context, context, context: in the days of the early church Paul was gathering a "collection" for churches who were struggling while taking means-based gifts from churches who could give. (Interestingly, he was often gathering donations from gentile churches to save the struggling Jewish churches). But his message transcends the subject of "tithing" (donating to churches) and really captures the Apostle Paul's perspective on wealth and giving in general: The concept of those with means helping those without not only comes from Paul himself, but he is drawing from the ancient story of the Israel, fresh out of Egypt gathering the bread of Mana.

(Read Exodus 16 if you need to, I'm assuming you know the story). For Paul to use this passage as a reference for why we ought to give is profound. This truly and deeply demonstrates that it is NOT God's will for his followers to have more than what we need, rather it is God's provisions ONLY that sustain; anything over that ought to be given away. The single Corinthian passage combines the Old  and New Testament sentiments succinctly and powerfully. The grandest point is that Christ himself referred to his body as "our daily bread", so, whenever we partake of communion we are not only remembering his death and sacrifice, but also that he alone is what we need for sustenance; the accumulation of wealth is complete pure nonsense for the Christian.

Now let us go back and compare Ryan's sentiments above with those of Paul's here. Cutting benefits to the poor to cut taxes for the rich, it not only differs from the Corinthian passage, it is entirely the opposite! It is a tragic misinterpretation of scripture that is beyond the point of egregiousness, it is malicious. The Catholics have a term for when paths of followers become this divergent: "excommunication".

A sidenote on Extremism:
Christianity, the most populous religion on Earth, currently lacks much extremist action. Arguably the Norway shootings are the most contemporary, but beyond that Islam exponentially carries the most extremist actions in our world today. There are great examples of Christian extremism throughout history (The crusades, the inquisition, the Jewish Genocide, the KKK), but currently there are few active extremists under the flag of Christianity. Why is this?

I'm no expert, but I'd assume that the answers would range from the practical (Christians are in charge of most of the world's leading markets) to the theological (Jesus Christ is simply a non violent ambassador of sacrifice). But an additional factor I'd like to develop as a cautionary tale is this: us. The answer is us, that is, us moderates. Us Christians who live out practical daily lives, trying our best to mimic Christ's love... it is our responsibility to speak out against extremism! And in the absence of our admonishment of extremism, extremism has one more shady damp spot where it can fester and rot.

Outrageous fundamentalist interpretations of scripture MUST be opposed by moderate Christianity, both for the sake of preserving our faith and for the resistance of extremism. When you hear "God hates fags", "God is calling me as a catholic to cut food stamps for the poor", or "God doesn't want healthcare for all" we cannot simply disassociate ourselves, we must actively fight for the moderate voice that is our faith, a faith of love and sacrifice before all.


A final word as a plea for moderation:
As a socialist, I believe that there should be
 -A $5/gallon tax on gas
-75% reduction in defense spending
-90% tax on the rich.
-Free healthcare for all (especially aliens)
-Free Masters level education for all
But I don't advocate for such preposterous propositions; why? Because I'm a toothless, spineless, coward who doesn't believe in his convictions? Because I'm really not a Christian since I won't stand un-bendingly for what I believe? No. Because I'm a pragmatist. I vote for Obama not because I believe he can put into action my convictions above, rather because he can, as a moderate, steer our country in that direction. Why can't the other side meet me here, despite your more extreme convictions...

Let us recognize that in a democracy of this size we must meet in the middle to get anything done. Thanks for reading.

A plea to conservative Christians: The Ryan budget proposal is immoral

A plea to conservative Christians: The Ryan budget proposal is immoral

A budget is a whole lot more than just number crunching. A budget declares and/or exposes core values. As Luther puts it: "There are three conversions necessary: the conversion of the heart, mind and the purse." “Purse” being the last to convert shows just how defining it is. Thus, how we budget as a nation indicates where our hearts are and what we truly believe.

For Christian voters, it’s time to declare what we TRULY believe.

Paul Ryan’s budget proposal is a red-meat-republican’s budget. Nothing groundbreaking, just pure Republican ideals along with some crafty economics… Here is the review of it, in as objective terms as possible.

1. Cut Medicare by giving new elderly folks vouchers (a stipend) to pay for care, thus limited resources should encourage elderly to spend more wisely (less)… Health care needed above the vouchers are paid for out of pocket.
2. Medicaid (healthcare for the poor and disabled) would be cut overall and then given over to the states to administrate over; most states will likely offer fewer benefits.
3. Reduce Taxes for the richest Americans from 35% to 25%. That’s the tax rate on an annual combined income over $373,650/year.

Usually, when pontificating Republican ideals, the fact that they are advocating for the rich by shifting burden (and blame) onto the poor and middle class is more carefully hidden under the guise of American ideals: prosperity for all, and no gay marriage or abortion. Now, it seems like they are skipping the formalities and cutting straight to the bone, they are saying this straight to our faces:

Cut from the poor, disabled, and elderly and shift the savings to further cuts for the super wealthy.

I must declare that the statement above, from a biblical standpoint is immoral. As Christians, we must not allow blasphemous rhetoric like these be associated with the core values of biblical truth; in my opinion, it’s not spanking the kid urinating on the cross. If you are a politically minded Bible believer you must reject this budget proposal as heresy. If you will not, and somehow believe that a budget like Ryan’s is consistent with scripture, then your theology is deeply faulted.

However, there is one circumstance where I could see it fit for a believer to endorse this budget, one must adhere to both of the following points:

1. One must believe that scripture is not a political document, rather a document focused on individual living.
2. One must genuinely believe that the benefits of such a budget outweigh the tremendous moral pitfalls inherent thereof.

If this is the case for you, then I respect that, but I must reason with you.

If you conform to the first point above, I respect your belief and I do agree with you… to an extent. You must agree that there is some sort of tension between our obligations as individual Christians and Churches that has some overlap with our obligations as citizens and voters. If you believe in the amorality of politics absolutely, then you must abstain from all political debate wholly, including abortion and gay marriage, but if you agree that there is some tension, your biblical calling to advocate for the poor must at least compel you to vote against a representative that would support such a budget.

Now, to the second point: the economist. I can also respect the belief that the positive effects from job/economic growth coming from lower taxes/smaller government would outweigh the moral consequences. But, I must argue against it… before I do I just need to make clear that the issue of helping the poor is a moral, biblical one. The job/economic growth issue is an amoral, political (non-biblical) one. To let the amoral issue take precedence over the biblical one has hypocritical implications and conflicts heavily with the first point, above.

Independent of the moral issue, the secular argument is faulty at best. Remember, economists from all political backgrounds CANNOT find basis for “Reagonomics” or the philosophy that a freer market and smaller government giving power and control to wealthy will “trickle down” wealth to the lower classes. Not only is there no expert support for such reasoning, there is no evidential support. W. Bush made tax cuts in 2002 to support job growth, and that’s what happened until the great recession of 2007; after which job growth has been stubbornly slow. Why? Because we ended the tax cuts? No. Evidentially tax cuts for the rich have nothing to do with job growth.

The wealthy store their cash in untraceable off shore accounts. Logically, when they pay less in taxes, they ought to hire more workers… in reality, jobs are being shipped overseas at an exponential rate. Multi-national corporations use tax loopholes by shifting profit to countries that have the most relaxed corporate tax code. Most American Corporations paid NO corporate taxes in 2010 (like G.E. and Exxon), all the while reporting 10s of Billions (with a B) in profits. As my friend Matthew Overby says, “you know what they say, only sh*t rolls down hill.”

As I conclude, in a stroke of moderation, I realize that a debt is a debt and liberals and conservatives have to do something about it. I can easily accept all of the demands conservative politicians have been making over the past few months: cuts to public sector salaries, (gulp) furlough days for teachers, cuts in pensions, cuts in medicare and Medicaid… IF the Republican Party acquiesced to a 35% to 50% tax rate hike on annual household income over $200,000. I realize that times are bad, but cutting from the lower and middle classes while increasing benefits for the ultra rich is (immoral and) showing favoritism.

My final word: please, PLEASE, believers, I am pleading with you to stop defaming my faith by associating Christian values with this budget. To non-Christians, please forgive us for misinterpreting scripture, forgive us, this not who we truly are. Let all read below from the passage in James and let the TRUTH speak last… and loudest.

My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong?

-James 2:1-7

Reposted from FB: The tragedy in Madison

Wow, I’m just furious. Between running a business, witnessing the collapse of my band (and performance career), and supporting the growth of a young marriage, time to blog has been quite hard to come by. With everything happening in the media, particularly Giffords and Egypt; I’ve put my “Fiscal Liberalism from a Christian Perspective” Agenda on hold… but after today’s immoral act I could not help but act.
 
I’m sure you have heard that decades of workers rights was signed away over the course of two hours in the Wisconsin State Capitol today. Despite the fact that public unions in that state made concession after concession, Republican Governor Scott Walker would not rest until he could destroy the heart of what unions are and their only chance to regain the concessions made: Their right to bargain.
 
(Click here for more of the details)
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/10/134419331/protests-swell-after-wis-senate-curbs-union-rights
 
Here's why this is such a big deal: The four hundred (400) richest Americans in the U.S. now possess more wealth than the poorest one hundred and fifty million (150,000,000). The disparity between the rich and the poor in the U.S. is outpacing that of the third world. It is a fact that the middle class is disappearing, and, since the advent of Reaganomics, the wages of the middle class have remained stagnant, as the income of the richest Americans has grown exponentially upon exponentially.
 
(The following link is not from Michael Moore’s website, rather a fact checking website)
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/
 
Now, we find ourselves in a bind as a country. As liberal as I am fiscally, I agree that the amount of debt we are taking on is not good (can we get some A.I.G. execs in prison, PLEASE??). Our federal government did not hesitate to bail out banks with $700 trillion, but, now that Wisconsin has a shortfall of $3 billion, we have to take it out on teachers?!?!? Is anyone reading this? Maybe this would be acceptable if we had no other options… but we do. Here are two examples:
 
One idea would be to cut from defense. The air force has been dragging out their decision as to which company should receive their $35 billion contract for a flying gas station. I have an idea, give that money to the people of Wisconsin! Scripture literally describes an ideal world as one where “He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4)
 
Tax the rich. Tax the rich. SOMEONE PLEASE SHOW ME THE SCRIPTURE THAT ADVOCATES FOR THE RICH AND I WILL SHUT UP. Show me the verse, and I will answer you with one thousand references calling us to look after the poor. Show me your twisted, generalized, mis-contextualized scripture advocating for general freedom (not specifically for the rich) and I’ll describe a banquet where those with means would not attend and so the it was filled instead with “the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.” (Luke 14:21). I dare you to challenge my knowledge of scripture and I guarantee you that I will absolutely wreck and shank your argument with precision and the weight of truth on my side. If you call yourself a Christian and believe that it is right to tax school custodians before billionaires, you are a hypocrite and your faith has fallen into complacency; God may have grace for you at the end of your life, but I have only judgment against you now. You are cheapening my faith and my Jesus with your selfishness and distorted perspective of economics, corrupted by your money. Repent for the kingdom is near, you will be paying for your tea party membership when you sit in poverty in heaven.
 
Remember, to the faithful, and to all, this issue is much greater than the unionized workers of Wisconsin. The Federal Republican House, just months ago, put their careers on the line to protect tax cuts for the richest Americans; now the state politicians in Wisconsin are putting their careers on the line to cut from the working class. This fight defines the fundamental struggle to keep the middle class alive, to make it more possible, not less, for someone to rise out of poverty.
 
If you are angry like I am, if you agree that there was an injustice committed (I’d like to add that the way in which the Republicans passed the bill was on the fringe of legality) here is what you can do. Donate to the efforts to recall those that were responsible for this. Polls already show that public sentiment is cascading toward the favor of the unions and that several of these senators are vulnerable to a recall. The recall election would be legal and grass roots induced. As out of state voters, this is the least we can do. Make a donation like I did.
 
(Click here to find out more about giving to the recall effort)
http://www.recalltherepublican8.com/
 
I will end with this scripture from the book of Amos:
 
“You levy a straw tax on the poor and impose a tax on their grain. Therefore, though you have built stone mansions, you will not live in them; though you have planted lush vineyards, you will not drink their wine. For I know how many are your offenses and how great your sins…
 
But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!”
 
Amos 5:11-12 and 24

Uncle Kai's 2010 Midterm Election Debrief

Well, well, well. I know, I’m not a very good blogger if I only blog semi-annually. But this election certainly deserves some comment from your resident Christian-Socialist. If my complete and utter lack of frequency weren’t enough to destroy any credibility among my trickle of readers, I’d like to add that I was heavily in favor of prop 19 (decriminalizing Marijuana in California). Pot is less harmful than alcohol, and I lack so many vices (except for video games) that I’d love to have a chance to toke it up, if it were only legal (Romans 13:1)

As you know, I believe that the essence of Christ: Selflessness, directly contradicts the essence of Capitalism: Self-Interest. Thus, I believe that the Tea Party Agenda is ultimately flawed: De-Regulation enables Capitalism and thus galvanizes the richest 5% of Americans to continuously f___ (screw) the middle class.

But, the original Tea Party was all about taxation without representation. In theory, the original Tea Partiers would have been ok with a tax if they had an MP in Parliament representing them. Since we are now a free democracy, they deserve their representation and they got it. They ran, got legitimate support from a grass roots insurgency, and won the majority in Congress. I will say in plain English that the Tea Party is deluded in thinking that smaller government is the solution to the problem that it caused, but I admit their victory is substantial and I applaud them for it. My prayer is that the deluded public will figure out that they were bamboozled before re-election time for Obama.

Indeed, these next two years will be fraught for the Dems. I want to say here that the carnal part of me wants the dems to return the favor to the Republicans. I want the Minority Party to block every legislation the Republicans would try to pass: to embarrass them into a party that accomplishes nothing with Obama’s vetoing pen. BUT, my true wish is for Dems to take the high road. (It burns me up inside that this is NOT good politics, and that they won’t get the same outcome the Republicans did this year), but I do want the Dems to compromise, do the work that politicians do, and pass effective Jobs, Immigration, and (hopefully) climate change bills (yeah I know I’m dreaming on that last one). So this is my olive branch, you guys were stubborn, fillabustering curmudgeons, but for the sake of the American People, I think we ought to be loosey goosey flip floppers…. sigh.

The ray of sunlight here is that Fiorina will not win tonight and Harry Reid’s frail body arose from the grave (I could kiss that wrinkly face). I’m thankful that at least Californians and Nevadans are sane enough to see that some of the aspirations of the Republican Party, like cutting from Education before reversing tax cuts for the super rich, is nothing less than criminal (Matthew 19:14). The moderates in the U.S. still have a voice (be it a voice drowned out by the shouts of the belligerent). There is a remnant of sanity in 2010.

My lightening reactions:
Brown>Whitman: Did anyone ever doubt it?
Boxer>Fiorina: Whew, crisis averted (chaos averted, at least Whitman is competent!)
Chiang>that other guy: HELL YES, GO CHINA! Err, and, yes, he did tell the governator to go shove it during last years budget fiasco.
Cooley?Harris: wait, what? Did Cooley stick his foot in his mouth? Crossing my fingers for Harris
Newsom>Maldonado: Don’t ever call me a Pinko again, I voted for Maldonado. Any Republican who will cross party lines to get stuff done is an ally to me. Newsom will be Governor (if not President) some day so he doesn’t need my vote yet.
No on 19: 2012 babies, it’s happening
No on 21: C’mon guys, it’s just $18 dollars to keep State Parks from closing! Go visit a Park gosh dammit!!
No on 23: California remains the leader in Green Tech and stemming Climate Change. “Every time an oil company fails, an angel gets its wings!”
No on 24: I own a business and I voted yes on this. Looking after widows and orphans takes money.

“Today Nevada chose hope over fear.”
-Harry Reid

Health Care part II: Den of Robbers

Thank you all very much for reading, please do stay in touch with me and leave your thoughts here. I do read them and consider them; I just don’t have the time to respond to them all. ***And, you may notice that my language gets a little more… particular… in this blog… that is, I believe that the Republican Party has gotten us into this mess that we’re in yet they are blaming the problem on the current administration (wars, economy, unemployment, inept health care, bank bonuses, all their fault) and it’s time for us Dems to go on the offensive. I’ve been more general in my terminology as I didn’t want to kick a Republican on the ground after losing the white house and both houses of congress, but now that’s all changed. So, fiscal conservatives take your overpriced hypertension meds and hang on to your butts!

Health care is such a mammoth issue that I’ve had trouble coming up with a way to approach the subject. I’ve also been supremely busy, but, as today is Lincoln’s birthday and my students have the day off (but everyone else has to work) I’ve found myself with an odd commodity: time! Plus, I heard in the news today that Anthem Blue Cross CA is increasing their rates nearly 40% and that just pisses me off.

I want to begin with the thought that inspired me to write about health care in the first place months ago: my own story. I own a business. I have a pre-existing condition (one that I was born with). After graduating from college there was no way in Hades I could get health insurance. I in particular need health reform. BUT, even if I wasn’t biased towards reform, even if I knew that the plan was flawed and would not lead to results right away, even if I knew it meant higher taxes (it doesn’t), shouldn’t I as a Christian willingly offer my treasure to help someone else (I don’t even know) get covered? Isn’t it my calling to put the needs of the tens of thousands of uninsured over my own? My simple answer is, yes.

Now, there is a lot of complexity in the statement I just made, not all of which I can get into but I will comment on this: First, I’ll say that my personal situation flies in the face of Republican sentiment that they are the ones advocating for small business and “Joe the Plumber.” Eff Joe the Plumber, how about “Mr kai the guitar teacher?” If I were to get sick right now, not only would my business go under, my parents would probably have to sell their house to save my ass (tangent here into those small business owners who don’t have that cushion). Republicans who are unwilling to reform Health Care, well, that’s all of them, are hypocritical in their claim to support small business. Hey Palin, you want to cut taxes for small business? “YOU LIE!!” Small business owners everywhere are paying a tax of our own blood every time we get injured, every time we get sick, we are on the brink of collapse.

Now, the pervading resistance to health care seems to be the cost: a legitimate concern, if it were only… true. Uh, our current health care plan is bankrupting our country, and Obama’s plan will save us money and reduce the deficit over the next 10 years (if any of you don’t understand why it needs to lose some money in it’s first few years please take freshman econ). So my whole sentiment of feeling willing to give up some treasure if I were an employed and insured Asian man is only a half truth, my desire for reform will not likely cost me anything and will probably save my children and grand children boat loads.

Now, lies like “death panels” seem to race like lightening through the media, but the old statistical truths are neglected. I’d like to remind you all we are bringing up the rear amongst industrialized nations on all health care data: life-expectancy, infant mortality etc. We also have the most expensive health care in the world BY FAR. Based on this data alone, all of you should be pro-reform. If you are a republican and your reasoning is “yes we need reform, just not this bill”, well, I would like a republican drafted centrist bill… but I think we all know that no one from the GOP is working on it (or even contributing to the ones dems are trying to pass).

(Defend this if you can) Republicans aren’t interested in the health of the American people or the preservation of small businesses like Tritone Music Academy, they are interested in two things: 1) Having Obama fail, and 2) preserving the status quo. Meanwhile coffers from the Health Care lobby are stocking your campaign funds with money dirtied by the blood of those denied health insurance due to pre-existing conditions. This is corruption and bribery. The simple reality is that free market capitalism has failed us, we have the most expensive mediocre health care in the world, and it’s only getting more costly. The market should correct itself, right? How do you reconcile what Anthem Blue Cross is doing? (For the LA times story click here)

I’ll conclude as I usually do with a site from scripture. I want to remind you all that although Jesus is known as the Prince of Peace and a pacifist, he was incited to violence at a single point in his life: When God was used for profit. The insurance industry is a mammoth, seething monstrosity, growing even in the midst of economic implosion. For Republicans to use socially Christian subjects to garner votes then use their power at the whim of the health insurance lobby is a crime that, in my opinion, would incite Jesus to violence and chase some senators around the capital building with a braided whip. DO NOT advocate for the unborn in the same house where you advocate for 30 million Americans to continue living without access to the resources they need to be healthy, you have made that House into a “den of robbers” (Mark 11:15-17).

Finally, Mr kais blog on health care, part I

Before I get to the actual blog on health care I have to say something pre-emptively to set the stage. The big-picture function of my blog, basically, is to argue the current liberal political viewpoint from a biblical standpoint… an argument that seems almost entirely neglected. Throughout the blogs: Those who agree with me do not post (let’s dangle some juevos people!!!), and there are those who don’t agree who use this argument: Combining religion and politics is not relevant, ie. we don’t live in a “theocracy”. My message to this argument is: stop.

I agree with the sentiment that our government is (and should be) secular. But to argue from a Republican standpoint that one should not use biblical arguments to support one’s perspective on American government is profoundly, PROFOUNDLY, hypocritical. I mean, it’s just a new level, a new brand of hypocrisy. I feel like the church and the majority of Christians (who would otherwise be apolitical like Jesus) have been sucked up into the conservative mindset based on two hot-button, theological issues… regardless of (godless) economic policy. Most Christians that I know supported the war in Iraq based on these two ideologies.

So my message is this: stop. Just stop. The only reason I’m arguing liberalism biblically is to counteract the mammoth (mis)use of biblical precepts to argue conservatism. If you want to argue against my view by: using countering scriptures; attacking my interpretation of scripture; or simply arguing conservative policy from a secular standpoint (ouch, good luck with that one), then that’s fine. There is one particular blogger (hindleg that’s you) who does great with this. But arguing against my blog just because I use the bible is so contradictory coming from a conservative that I have to ask you to stop.

Level the playing field: take this silly abortion clause out of the health care reform bill: take gay marriage off the table when running for office (on both sides), then I’ll be THRILLED to close this blog and take on the easy task of arguing for liberal fiscal policy from a secular standpoint. As a business owning, non-health insured, tax-paying employer, I have a 42-gallon barrel of whoop ass to open up!!!

My 100 dollar dare

My $100 dare

That's it. I'm frustrated. I'm fed up. Republicanism chaps my hide. The fact that the republican state congress and senate was put in power partially in thanks to Christians is just pure injustice, a defamation against the Spirit of God.

We passed a budget. I don't even want to talk about how embarrassing the whole situation is. But, our fair governor, backed by his Republican representatives, line item vetoed 100% of state funding to domestic violence prevention and service programs. I am drawing this conclusion simply based on fact:

Democrats advocate for the widows and the orphans.
Republicans advocate for taxpayers.

I say, raise my taxes. I'm a business owner, I pay double the taxes you do, quit complaining. Raise my taxes and use that money to help women escaping irreversible violence so they can start a new life with their children.

Republicans across the land are saying "don't raise my taxes, it should be the responsibility of the individual to sponsor charities." Fine. I will buy your argument that you are advocating for upper and middle class taxpayers out of a God given duty. I will sponsor your argument if you prove it to me. To everyone of my readers who voted for a republican state congressman, (or for a guy who starred in Kindergarten Cop or the pregnant guy in “Junior”), who is advocating for no additional taxes, please consider this carefully: Donate $100 to CPAF, a domestic violence shelter my wife formerly worked at, which just had ALL state funding cut in order to preserve our current tax structure. Donate the precious $100 that you just saved in taxes this year to the people who actually need it. Here is the link:

https://co.clickandpledge.com/sp/d1/default.aspx?wid=28231

Donate $100, send me the confirmation email, and I will shut-up with my belief that Republican ideals are godless and selfish. That's it.

If you think that's unfair or inaccurate or over-simplied, then I have one simple question for you: Name one moment in Jesus' life where he advocated for himself...

...

Still thinking?

I cannot possibly think of any defensible spiritual argument one would have that lower taxes is worth women and children facing violence. Advocating for lower taxes over the needs of widows and orphans is in direct violation of a slew of doctrine that I don't even need to begin listing. Our governor is an outrage and an embarrassment. This is injustice.

How do you spell GMs demise? “EV1” (green and bling pt II)

Hello hello, as usual it’s been a long time since I’ve posted; I’ve been touring and teaching and traveling and trying to find balance in my priorities. Thank you all who have taken the time to read my blog, especially those who have posted (my question is why do ppl who voice support of my views tell me outside of my blog post? [in other words WTF]). Despite all the happenings in my personal life, when it came to GM’s bankruptcy, I just couldn’t resist the need to write… I drove an American car for 10 years of my life… you may now shower me with your sympathy.

Now, I drove a Ford, so for any of you who drove a Beretta or a Prizm, I know I shouldn’t complain; I suppose my Ford is a shining, radiator fluid-bleeding beacon of American auto-engineering compared to GMs Clunkers. But, I have smacked my forehead the second time my Detroit transmission stopped shifting out of second; I have rolled up the windows on a Pontiac with my bare hands (I mean, using my hands to physically lift up the window); I have laboured hands-on-the-hood of a Saturn that gave up on going in reverse… I know the pain GM owners must feel. I’ll admit it: I’m a bitter, Prius driving, recovering American car driver.

Biases aside, I feel that the American People felt a vague sense of vindication when we all heard about GM’s mammoth financial problems and when Obama forced them into a structured bankruptcy. Diseased by debt and crippled by its dependence on increasingly larger and more powerful vehicles… how do you spell GM’s demise? EV1, or Electric Vehicle One.

Over a decade ago in 1996, GM released the vehicle, a battery powered pure electric vehicle: no exhaust, no hybrid system, it had a range of approx 160 miles, with sporty power to boot. I had the pleasure of riding one with my friend Adam who worked for a California efficiency agency in Sacramento shortly after we graduated from Davis. The car was quiet, impressive, environmental, and sexy… less than a year later GM scrapped the program: that car, every other EV1 in creation, all of GM’s R&D and advertising cash, and GM’s hopes for staying solvent in 2009 laid crunched up in a junkyard. Over a decade later GM files for bankruptcy.

(This is the fruit of capitalism)

Rather than doing the RIGHT thing: going after a vehicle that would be right for our society, for our environment, for our foreign policy, for those who fell in an unnecessary war, and mainly just asking the simple question “aren’t Hummers stupid?” GM did precisely what capitalism rewards the most, the most PROFITABLE thing: they built larger and stronger cars to get bigger profit margins and scrapped a program that could be giving GM Toyota Prius levels of profitability/notoriety today.

Toyota on the other hand took a loss on the Prius. The first generation looked like it was off an episode of Star Trek Deep Space 9, like they were trying their hardest to appeal to dweebs and engineers who bring up vectors as conversation topics with girls. It barely got better mileage than efficient combustion engine cars, and it had as much power as my cell phone on vibrate. Toyota lost money on every Prius sold, and how many of those 1st gens do you see on the road now? But, our chain smoking Japanese friends stuck with the car and now the Prius is one of the main reasons Toyota is the largest car manufacturer in the world. General Motors was too busy snorting up W’s SUV tax breaks and getting high off the lie that soccer moms needed to drive over granite boulders and flooded riverbeds to pick up cookie dough at the store.

In my opinion, the most alarming observation I’ve made is how GM’s behavior as a corporation is mirrored by our behavior as individuals. Just like debt and useless/harmful cars disabled GM, Americans are crippled by the complications of obesity and diabetes. GM needed the government to perform bankruptcy, Americans are committing themselves to gastric bypass or lipo suction surgery everyday. The rise of GM’s dis-ease over the last 50 years ascended in tandem with the disease of Americans. We are incapable of exercising and eating right on our own just like GM was incapable of managing debt and investing in healthy cars. GM’s failure is not just a symbol of capitalism’s great failure; it is a warning sign to our participation in it as individuals.

And that’s the issue. Honestly, I don’t think God really cares whether GM fails or not, He’s interested in the hearts of us as individuals and communities. My criticism of pure free-market capitalism because of its failure financially is only tertiary. My greater concern is that our system rewards consumption and the accumulation of wealth in us as Christians, as churches, and it has defiled us. I leave you with this simple question: If GM was an individual, and you met this person, would GM be a spiritually healthy child of God? Or would he be a decrepit, gangrene-infested, bed-riddened-by-obesity, Godless man on life-support? It would be hard to argue that he is not the latter, and that he is not the very first candidate to need the loving redemption of Christ... but GM has no soul to save. As a corporation he exists for one purpose: profit.

Green and Bling pt. I

For those Americans (and it’s only Americans) who believe that humans do not cause global warming you have a strong kinship with that .00001% of the population that needs to be told how to buckle your seatbelt in an airplane (Two metal things fit one way, when connected, a single mechanism releases it=Humans polluting, Earth warming). I just have a very brief commentary for you hundred-thousandths-club people. If you are a secularist, well, there’s a simple motive for your ignorance: money. For example, you own a coal factory… or you are fortunate enough to sit over a division of a large corporation called “Hummer”.

But for Christians, you really have no excuse for ignoring this. The scriptures that point us toward environmental stewardship are few and far in between (unless you count the thousands of indirect quotes of God revealing himself to us via nature found in the Psalms and the book of Job). I will make my point for environmental stewardship by quoting a single verse.

“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’” Genesis 1:26, NIV, italics added.

God has given us “rule” over all the Earth, thus according to this we can do whatever we want with it, right? No, God says in the same sentence that we are made in his likeness, thus we are to rule in his likeness. Does God rule us in a self-destructive way? Does God command us to live addictive and non-sustainable lives? No, God commands us to live modest lives sustained by Love, not consumption. Why do we need to wait for more than the 99.9999% of scientific agreement to get another (effing) 9 on the end?? Believers should be the first ones to lay down their rights for others and for this Earth we are to Christ-like-rule.

This single verse should be enough to galvanize the church into green living. We have taken 1 or 2 verses about abortion and homosexuality and blown them way out of proportion (and the effect is not only dis-unifying but hurts our credibility in the world). If the Faithful were pioneers of conservation and sustainable living, we would be effective organic saltshakers and fluorescent lights to the world.

The free market IS correcting itself… by nationalizing, stupid.

And by “stupid”, I don’t mean YOU are stupid if you don’t see the whole nationalizing thing, I’m merely riffing off Clinton’s 90s slogan: “It’s the economy, stupid”, hmm, maybe I should edit title, nah, blogs have to be linear the train has left the station, I’m already thinking about the second paragraph!

Panic on wall st about banks nationalizing of late is somewhat of a farce historically, don’t we think? If I could quote from TIME magazine’s Justin Fox:

“You could also say bank nationalization began in 1984 when regulators decided that Continental Illinois, then the nation's seventh largest bank, was too big to fail and put the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in charge of it. Or maybe the crucial moment came in 1933 when Congress decreed that small depositors should be protected from bank failures by the FDIC. Or in 1913 when Congress created the Federal Reserve System to halt banking panics and regulate the money supply…”

Fox goes on to trace the process of nationalizing banks all the way to 1791.

Still, economists and talking heads (on Fox news) are screaming socialism and using the other “S” word (ends with a “weden”) all over the media (Fox news). Wait, don’t capitalists claim that a pure free market will correct itself? Well, then, it IS correcting itself, by turning to a regulated hybrid-socialist model, silly (does “silly” sound nicer?). I don’t understand how one could make the argument that “let markets go, they will correct themselves” and then after this model fails to argue “allow it to correct itself by turning back to the same models that got us here”… that’s absurd! Talking heads across the world (Fox news), let the market correct itself, don’t bash Obama and Geithner for doing what your own model said it would do!

I have to suspect that the fear of allowing banks to nationalize must arise from some antiquated cold-war sentiment that once we socialize we can’t go back; as if once the government becomes 51% shareholder of Citibank the immortalized Lenin will come out of exile and begin his dictatorship over the United Soviet States of America with an iron fist… either that or conservative economists really, REALLY, revile the rancid aroma of Swedish meatballs. You know, there is such a thing as democratic-socialism, silly. Ooh, did anyone see the new “Blorg” coffee table at Ikea, oops, digressing!

To speak in real terms, the answer is greed. I don’t really believe that free market capitalists and republicans truly have (more than an sub-conscious) fear of either of the suspicions stated above; the true answer is that the consuming love of money guides our legislation; Christianity a bystander to the political process was pulled in to get votes.

Search your hearts, Faithful, find me a compelling scriptural argument for the following model: “Make as much money as you want, hurting as many people as necessary in the process, and keep it all for yourself.” Of course, one could argue: “well, I don’t hurt people, and I will give on my own volition,” but I’m speaking of a model for a secular government. Capitalism is run by the masses, not by the church, therefore people will be hurt (and are hurting) and people do keep $$ for themselves (look at our bank’s current lending practice). After searching my heart and searching scripture, I’m ready to make this statement:

Capitalism is counter-biblical.

I won’t nearly go so far as to propose a preposterous statement such as “Socialism is biblical” because that’s a farce. The word of God is not a political document. However, and it’s my desire to argue here, that Socialism promotes the fruits that scripture has called us to: Love for the needy, Generosity, Graciousness, trying to do Good even when it fails, trying to Give even when you are taken advantage of… to name a few. Capitalism promotes the self, and that is counter-biblical.

Despite the fact that the new testament clearly points to a more socialist type of rule, the paradoxical reason that Capitalism prevails under the democratic rule of a mainly Christian population is simple: The richest 2% of the population wants to get richer, they want to control legislation and lobby government to enable them to do so. But how can they do such a thing as only 2% of the population? They have created an infuriating and insidious lie that they are partnered with the church, and have used hot-buttoned non-political issues like abortion and gay-marriage to perpetuate their wealth. (Obama, please tax away).

I believe, although it grieves me, with my eyes wide open, that 99 out of 100 of the richest Americans will be in Hell by the time I’m sipping rootbear floats with Peter chatting about why we hiccup. The Godless wealthy have manipulated politics to their own means and have put their fingers into all constituencies to further their greed. Christians around America, be bold, stop this madness.

If you are still skeptical ask yourself this one question, I will paraphrase from Rick Warren’s sentiment: Is it true that the public sector, the private sector AND the church (all three) are needed to serve justice to the “widows and orphans”? That is, can’t government do what business and the church cannot do, can’t the church do what the other two can’t and so on? If we are truly called to look after the widows and orphans in their distress, as James describes as “PURE RELIGION”, shouldn’t we call on any and all means necessary? Shouldn’t we call on the government to reach the masses in the way that no one else can? Shouldn’t we call on the private sector for its creativity and immense resources? And shouldn’t we call our own lazy, fat, and decaying churches to be the grass-roots human contact that Jesus Christ was to the people?!?!?

Whew, my heart rate is up and my blood pressure is currently at double-quarter-pounder-with-cheese-supersized rates, which means I wrote a good blog☺ Ok, you know it, I know it, I probably said some pretty heretical impassioned stuff on this one. Please, please share your own thoughts. Oh, and btw, I’ve been off for a long time (I know) due to touring and wifing etc. sorry about that and thanks so much for reading.

Oh, here are all the sites from my blog:

Justin Fox on “Nationalizing Banks: What's All the Fuss?”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1881992,00.html

Ikea.com (“Blorg” is not an actual piece of furniture, it just sounds funny… and swedish)

Tax cuts to the wealthy under the bush administration
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/30/americans-income-doubled-bush/

Some fruits of the spirit
Galatians 5:19-26

The difficulty the wealthy have of entering heaven
Matthew 19:24

Rickwarren.com, his work with the peace plan project is inspiring:
http://www.thepeaceplan.com/

“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after widows and orphans in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
-James 1:27

The number of calories in a double quarter pounder with cheese: 740
http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/nutrition_facts.html

(Why I’m a Christian AND a Democrat Part II): Why Socialism isn’t that bad

Seriously, what’s with the cold war angst? It’s like we have to add “socialist” to our diminishing list of cuss words in American English: “Socialist you!” “Eat my Marx!” “You’re a Swede!” “Your mom got to go to college free!”

In the last few weeks of the 2008 election, McCain has had this (desperation) rhetoric, something to the effect of “Obama wants to spread your wealth around, I want you to keep your wealth!” This statement infuriates me; it beckons all of the righteous Holy Spirit level anger inside of me (I’m serious). Why is it that Christians, siding with the Republican Party are such strong advocates of keeping wealth for ourselves, isn’t that absolutely contrary to everything that’s in, uh, the bible?

1. Did you know that at the feasts in Jerusalem, people would bring their tithes of grain and livestock to be enjoyed together with all people, no matter how much they brought? 2. Did you know that Jesus called the rich young ruler to liquidate all assets and follow Him? 3. Did you know that in the early church people liquidated their real estate so that they could let the disciples redistribute it to widows and orphans? The cornerstone of the Republican Party has been lower taxes, guns, my rights, my rights, my rights. In MY faith, I have NO rights; my priority is helping others PERIOD.

I should interject and thank David for his comment re: giving to government vs. charity, which is a completely valid statement. I do realize that the giving in each of the three bible verses above are in the context of spiritual communities, and not the government (save, perhaps, the first one). So it begs the question, and I think there’s some wiggle room here, how applicable are these passages in scripture?

Well, Bruce’s comment (thank you Bruce) answers it pretty well, we’re not talking about charity, we’re talking about need. I am a small-business owner so I pay taxes through the nose, but I can’t (effing) get any (effing) healthcare because of an (effing) pre-existing condition that I was (effing) born with!! (Pardon my French). The issue of healthcare is not charity, it’s a need indeed baby! And I, as a socialist, would be happy to pay more taxes and be able to get healthcare as an (effing) healthy-non-smoking-non-drinking-non-meat-eating-29-year-old for less than $430 a month!!!! (Whew). And while I’m at it, I’d like my kids to be able to go to any college that want, for free.

What if the government, (Under president Gore) said 8 years ago: “That sub prime lending you’re doing sounds fishy, and boy it’s very, very profitable. I’m not going to disallow it, but I’m going to put a 50% tax on it use that money to, hmm, feed hungry kids.”

What if the president said “Hmm, Exxon, record profits because gas prices are going up but your expenses are not, I’m going to put a 50% tax on your oil revenue and I’m going to spend it on, hmmm, cheap, affordable solar power so everyone can heat their water with a roof-mounted solar heating unit (China’s got ‘em).”

To me, there are only two reasons Christians/Republicans are so vehemently opposed to Socialism. #1) Gorbachev has secretly rebuilt a Kalashnikov armed Soviet Army that will invade us as they spread Nuclear death among the Capitalist infidels, or #2) the reality that people are greedy and just don’t want to let go of their money. I guess #3 could be that Capitalism is superior (?) but look at how greed has corrupted the homeowners, bankers, brokers, regulators, and politicians… uh, look at your 401K!!

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. 1 Tim 6:10

"No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." Luke 16:13

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matt 19:24

Friends, conservative and liberal, Christians and secular, I behoove you to defend (or deny) capitalism and attack (or exonerate) a progression toward a more Socialist state. I want to know, I’m curious, what’s with the cold war angst!?

Why I’m a Christian AND a Democrat:

As a Christian, I am met with frequent queries as to the peculiar nature of my political ideology: am I just trying to be different for the sake of being different? Am I just young and naïve? Did I dab LSD on my tongue one too many times before watching “An Inconvenient Truth”? Am I really a Christian at all? I have decided to build this blog to 1. Explain/define my beliefs/dispel myths to my friends, 2. Be a voice to other “closet” liberal Christians, 3. Develop my opinions by getting feedback from you guys.

Let me clearly proclaim my thesis here: The ideology of the Democratic Party in 2008 more closely suits my faith.

The financial crisis of late embodies the reason why I believe this. In a nutshell, Greed powers free market capitalism-->Republicans champion free market capitalism (Christian Republicans too, oh my)-->I don’t like greed (neither does Jesus)-->the democratic party more closely embodies my faith-->I am a democrat-->Period. Argh, and I find myself watering down the above statement by inserting “free-market” above where I feel like myself (and Jesus) think that Capitalism on a whole is silly, but alas, I digress.

The bank bailout of late is designed to address precisely what happened in the 30s before the great depression and avoid it; kind of like a “learn from our mistakes” type of deal. What the government has done is, among many other things, buy chunks of the leading banks because they are “too big to fail*” (see note below on this one). When banks resisted this move, the fed wouldn’t have it, and forced the banks to comply in order to save them. Now, the banks have been partially “nationalized” (although I may argue that they have been “socialized” [gasp]), and all this was done because the federal government was forced to do so... In case italics are inadequate in expressing accented written words, I shall reattempt using caps. The federal government, Pioneered by Reagan into Free-Market-Regulation-Free Capitalism, Captianed by our very own George Dubya, bought huge portions of unable-to-regulate-themselves-banks because it WAS FORCED TO DO SO!

*Don’t we have anti-trust laws to prevent this?

I’ll skip the commentary about Bush’s embarrassingly failed presidency-which-will-go-down-in-history-as-the-presidency-of-the-twin-towers-and-of-the-twin-trillions (the trillion lost in Iraq and the other trillion on the banks due to his failed and inept policy) save this hyphenated parenthetical sentence that I simply could not bear to contain, for now. Sigh, I’ll stick to the title of this blog: why I’m a democrat.

I currently live in Los Angeles county, which is running a deficit of nearly $1 billion, within the great state of California running a deficit of roughly $14 billion, looking for assistance from the federal government, which has a massive (understatement)… deficit of approx. $438 billion (just for this year); and they are looking for help from (irony here, pay attention) CHINA. If you’re not laughing here, you’re a republican. Here is my Mini sub-thesis: American Culture as a whole is deeply rooted in a pandemic, over arching, all encompassing “buy now pay later” mentality. That is, it is the way of the United States of America to consume as much as possible without facing the consequences until we are forced to do so (FORCED TO DO SO). You see it in our health care, how it’s focused on treatment rather than prevention, you see it in our governmental debt on every single level, and now, you see it in the bail out!! Government, to a large extent, sets an example to its people, and this republican led administration is setting a (understatement #2) bad example.

Republicans are doing this, somehow they feel like fighting for lower taxes and lower regulation is somehow Christian, but it's contrary to scripture and, regardless, it has all throughout history caused catastrophic social and civil problems! It boils my blood that Christians, CHRISTIANS, God’s people, followers of Christ, put Republicans into power (off of non-political moral issues like abortion and gay rights: more on this later); and these republicans champion this credit-card-governing mentality. This anger and disappointment in my brothers and sisters keeps me awake at night. We should be the first ones volunteering our wealth, our comfort, our time… for the sake of others! The Republican Party is founded on the principle of allowing people and governments to consume and consume until they are sick and vomiting and they have to binge on the medication they should have been taking gradually to prevent this! If you want to argue this, look at Wall Street and read a transcript of Greenspan’s confessional. We need a government that will regulate us, and prevent this disaster, like my God regulates me, and prevents me from disaster.

However, when I meet disaster in my spiritual life, there is grace, there is correction, and there is renewed strength. When our country meets disaster, there is Obama. After years of enduring inept leadership by way of botched and dishonest voting booths, party line supreme court rulings, vote persuasion via fear mongering, and a re-election via an opaque and dismal war, the American people will do the ultimate “bail out” using the constitution, we will vote democratic.