Tag: Politics

  • The Disadvantaged White Protestant Straight Males

    John Paul Stevens, soon to retire Supreme Court Justice

    (Yes, the title of  this post is sensationalistic. But it got you to read it, right?)

    All of my life I’ve grown up with versions of this phrase, “Don’t judge someone by their color, race, ethnicity, gender, or religion– judge them by their character and abilities.”

    I grew up in a college town, with the University of Notre Dame within my elementary, middle, and high school’s boundaries, we were as melting pot a community as you could get in Indiana. Lots of ethnicities, lots of religions, lots of races. Growing up with that sort of diversity makes you hungry for it. It’s one of the things I love most about San Diego, where we live now.

    “Stuff like that just doesn’t matter.” That’s what we were taught. That was really our mantra growing up. And if I’m really honest– that’s what I believe in the core of my being. In fact, given the choice I still prefer to celebrate diversity. Kristen and I exhibit this by where we chose to live and the schools we chose to put our kids in and the church we chose to worship in.

    I want my kids to grow up believing in Dr. King’s dream.

    Perhaps that’s why I was so shocked to read this piece in Sunday’s New York Times:

    With just five exceptions, every member of the Supreme Court in the nation’s history has been a white male, like Justice John Paul Stevens.

    But Justice Stevens cuts a lone figure on the current court in one demographic category: He is the only Protestant.

    His retirement, which was announced on Friday, makes possible something that would have been unimaginable a generation or two ago — a court without a single member of the nation’s majority religion.

    — [moving to the end of the article] —

    For his part, Professor Stone said there were ways a justice’s religious affiliation could have an impact on the court. President Obama, for instance, could nominate an evangelical Christian.

    Mark Tushnet, a law professor at Harvard, had another suggestion.

    President Obama, he said, could use Justice Stevens’s retirement as an opportunity both to honor tradition and to break new ground.

    “The smartest political move,” he said, “would be to nominate an openly gay, Protestant guy.” read the full article

    So, if I read that right the Supreme Court nomination is open to anyone who isn’t… a white protestant straight male.

    I’m not calling it discrimination. But I find it odd. I’m all in favor of choosing people for the Supreme Court for political reasons. That’s certainly a tradition and one of the major privileges of being elected President. And I understand that as our nation has fought to make diversity a value, we had to intentionally place individuals in places of power and decision to communicate that value. All things equal, for more than a generation, we’ve chosen to elevate someone of another race, gender, religion, or whatever.

    This has helped significantly communicate, “It doesn’t matter where you’ve come from you can get anywhere in our culture.”

    But I wonder at what point does the discussion get back to purely, “Who is the most qualified?” and “Who would keep the courts balanced to represent a variety of worldviews?”

    In other words– I’d like to think we’ve arrived at a place in our nations history where it truly doesn’t matter the color of your skin, what nation your parents came from, where or if you worship, what your gender or sexual preference is, or even where your degree comes from.

    Have we reached a place where white, protestant, straight, males are not put on the sidelines because of their race, gender, and sexual preference?

    Apparently not.

  • A Failing Battle to Fight Foreclosure

    Ángel Franco/The New York Times

    This headline caught my attention this morning:

    Ten months ago President Obama announced a $75 billion program to keep as many as four million Americans in their homes by persuading banks to renegotiate their mortgages. Lenders have accepted more than one million applications and cut three-month trial deals with 759,000 homeowners. But they have converted just 31,000 of those to the permanent new mortgages that are the plan’s goal.

    It’s hard to fathom how many people are battling or have succumbed their life’s savings (their home) to foreclosure. In the third quarter of this year, 937,840 families received a foreclosure notice. (up 23% over the same period in 2008.)

    It is important for me to state this fact– I don’t know a single person in which a bank has permanently helped during this housing crisis. They have done some short-term things. But every person I know, including ourselves, who has needed their bank to re-negotiate or process a short sale, has eventually had to accept foreclosure.

    The government bailed the banks out, they’ve given them significant incentives, and yet they take the governments money– money clearly given to help re-negotiate loans– and just accept it as profit. Here’s another quote from the New York Times article:

    The servicing companies make money either way. The Obama program pays them $1,000 for each loan modified, and another $1,000 per year for three more years if the borrower avoids foreclosure. On the other hand, the companies make large sums charging late and legal fees on overdue mortgage payments, and sometimes it is cheaper to foreclose than to cut the mortgage payment. link

    Simply put, if your home is underwater (you owe more than it is worth on the market) and you need your bank to help you there is nothing they are going to do. They are going to stall, hem, haw, and outlast you. They know, relying that you are an honest person, that you’ll pay fines to try to keep your home but eventually you’ll get tired of the process and accept foreclosure. At least that is the banks great hope.

    Maybe it isn’t always that way? Certainly, there are enough short sales going through to fuel the market and keep people’s hopes up. But for every person I know selling their house who has tried a short sale, it is merely a holding pattern– a glimmer of hope to hold on to– on the path of accepting the humiliation of foreclosure.

    Bottom line, why is this happening? The banks make more money when you foreclose than if they do a short sale or modify your loan. It is in their best interest that you foreclose! The nature of how loans were created the entire Bush administration was that a loan was generated on a house, then the banks commoditized the loans and sold them off as securities. (Something like a bond) Then they hired servicing companies to make sure you paid your mortgange and that the investors got money.

    Then the bank took out bets (credit default swaps) against the people they lended to. That’d be you and me. Read this little article about a 19th century confidence scam, it’ll sound pretty familiar to anyone who has bought a house! Don’t think it is possible to dupe the entire nation? Two words, my friends: Bernie Madoff.

    See, in essence, the bank wants you to foreclose so they can make more money. And their processors (subsidiary companies) want you to struggle so you keep paying interest and penalties as long as possible. Then, when you finally give up, they still get the property. Cute, eh?

    What’s the solution? The easy solution is for people to start paying 20% more for a house than it is actually worth. But who wants to do that? I’m afraid the government may be the only entity that can help. (Short of every American just stopping payment on their mortgages.)

    Someone needs to help people on a wholesale level, renegotiate their loans. Like a one time amnesty program or something like that. It would seem reasonable that the local assessment office, which values your home for tax purposes, should be able to act as an independent agent to your mortgage company. “This home is now worth 25% less, you’ll need to reduce the principle on the loan by 12.5% to meet the homeowner half way or face a $50,000 fine fr0m the municipality and lose your license in this state.”

    Of course, that isn’t going to happen either. There is too much money to be made.

    This is why people say this is a mess! It’s a big ugly mess.

    Want to learn more? Check out this special from This American Life called “The Giant Pool of Money.”

  • Understocked

    understocked

    HT to xkcd

  • The battle of Guantanamo

    guantanamoI suppose I’m just naive. With nearly every state clamoring about a loss of jobs why aren’t more states raising their hands and saying, “Yes, we’d like those detainees in my state. Give us the money to build the prison and we’ll house them forever.” Actually, Colorado is asking for them.

    If I’m Jennifer Granholm, I’d lobby to build a new Supermax prison in Saginaw or Flint. A billion for my state as well as $200 million per year to look after them? Sign me up!

    It’s silly to make the inference that somehow these detainees will be allowed into general population. Just like its silly to assume that the country is somehow more safe because they are in Cuba vs. them being in the United States. It’s a prison. It’s not like they are going to walk out and get jobs! There aren’t any jobs to be had!

    Of course, there are real reasons to keep them off of U.S. soil. If they are brought to the United States it implies that they are legally detained. I think there is an open debate as to whether the United States can legally detain people indefinitely.

    Should Guantanamo be closed? It’s become a symbol of how the Bush administration handled the war on terror. For that reason Obama wants it gone.  He wants to fight terrorism in a different way. ItClosing it doesn’t really solve the problem… but Obama is now caught in a catch-22. He now has the information he didn’t have when he made the campaign promise to close it. But now if he doesn’t close it he has to admit that Bush was right to have it there in the first place.

  • When your leader won’t leave…

    The impeachment of Rod Blagojevich is an interesting case for church leaders. What do you do if a former leader refuses to leave?

    In Rod’s case, the facts of the matter don’t matter nearly as much as the soundbyte. Whether or not he was really selling Obama’s senate spot is unclear. But what was clear was the vote to impeach him. (And probably remove him from office.)

    I’ve been around church life enough to know that most people fired from a church job feel the way Rod does. The politics shifted on them and the next thing they know they’re in a witch hunt. In all too many cases, the witch hunt is over by the time they find out they are on trial. From the 50 member country church to the 16,000 member megachurch the reality is that all of the politics in church is conducted the same way. Closed door meetings. Coffee shop decisions. Fairness and justice take a backseat to pragmatism.

    Watching Rod on Good Morning America was like talking to a freshly fired youth pastor. He didn’t think the procedure was fair. He didn’t have the opportunity to call witnesses and tell them his side of the story. You can see him, wounded and fighting for life, in complete denial that there was no chance getting it all back.

    Watching Rod on Good Morning America reminds me of the advice I’ve given to friends in his situation. The best thing you can do is quietly leave. Fighting is just embarassing for everyone and rubs salt in the wounds daily. Working at a church is a political position. Keep the powers that be happy and it’s a great life. Everything you do is appreciate and your family is adored. Get on the wrong side of the politics and your life will become a living hell.

    It’s doubtful that Rod will get his fair trial. But I do know that, in church life, the best thing you can do is just move on with your life. Sticking around and trying to fight it out is bad for you and bad for a church. Fighting the politics in a church when the tide has turned against you will merely grind your faith on the hard rocks of others sin.

    I just hope Rod figures that out soon enough.

  • Why do conservatives like to be told what to do?

    Excuse the snarkyness of this post. I’m really curious if this is my crazy observation or if I’m just a jerk.

    Have you ever noticed that conservative folks (politically and religiously) like to be told what to do? I don’t mean they will say “just tell me what to say, do, or think” but I mean that the people they flock to admire tend to be people who will tell them what to do and not challenge them very much to come to their own conclusions. (Or to examine how they came to the conclusions they evangelize.)

    Example #1: Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. These guys are certifiably nuts. (But entertaining) They spew all sorts of nonsense and political conservatives love them. People even call and email them to proclaim them as right in every situation. 90% of Stephen Colberts schtick is mocking them and still some peopel think they are brilliant.

    Example #2: Dave Ramsey and Suze Orman. Don’t get me wrong, people should be conservative with their money. But if you have to call in to their show to hear this… “pay cash, pay off your credit cards” than I suspect you won’t notice that their making millions by humiliating you on TV, radio, books, and curriculum. Again, their shows are fodder for comedians. I hope someone gets a show on Comedy Central to teach people how to manage their money soon.

    Example #3: Alpha male pastors. Look, I’m too close to evangelicalism to start naming names. I don’t care to get myself in that kind of trouble. But over and over I see these guys become succesful. They aren’t saying or doing anything special… just alpha dudes who get their jollies telling their congregations what to do. (Politics, money, and sex tend to be their top topics.) And yet, conservative people flock to them. This isn’t just senior pastors either! I see worship dudes and youth ministry dudes taking the same stance. It’s a powerful addiction as the more authoritative and the more they manipulate an audience, the more fervor people follow them. (The flip side is that the most successful ministry leaders are extremely humble, it’s only on their rise that they seem to be like this.)

    Why do these conservative voices go unchecked? This is the beauty of the conservative system. If you dare to mention someone’s name or second guess some of their proclamations… just watch what the fan boys do! It’s as hilariously and predictable as the Cubs failing to mkae the World Series.

    See, once these fans admire/idolize someone, once they learn to love being told what to do by them, these fans become vipers. The scour the earth looking for people who dare to question their dude’s authority and then they lash out. “How dare you question Dave? He helped me get out of debt.” (As if Dave Ramsey actually paid your bills… no, you were the one who got yourself out of debt!) “How dare you question my pastor? Because of him I am a new man!” (No, you are a new man because of grace and your pastor doesn’t impart grace.”) “How dare you question Rush? He was right about Bill Clinton!” (OK, I’ll give you that. But it was a decade ago.)

    What’s the other side of this coin? Ah, there is a deadly side to this game as well. Being loved by conservatives is a double-edged sword. The moment that someone slays these dragons… or more often… their own actions disqualify them from holding their authoritative voice over conservatives, they are stricken down.

    The sick thing about being a conservative voice for politics, money, or religion is that you are only the voice-du-jour. One day these people will turn on you. Not only will conservative people turn on their leader-du-jour, they will austrecize them. Then they will pretend like they never really listened to you, cared about you, or bought your book.

    It’s a sick system. And I’m part of it.

    So, I wonder… what’s with the psychosis of wanting to be told what to do?

    Is it that we don’t want to think for ourselves?

    Is it that we long for the simple life?

    Or is it something else?

  • Top 10 George W. Bush Moments



    It’s worth noting that I’ve loved having GW Bush as President.     No sarcasm in that statement. While it’s become popular to poke fun at him, call him names, and insist that he’s an idiot… I don’t feel that way at all. I recognize that he has been the President we elected, exactly as presented. Had he been more flexible he would have been more popular. But I don’t fault the guy for being who we elected. All of these quaint things that people liked about him (see the video) in 2000, we now make fun of him for.

    I predict that public opinion of him will greatly increase after his presidency ends. As more is known and the Messiah’s crown begins to tarnish of the Obama Presidency, we will stop hearing that he was “the worst President in our history” and begin to see a broader picture of what he was trying to do. Eight years later I can still say that I’m glad he won the 2000 election and Al Gore didn’t.

    Back to the video. A fantastic orator, Bush is not. With 24 hour news I don’t know how they managed to narrow it down to a Top 10 list!

  • The tax code, simplified

    Brought to you by the United States Congress.

  • The stupidity of labels

    A couple times a week someone asks me if I’m a liberal or a conservative. So I want to say this loud and clear. My name is Adam McLane, I want my label to be “Christ-follower.” You can call me crazy. You can call me radical. But liberal or conservative are stupid titles.

    Here’s why the labels mean nothing. Labels like conservative and liberal are not black and white, it’s not that easy. They are completely subjective to the person asking the question as well as the question that person uses to determine if a person is “left or right” of them on that particular issue.

    Two examples from my world.

    Politics In this year’s election you have McCain vs. Obama. Mike Huckabee would call John McCain a liberal republican. But just about any democrat would label McCain a conservative. On the democratic side most democrats, who republicans call liberals, would consider Obama a liberal and themselves conservative. It is difficult in 2008 because one traditional test of a persons “liberal or conservative status” is determined by who is seen as the person with the best family values. Boy, that’s a tough call in 2008!

    In Christian circles the political labels reverse based on where you live. Traditionally, Christians in the north vote republican while Christians in the south trend towards democrats. Now Christians from the north or the south would have the same view that abortion is murder, but a “conservative” would use a persons belief on abortion as the litmus test for his candidacy while a “liberal” would use a litmus test along broader social policy lines.

    Church This is where it gets really scary. In conservative places, like my alma mater and the churches I’ve worked at, I was labeled a “liberal” in that I believe Paul, that men and women are equal in Christ. But with others, because I went to a “conservative” Bible college and have always worked at “conservative” churches and I personally believe in the inerrency of Scripture, I’m a borderline fundamentalist conservative Christian. the crazy thing is, in the church, these labels have so many litmus tests that no one truly is a conservative or liberal but most of us are both liberal and conservative at the same time.

    To further draw out the point from a church perspective. A “hard core conservative” would call teachings from a place like Willow Creek Community Church, liberal. But a “hard core liberal” would call the same teachings “conservative.” It’s all about perspective, baby!

    Here’s why labels like this are stupid. Most times I am asked the question, “Are you a liberal or conservative?” I have no freaking clue how to answer it. And most of the time, the people asking the question are mixing politics and religion together… which is something I think is equally difficult in a postmodern, pluralistic society. I think its possible to be a flamingly liberal on social issues while holding firmly to my conservative religious roots. But on other issues, I am flamingly liberal on matters of faith… longing to shake the church out of inaction into world change… while staunchly conservative on certain political matters. So the label is meaningless altogether.

    Labeling a person one way or the other is a dismissive thing to do. It devalues the entirity of a human being, someone bought and paid for by Jesus, into a label. This labelism is a dark mark against us as believers. It is a hate crime to a persons intellect which prevents us from fulfilling the Great Commission. Labels are, in fact, a devisive tool of our enemy, Satan. Labelism is emblematic of the label-fighting our Lord fought against. Over and over in the Gospels we see religious people asking Jesus litmus test questions. And over and over again, we see Jesus giving double answers that defied labeling.

    Remember when mom taught you, “Sticks and stones will break our bones, but words will never hurt me.“ She lied. Words (labels) are powerful. My challenge to is always the same, live wildly… crazily… passionately… stupidly… for Jesus Christ in all you do.

    Never be distracted by fans or haters!

  • But can you agree?

    Democrat and Republicans battleI watched a good chunk of both the DNC and RNC. I listened to the rhetoric of Democrats saying that Republicans are stupid and visa versa. I was especially annoyed during the RNC to hear a line-up of failed presidential candidates call Barack Obama stupid, young, and naive.

    And it left me with a single, two-fold question: Which candidate will be able to work to build bridges? Which candidate can unite a divided nation?

    That person is prepared to lead our country. Leading one party further to the left or the right isn’t interesting to me.