Success at Saddleback

I was impressed with the question and answer forum produced by Pastor Rick Warren at Saddleback Mountain Church. It was monumental. No secular organization could have pulled it off without agenda driven newsmen commandeering the process. Even the League of Women Voters get manipulated by the “impartial” news anchormen they choose to moderate their debates. Warren proved himself to be totally trustworthy by both sides without pandering to either.

The event was a huge landmark in that its unique format was exquisite. It reworked the definition of debate. Or rather it asked the question of why we even have debates. After all, we don’t really care how a potential President can do in a debate format. Is that the skill-set that is most important for our leader? Or is the process of an election the one where we really get to hear what the opponents think about an issue? Isn’t it even better when we can hear each man reflect on the same question without worrying about countering the other’s position?

I don’t care how McCain feels about Obama’s point of view. I can make up my own mind about how I feel about each man’s position. Isn’t that what is really wrong with the process today? The goal is for us to listen to both sides and for us to decide which one makes the most sense. Yet hundreds of millions of dollars are spent each election cycle on candidates telling us how we should feel about their opponent’s views.

I hope this format will be used again. Having said that, I know it probably will not be agreed upon by Obama’s side. It’s a loser for him. He is good at slipping issues and winding his way through meaningless rhetoric. That has worked for him to this point. But 30 minutes later, when his opponent is asked the identical question and gives a straightforward knowledgeable answer, the difference is there for the world to see. On questions of sacrifice, Obama waxed eloquent. But McCain held up his own life as the standard. On the question of crossing the aisle to work with the other side for the good of the country, the outcome was the same. Obama tried to appear noble. McCain reflected on his life.

When Warren asked about all orphans in the world, Obama gushed his way through a “we should adopt more children” answer. McCain – “Cindy and I did just that, adopting a daughter from Bangladesh.”

So here is the bottom line. Will we elect a man who has never ever walked the walk but has a gift for talking it, posturing, and waving his hand to his adoring fans? Or will we elect a man who has personally withstood tests of war, tests of ethics, tests of allegiance, tests of faith, and tests of courage? And when he waves to the public, it looks awkward. After years of torture, after refusing to be released because his fellow prisoners had been imprisoned longer, his arms and shoulders just don’t move that direction anymore.

We need to understand what Moral Equivalency Is

I have talked to some people who are conflicted about the political scene and how they were going to vote in November. The main reason they are leaning towards Obama is simply because they want to see a change in direction. They have no understanding of the change that Obama will bring. They haven’t looked in to that.

These are reasonable people. They love life, they love their children, and they have hope for the future. If I could introduce to them a concept to let them know something that they are just not aware of, what would that be? It wouldn’t be a big political argument. They don’t’ really work. It would be this You Tube video. It is a 45 minute talk by a relatively unknown person. The concept he talks about is discrimination. The broader topic is the concept of moral equivalency. Unless people get a grasp of the truth, it is very hard to understand what is at stake in our society. I have run this piece before. It is a message that everyone needs to understand

Here is the link to the speech by Evan Sayet that I found on the LGF site.

Good Reading

Here is a link for an incredible article. It is somewhat confusing because this guy talks in ways that are hard for us to understand. For instance, commenting on why our economy hasn’t recovered yet he writes:

But the London Interbank Offered Rate spreads on overnight index swaps and credit default swaps of financial institutions have not returned to the modest pre-crisis levels. Fears of insolvency have not, as yet, been fully set aside.

Uhh - say what? Yes, this is Alan Greenspan! He is the only human I know who talks with so much authority and knowledge that the rest of us just nod our heads and think to ourselves, “Right – whatever he said.”

But in this article he says some things that are really important. He describes the path back. He says the problem is a general lowering of faith in our financial institutions. The quickest way back is a recovery in the housing markets. The wrong way back is for governments to try to shape the battlefield by posing restrictions on certain segments of the market. And he says some things about other paths – that are not the paths back. And then he sums it up with a remark that only he can make.

Remember in my last article I mentioned that Obama wants to take money from oil companies and give it to people? Greenspan makes a comment that Obama needs to understand.

It has become hard for democratic societies accustomed to prosperity to see it as anything other than the result of their deft political management. In reality, the past decade has seen mounting global forces (the international version of Adam Smith’s invisible hand) quietly displacing government control of economic affairs.

That is Greenspan talk for - Politicians need to understand that historically they have never had the clout over the economy as they think they had. And going forward they will have less. That doesn’t mean that they cannot impose stupid rules that would exacerbate the existing problems. They certainly can, but the reality is that our economy simply needs a hands off approach for the quickest recovery.

Since Ben Bernanke took over as head of the Federal Reserve, things have been tough for him. He is a very good mechanic. He has done well, choosing what to do and when to do it. But I have really missed the Alan Greenspan authority in that position. I hope that the media picks up on what he said. And I hope they take it to heart.

Obama Hearts Socialism

In my last post, Strider commented that regardless of how other people see Obama, he believes he is a socialist. So what are some signs that might prove Strider’s theory? Is this just empty rhetoric or is there evidence that Strider might be right?

First of all, what constitutes a socialist. The easy answer is that socialists believe in wealth redistribution by the government. From the few to the masses. Does that shoe fit? Well, he just announced that he is in favor of charging oil companies like Exxon for windfall profits and then paying consumers $1000 for their trouble. When he was explaining his economic plan a couple of months ago, he explained that the Republicans “trickle down” theory was all wrong and that he preferred a “trickle up” theory, where instead of allowing businesses to prosper and therefore hire more people, he just prefers to tax the good businesses and then give the money to people.

I will list here the countries with successful socialist economic structures:

----- none ----

Now, I will list some countries that have abandoned socialist economic structures and are now enjoying unprecedented growth:

China, Russia, all the Russian satellite countries, Vietnam,

Now, I will list some countries that decided, in the face of overwhelming evidence to perpetuate their socialist economies even though their people are starving:

North Korea, Cuba

Why on earth would any citizen think that socialism will help this country? Why on earth is Barack Obama leading in the poles to be President of the United States? Strider is right. He is a socialist. But my big problem is not with him. It is with the people who support him. What is wrong with them? Don’t people get how basic economics work?

President or American Idol?

Regarding upcoming elections, the one thing that I have to admit is that Democrats continue to have passion on their side. Republicans are much more pragmatic this time around. The interesting thing is that when it comes to the new voters, the people who are for the first time active participants in the process, passion counts. Pragmatism doesn’t seem to be important. Why is that?

I constantly wonder about the American Idol influence on this election. The American Idol process would ring up 40 million to even 80 million votes a week for months. Do you think that has inadvertently trained non-voters to vote? I do. And I also think it is training people as to why they vote. We could have as our next President the candidate with the best stage presence. If the songs, I mean speeches are already written for him anyway, then whose performance in delivering it is best? Who cares what the lyrics are? It’s all blah, blah, blah anyway, right? Who cares if the lyrics of the speech today in Ohio contradict the lyrics in the speech he gave last week in San Francisco? Was his performance inspiring? Did he motivate the audience? Did he command the stage?

Perhaps it isn’t fair to say that content of the speeches is not important. After all, Obama’s “change you can believe in” theme is destined to be on his Greatest Hits album. Of course, the words to that portion of his performance keep being rewritten as time goes on. In fact, the topic of that perfomance has changed so radically, that now some in the black community are coming back to him wanting to hear the older renditions of it again. This week some were very forceful in an event in criticizing the new renditions. I wouldn’t have been surprised to see Randy saying, “No Dog, I just didn’t get it this time.”

Another problem with the “Change” discussion is when you really listen to the lyrics, you want to go look up the definition of the word. A case in point is when Obama was in Berlin, he told the concert crowd there that regarding our dealing with terrorism, we should work closely and in concert with our European friends to defeat it. The crowd immediately erupted in applause. But wait a minute . . . hey . . . we’re doing that exact thing right now! That is not change at all! But I admit that the President that Democrats really hate is the guy who wrote the lyrics to that tune. Obama must just sing it better.

The American Idol process was grueling. The winner was a young man who could do better at performing on stage each time with that week’s song. He didn’t have to believe in what he was singing and he didn’t have to write the song. When he won, the contest was over. Unfortunately, winning this American Idol contest marks the beginning of the effort, not the end. And this time, the new songs can have no variation with the old songs.