Putting the "Fun" back in Fundamentalism
We are preparing for some revamping of the format here at Uber-Conservative. Our underpaid and overeducated team of blogging professionals has been working hard these last few months to restructure this site into a cutting edge hub of news and commentary on theology, politics, economics, and SBC shenanigans. Add us to your blog feed reader or check back with us in the coming weeks as we upgrade to the post-graduation edition of Uber-Conservative. You have been warned!
Bishop Joe
As a notice for both of my readers (hi, mom) I will not be posting on this blog until after December 12th. After that glorious day I will complete my MDIV here at SWBTS and join the ranks of respectable theologians. I appreciate prayers for the completion (not to mention passing) of my final class (Hebrew Exegetical Method, and yes it is as painful as it sounds) as well as the direction that my family will take in the coming months. I look forward to diving back into the theological and political fray with you after Graduation Day. Until then…….
Peace be with you,
Bishop Joe
Here is an interesting blog post from the Acton Institute PowerBlog. Yet another example of how the theologically minded must also be economically minded. For a great resource on the relationship between theology and economics you should visit the website for the Acton Institute for Religion and Liberty.
- Bishop Joe
While some of Wesley’s economc advice is certainly sound, especially his views on the danger of debt, his understanding of basic economic principles in a free economy is severely limited. Kenneth J. Collins, a premier scholar and admirer of Wesley in fact notes as much in his book The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace just how far Wesley actually misses the mark. Collins declares:
Arguing ostensibly from a larger theme of proper stewardship, Wesley posited a “zero sum” world in which the maxim, “if the poor have too little it must because the rich have too much,” by and large ruled the day. As such, not only did he fail to recognize how capitalism actually works in a growing economy, even in a mercantilist one, but also his concern for stewardship, of what he called robbing the poor,” often developed upon such petty matters as the size and shape of women’s bonnets (and he forgets that poor workers often made these accessories) or upon his favorite moral foibles of censure, the consumption of alcohol.
The Theology of John Wesley will be reviewed in the upcoming issue of Religion & Liberty.
Curiously, Peck also highlights Wesley’s advice for less reliance upon pharmaceuticals. However Peck does not add that Wesley was at war with some healers or physicians in his own time who were taking advantage of the poor with faulty and expensive cures. Wesley published Primitive Physic, or an Easy and Natural Method of Curing Most Diseases in 1747. He generously distributed copies for free for the poor to fight back against those taking advantage of them. In Wesley’s account there are certainly improvements in medical suggestions, and his tips on healthy living are fairly standard even today. Wesley did not pull these cures and suggestions from thin air, much of his tips came from doctors he trusted. Still there were suggestions like rubbing your head with raw onions for curing baldness and holding a live puppy on the abdomen as a recommendation for intestinal obstruction. The point is that we would not take medical advice from Wesley over more advanced modern medicine, nor should we take economic advice from somebody with little economic understanding. It’s important to note that Wesley’s passionate assistance to the poor is certainly an effort to emulate.
The best advice Methodists can take from Wesley is to be rooted in the Good News he so passionately preached and spread across the globe. When United Methodism as a whole fully recaptures Wesley’s chief suggestion to his followers which was to “preach Jesus Christ and him crucified,” his followers will then again be aligned with the ancient truths.
A great article from the Wall Street Journal opinion page. It is a bit gloomy, but it should give you an idea of what to expect should the foreseen become the inevitable. It also does a great job of reminding the reader that there is more at stake on election day than the White House. Believe it or not you do vote for Senator’s and Congressmen too! Enjoy.
- Bishop Joe
If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.
Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven’t since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.
The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.
- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.
Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.
The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.
- The business climate. “We have some harsh decisions to make,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the “Issues and Legislation” tab on Mr. Waxman’s Web site for a not-so-brief target list.
The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.
- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is “card check.” Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The “Employee Free Choice Act” would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.
The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union “contract” after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.
- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for “the rich,” substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.
- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.
- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the “community organizer” left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress — Democratic, naturally.
Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.
- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar’s ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get “net neutrality” rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.
It’s always possible that events — such as a recession — would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn’t turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama’s agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton’s was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore’s BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.
In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today’s left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for “change” should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.
Well it seems the much anticipated ESV study bible will have a little competition at its release. From our friends at Harper Collins publishers we now have the Green Bible. Here are the features:
The translation (surprised?) is the NRSV. I think the fact that such a thing exsisits speaks for it self concerning how the modern church sees Scripture. However I do have a few questions for the reader and welcome any additional comments.
I found this article over at CNN.com to be helpful not only in explaining the roots of the current financial crisis, but also in offering a real solution. The article is written by Jefferry Miron, a Libertarian economist at Harvard University (an endangered species to say the least). The article can also be found here. Enjoy!
- Bishop Joe
Editor’s note: Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. A Libertarian, he was one of 166 academic economists who signed a letter to congressional leaders last week opposing the government bailout plan.
CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) — Congress has balked at the Bush administration’s proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Under this plan, the Treasury would have bought the “troubled assets” of financial institutions in an attempt to avoid economic meltdown.
This bailout was a terrible idea. Here’s why.
The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk. Read the rest of this entry »
Rep. Ron Paul (Republican of Texas) is a bit of a nut. There I said it. His ideas on anything that happens outside of our borders makes me want to show him a globe just to make sure he knows its round. But when you get him off of the evils of NAFTA and the illegality of US troops being anywhere without Congressional approval, he is a prophet of sensible, libertarian, domestic public policy. Now with that out of the way, I think we should all read his insightful words concerning the Bailout culture in Washington, Wall Street, Main Street, and every other street in-between. His editorial for CNN can be found here or reprinted below:
Editor’s note: Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas who ran for his party’s nomination for president this year. He is a doctor who specializes in obstetrics/gynecology and says he has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s and was elected again to Congress in 1996. Rep. Paul serves on the House Financial Services Committee.
(CNN) – Many Americans today are asking themselves how the economy got to be in such a bad spot.
For years they thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing. Yet now we find ourselves in what is shaping up to be one of the most severe economic downturns since the Great Depression.
Unfortunately, the government’s preferred solution to the crisis is the very thing that got us into this mess in the first place: government intervention. Read the rest of this entry »
Here are three articles (with various opinions) about the current Financial Market “Apocalypse.”
Now that you have a massive migraine and the sudden urge to assume the fetal position let me attempt to put the crisis in simple terms. Lets start with the ideal situation:
People need money. Banks have money. Money is cheap.
Banks lend money to people. People make more money. People pay back banks. Banks make more money.
While not all of the corporations that are sinking are banks, the same principle applies. They are all business that have something to do with assisting individuals to secure and grow wealth. Now lets look at the above situation with a few additions that I believe are the cause of the current crisis:
People need money because they are excessively taxed. Banks have money, but are forced by Congress to loan it to people who can not possibly pay it back or know that if their loans tank then there will be a US government bailout at the end of the road. Money is not as cheap because the Fed is treating interest rates like their personal yo-yo.
Banks lend money to people whether they should have it or not. People do not make enough money (for various reasons). People do not pay back banks. Banks do not make more money. Banks go broke and the US Government bails them out. People can not get loans for homes and new business, so wealth generation is slowed. A Republican is in the White House so capitalism is blamed. US Government regulation is now the “solution.”
If you ask me Option A is the better road. The problem here is not Wall Street greed, or a lack of regulation. The problem is a lack of risk and over taxation. If individuals and business were not taxed to the level they are now, then this convoluted loan industry would not be as large or as necessary. If there were more risk (i.e. no more bailouts) then companies and individuals would be more careful about how much they borrow and banks would be more careful about how much, and to who, whey lend. In order for capitalism to work companies must be able to fail, no matter their size or “importance” to the national or global market. Here is a couple of quick equations for you:
Necessity + Risk = Prosperity
Necessity – Financial Responsibility + Excessive Taxation + Class Envy + Regulation = Bankruptcy
Which would you pick? It doesn’t take an economist to figure it out.
Peace be with you,
Bishop Joe
My daughter turned two this past week. The levels at which my life has changed over these past two years are mind boggling. It has also been educational. I didn’t know that there was so much variety in diapers. I didn’t know that there were “levels” to baby food. I didn’t know how tempting it would be to set your kid in front of a TV just for a few minutes of silence. I also didn’t know there was a “potty training” sub-culture.
We have begun the preliminary stages of potty-training our daughter. I am astonished at the amount of doo-dads, books, websites, and yes, even support groups for those potty training. Its odd to think that potty training has become a community activity. In this overwhelming toilet culture I have a couple of observations both dealing with potty books.
The first observation is that many potty books are surprisingly graphic. One of my favorites (insert sarcasm here) is “Everybody Poops” by Taro Gomi. Here is an excerpt from an Amazon review:
“A hilarious book showing many kinds of animals, their poop, and describing where and how they poop (e.g. while walking). Also reviewed are the ways a baby poops in a diaper, small child in a potty, and older children and adults on a toilet. Hysterical graphics such as rear view of child sitting on toilet with the poop in midair, which we see between the gap in his buttock cheeks. Other scenes demonstrate how the toilet is flushed and the poop is washed down the pipes.”
One word comes to mind….”Ewww.” My wife and mother-in-law where potty book shopping the other day and came across a book titled “Once Upon a Potty – Girl.” My wife opened up to a random page where the little girl in the book was bent over showing the relevant anatomical part, exclaiming “This is where the poop comes out!” I am all about being accurate when we tell kids things about their bodies, but I can do it without visual aides. I can understand the need for children to be comfortable during their potty training time, and kids books can assist with that. However there is a point where it can get a little too graphic. Besides if the two year old who has this book read to them is anything like my two year old then be prepared for a bold proclamation of “This is where my poop come out!” next time you go to the store.
My second observation is that potty books are surprisingly complementarian. About 75% of the books I have seen are gender specific. Now this should seem like an obvious neccesity given the anatomical particulars of pottying amongst the genders. However in our increasingly gender neutral society I have come to expect even in toilet literature an attempt to minimize the difference between boys and girls. Of course my pessimism reminds me that in only few years there will most likely be a wave of neutered potty books….perhaps even a trans-gendered one. Talk about “ewwww”. Well at least for now we can rest assured that despite the genderless programing we are exposed to on a daily basis, we can always be comforted by one of the last complementarian strongholds, Potty Books.
Until next time remember Bishop Joe’s life lesson #238. Everybody poops.
Peace be with you,
Bishop Joe
Food (low cal) for thought…….
-Bishop Joe
September 11, 2008 05:52pm
THE Australian head of fast-food chain McDonald’s says there’s no mystery surrounding childhood obesity: kids are fat because they don’t exercise as much as they used to.
Chief executive Peter Bush also says McDonald’s, according to the chain’s own research, provides just one in every 72 meals an average child eats.
“You’ve got to look at those other 71 meals kids consume that often come out of the cupboard at home,” Mr Bush told a federal parliamentary inquiry into obesity, sitting in Sydney today.
“Where we sit on this is that we probably look at it as a very perplexing and complicated issue.
“Certainly the studies have indicated that the issue is linked to a change on lifestyle – kids exercising less, watching more TV, kids playing video games.”
Mr Bush said academics where now properly studying the causes of obesity, but most pre-existing data blaming fast food was inconclusive.
“When the very first obesity summit was held in Sydney in October 2002, my predecessor sat through the two days of that session,” he said.
“Through that time, overwhelming evidence was presented, but not substantiated, that fast food was the culprit.
“What also emerged at that time was there were very few studies completed worldwide at that stage.”
Mr Bush said fear of crime was a factor in obesity, arguing parents do not allow children to walk to school anymore.
The House of Representatives standing committee inquiry, which began in May, is looking at the increasing prevalence of obesity and future implications for the health system.
University of Sydney Associate Professor Jenny O’Dea presented the findings of a study on obese children and a survey of 345,713 adults.
It showed poorly educated parents were more than twice as likely to have obese children as well-educated mums and dads.
The Roy Morgan survey also showed the rate of obesity for adults in the lowest socio-economic groups grew at almost triple the rate of those belonging to the highest earning and educated groups between April 2000 and March 2007.
Nearly a third of people in the lowest socio-economic group were regarded as obese in March last year, compared with 26.6 per cent in April 2000. In the highest socio-economic group, 17.8 per cent were obese, up from 15.9 in 2000.
Dr O’Dea said governments should rethink obesity campaigns, saying they must address social inequities rather than opting for “shame and blame” strategies, which did not work.
She also said the international standard for measuring obesity was generally fair, but the label should be treated with care as the body mass of some ethnic groups differed.
“You can’t assume that an overweight, obese child is carrying too much fat,” she said.
“There are kids who fit into that category. They are the the Samoan kids and the Fijian kids and the Greek boys who are very muscular and the Lebanese boys.”
Dr O’Dea studied 960 families of children, from years two to six, in 10 primary schools across regional and rural NSW.
She discovered 2.7 per cent of tertiary-educated mothers had obese children compared with six per cent of mums who had completed year 10 or less.
In the low-educated group 7 per cent of fathers had obese children, while the figure was 3 per cent for those in the highly educated group.
