Someone's Gonna Pay For This

In the spirit of yesterday's post about the difference between politicians and statesmen, I offer a current example of how politicians aren't leveling with us, and instead are telling us what we want to hear. But eventually, the truth will get out, and then it will sink in, ... and then we'll get soaked.

.

This comes from a "Special Report on Business in America" in The Economist:

A green revolution
May 28th 2009 From The Economist print edition
Saving the world will not be cheap

The best way to curb global warming would be a carbon tax. The money raised could be divided up among citizens or used to repay the national debt. A tax on carbon dioxide (CO2) would give everyone an incentive to emit less of it. It would be simple, direct and transparent. For these reasons, it will never happen in America.

Frank talk about energy policy is rare. Politicians hate to admit that anything they plan to do will cause pain to any voter. During the election campaign, both Barack Obama and John McCain proposed a cap-and-trade system for curbing CO2 emissions, not because it would work better than a carbon tax but because it did not have the word “tax” in its name. Both candidates also gave the impression that their green policies would yield huge benefits while imposing no costs. A shift to alternative energy, they agreed, would not only check global warming but also create millions of green jobs and help break America’s dependence on foreign oil.

Neither dwelt on the fact that cap-and-trade will raise energy prices, that subsidies for renewable energy will have to be paid for, or that both policies will destroy jobs as well as creating them, while probably cutting growth. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a 15% cut in CO2 emissions will cost the average American household $1,600 a year. If politicians pretend they can save the planet at no cost, they risk a backlash when people realise they were fibbing.

If we're going to address global warming (or climate change, or whatever it's called this week), we need to understand the cost, and we need to compare the cost with the benefit. So far, no one proposing legislation seems to be doing that.

If you'd like to read the entire article, it's here.

Politicians Many, Statesmen Few

I've been going light on the political blogs lately, more out of cynicism than lack of interest. But I would like to share this quote I came across. It's from Henry Kissinger, who certainly has his share of detractors, but I think he accurately describes what the problem is in politics today:

The great statesmen of the past saw themselves as heroes who took on the burden of their societies' painful journey from the familiar to the as yet unknown. The modern politician is less interested in being a hero than a superstar. Heroes walk alone; stars derive their status from approbation. Heroes are defined by inner values; stars by consensus. When a candidate's views are forged in focus groups and ratified by television anchorpersons, insecurity and superficiality become congenital.

Henry Kissinger, Years of Renewal, 2000

Who are the statesmen of today?

What Many Politicians Deserve, But Too Few Receive

30 seconds:

Not Sure How to Vote? The Bible Has the Answer.

The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.

- Ecclesiastes 10.2

Planning to Vote for Jesus? Think Again.

As this sendup demonstrates, the state of political advertising in America has sunk to such a low that even Jesus could be made to look bad without too much difficulty. Two minutes.



Thanks to Friendly Atheist.

It's Just a Flesh Wound

For your Friday amusement . . .

Wondering when Hillary will bow out? This 90-second political "ad" gives valuable insight:



You can see all their ads here. There are currently 7, so no candidate is exempt.

Quitcherbitchen: At Least You Don't Live in North Korea

So yesterday was Super Tuesday. Delegates galore up for grabs. Hard-fought political battles left and right.

.

It's a bit of a tangent, I suppose, but I marvel at our political system. In 2000, when many were convinced the Republicans stole the election, there were no riots in the streets and no gangs out looking for members of the opposition to machete to death. Contrast that with Kenya today - 1,000 dead (so far) in the wake of December's election.

.

And in 2008, when Hillary's ranting in every campaign appearance about what a sorry mistake George Bush and his current administration have been, nobody's arresting her. Contrast that with current events in Zimbabwe. Or North Korea, where even the children go to jail for the political sins of the parents. The following article from the Wall Street Journal lends some perspective and reminds us of how good we really have it:

.

Life in North Korea's Gulag
By SHIN DONG-HYOK

November 30, 2007; Page A16
Seoul, Korea

I was born a prisoner on Nov. 19, 1982, and until two years ago, North Korea's Political Prison Camp No. 14 was the only place I had ever called home.

The camp, established in 1965, is located in Kaechon, about 50 miles north of Pyongyang. When it first opened, the government rushed to fill it with prisoners. Many were charged and detained regardless of when or what kind of "crime" was committed.

Countless others were imprisoned simply because they were relatives of those charged. Under North Korea's "Three Generation Rule," up to three generations of the criminal's family must be imprisoned as traitors.

I was a slave under club and fist. It was a world where love, happiness, joy or resistance found no meaning. This was the situation I found myself in until I escaped to China, and then South Korea. There, I was told why I was imprisoned by my distant relatives, who had escaped to the South during the Korean War.

In the midst of that conflict, two of my father's brothers fled to freedom. Because of this "traitorous" crime, my grandparents, father and uncle back in the North were found guilty of treason and crimes against the state, and were arrested. My father and uncle were separated from each other and my grandparents, and were stripped of all identification and property.

I am still not sure why my mother was incarcerated. While serving their sentences in Kaechon, my parents were allowed to marry. (Sometimes, inmates are given permission to marry if they work very hard and find favor in the eyes of the State Security agents). This was how both my brother and I were born as political prisoners.

Although we were a family by fiat, there was nothing familial about us. We showed no affection for one another, nor was that even possible.

When I was 14 years old, my mother and brother were arrested while trying to escape. Although I had no idea they were planning to run away, I was detained in another part of prison. The State Security agents there demanded that I reveal what my family was conspiring to do. I was tortured severely for seven months. To this day, I still carry the scars on my back and shudder at the memory of that time.

On Nov. 29, 1996, my mother and brother were found guilty of treason and sentenced to public execution. I was taken outside and forced to witness their deaths.

Upon returning back to Kaechon, I finished what passes for a middle school in the prison and began working in one of many factories on the prison grounds making garments. It was here that I met another inmate who had once lived outside of the prison camp. He told me stories of the outside world, and I increasingly longed to become part of it. We plotted our escape and on Jan. 2, 2005, we attempted to run away. I was successful, but he fell on the prison's barbed wire. I glanced back once; he appeared to be dead.

As I sit here writing this op-ed comfortably in Seoul, I can't help but wonder at the vastly different lives South Koreans and inmates of Political Prison Camp No. 14 live. In South Korea, although there is disappointment and sadness, there is also so much joy, happiness and comfort. In Kaechon, I did not even know such emotions existed. The only emotion I ever knew was fear: fear of beatings, fear of starvation, fear of torture and fear of death.

Even though I did not escape Kaechon expressly to inform the world about such conditions, I feel that I cannot keep silent. Today, tens of thousands are suffering silently in government-sponsored political prison camps in North Korea. Inmates are given only enough food to be kept on the verge of starvation, and they often fight with one another in hopes of getting one more meal. Many people have resorted to eating grass, tree bark, clay, rodents and insects. Torture is open and rampant, and beatings occur every hour of every day. Women often undergo forced abortions and children have no childhood.

These political prisoners live with no dignity as human beings. They are treated, and taught, that they are merely beasts without intelligence, emotions or dreams. If a prisoner attempts to escape, he is severely punished and will most likely be publicly executed.

Humans should never be treated this way. It is time for us to stand up for those being persecuted in North Korean gulags. They do not deserve to die in silence. We must protest these violent acts against humanity. We must become their voice.

Mr. Shin was born and lived in a North Korean gulag until 2005. He is the author of the Korean language book "I Was a Political Prisoner at Birth in North Korea" (DataBase Center for North Korean Human Rights, 2007).

Religion, Fecundity, and Politics

From the Wall Street Journal, 8/20/07:

If you picked 100 adults out of the population who attended their house of worship nearly every week or more often, they would have 223 children among them, on average, according to the 2006 General Social Survey. Among 100 people who attended less than once per year or never, you would find just 158 kids. This 41% fertility gap between religious and secular people is especially meaningful because people tend to worship more or less like their parents. According to data collected in 1999 by Gallup, 60% of adults who were taken to church at least once per month as children grew up to attend at least this often; only 15% stopped attending as adults.

The demographic implications are even more profound for the political left, where a disproportionate number of secularists are located. Religious people who call themselves politically "conservative" or "very conservative" are having, on average, an astounding 78% more kids than secular liberals. Studies show that people are even more likely to vote like their parents than they are to worship like them. The secular left, therefore, has to rely on the tough slog of bringing people from the political and religious middle over to their views. The religious right simply has to keep having lots of babies.

- Arthur C. Brooks (professor at Syracuse University's school of public affairs and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute)

Reasons to Believe, or Reason vs. Belief?

My friend the Friendly Atheist has posted a (liberal) pastor's critique of presidential candidate John Edwards, who says that his opposition to gay marriage is "influenced" by his Southern Baptist background. The pastor says in response:

Sen. Edwards said his opposition to gay marriage has [been] influenced by his Southern Baptist background. Most Americans agree it was wrong and unconstitutional to use religion to justify slavery, segregation and denying women the right to vote. So why is it still acceptable to use religion to deny gay Americans their full and equal rights?

To which I ask the following questions. This is just off the top of my head, and doubtless there are still more (and better) questions that could be asked in response to this pastor's sloppy thinking:

1. So are we saying that opposition to gay marriage is only OK if it's NOT motivated by religious reasons?
2. Why should religion be excluded as a reason for having a political view? What makes it less valid than any other reason? Says who?
3. If we're going to exlude religious conviction from the public square, then what if the reason given for a political position is 30% religious and 70% "secular" - is that OK? If not, then what if it's 5% religious and 95% secular? What if we disagree on how religiously motivated my position is? Then who gets to be umpire?
4. What good is a religion that doesn't have any effect ("influence") on how I think about life issues?

And finally, if it was wrong for some to use religion to justify slavery, was it also wrong for Wilberforce to use "religion" as a reason to fight for its end?

"The Bible Says . . ."

"It was my eyes that read these words but my soul that knew their meaning." Augustine, Confessions, IX.4

Proof-texting occurs when we look for words that back up our pre-formed conclusions. It happens in religion, of course, all the time. It happens in politics - pay attention to the ads that will play during the upcoming election year, and you'll hear quotes from the candidates that, while accurate, are misleading as to what they were really saying. "You took me out of context," the aggrieved party will rightfully say.

I can't help but think that God says that to us several million times a day. "You took me out of context." Now, don't take me out of context. I do believe that the Bible is God-breathed, that we can trust it fully, and that God's promises apply to us today. But I don't believe that our interpretations and conclusions are equally God-breathed.

I'm all for memorizing individual Scripture verses and studying individual verses, passages, or chapters. I do it regularly. But in the midst of all this, we need to seek out the heart of God and the logic of God behind the words.

For example, there's a verse that says I can divorce my spouse if he/she commits adultery. But what's God's heart behind the matter? I could probably find some verse to support whatever position I have about immigration policy, but what does God really think about how we treat the "foreigner" and protect our jobs, etc.?

"He made known his ways to Moses, his deeds to the people of Israel" (Psalm 103.7). It's good to know what God has done. It's even better when we know why He did it [though not everything will be revealed or even comprehensible to us, of course - "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever" (Deut. 29.29)].

.

"'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,' declares the Lord. 'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts'" (Isaiah 55.8). We need to learn His ways and His thoughts. This can only come as we steep ourselves in His word (all of it, not just the favorite passages) and ask him to form us through prayer. The Bible is not a reference book, and God is not the "answer man." It's too deep, too rich for all that.

"The Bible says..."? Sure. But what does God mean? As with Augustine, our eyes must read, but our soul must learn.