Obama vs. Cheney

I have not posted in a long time, because this is usually what happens: I see a news article or there is some event that I feel like I might like to comment on. I begin to think it over and plan what I would write. I procrastinate a little, and by the time I think of actually writing it, it's too long gone to blog about it. I am going try to do that less.

The big thing in the news yesterday was Obama vs. Cheney in their speeches about national security. More specifically they were directed at the issue the closing of Guantanamo Bay and the use of "enhanced" interrogation techniques. I listened live to a significant portion of both speeches, which were very much in line with previous speeches that I have heard (by Obama and Bush - I had not heard many Cheney speeches in the past).

Obama said this:

"I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. As Commander-in-Chief, I see the intelligence, I bear responsibility for keeping this country safe, and I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation. What's more, they undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America. They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured. In short, they did not advance our war and counter-terrorism efforts - they undermined them, and that is why I ended them once and for all."

This makes sense to me, and it is generally the viewpoint to which I subscribe. I am genuinely proud of Obama for this stance. After his speech, I listened to Cheney make his point. There are things that he said that also make sense to me, and I begin to wonder. For me, there is a particular point at which the Bush worldview and Cheney's argument break down. It is when he says this:

"It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America's moral standards, one way or the other."

To me, the whole "war on terror" is based on this idea, that evil men hate us just because they are evil and hate what is good. We, of course, are good, and the "alleged failure" to live up to our messianic self-image is ridiculous. There is nothing we can do to change how these people feel, and our only option is to fight them.

Imagine this in a relationship. One of your buddies is talking about someone, perhaps a coworker that they have a problem. He explains to you, "He hates me simply because I am so virtuous and hard working, and he despises me because of my values, not because of my 'alleged' failures." Or even better yet, imagine it the other way around. Imagine you confront someone about their failures, and he/she simply says you despise them because they are doing such a good job, that your feelings are irrational, and nothing can be done to change them. How would that arrogant attitude make you feel, especially if your accusation was founded?

I cannot accept that people only hate us because we are good, and that it has nothing to do with attitudes that are arrogant, militaristic, or condescending or with policies that are repressive. Perhaps some of these things have turned in to a strong, deadly anti-American sentiment in general - it does not seem like these people have a clear political agenda, but how would we know if we do not ever list to them. Maybe they commit terrorists acts because they hate America, but they don't hate America just because we have freedom.

So, let's say we concede to Cheney the idea that through torture we received valuable information that saved lives (I doubt torture is the most effective way to get reliable information anyway). My question is: Does this really "save lives" if it is contributing to the root causes of the anti-American sentiment that is fueling the terrorist activities in the first place?

More on Gitmo later. . .

xLDes>en GoogleC

Cheney

We Are All a Part

Something often unrecognized, ignored, or overlooked in Evangelical circles is the idea of structural or social sin, and I've been thinking about it a lot these days. We like to emphasize personal responsibility and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. These are good things, of course, but there is also a lot to be said about God relating to us as a society, community, etc.

Corporations, in the US, have all the legal rights and privileges of a person, which is completely separate from the persons that form it. I do not agree with granting Starbucks, McDonalds, or any other corporation the same rights as human beings, but it does highlight the fact that a group is more than the sum of its parts. Certainly, Starbucks or McDonalds does have a distinct "personality" that may or may not be related to the personalities of the people that govern it. There is something much bigger that is created, and to boil down the morality of such a group's actions to "personal responsibility" would be ignoring the larger forces at work. Of course, the same is true of communities, churches, governments, etc.

However, in recent weeks my thoughts have not been so much about what structural sin is or how to explain it. I have been thinking much more about the people who already recognize the realities of social sin. I have seen more than one person take so much "personal responsibility" in the evils of the larger group of which he/she is a part, that its weight is crushing. The guilt of participation in these systematic problems and the inability to escape/change them are crippling. Certainly, I battle the same tendencies myself.

I have come to see that, just like we need the Grace of God to save us from the overwhelming guilt of individual sin, so also we need His grace and forgiveness to save us from the guilt of the systematic evil of which we are all a part.

Greed Is Not a Postive Foce

I’m sure some of you (however many of “you” there are that read my blog) may have missed last week’s events on Comedy Central, and I’m certainly late in posting about it. But, here’s a brief summary. After Jon Stewart of the Daily Show cracked a bunch of jokes about CNBC, one of their hosts(Jim Cramer, of CNBC’s Mad Money) took offense. After a back and forth all week, Jim Cramer actually appeared on the Daily Show. What happened actually kind of surprised me. The show was not very funny, and Jon Stewart was pretty aggressive. You can watch section one here (and from there find the other sections).

Of course, there is plenty to blog about in this encounter (and there have been many blogs written about it, including fivethirtyeight’s take here, or the Nation’s take here). For me, there was one particular part that really stood out. Stewart criticizes the promotion of get-rich-easily ideas, commenting that our money comes from hard work. Cramer objects at first, but Stewart notes there is even a show called “Fast Money” on CNBC. Finally, Cramer admits the truth. “There is a market for it,” he says. Stewart quickly quips, “There is market for cocaine and hookers.”

This relates back to my earlier post about efficiency. The point is, a free market system can supply demands very easily and efficiently. But, it does a horrible job of supplying what is actually needed. The profit motive, which supposedly makes it so great, also distorts who we try to sell to and what we sell. So, here’s what happens (as I understand it). 1) Even if something is negative or damaging, we will supply it if we can make money off it. 2) We work to create ridiculous desires in the wealthy, so we can get then satisfy them and get their money. At the same time we may ignore the obvious life-or-death needs of the poor because they have no money to give to us in return.

I do not necessarily think that a market capitalist system is inherently not viable, but one thing is clear to me. Greed is not a positive force for production. Of course, I believe that people want to and should be fairly compensated for their work. I am not saying people should work for nothing. But this is not being greedy, it is being just. Greed, on the other hand, means (to me) “money above all else.” So sure, greed drives production of a lot of good things. It also drives the production of many harmful things and the proliferation of unnecessary and ridiculous things (which, in the long run are also harmful), and it lacks the long-term vision necessary for actual progress. Therefore, if we want to have a capitalist system that works, we need to have strong regulation and direction, providing limits on what we can do for money as well as additional incentives for the good things we need that do not make a lot of money.

As I am finishing this conclusion, I suddenly have the sensation that what I am saying is so very obvious, and it is sort of pretentious of me to talk as if I am sharing some new idea here. I certainly do not mean to be pretentious, so if this is obvious, then I’m sorry.

Happy Pi Day (But Beware the Ides of March)

I have other more serious posts in my mind, but here's a silly little update. Yes, I am a little nerdy, but we are celebrating pi day today (3-14), by making pies and watching the movie Pi. It's the first time I have celebrated this, but this does play nicely into a family tradition (at least in the past few years) of also celebrating the Ides of March. Celebrating for us actually just means watching our Ides of March video that we made a few years ago. Watch and enjoy (but still beware).

Thoughts on Efficiency

I suppose it is time I try to write something a bit more serious and perhaps even thought provoking. I posted an article several months back roughly outlining a vision for a possible alternative to the current capitalist system. Not many people responded, but I've been thinking about one friend's response for a while now. Here is an excerpt:

"Much as I feel capitalism is a vicious and pitiless system, I still find I can't agree with the arguments presented because:
1. I believe that man in his fallen state is inherently selfish and greedy.
2. I still believe my 5th grade teacher who told me that division of labor is a good thing because of the efficiencies involved. . .

The reason capitalism works is because it rewards the inherent greediness in man and uses it to drive production. "

I have especially thought about the division of labor aspect, and the idea of efficiency. There is no denying that capitalism is an extremely efficient system. However, I think there are some problems with efficiency. First of all, we are producing so much, so efficiently that we are efficiently destroying our world. The problem gets more complicated, because the capitalist system requires consumption in order to continue functioning. When consumption goes down, people lose jobs. And higher efficiency may mean that the same amount of production yields fewer jobs in the first place. So, we are stuck in the middle of needing to produce and consume more in order to keep the system running and keep people employed, and needing to produce and consume less in order to continue living on the planet.

As my friend admits, "Capitalism is a vicious and pitiless system." My question then becomes, "What's so inherently great about efficiency anyway?" The way I see it, we need two things: 1) Increase the amount of jobs with livable wages and 2) consume less. In short, we need to be less efficient.

The other points I would sum up like this:
1. Humanity is naturally bad.
2. Capitalism rewards people for being bad.
3. This makes us produce (and therefore consume) more.

As a Christian, I feel compelled to reject as unsustainable a system that is vicious and pitiless, rewards people for going against the principles of the Kingdom of Heaven, and encourages the destruction of our planet and the violation of human rights. Perhaps the article's vision for an alternative is not a completely viable option. Even if it isn't, I cannot bring myself to accept the realities of capitalism as the best we can come up with.

We are destroying our world. Is efficiency really that necessary?

Colombian idiosyncrasies

Eventually, I would like to touch on some serious topics, but maybe we should start out with something light. I have spent nearly 8 months here in Colombia, and my life here is quite distinct from my life in Bolivia. I live in my own apartment(instead of with a host family), the climate is significantly cooler, and my job description is much more than “hang out with the kids.” Of course, there are some similarities, too. However, let me start by listing some things that, in my mind, are unique and somewhat representative of certain aspects of Colombia.

1. Keys. In college, I had about 4 keys (house, car, work, and church). In Bolivia, I had one key (house). I got to Colombia, and I had 8 keys (4 house keys, and 4 work keys). I only have 6 keys now, since I only need 2 to get in the door of my apartment, but it’s still a large number keys for only a few functions. And I don’t exactly love carrying lots of keys.

2. Bike paths. Bogotá’s system of bike paths is one of the longest and most extensive in the world. In addition, on Sundays and holidays they have Ciclovia, where over 70 miles of major streets are blocked off for bikers, skaters, joggers, etc , and hundreds of thousands of people take advantage of it. A few months ago, I acquired bike from a friend, and now I am one of those hundreds of thousands of people taking advantage of this.

3. Bus emergency exits. Most buses have some sort of push-out window or back door as an emergency exit . . . except in Colombia. Here, it’s like they made all the buses first and later realized they needed emergency exits. So now, your standard emergency exit on a Bogota bus is a small hammer strapped the window. . .

4. Coffee. My frustration in Bolivia reached a peak when I ordered coffee at a nice restaurant and got hot water with a packet of instant coffee. On the other hand, within a few blocks of my apartment here, there are probably a dozen places I could get real coffee and espresso-based drinks. This definitely contributes to my emotional health.

Since 4-20

So, it’s been a while since I’ve blogged, quite a bit longer than I expected (my last post was on 4-20. . . I promise it’s just a coincidence). Not living with a host family and having my own laptop is conducive to blogging, or so I thought. As it turns out, it requires a bit more discipline to blog when your free time can so easily be filled with other things. Also, my job description in Colombia is much more than “hanging out with kids” like it was in Bolivia.

Anyway, blah, blah, blah. The point is, I’m back. . . mostly for my brother Luke, but perhaps some other people are interested too. If you are one of those people, I welcome you.
P.S. If you’re reading this on Facebook, you might think about actually looking at the blog now and then. I might try other things like polls and links and stuff.