Credit Where Credit is Due

To those of you still residing in Louisiana, I believe Kudos are in order for LA Senator David Vitter. His personal failings notwithstanding, he did the right thing Tuesday when he introduced an amendment to the finance reform bill that mirrored Ron Paul's bill to audit the Federal Reserve System. It's not often I can say "did the right thing" and "senator" in the same sentence, so when it happens, I feel we should publicize it.

Paul's bill failed obviously because he doesn't "play the game" as it were. Any idea coming from his camp must be nuts of course. Likewise, Vitter's amendment failed, but a watered-down version did pass that would audit just the emergency lending the Fed did since December 2008. Its obviously better than nothing, but we deserve better.

Let me take a moment to dismiss notions that I'm simply a Paul parrot or a conspiracy theorist. I like Paul, but I don't line up with him 100%. I'm not sold on the notion the Fed should be abolished entirely or other big issues for Paul like total free-trade. Likewise, I'm not pro-Fed audits because I subscribe to some massive bankers-controlling-the-world conspiracy notion either. But what I do know is a tons (literally) of our money gets funneled through this institution and no one is allowed to see its books. Obama loved to talk about "transparency" and "accountability" in government during his campaign, so where are those buzzwords now? Nowhere to be found. We expect the Fed and Wall Street to be the main opponents of this legislation, but it's abhorent the White House is an equally vocal critic. This is one of the clearest instances yet Mr. Obama does not practice what he preaches, and I'm afraid it shows where his true priorities are. Forget the socialist label, between this issue and his healthcare bill, he's far more of a corporatist than a socialist.

At my job, every task I do ends up somewhere on the audit log that Coke eventually sees. We're doling out their money on a daily basis and we're therefore responsible for providing the information about where it went, when, how much, and to whom. Likewise, the American Public is the Fed's client, and we should be screaming to know what the hell it's doing, not sitting back idly while the wall of federal secrecy is drawn deeper and deeper.

So I urge you send an e-mail or give a call to Mr. Vitter's office letting him know that you appreciate his bold stand for us. If we don't make our appreciation known when they do something right, they'll be less likely to do it next time. (Needless to say Landrieu voted against it, but both TX senators voted for it.)

Is Europe Ashamed of its Heritage?

Amber and I went to see one of those obscure foreign artsy films you can only see if it just so happens into a theater in your city this past weekend. The one in question was entitled, “The Secret of Kells,” an Oscar-nominated animated film about the famous illuminated manuscript the Book of Kells set in pre-medieval Ireland. So, an indie film about history and religion? If that’s not straight up Jonny and Amber’s collective wheelhouse, I don’t know what is. Needless to say we mostly enjoyed the film. It had a very unique artistic style, which was obviously the impetus for the movie in the first place. The entire animation was deliberately made as flat and void of perspective as possible in order to be a modern reflection of the Medieval artistic style.

The story is set in the ancient Kells. Like most other Northern European communities of the time, it’s a simple agricultural community centered around an abbey. The populace and especially their leader the abbot fear the likely impending raid of Norse and are attempting to build fortifications to defend themselves. The abbot’s boy nephew is the protagonist who struggles between obeying his uncle’s commands and his passion to help the newly arrived illuminator complete his already famous manuscript. It’s the struggle between the different priorities of the abbot and his friend the famous illuminator that drives the plot.

While the film is certainly very imaginative and has a good bit of mystery and fantastical elements to it, it’s overall setting fares quite well as a historical snapshot. The producers clearly intended to make a historically accurate depiction of the cultural climate of the period. And I can say this with confidence in all respects save one.

Much is made by the characters and by the film itself about the worth of the book and illuminating in general. It’s a supreme work which can “turn darkness into light” and is “a vision of heaven here on Earth.” It’s high praise to be sure and rightly so. Yet despite the fact that the vast majority of characters are monks and it’s all set in an abbey, there’s not a single Christian reference in the entirety of their discourse. Two hours of monks talking in a European abbey in Ireland about a religious work and not a single reference to Christ? What gives? This book is the gospel after all, but you may not even know that after watching the film.

Now, I understand where the postmodern European filmmaker is coming from. He or she is not looking to make a “religious” film. Its point is not to be evangelical or proselytize, and I can fully appreciate that. But it seems the filmmakers swung the pendulum as far as they possibly could in the opposite direction, much to the film’s detriment. The monks were calligraphy enthusiasts to be sure, but only in part. To a much greater degree, they were Christ enthusiasts. The gospels were the whole reason for the endeavor to begin with. It’s almost as if the filmmakers projected Renaissance-like humanism onto these monks in 800 A.D. Ireland in a bastion of Catholic piety. The film holds their veneration of the human artistic creation higher than its original inspiration, which no one can honestly argue was the case. Thus we have a clear case of an imposed historical omission in the film, yet another example of what I call a “cultural anachronism” in contemporary popular culture where we impose our cultural values and zeitgeist onto previous historical periods in our literature.

All this makes me wonder about Europe today. Why did these filmmakers go out of their way to excise every possible reference to Christ? If you’re agnostic or even militantly atheist, this is still your cultural and historical legacy as a Northern European. Why would you seek to hide or change it? As my title asks, is Europe ashamed of its heritage? I’m sure the barbarities and transgressions by European theocracies throughout the ages loom large in their minds, but do these cause Christianity as a whole to be as great a shame to them as say, slavery is to us as American Southerners? To make such a conclusion seems as near-sighted to me as those who make snap judgments of Islam today. Had the story been told from the opposite point of view of the Norse, would they have excised all references to Woden, Freyja, or Thor? Surely not.

I think this illustrates an important point, that rightly or not, people will judge a God by its follower’s actions, even hundreds of years later. Consider this an exhortation then to you fellow professed Christians to live your life in a manner to convince others of the goodness of your God. Argument, polarization, and confrontationalism will not avail us in this endeavor. Love, kindness, and charity will.

Just Because You're Paranoid......

No surprises here, but I don't easy fall into a ready-made political designation. Oftentimes, my views seem completely foreign to "mainstream" folks or at least the level of my concern baffles them. I've given a lot of thought to why that is recently. How can I explain to folks why its important to be concerned about the growth of executive power (no matter what party may currently occupy it)and the protection of constitutional freedoms? Well I saw a story that might help me.

Perusing Digg.com I happened upon this headline: "Confirmed: Obama Authorizes Assassination of U.S. Citizen" You can read the story at the link if you're so inclined.



I balked at this headline. Even for me, this had to be sheer sensationalism. No way was the headline to be taken literally. Wrong.

To give you the cliffnotes version of the article, there's a suspected terrorist who is a U.S. citizen. Obama officials have confirmed the administration wants to put the hit on this guy. No arrest, no indictment, no trial, no firefight necessary. Just put a slug in his head while he sleeps if you can.

Now, if you want to argue the administration can do whatever they want with anybody that's not an American citizen, I wouldn't fault you. I personally believe the good guys should act like good guys, but constitutionally speaking, I can see how you can argue that. But this guy's an American citizen.

Think about that for a second. You know what the next step is right? I don't even have to say it do I? We had domestic terrorists first after all didn't we? Once this precedent is set, it will be used again, and it will be expanded. You can't put a genie like this back in the bottle easily. It doesn't matter what location and period of history you look at, you'll see this same pattern. History repeats because human nature is immutable.

So how did we get here? By not being vigilant, that's how. Take off the partisan glasses for a second. Even if you're a die-hard republican and are jubilant at having this new weapon to level at your hated Obama, we didn't get to this point just yesterday. Obama ran as the anti-bush: no more war, no more civil liberty incursions, no more executive unaccountability. Read some of his pre-campaign stuff, and I think its pretty hard to say he didn't mean it at the time. Likewise, Bush ran on a platform of a non-interventionist foreign policy initially. Opposite political affiliations, same progression towards executive hegemony.

As disappointed as I am, I'm not surprised, nor would I expect these guys to act otherwise. I've said it before, but it bears repeating, it is utterly FOOLISH to expect any individual, group, or entity to act in any way other than its own perceived self-interest. Such is the case with the past 10 presidents. However much they might believe in checks and balances before-hand, their agenda immediately becomes the expansion of the power of their new position. This will include the use of this new-found tool on those they see as threats.

As Gandalf said, "I would use this ring from a desire to do good... But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine." It is the grand nature of the position itself driving us down this well-tread path. Few of us have the capability to resist its seductions for long. Folks like Cincinnatus, Washington, and Eisenhower who were willing to advise against their own power are exceedingly rare.

So that's why we need to care about this stuff. Do you want your children to grow up in a nation where they can be marked for death by the executive on a blind accusation? So quit believing the lie that we only have 2 choices, a guy with a D or an R before their name. Because I don't see a whole lot of difference. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Doing what is right is more important than being on the winning campaign's team. Even if all elections were 100% rigged, the right thing to do is vote for the person you believe is right. If we don't vote and act in a way to restrict the power of the executive, we're willingly submitting ourselves and our progeny to tyranny. And shame be upon us if that's what continues.

In Washington, Carts Pull Horses

I happened upon an article about America’s total debt burden on CCN’s website. And I found the following portion of it intriguing:

“Everybody loves tax breaks. And there's more than a trillion dollars of them to love.

That's the amount of money the Treasury foregoes in annual revenue as a result of the many breaks in the tax code. And that effectively increases the government's need to borrow.

But that trillion-plus isn't really up for consideration during annual budget discussions. "Tax expenditures are basically hidden," Burman said.

No one advocates abolishing tax breaks altogether. But Burman and others believe tax breaks should be treated as discretionary spending. The idea is to bring them into the open so lawmakers can make a conscious decision annually about what they spend on tax breaks and recognize the costs associated with that decision.”

The rest of the article I was on board with. But this portion stuck out like a sore thumb. Sadly, I think it’s rather indicative of the mindset of a great deal of policy-peddlers.

What particularly do I find so distressing? Well, at the risk of sounding a bit like a woman, it’s not what you said but it’s how you said it. It’s trying to call tax breaks discretionary spending. Since when does not taxing more = spending? It’s like me complaining my employer for my personal debt. “Well, it’s not my fault I have all this debt. I just have to spend this amount of money per month, and if my employer doesn’t pay me that much, it forces me pay for things on credit.” They have it completely backwards. If I give Uncle Sam a dollar, he better be damn grateful for it. Have you ever considered living within your means? If I’m running a little short, I eat Cheerios for dinner a few nights a week or I start taking the train to work. I certainly don’t complain to my boss’ face he’s not paying me enough to meet my predetermined lifestyle which I refuse to even consider amending.

Take a look at this line again:

“That's the amount of money the Treasury foregoes in annual revenue.”

Oh! How noble of Uncle to kindly "forgoe" what he's rightfully due from me. Every cent comes from him. He is my provider and I owe him everything. It is only by his good graces that I'm not required to give him more.

So the Feds are short by how much about a year you say CNN? About a trillion? Well, what a coincidence! That’s just about how much the upkeep of Uncle Sam’s overseas military adventures cost! May I humbly suggest you cut back the number of countries in which you have military installations from ~130 to maybe 5 or so strategic ones?

Legalized Bribery?

Allow me to immediately put you to sleep with just three words. Are you ready? Here goes:

Campaign Finance Reform

Still reading? It just sounds like drudgery doesn't it? I automatically have the image of a stuffy McCain ranting like a senile old man no one is paying attention to. And I daresay the rest of America feels the same way since it frequently ranks the issue near the bottom in every poll of their political priorities. Its not as flashy as say, abortion or war, or as close to home as the economy or taxes. but I think if folks stopped to think about it, they might feel a little differently.

Congress and the rest of the federal government consistently get abysmal approval ratings. I can't remember the last time it was even close to 50%. but why is this constantly the case? The way the system is supposed to work, the Senator would like to stay in office (clearly the safest assumption of the whole process). Therefore, he should legislate in a way pleasing to his constituency. This second assumption is the problem.

What does it really take to stay in office? We all know the answer, cold hard cash. You need a great PR firm. You need good lawyers, campaign workers, buttons, flyers, TV spots, photo-ops, etc. No matter what your platform, voting record, or credentials are, you cannot hope to win a major election without a sizeable warchest. And if you have all these things, the formula for staying in office has pretty well perfected. The fact is we as potential voters never have the time or inclination to stay as informed as we should, and consequently, its easy for the incumbent Senator to squeeze the neccessary votes out with a well-made fear-mongering ad once every few years. In Rome, it was bread and circuses, today its McDonalds and TV.

So where does all the money come from? Well, from people, both as individuals and in groups, whether they're political parties, grass-roots organizations, political action committees, lobbying groups, or even the big bad multinational corporation. Fact of the matter is, most individuals would rather spend their hard-earned money on something with a little more tangible personal effects than give it to a politician. Heck, I refuse to even pay 99 cents for an iPhone app. And the big politicians know this. They don't even really bother targeting the constituency for funds. Instead they go for the biog potential donors only at giant $1000 per plate dinners. (Although one guy I'm known to be fond of has had success with the micro finance fund-drives, hint: his name rhymes with Con Schmall.) Consequently, your senator doesn't really give a damn what you think. He knows its more important for him to maintain his relationship with his big donors to stay in office than his relationship with Joe A. Voter.

Ultimately, this leads to the elected official's vote being for sale to the highest bidder. And your current big donor will often hint your relationship is toast if you vote yea or nay on bill X or Y. I've heard several folks inside and outside our country call this a system of legalized bribery. All of this is allegedly OK since its all out in the open and all your campaign fund sources are public knowledge. The supreme court recently took up this question, and in a 5-4 decision, concluded the system was OK as is. Clarence Thomas reasoned that people have the 2nd amendment right to give money to campaigns regardless of whether they do so as a single individual or in the form of a giant corporation. And I can't really disagree with that. Corporations are made of people after all. Nor do I blame a corporation for donating to a candidate that will serve its interests. One of my big personal rules is that it is foolish to expect any entity to act in any way other than its perceived self-interest afterall.

But we still have a problem. If this is a democracy, my political voice is supposed to be as equally influential as the next guy's, even if he's the CEO of Exxon. But this is clearly not the case. Sure, there's public funding, but its meager, and to even qualify, you have to have a certain amount of, you guessed it, money. The situation remains that those with the most resources remain the most politically influential. This surely is what the founding fathers were trying to avoid. But in their defense, I really don't think they foresaw the arrival of the mass media. Our goal then should be to cut the ties between money and political influence, a difficult task certainly, but equally worthwhile.

As a modest proposal, why don't we eliminate campaign spending outright? No signs, no buttons, no rallies, no PR and advertising people. Each candidates viability is determined by a set number of signatures on publicly available petitions, digital and hard copy. Each candidate is given equal video exposure in TV spots on public television only in the form of video shot by a public video crew who just puts a camera in front of the candidate for 30 seconds. Uniform websites with the candidates info are viewable on a publicly run internet domain. I'm sure there are a thousand problems with this proposal already, but Americans have begun to realize the system is broken. And unless we start thinking along these lines, we'll continue to head down the well-beaten path from democracy to oligarchy.

It doesn't show signs of stopping...

... at least not for today anyway. Jonny left for work this morning at 6:30am and even then there was a solid white covering laying peacefully over the ground. When I woke up a few hours later, the snowflakes were just as large as when Jonny left and this is what I saw:



Since then, IT HAS NOT STOPPED. Sure, some batches have been heavier than others, but there has been a steady pouring of snow over our little yard here in Allen, Texas. We probably have about two inches right now. Although we don't have any corn for popping, I have built a fire that is so delightful. And with my stats class cancelled for tonight and Jonny's office closing early, the Dent's will have no place to go... so let it snow, let it snow, let it snow!

Call me a bluestocking....

... or a nerd, or an egghead if you must, but I have to admit: I LOVE WORDS. Shocking news, I'm sure, being the verbal person that I am. I am very much a lover of English, books and grammar (spelling not so much :) People who, oh-so-effortlessly, work in word origins into casual conversation or act as a walking thesaurus continually amaze me while simultaneously evoking a slight sense of jealous within me; because, while I like all these things, I'm just not the master of words that I wish I was. I'm not sure where this infatuation began... I am sure part of it could be traced back to my Nana. We are the grammar freaks of the family and we share an eerily similar affinity for books and conversation (just ask Jonny).

That being said, I stumbled upon a my new favorite talk-radio show : A Way With Words. Boy, does the word nerd in me have a field day with this one! I found it a few weeks back, when I went to pick up the Hill boys from school and I was listening to 90.1, the local public radio station. It was around 1:45pm and the voices on the radio began discussing the meaning of some common idiom and I was hooked! Needless to say, I was uber sad when the show came to an end a short fifteen minutes later. But today as I was leaving my lunch date with Jonny I was reunited with my word friends Martha and Grant, the hosts of the show. I was on my way to the grocery store and parked my car around 1:30pm and I didn't get out of my car until 2:00pm when the show ended.

So, if you happen to share my fondness for words, I encourage you the check out the website linked above. They have a list of past episodes that you can listen to and get your nerd, I mean word fix for the day :)

* and just in case you were wondering, here is the definition of a bluestocking from dictionary.com : "a woman with considerable scholarly, literary, or intellectual ability or interest." Enjoy :)