Archive for March, 2008

lost: mystery solved??

My good friend Blanchard posted a link to an absolutely fascinating website on his blog the other day.

Now, if you are a Lostie like me, you will probably have mixed feelings about this page. On one hand, we faithful LOST viewers have witnessed a lot of weirdness in the past 3.5 seasons and I am incredibly anxious for a theory that ties it all together. But on the other hand I have an intense distaste for spoilers of any kind; for some reason I like the visceral stomach flop and blinding impact of realization that comes with a good surprise.

Well, enough prologue. Onto the site in question… prepare thy mind to be blown:

LOST: A Theory on Time Travel by Jason Hunter
www.timelooptheory.com

If you’re a LOST viewer and dare to visit THE TIMELINE, please stop on back and let me know what you think!

//

Email This Post Email This Post +++ Print This Post Print This Post +++ Now that's del.icio.us.

what to do with an alien

And when I say “alien,” I don’t mean this kind:

Last September I posted an entry called “Church Sanctuary, Movement” about my desire to formulate an opinion on the issue of immigration, particularly in America. We’ve had some decent discussions since then, but I’ve found that, particularly with this issue, it seems too easy to slant the discourse toward the intellectual or emotional level instead of actually coming up with some practical suggestions.

Fortunately, Mr. Tony Campolo has stepped in to provide some further insight. I posted it below; let me know what you think!

A Proposal For Illegal Aliens
Tuesday, March 11, 2008

The Hebrew Scriptures clearly call for the children of Israel to make room for the alien. The Israelites are reminded that they, too, were once aliens in a strange and distant land.

[For the Lord your God] …Who loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing. You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.—Deuteronomy 10:18-19

The New Testament picked up this same admonition as Jesus explained to his disciples that they should treat the alien as they would treat him (Matthew 25:31-40).

St. Francis of Assisi taught his followers that Jesus is mystically present in the alien. They were told that when they look into the eyes of the stranger in their midst, they might see their Christ staring back at them.

Christians need to be reminded that in the only description that Jesus gave of judgment day, he specifically declares that God will inquire how we treated the alien. God will want to know, according to Matthew 25:35, whether or not we made room for “the stranger” to live among us.

Given such Biblical teachings, it is difficult to understand how so many Jews and Christians can call for harsh treatment of those 12 million illegal immigrants who presently reside within our national borders, and how they so often act as though U.S. citizens should not make them welcome.

There is little question that we need these men and women who have illegally entered our country. They are doing necessary work as farm laborers and in the manufacturing sectors of our economy. Elderly persons, like myself, should realize that millions of dollars taken out of these laborers’ wages each week go into our depleting Social Security fund. The evidence is clear that overwhelming numbers of these undocumented workers are hardworking, decent neighbors who are contributing much to our nation’s well-being.

Having made these points, we must go on to acknowledge that there are good people who justly point out that these illegal entrants have broken the law, and that granting them amnesty will only invite others to do the same. Furthermore, there are concerns about the possibility that criminals, drug pushers, and even terrorists, may be among those undocumented and illegal immigrants who daily come through our porous borders. There are fears that such undesirable persons pose a threat to our nation’s security and to the safety of our fellow citizens.

As I reflect on the pros and cons of dealing with amnesty for these undocumented brothers and sisters, I have to start by asking why so many of them choose to enter our country illegally. Could it be that the U.S. has made it too difficult and too expensive for them to come in any other way?

Back in 1910, when my father emigrated to this country, he came as an impoverished Italian peasant. He liked to tell me that when he came through Ellis Island, he came with a few dollars in his pocket and little more than “the shirt on his back.” He would go on to declare, in his broken English, that this country was, for him, a land of opportunity, and that he soon had a job and a future filled with hope.

The bad news is that today impoverished immigrants do not have the same opportunity that my father had. Nowadays, “the poor and huddled masses” who come to the U.S. have a much harder time, and the barriers that keep them living in our country usually appear insurmountable. If my father wanted to settle in the U.S. and get a job, given present requirements, he would have to get a “green card,” if he wanted to be legal. Getting a green card would take somewhere around two years or more, and would likely cost him a couple thousand dollars in legal fees. (The legal language in the forms is so complicated that often it takes a lawyer to help applicants fill out the forms, costing up to $2000 in fees.) Not having enough money to support himself during the time he was waiting for his green card to be granted, he probably would have his hopes dashed to pieces. Not having the means to hire a lawyer, he probably would have to face the reality that what is required to enter into the American Dream is beyond his reach. In today’s U.S., there would be little room for a poor man like my father. I have a sense that his desire for the better life that the U.S. could offer him just might tempt him to become an illegal immigrant.

What I propose is that our country should have a “high wall and a wide gate” at our borders. By a high wall, I mean that our borders should be secure. America should protect itself against drug pushers, criminals and possible terrorists. There should be a background check on every person who crosses into our country so that such undesirables would be kept out.

On the other hand, I believe that the gate should be wide. We U.S. citizens should make it fiscally possible for poor people who want to come and live among us. Green cards should be made available quickly and without the need to go through the kind of legal hoops that require lawyers. It seems to me that people in faith communities should work to create these conditions.

When it comes to dealing with those who are already here, I agree with those who claim that amnesty is not a good idea. These illegal immigrants did break the law, and amnesty would likely invite others to do the same. Law breakers should be dealt with seriously. Allow me to suggest some solutions to this predicament. I propose that undocumented entrants be granted green cards as soon as possible, but that they be required to pay a hefty fine for having broken the law. Also, they should be required to pay back taxes on their past earnings. But, knowing that it would be unlikely for them to have the money to cover these expenses all at once, I suggest that they have as much as 10 percent of their income deducted in the years that follow until such time as these fines and back taxes are paid off. Those who earn the higher salaries would pay off what they owe sooner, while those with lower salaries would have to take longer to fulfill their obligations.

The reality is that so many of these undocumented brothers and sisters are now being paid less than the minimum wage. With green cards in hand, they would be entitled to legal wages, which likely would be more than they are presently earning. Given this consideration, many, if not most, would come out with more money on pay days, in spite of the 10 percent that would be deducted by the government to cover their fines and back taxes.

To people with faith commitments who take the Bible as their guide for living, it seems as though this proposal could go a long way to treating undocumented entrants with God-ordained love and justice. I think that what I am proposing could satisfy those who want law breakers to pay their debt to society while, at the same time, satisfying those who are committed to showing God’s grace to those who, full of hope, come to live among us.

Original article here:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2008/03/a-proposal-for-illegal-aliens.html

//

Email This Post Email This Post +++ Print This Post Print This Post +++ Now that's del.icio.us.

john mayer has a tv show

I suppose it would actually be more correct to say that John Mayer HAD a TV show, since this was done quite awhile ago. But some things are just timeless, you know?

Enjoy!

Oh, and if you like, check out John Mayer’s blog. As you know now that you’ve watched The Show, he’s one funny (and smart) bee-otch.

http://blog.honeyee.com/john/

//

Email This Post Email This Post +++ Print This Post Print This Post +++ Now that's del.icio.us.

“got jesus?”

Driving into work this morning I saw one of those quasi-popular christian ripoff bumper stickers that said:

After a good moment or so of picturing a Hasidic Jew in the requisite milk-mustache, my first thought was…

“Aw shit, did you lose Jesus again?”

My second thought was…

“Maybe they forgot that I was supposed to pick him up this morning. Should I flag them down and let them know he’s riding with me today?”

My third thought was…

“I need to write a blog post about this, so I can blatantly mock the ridiculousness of christians.”

I figure it’s my responsibility, to a certain extent. It’s like how black comedians make fun of black people, or how Carlos Mencia makes fun of stupid people (haha, get it!?)… well, it’s the same phenomenon here. This is my faith tradition, so I am completely at liberty — perhaps even encouraged — to relentlessly rip it to shreds.

;-)

Have we really stooped so low as to compare Jesus to a dairy product!? I mean, I like milk as much as the next guy (’specially with chocolate chip cookies!), but c’mon…!

Haha — I gotta stop; I’m cracking myself up over here!

P.S. During my Google search for the nice “got jesus?” image above, I saw one that said: “Got Jesus? It’s Hell Without Him.” Seriously?? That is the statement you want to make with your Corolla??

//

Email This Post Email This Post +++ Print This Post Print This Post +++ Now that's del.icio.us.

iraq = $12 billion/month

On Netscape.com this morning I was naturally intruiged when I saw these two headlines at the top of the heap:

Of course the first thought in my head was how these two items were obviously connected, but as I went into the Iraq article I found a poll. I voted, and the results, while not surprising, still stunned me with their overwhelming one-sidedness. (I took this snapshot at about 9:17am today.)

I’m no statistician, but I think a sampling of that size is considered pretty accurate.

I actually posted this $12 billion figure before, back in July of ‘07. Of course it’s always a good reminder, though, as I don’t really feel that money coming out of my wallet, although, of course, it is. And yours, too. (We’ve been rather brilliantly conditioned by the government to think that it’s OK that they take it from us in the first place, don’t you think?)

A little further down the Iraq article, I found these paragraphs, which I found most profound:

These numbers don’t include the war’s cost to the rest of the world.

In Iraq itself, the 2003 U.S.-led invasion [included] devastating air bombardments and the looting and arson that followed, severely damaged electricity and other utilities, the oil industry, countless factories, hospitals, schools and other underpinnings of an economy.

‘No one has tried to calculate the economic damage done to Iraq,’ said spokesman Niels Buenemann of the International Monetary Fund, which closely tracks national economies. But millions of Iraqis have been left without jobs, and hundreds of thousands of professionals, managers and other middle-class citizens have fled the country.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: what are we doing?

One more quote from the article “Defining Victory Downward” by Slate writer Michael Kinsley:

Why was President Bush’s decision a year ago to send another 30,000 troops to Iraq called the “surge”? I don’t know who invented this label, but the word surge evokes images of the sea: a wave that sweeps in, and then sweeps back out again. The second part was crucial. What made the surge different from your ordinary troop deployment was that it was temporary. In fact, the surge was presented as part of a larger plan for troop withdrawal. It was also, implicitly, part of a deal between Bush and the majority of Americans who want out. The deal was: just let me have a few more soldiers to get Baghdad under control, and then everybody, or almost everybody, can pack up and come home.

In other words: you have to increase the troops in order to reduce them. This is so perverse on its face that it begins to sound zenlike and brilliant, like something out of Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. And in Gen. David Petraeus, the administration conjured up its own Sun Tzu, a brilliant military strategist.

[But] the test is simple, and built into the concept of a surge: has it allowed us to reduce troop levels to below where they were when it started? The answer is no. The proper comparison isn’t to the situation a year ago. It’s to the situation before we got there.

Imagine that you had been told in 2003 that when George W. Bush finished his second term, dozens of American soldiers and hundreds of Iraqis would be dying violently every month; that a major American goal would be getting the Iraqi government to temper its “de-Baathification” campaign so that Saddam Hussein’s former henchmen could start running things again (because they know how); and “only” 100,000 American troops would be needed to sustain this equilibrium.

You might have several words to describe this situation, but success would not be one of them.”

//

Email This Post Email This Post +++ Print This Post Print This Post +++ Now that's del.icio.us.

light enough to dance

Hey everyone, sorry about the lack of posts lately — I’ve been pretty busy, and as much as you want some pithy comment about Ron Paul (he’s not giving up, btw) or a frighteningly dismal prediction for the economy (American employers reportedly slashed 63,000 jobs in February; the most in 5 years), all I have for you today is a wonderful quote by the brilliant Anne Lamott:

“I think joy and sweetness and affection are a spiritual path. We’re here to know God, to love and serve God, and to be blown away by the beauty and miracle of nature. You just have to get rid of so much baggage to be light enough to dance, to sing, to play. You don’t have time to carry grudges; you don’t have time to cling to the need to be right.”

How can you not love her?

Check out the full interview with the Washington Times here.

//

If you liked that, then try these…

more ron paul? oh yes!

gimme more

my life, a movie

Email This Post Email This Post +++ Print This Post Print This Post +++ Now that's del.icio.us.

life on moorpark

Hello from my new residence on Moorpark in Toluca Lake!

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the economic situation, what caused its impending meltdown, and what might fix it. I am neither secure in my opinion nor in a position of power to really do anything about it, but I figure that as a human being it’s probably my responsibility to at least try to know what the heck is going on.

Maybe you’ve noticed, like I have, that our money doesn’t seem to buy what it used to. Of course, we’ve all been taught that a single word — “INFLATION” — explains why that’s the case. But it doesn’t explain why I didn’t pay more attention in my Economics class, and it doesn’t explain what actually causes inflation.

Of course, nothing in the world of economics/politics/business is completely simple, but with a little time and some good teachers I think we can make sense of it eventually. I’ll share more with you, the more I learn.

If you know anything about banks, you know that they are private institutions (not government entities!) who take our money and then use it to make themselves a varitable sh*tload of money. Which, of course, pisses us off, unless we happen to be Mr. Wells Fargo.

These thoughts formed a question in my head the other day… why couldn’t I just start my own bank? I only really need a bank for the convenience factor — it’s almost impossible to get paid or pay bills without a bank account these days. So I looked into it, and it’s not as simple, or cheap, as I hoped (but if you have a couple million bucks laying around, I think we should talk). But in my searching I did come across some interesting and clarifying info, to help us understand more of what banks “do.” It comes from an extract from the British humour magazine PUNCH, dated April 1957 — “What Are Banks For?”

Q: What are banks for?
A: To make money.

Q: For the customers?
A: For the banks.

Q: Why doesn’t bank advertising mention this?
A: It would not be in good taste. But it is mentioned by implication in references to reserves of $249,000,000 or thereabouts. That is the money that they have made.

Q: Out of customers?
A: I suppose so.

Q: They also mention Assets of $500,000,000 or thereabouts. Have they made that too?
A: Not exactly. That is the money they use to make money.

Q: I see. And they keep it in a safe somewhere?
A: Not at all. They lend it to customers.

Q: Then they haven’t got it?
A: No.

Q: Then how is it Assets?
A: They maintain that it would be if they got it back.

Q: But they must have some money in a safe somewhere?
A: Yes, usually $500,000 or thereabouts. This is called Liabilities.

Q: But if they’ve got it, how can they be liable for it?
A: Because it isn’t theirs.

Q: Then why do they have it?
A: It has been lent to them by customers.

Q: You mean customers lend banks money?
A: In effect. They put money into their accounts, so it is really lent to the banks.

Q: And what do the banks do with it?
A: Lend it to other customers.

Q: But you said that money they lent to other people was Assets?
A: Yes.

Q: Then Assets and Liabilities must be the same thing?
A: You can’t really say that.

Q: But you’ve just said it. If I put $100.00 into my account the bank is liable to have to pay it back, so it’s Liabilities. But they go and lend it to someone else, and he is liable to have to pay it back, so it’s Assets. It’s the same $100.00, isn’t it?
A: Yes, But…

Q: Then it cancels out. It means, doesn’t it, that banks haven’t really any money at all?
A: Theoretically…

Q: Never mind theoretically. And if they haven’t any money, where do they get their Reserves of $249,000,000 or thereabouts?
A: I told you. That is the money they have made.

Q: How?
A: Well, when they lend your $100.00 to someone they charge him interest.

Q: How much?
A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say five and a-half per cent. That’s their profit.

Q: Why isn’t it my profit? Isn’t it my money?
A: It’s the theory of banking practice that…

Q: When I lend them my $100.00 why don’t I charge them interest?
A: You do.

Q: You don’t say. How much?
A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say half a per cent.

Q: Grasping of me, rather?
A: But that’s only if you’re not going to draw the money out again.

Q: But of course, I’m going to draw it out again. If I hadn’t wanted to draw it out again I could have buried it in the garden, couldn’t I?
A: They wouldn’t like you to draw it out again.

Q: Why not? If I keep it there you say it’s a Liability. Wouldn’t they be glad if I reduced their Liabilities by removing it?
A: No. Because if you remove it they can’t lend it to anyone else.

Q: But if I wanted to remove it they’d have to let me?
A: Certainly.

Q: But suppose they’ve already lent it to another customer?
A: Then they’ll let you have someone else’s money.

Q: But suppose he wants his too… and they’ve let me have it?
A: You’re being purposely obtuse.

Q: I think I’m being acute. What if everyone wanted their money at once?
A: It’s the theory of banking practice that they never would.

Q: So what banks bank on is not having to meet their commitments?
A: I wouldn’t say that.

Q: Naturally. Well, if there’s nothing else you think you can tell me…?
A: Quite so. Now you can go off and open a banking account.

Q: Just one last question.
A: Of course.

Q: Wouldn’t I do better to go off and open up a bank?

Hmm… yes, I think you would. (And perhaps someday we should.)

But back to the recession. I think this is a pretty key thing; at least it has been to my understanding. I think we often put too much trust in banks. We think they’re there to help us, like some kind of charity or government service. But they’re not. Banks are just another example of a for-profit business in our capitalistic society (which sure helps explain those $27 overdraft fees).

OK, so we can’t trust banks to look out for our best interest. (Ha! Interest!) Can we trust the government? I’m afraid not. The explanation to this part is much more complicated, if you can imagine anything government-related being complicated, but I came across a really brilliant and relatively easy to understand explanation as to why the value of our money is going down the toilet Check it out here:

The Declining Dollar and What It Means For You by Barbara Minton

Of course all of this money talk is intimately connected with our blessed government, since politics and economics are so intertwined.

So the pieces are starting to come together. Although it’s looking like a messier and messier picture all the time.

I think that’s almost enough for today, but let me leave you with one more quote that seems rather timely. This is helps further explain why I believe we must start asking questions about how our government fits into the equation:

“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just it narrows the mind.

And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done.

And I am Caesar.”

-Julius Caesar

//

Email This Post Email This Post +++ Print This Post Print This Post +++ Now that's del.icio.us.