Maybe I am a machine.

Oh, the busyness.

Last weekend, I went out to DC with Steph and my parents to visit my brother, Andy, who works for the RNC. Good times. Went to the National Archives and saw the Constitution. I looked and looked, but didn't find where it said that the President should create jobs or be responsible for the economy, and certainly nothing about spreading any wealth. But it still says we can have guns, and doesn't say anything about them just being for hunting. More people should read it, I think.

Also got a West Wing tour of the White House. That's right. The West wing. Not everybody gets that tour. But Andy has connections. I got to see the freaking Oval Office. And photos of Bush with a chain saw.

Then, in what was a terrific bit of coincidence (if you believe in that sort of thing), Swank had me work at one of their hotels in Bethesda, MD for the week. Big event where they needed extra camera operators. Some kind of conference about fire safety/analysis/prevention/awareness stuff for nuclear power plants. Not nearly as interesting as it sounds.

Just got back this afternoon, then went to work at my hotel here for a couple hours, then straight to Rohs Street Cafe to run sound, where I am now.

Tomorrow, I go back to work at about 6am, then hopefully out of there by 8am to head to Columbus. Some big game, or something, going on there tomorrow...

Then I have to be back to work at 5:30, so I'll have to leave the game early. But, fortunately, this one should be over quickly.

I'm gonna get some sleep one of these days.

Partisan

Ok, I gave it a couple days, and several beers, and I still don't feel good about Obama. But, I digress.

Everyone's talking about non-partisanship and how it's the only way that our country can survive (a statement that seems quite contradictory if you really think about it). It was perhaps most on everyone's mind in this campaign. We had Joh McCain, famous for "reaching across the aisle," and Barack Obama, who would supposedly bring an end to partisan politics altogether.

Now that Obama has been elected, I don't see partisanship going anywhere.

Of all the Senators in Washington, "That one" has the most liberal voting record. More liberal than even Ted "I-murdered-a-woman" Kennedy. How is someone from that far on the left supposed to be able to reach to the other side?

Then you have his offer to Rahm Immanuel to be his Chief of Staff, his first administration appointment. Yes, good ol' Rahm - the man who is so very non-partisan, that he had this to say about the Republicans: "They can go fuck themselves."

Fantastic.

It was Obama himself who essentially called all of his opponents in the campaign racists. "They're going to try to make me seem scary," he said. "He doesn't look like all the Presidents on the money. Oh, and did I mention he's black?"

Who said that? Who, in any campaign, commercial, add, public address, said this besides him? He's the one trying to make his followers hate us!

How non-partisan is it to say that a certain group of people on the other side, in an instance where you were unaware that you were being recorded, are just "bitter" and "clinging to guns and religion" out of "antipathy towards people who aren't like them"?

What about this man gives anyone the idea that he will rid the country of partisan politics?

"He said he'd bring CHANGE!" Yes, "change" like the (failed) economic policies of Jimmy Carter, and appointing that oh-so-eloquent member of the Clinton administration.

But, really, is partisanship really as bad as we think? Maybe. But here's what I dislike: partisanship for the sake of partisanship. Most of the time, IMO, the truth is very partisan. If the correct way to go favours one side, I don't want it getting being altered in the name of some feel-good, let's-all-get-along attitude. Compromise can destroy perfectly good solutions.

I believe that the cure for ills caused by partisanship is not the seeking of compromise, but the willingness of people to be convinced that their opinion is just wrong and to suck it up.

I look at it this way. I'm a Christian. I believe that I have found the correct way to live my life, and that God and the Bible are the true guides for said life. So when I need to make a decision, an attitude of "non-partisanship" would dictate that I seek other friends of differrent religions to see what they have to say. But I know that what I have is right, so I don't need to. Rather "narrow-minded," but being narrow-minded is ok when you're right. Sure, you don't have to be an ass about it, but you also don't have to be compromising, either.

Another great problem is what most people think non-partisan actually looks like. It would seem that many in the popular media and celebrities believe that "progressive" is non-partisan. They just think it's the way it should be. So, when comedy lampoons conservatives, and the media drools over liberal policy, they think it's normal and mainstream. This could explain why just about all accusations of partisan polotics are aimed at the right, when the left is just as guilty.

I think that's all I wanted to say. Don't feel like proof-reading and adjusting like I normally do.

From the horse's mouth

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

– Norman Thomas, American socialist, 1936

Leave it to good ol' WLW

"The turd sandwich has defeated the turd sandwich with cheese."

Aforementioned earned complaining

Ok, maybe not that bad.

Anyway, I just sincerely hope that I am wrong about Obama. I really do.

But this is a historic night. We have elected our nation's first half-white President.

...You did know that, right? Obama is just as much white as he is black. But, for some reason, as long as you are darker than a reasonable tan, you're black in this country. Any amount of whiteness in there doesn't count.

But they're calling him our first black President. And do I care? No. I don't care what colour he is, I don't trust him to lead our country. Again, I hope I'm wrong.

Bush gave us our first (and second) black Secretary of State, but no one cares. They "sold out." Which, I suppose, is code for "thought for themselves." Sound harsh? Not as harsh as those who called them names like "house negro."

I've said it before, so it's not just bitterness after what happened tonight. I honestly do not think that Obama would have gone anywhere if he was white. Or without teleprompters.

Anyway, that's enough of that. Time to look forward.

Palin/Jindal '12!

There's still time.

Decisions are made by those who show up.

No vote, no complaining. That's the rule.

You do want the right to complain, don't you?

Capitalism is just swell. But people suck.

This is a post that I have been wanting to write for almost a year now. Those of you at UCC and Crossroads, as well as other churches in the area, should remember the Consumed series that our small groups went through. Overall, I enjoyed the series. Materialism is perhaps the biggest pitfall of the modern Western Church. But there was just one tiny thing that bothered me. No, this isn't me taking an isolated statement and using it to pass judgement on an entire series. Like I said, I enjoyed it. I just found this one quote interesting and felt like writing my thoughts on it, and seeing what you thought.

I don't have the quote in front of me, but it was talking about capitalism. It said how capitalism has been the most successful form of economics that the world has ever seen. And that's probably true. But here's what got to me. The gentleman went on to say that we, as Christians, must be aware of this: "capitalism requires greed."

My short response to that statement is this: no, it does not.

That really is quite a statement to make. Especially since he seems to think that it is an important truth for us to accept as good Christians. One of the first things that struck me, other than the patent absurdity of the statement, was the list of credentials listed after his name. It had things like pastor and author, but nothing related to economist or financial expert or anything like that. So immediately I have to question if he really knows what he's talking about. Also, it's dangerous because lots of people are going to take his word as authoritative, even though we don't have any clear reason to do so.

I figured that I should look up capitalism in the dictionary to get an accurate definition to start with. I found several, and none mentioned greed as one of the things necessary for it to function. If anything, I find that capitalism requires the lack of things to function, ie government control. It's all about free market and less restriction. It basically lets people and companies run their businesses how they want, within the law, based on things like supply and demand.

Now, does capitalism allow for greed, and can greedy people do well in a capitalist society? Absolutely. But there is a huge difference between something being required and something being allowed for. It allows for a whole range of human behaviour.

Take this example. You have a guy who really likes fixing cars. So, he opens up an auto-repair shop in his town. He runs his business well, provides great service, and only wants his shop to be successful enough for him to support his family, keep everything running, and pay his employees well. Capitalism is at work, and no greed is required. It happens all the time.

It's just all about letting the people go and have the freedom from government telling them how to run their businesses. If greed exists, it's a human problem, not an economic problem.

Too often, I have people wanting me to blame capitalism for greed. But that's like blaming a cliff for people falling off of it. The cliff didn't push them off, but it didn't do anything to prevent it. It just exists and lets people do as they wish on it.

The problem with this way of thinking (other than it just being factually wrong) is that people could place blame on the wrong things. And if we don't identify the correct source of a problem, we won't fix it.