God Has Heard Your Prayers!

And in record time, no less, as it was just last week that I requested your prayers. However sarcastic I may have been.

A group of conservatives have decided that the Bible as currently translated has a liberal bias. That includes the King James Version. Here's where they're collaborating to retranslate the Bible with it's true conservativism. Cause Jesus would've been a Republican. And my mother is Phyllis Schlafly.

You can google "conservative Bible project" to read a lot of opinions. They range from "liberal" mocking to religious admonishing. And let's not kid ourselves. If you're a conservative being chastised by beliefnet.com, you may have taken things a little too far.

Now, I'm going to address a few problems I have with the project right now. Then, I need to eat. But mostly, since one of their gripes is the the Bible as it's currently translated "improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians," I'm gonna take some time later to show where the Bible encourages "social justice" regardless of the political bent of the translators/ions.

But as of right now, a few things. First, of course, is the most obvious, and that's the error of politicizing the Bible. And let me be clear. Am I a registered Democrat? Yes. Do I believe there is Biblical support for my political position? Yes, and by the way, I can use the original texts of both Testaments to prove my point.

If I'm wrong here, please correct me; but I never have and never will declare that Jesus would be a Democrat.

Again, I want to make sure I'm perfectly understood. Given the option of the two major political parties, and the civic duty to vote, do I think Jesus would vote Democrat? Yes, I actually do. That's my personal opinion.

So what am I trying to say, right? It's more than just not politicizing the Bible. It's my view that God is beyond partisanship. Just like I believe God is beyond gender. I try not to refer to God as "he" as though God is masculine, with a penis and testicals and facial hair. And unless I'm trying to make the point that we could pray, "Our Mother, who aren't in heaven," I shy away from "God/ess." It's not just because typing out "God/ess" is more cumbersome, but that I believe that God is beyond gender so much so that even to suggest God is both male and female would be incorrect. In my personal notes, yeah, I refer to God as "he"; again, it's easier to write than God; I've used that language all my life; and, I know what I really mean. But I don't believe God has a scrotum anymore than I believe God has a vagina. Listen, God is Spirit. God is Immaterial. God didn't come from dust. So let's not bog God down with "dust" labeling.

You get my point? If I were speaking to a group, I might even refer to God as "He" and in other masculine-form nouns to be able to speak about God in a way that wouldn't be distractive. But understand that part of the reason God is referred to as "He" in the Bible is that the word's available to descibe an All-Mighty Being were masculine! Just like "wisdom" in Proverbs is talked about like a woman; but it's the same concept John referres to in his Gospel where he says: "In the beginning was the Word."

So, are we all on the same page here? Yeah, it's my personal opinion that Jesus would be a liberal or progressive. I doubt that Jesus would vote for Democrats if there were a more liberal 3rd party. But my first instinct is that God is far above and beyond 21st century American partisanship.

Especially in light of the fact that even European conservatives support single-payer health systems!

Now. I don't have a problem with someone getting the original Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic so that they can better understand Scripture. In light of the fact that my health prevents me from taking a class in Greek or Hebrew, and that the different lettering makes my head buzz, I watch a lot of Pastor Melissa Scott. I dig her cause she uses these classroom size dry-erase boards to write out the original language, then goes through translating it in her sermons. Oh, it's just great! The lettering still makes my head buzz, but it's not as bad with the English written out nearby. And sorry folks, a complete interlinear Bible is out of my budget right now . . .

Though, if you wanna send a donation, let me know. I'll see if I can set that up! LOL!

So, no. I don't have a problem with the desire to go and dig out the true meaning of the Scriptures. But seeking to translate, or even retranslate (Not everyone wants to go so far as to start from scratch. Some are satisfied with editting the King James Version.), the Bible for the purposes of partisanship is unseemly and even wicked.

That's my first point.

Now, I like others think their goal of "Express[ing] Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning" is asinine, as well as wicked and false. But, I also think they're ignorant as to the meaning of "social justice." Or, at least what activisst mean when we use the term.

So, hopefully in my next post, I'll flesh that out as well as demonstrate God's call for social justice through the entire Bible, any version.

Oh! Let me just say here before I forget and not say at all that social justice, doing what's right and just throughout society, (Did I just flesh it out? I sure hope so.) shouldn't be so partisan an issue that someone would claim that Christians either shouldn't be involved in a movement for social justice or are motivated by false Bible translations that supports  it. (What? Huh?) In fact, it shouldn't be a partisan issue at all.

But anyway, God heard your prayers. :eye roll:

Last of the Dumasses

I'm sure you know the saying: those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it.

And quite possibly, you're aware of how ridiculously stupid/ignorant/unlearned Americans are. And I mean dumb as a box of rocks . . . apologies to all boxes of rocks.

I mean really. Do you really think that people from half way around the world "hate us for our freedom" enough to kill us? -> Which reminds me. I'm so glad these townhalls are over! If I had to hear another white person go all Cinque from Amistad, "Give us us free!" I was gonna pop! I mean seriously. Can you be more dumb and insensitive?

Again, dumb as a box of rocks . . . apologies to all boxes of rocks.

The lesson that should've been learned is that the US did not get out of the Great Depression until WWII forced us to the federal government to spend money like a scorned woman with her husband's credit card. Or, to be more gender neutral, like a cheating husband with his mistress.

Instead of cowaring to 'Pubs, congressional Democrats and the Obama administration need to put more people to work. If 'Pub governors like Jindal or Perry wish to keep their states in recession, so be it. Do the right thing, homies!!

The Truth About Jobs That No One Wants to Tell

If the feds don't spend money to put people back
to work, the economy won't recover and politics
will get uglier

By Robert Reich
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/10/02/unemployment/

Oct. 2, 2009

Unemployment will almost certainly be in double-digits next year -- and may remain there for some time. And for every person who shows up as unemployed in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' household survey, you can bet there's another either too discouraged to look for work or working part time who'd rather have a full-time job or else taking home less pay than before (I'm in the last category, now that the University of California has instituted pay cuts). And there's yet another person who's more fearful that he or she will be next to lose a job.

In other words, 10 percent unemployment really means 20 percent underemployment or anxious employment. All of which translates directly into late payments on mortgages, credit cards, auto and student loans, and loss of health insurance. It also means sleeplessness for tens of millions of Americans. And, of course, fewer purchases (more on this in a moment).

Unemployment of this magnitude and duration also translates into ugly politics, because fear and anxiety are fertile grounds for demagogues wielding the politics of resentment against immigrants, blacks, the poor, government leaders, business leaders, Jews and other easy targets. It's already started. Next year is a mid-term election. Be prepared for worse.

So why is unemployment and underemployment so high, and why is it likely to remain high for some time? Because, as noted, people who are worried about their jobs or have no jobs, and who are also trying to get out from under a pile of debt, are not going to do a lot of shopping. And businesses that don't have customers aren't going to do a lot of new investing. And foreign nations also suffering high unemployment aren't going to buy a lot of our goods and services.

And without customers, companies won't hire. They'll cut payrolls instead.

Which brings us to the obvious question: Who's going to buy the stuff we make or the services we provide, and therefore bring jobs back? There's only one buyer left: The government.

Let me say this as clearly and forcefully as I can: The federal government should be spending even more than it already is on roads and bridges and schools and parks and everything else we need. It should make up for cutbacks at the state level, and then some. This is the only way to put Americans back to work. We did it during the Depression. It was called the WPA.

Yes, I know. Our government is already deep in debt. But let me tell you something: When one out of six Americans is unemployed or underemployed, this is no time to worry about the debt.

When I was a small boy my father told me that I and my kids and my grand-kids would be paying down the debt created by Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Depression and World War II. I didn't even know what a debt was, but it kept me up at night.

My father was right about a lot of things, but he was wrong about this. America paid down FDR's debt in the 1950s, when Americans went back to work, when the economy was growing again, and when our incomes grew, too. We paid taxes, and in a few years that FDR debt had shrunk to almost nothing.

You see? The most important thing right now is getting the jobs back, and getting the economy growing again.

People who now obsess about government debt have it backwards. The problem isn't the debt. The problem is just the opposite. It's that at a time like this, when consumers and businesses and exports can't do it, government has to spend more to get Americans back to work and recharge the economy. Then - after people are working and the economy is growing -- we can pay down that debt.

But if government doesn't spend more right now and get Americans back to work, we could be out of work for years. And the debt will be with us even longer. And politics could get much uglier.

Update: This morning's job numbers are bad enough -- 263,000 more jobs lost in September, and unemployment now at 9.8 percent -- but look behind them and the news is even grimmer. The only reason the numbers don't look worse is that 571,000 workers dropped out of the labor force. Remember, too, that the economy needs about 125,000 new jobs every month just to keep up with a growing population. So we're even further behind.

The numbers would be even worse but for the stimulus package. According to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, the stimulus is saving or creating between 200,000 and 250,000 jobs a month. Without it, job losses in September would have been nearly twice what they actually were.

State governments, meanwhile, continue to shed employees. Here's one of the most depressing statistics I've seen (if you need any additional ones): Some 15,600 teachers didn't return to work in September. They were laid off. So our classrooms are bigger, we have fewer teachers, and our students are presumably learning less -- at the very time when they need to be learning more than ever.

The Ego Has Landed!!!

Okay so yeah, I had this thought earlier today, but was working on the healthcare post.

So anyway. Chicago lost its bit to host the Olympics. Rio de Janeiro won. I'm quite pleased that Rio won. I cheer for Latin America, much of which is steeped in African tradition and heritage. I'm not sure how I feel about the way Rio treats its poor; but be that is it may, I'm not happy that Chicago lost.

Conservatives and 'Publicans are. Beck and Rush, though, are. The headline "The Ego Has Landed" is borrowed from the drudgereport. However, I can't bring myself to link you to any idiot (re: conservative) sites, so this will have to do.

But. If you know me, you know my contrary thinking found a silver lining, gold even, around this particular cloud.

1. Since "the world reject has rejected Obama", that should put an end to all the "Obama is the anti-Christ" dribble.
2. It should also put an end to the Obama new global world order nonsense.
3. No more false patriotism.

I think that's it. I'll update if I come up with anymore.

Die Quickly!

Okay, so Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fl) is one of my new heroes. I have some other new heroines after watching Oprah yesterday (Oct 1, 2009); but more about them in another post.

Recently, the minority leader in the House of Congress, Rep John Boehner claimed not to have taked to a regular person who supported the public option. I think he's lying, but I called his DC office, hoping to talk to him, anyway. He wasn't available. Probably somewhere lying some more. So I talked to the staff person who answered the phone. Boehner's objects to the public option are standard 'Publican dribble. But, as you know, there are somethings in their argument I just can't figure out.

So first off, a public option could eventually take over the private industry, according to Boehner. I'm left to wonder how exactly that would work, as though people would "opt" into it against their will. So of course, I point out that the option would have to operate like a regular private company, collecting revenue and premiums and all. Then the guy said something about Medicare running up the national debt. And I was confused on a number of levels.

Sorry, but genius though I be, if you say something stupid enough, you can leave my speechless.

I responded that I didn't think the guy was being completely accurate, but as the point was to record my support for the public option, I went ahead and ended the call. But, still bothered by the issue of the of Medicare adding to the national debt. "Huh?" The first thing that came to mind was that Social Security was running low, but I knew that was because previous administrations had been raiding the Social Security trust fund in order to afford tax cuts. But that wasn't the case with Medicare. Also, if Medicare is rising to the national debt, and it's not because we're just printing money to fund it (If that were the case, I'm certain we'd have heard it by now.), then isn't the problem the rising cost of healthcare altogether? What does that have to do with Medicare? Doesn't that mean that everybody's being hit?

So I do some quick research. I discovered that healthcare costs are being driven up by over-treatment. "Huh?"

From the AARP:

Of our total $2.3 trillion health care bill last year, a whopping $500 billion to $700 billion was spent on treatments, tests, and hospitalizations that did nothing to improve our health. Even worse, new evidence suggests that too much health care may actually be killing us. According to estimates by Elliott Fisher, M.D., a noted Dartmouth researcher, unnecessary care leads to the deaths of as many as 30,000 Medicare recipients annually.

To his credit, the guy did mention that the public option wouldn't contain rising healthcare costs, and would end up in the red like Medicare, which is how Medicare got brought up. But as I recall, the public option isn't supposed to contain costs; there're other parts of the president's plan that would do that like adjusting provider compensation. And that's something the president wants to do (via his Minnesota townhall transcript):

Now, think about that if car -- auto repair shops operated the same way. You take your car in and you get it fixed, and a week later the thing is broken again. You go in. The guy says, well, let me charge you all over again, and I'll do just the same thing. That doesn't make sense. So what we've said is, let's give hospitals an incentive. Let's say to the hospitals, we're going to charge you for overall treatment of whatever the problem is. And if you get it right the first time, you get to keep a little extra money. But if you keep on having the person coming back again and again, then there's a disincentive.

But he doesn't meant to use the public option to do so.

Some other reasons we've been spending more on healthcare than on food is probably how much we spend on food! We're just not doing enough to take care of ourselves and prevent illnesses like diabetes.

Two other sites where you can find some answers to any questions talking to a conservative might raise are Kaiser Family Foundation and the National Coalition on Healthcare.

But, if I made any news, it's that Republicans don't like Medicare as much as they've been recently saying.

Pray for Me!

Oh, my Lord! I am so upset right now.

Originally, I intended to mock Liberty Counsel's "Adopt a Liberal" project. But now, I'm a little pissed. To answer David Waters's questions, prayer initiatives like these are condescending. I would agree that Jim Wallis was also being condescending about prayer for Glenn Beck except that Beck has asked for prayer and clearly needs it. To Waters's second question, prayer should not be politicized.

Especially if you're the one spouting off about the bi-racial president being racist towards whites and also about armed uprisings.

But I digress. Here's the thing. I cannot for the life of me figure how people who claim to love "freedom," who're currently decrying the intrusion of government between patients and their doctors, can deny gays and lesbians the freedom to marry and feel free to intrude between a woman and her doctor.

But mostly, I'm pissed about the misappropriation of my own faith. It makes me want to scream!!

All those people hanging all over Jesus? Does anyone really think that not one of the "sinners and publicans" dining with Jesus was gay. Not one? And for all that's written in the Bible, do we really think it's just an oddity that no where does the Bible explicitly prohibit purposely ending a pregnancy pre-term?

And to conservative Christians, do you really suggest gays and lesbians, or women who've had abortions, are beyond God's reach? If you believe abortion is a sin, is it somehow not among the multitude that love covers?

Now, am I saying homosexuality is okay with God? That God smiles at abortions? No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that it's not up to me what other people do. All I can do is show them the love of Christ. Who, by the way, passed up the chance to stone a woman caught in the act of adultery. Who ministered to Samaritans and even gave a good Samaritan the starring role in a parable?

And speaking of parables . . . what about the one where the father runs out to meet and hug his long-lost son? Doesn't the whole story all start with the father honoring his son's request for his share of the inheritance?

And please, please!! Someone help me understand how or why God would hold us responsible for gay marriage and abortions, but not for the nearly 45,000 people who die each year because they have no health insurance?

Oh, and by the way, I'd have an easier time taking your anti-abortion stance seriously if you didn't link it to the need for more low-wage workers.

So by all means, please keep praying! Cause I've found prayer does more to change the one praying than the people they're praying for. And I trust you'll find the same.

Did I just politicize prayer? No. This isn't about Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. This is about not taking the Lord's name in vain and/or blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.

But if you disagree and think that I am politicizing prayer, then . . . don't pray.