Meeting Blago

I met Rod Blagojevich yesterday.

He was coming out of Medici, a Hyde Park restaurant, and me and my CTS buddies Shaun and Adam were heading into Edwardo’s, a pizzeria a couple doors down.  The first thing I noticed was his hair.

As we were telling one another that yes, it really was Rod Blagojevich in the flesh, he caught us staring and came over with a grin, hand outstretched:  ”Hey guys, wanna meet an innocent ex-governor?”  We shook hands, as he gave a mini-version of the same spiel he gives everywhere these days: it’s been difficult, but I can’t wait until everything gets cleared up, and yes, it’s definitely going to be all cleared up.

He asked if we attend the University (of Chicago).  No, says Adam, we go to Chicago Theological Seminary.  Now this seemed to strike a chord.  Eyes widening, he prattled on for a moment about how this experience has really brought him closer to God, you know?  He wants us to know that he’s not just saying that because we’re seminarians, but he really believes it’s true: this is all part of God’s plan.  Maybe so, I think to myself.

Then one of his companions whisked him away to snap a picture with some coeds.  We three seminarians walked into Edwardo’s, and I said, “I don’t think we did a very good job speaking truth to power just then.  Then again, he’s doesn’t exactly have much power these days…”

—

As a post-script, it has since occurred to me that I need to have some quick theology ready for the next time I run into a famous, influential person, fallen or otherwise.  No more getting caught speechless.  What would you say?  (Photo credit: Adam Yates)

On Obama (maybe) overturning the ‘conscience rule’

This just in my inbox, courtesy of the far-right, anti-choice, anti-marriage, anti-family “American Family Association”:

According to several news agencies, President Barack Obama will rescind the “conscience rule” that protects health workers who refuse to participate in abortions or other medical procedures that go against their moral and religious beliefs. If the rule is rescinded, doctors, nurses and other health care workers could lose their jobs or be punished professionally for adhering to their sincerely held religious convictions. Obama’s proposal would take away their religious freedom…

No. It would take away their option to deny medical care to which their patients have a legal right, on the basis of their personal convictions.

Let me be the first to acknowledge that every job is not for everyone.  I, for instance, would never want to work in a far-right, anti-choice, anti-marriage, anti-family organization like AFA. However, in the event hell freezes over and if I did apply for a job there, should I be allowed to opt out of whatever aspects of that job are objectionable to my religious beliefs? Or should I maybe find another job for which I’m better suited for the tasks? I think the latter.

Congressional Republicans vs. Republicans who deal with real world finances

Guess it’s easier to be a grandstanding Congressional Republican than a Republican governor who must balance actual budgets:

WASHINGTON — President Obama must wish governors could vote in Congress: While just three of the 219 Republican lawmakers backed the $787 billion economic recovery plan that he is signing into law on Tuesday, that trifling total would have been several times greater if support among the 22 Republican state executives counted.

The contrast reflects the two faces of the Republican Party these days.

Leaderless after losing the White House, the party is mostly defined by its Congressional wing, which flaunted its anti-spending ideology in opposing the stimulus package. That militancy drew the mockery of late-night television comics, but the praise of conservative talk-show stars and the party faithful.

< — snip — >

Governors, unlike members of Congress, have to balance their budgets each year. And that requires compromise with state legislators, including Democrats, as well as more openness to the occasional state tax increase and to deficit-spending from Washington.

Funny how the question of stimulus isn’t actually as partisan in real life as the Congressional Republicans would have us believe.  Not sure why, but this reminds me of all those armchair warriors leading up to war in Iraq.

Dear Gov. Blagojevich…(2)

Um.

This, sir, is not what I had in mind when I asked you to resign:

“I intend to stay on the job and I will fight this thing every step of the way,” he said in an appearance at the James R. Thompson Center in downtown Chicago. “I will fight, I will fight, I will fight, till I take my very last breath. I have done nothing wrong.”

Not even close.

The pastoral part of me feels sort of bad…like there’s something seriously wrong here, and he’s obviously not getting the help he needs.  Still holding the governor, his family, and the rest of us Illinoisans in prayer.

Michelle Malkin whips up violent, anti-gay frenzy

Conservative author/commentator/blogger Michelle Malkin has a new post out as part of an ongoing series about persecuted straight people in the aftermath of Prop. 8.  From what I can tell, her modus operandi is to blog about as many hyped-up, isolated instances of anti-Prop. 8 violence, vandalism or harassment as she can.  She does this in order to sell the broader narrative that the good, normal, straight people who supported Prop. 8 are under threat of attack by a vicious mob of crazed queers, who evidently roam the streets looking for church-going grandmothers to kick (and/or sodomize, probably).

Let me be clear:  I deplore individual and mob violence, and categorically condemn the few instances of vandalism to church and/or personal property that has occurred in the aftermath of Prop. 8’s passage.  I have written here and here about our need to maintain respectful dialogue and avoid scapegoating the Mormon Church in particular as we move forward.  But to those on the right who are shocked – shocked! by the huge groups of protesters who are inexplicably pissed that gay people have been relegated to second-class citizenship, get over yourselves.  You made that bed, now we all must sleep in it.

At any rate, Michelle Malkin’s persecuted-majority complex can be ignored easily enough, but she is apparently influential enough to inspire actual violent rage amongst some of her readers.  Check out these comments on just one recent thread of hers:

These comments, coming from just this one post (I’m not sure I have the stomach to comb through looking for more), belie a shocking anti-gay sentiment that is murderous at its core.  It’s amazing what people will say under the guise of Internet anonymity.

Here’s a “note from Michelle” at the onset of the comments section (emphasis mine):

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com’s community of registered readers. Please don’t assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Okay, that’s worth noting.  Nobody should be held directly responsible for comments that others make on your blog, unless you fail to deal with them in an appropriate and timely fashion.  Yet, her aforementioned terms of use clearly state the following (in part, emphasis mine):

…I reserve the right to delete your comments or revoke your registration for any reason whatsoever. Rarely will I do so simply because I disagree with you. I will, however, usually do so if you post something that is, in my opinion, (a) off-topic; (b) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate these terms of use or any law, including intellectual property laws; or (c) “spam,” i.e., an attempt to advertise, solicit, or otherwise promote goods and services…

Well, lookit that – Malkin “usually” purges her blog of such sentiments.  Okay, well, it’s been four six ten days since the above comments have sat on her site.  Let’s see how long they remain.

Finally, a note to Michelle, from a fellow Oberlin grad:  it seems to me that if your main thesis is about how out-of-control, violent and crazy those people are out there, then perhaps you should think take care that your words don’t engender out-of-control, violent, crazed people in your own backyard.  And if that happens anyway, then perhaps you should use the means you have already given yourself to purge those sentiments from the website in your name.

Dear Governor Blagojevich,

 As a voting constituent, I ask that you resign immediately in light of your having been arrested by the FBI on corruption charges.  Healing for both you personally and for the state of Illinois will take a while.  The least you can do for your constituents is allow us the much-needed opportunity to move on.  I hold you, your family, and our great state in prayer.

Very sincerely,

Tom Ryberg

Enough Mormon-bashing.

In the wake of the passage of Proposition 8 in California, I join the many who lament the prospect that equal marriage rights for LGBT people will be delayed once again.  I am appalled by the narrow and shallow theological assumptions about marriage and family that the anti-marriage religious folks espouse.  Mostly, I am outraged that God has been co-opted as a means of denying equal, civil rights to my queer friends and family in California and elsewhere.

Nonetheless, the anti-Mormon backlash is unwarranted.  I understand that people are angry – I’m angry – and I am particularly angry at the Catholic, Mormon, and other church leaders who have mounted this vigorous and discriminatory campaign.  However, efforts like this, to single-out and scapegoat Mormons in particular, based on their support of Prop. 8, are unfair – and, I believe, rooted in the oppression that Mormons have historically faced.

More on this soon.  In the meantime, let’s not cede the high road, nor the opportunity to build bridges and coalitions, for the sake of our cause.

God and Election 2008, cont.

In this video, Mike Blejer offers another look at the role that God may have had in this election.  (My take can be found here.) Mike’s a friend of mine from college, and is an emerging comedian in the DC area.

In which I help the “guilt by association” smear-mongers

There’s a post over at my favorite conservative blog* calling on the McCain campaign to run “guilt by association” ads against Barack Obama in the swing states.  One at a time, 30 seconds each:  Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, etc.

Frankly, I believe the subtext of such ads is absurd: Obama knows people who are crazy!  Ergo, he would be a bad president. In my comment, I remarked that it’s a shame that this poster apparently doesn’t believe that John McCain can win simply on issues that are legitimate.

Nonetheless, I’m ashamed to admit that this idea did get my creative juices flowing.  Therefore, here’s my suggestion for the Barack Obama/Bill Ayers “guilt by association” ad.  It would be called “TERRORIST LOVER”:

(Ominous Music)

NARRATOR: Barack Hussein Obama knows a guy who is a real bastard.

ON SCREEN: Obama...a real bastard.

NARRATOR: Barack Hussein Obama and aging-hippie terrorist Bill Ayers once served on the board of a charity…AT THE SAME TIME.

ON SCREEN: HOLY F**KING SH*T

NARRATOR: Terrorist Ayers even donated $200 to one of Barack Hussein Obama’s political campaigns once.

ON SCREEN: OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG

NARRATOR: Barack Hussein Obama is a terrorist-lover.

ON SCREEN: Believe it, b*tches.

NARRATOR: It’s time to ask the question: who is the real Barack Hussein Obama?

ON SCREEN: ANSWER: somebody who wants to bomb your house.

* patterico.com really is my favorite conservative blog.  It’s the only one I ever read.  It takes a non-religious, reason-based, conservative approach to the issues.  Patterico and I disagree on basically everything (though he actually does support same-sex marriage, which is cool).  Nonetheless, as a rule, the front-page posters are reasonable, respectful, and (somewhat) post-partisan, which is commendable.  Also, they practice free speech over there, allowing and encouraging dissenting opinions to be expressed in good faith dialogue (though such will be roundly challenged by the regulars).  Suffice to say it’s a good site for another view.

What McCain and Obama’s tax plans reveal about their priorities

The Washington Post has an interesting graphic which gives a good visual for both McCain and Obama’s tax priorities.  It’s easy to see the difference between the two:  for McCain, the more money you already have, the more you’ll get back from the government.  The less you have, the less you’ll get.  For Obama, those who have the least receive the most tax support proportionally:

These figures are based on the Tax Policy Center’s analysis of the candidate’s proposals.  (The full report is available on pdf here.)

What’s particularly striking to me is what this says about each candidate’s priorities.  John McCain evidently believes that those who have the most should be given the most back – both in terms of actual dollars and percentages of tax decreases.  Barack Obama has the exact opposite philosophy here:  those who have the least actually get the highest percentages back.

As a Christian first, but also as an American who believes in fairness and equal opportunity, I frankly can’t understand where John McCain is coming from.  The idea of giving the most to those who already have the most, and giving the least to those who have the least is completely backward. It belies the interests of economic greed to which McCain is beholden.  It is out of touch not only with the needs of real people, but with the biblical idea of whom in society should we really be helping.  If this is an example of how John McCain’s values translate to policy, he should be opposed not only on political but moral grounds.

UPDATE: Commenter cheyenne alerts us to another chart of the same data, created by chartjunk.  This one offers a visual that corresponds to the size of the U.S. population.