Sorry, Duane. Both bills were good, and protect the public. Compulsory extracting of dues protects a small minority. Unions are a good idea gone bad. In The US, they have outlived their usefulness by many decades. See the attached: 'Right-to-work' means freedom and choice
I’m sorry to hear about your job. My employment situation also seems rather grim.
Thanks for admitting what many deny, that the carbon will be released anyway. Still, I’d like to point out an inconsistency: when Obama created temporary jobs by borrowing, he was a hero. But when private individuals invest their own money and create a mix of temporary and long term jobs, your response is a vague assertion of a conspiracy to export the oil after all. Hmmmm
I had understood that the Port Arthur refineries had excess capacity. The area also has experienced personnel, something that may be in short supply in Montana and Washington, even if it makes sense to build a new refinery closer to the source. What is often left out is that this pipeline will be built with private funds. This is a great chance for government to get out of the way and let private enterprise, for all its faults, do what it does best: create jobs.<?xml:namespace prefix = o />
The carbon will go into the atmosphere in North America or in China one way or another. Why play politics with this? Yes, it is consistent with the President's philosophy that Big Government is better than private citizens and corporations, but why play politics with jobs, just to make a point and "send a message"?
As for your article recomendation, it reminds me of a comment from a Caribbean friend of mine. He was surprised when I told him how common it was for slaves to be raped in the American South. This was in contrast to S. Africa (where he often travelled for work), where any form of sexual mixing was taboo.
My comment today is that both historical situations were very, very sad. But we can rejoice at the fact that today, at least some of God's laws are being followed in these areas: Sex is for marriage only, and we are not to steal labor from or otherwise oppress the weak.
What, exactly, constitutes structural violence? The Canadian tar sands oil will be burned here, or in China. It won’t stay in the earth, yet the “morally pure” crowd wants the blame for the pollution, and all the jobs, to go beyond our borders. This is absurd: we are hobbling our amazing productivity and technology with endless regulations and short sighted decisions. We kick the can down the road so the next generation is obligated to pay for our “stimulus” bills—which haven’t worked, by the way. The youth of today will pay interest on their elder’s mistakes, and everyone pays for it with high unemployment. Yes, the rich and the entrepreneurs shouldn’t be allowed to break the law, but when they do their job right, everyone benefits. We need better structures, and less of the “blame the Republicans” rhetoric that this column reeks of.
"This is shameful. People are falling into poverty because of pay cuts, reduced work hours, housing and child-care costs. They are also falling into poverty because of increased health-care costs." Why is Obama imposing an excise tax on medical devices, then? THAT's shameful. Why do ONE in SIX government employees make $100,000/year or more, with lavish benefits and lifetime employment? It's shameful that these excessive wages are only being frozen, not cut. And, yes, there are plenty of other things to cut, but raising taxes on the rich is not as simple as the columnist asserts. If we want taxes back where they were in 2000, how about putting government spending back there, too? This column is amazingly one sided, as if only Jim-Wallis style liberals care about any of this. I care, I just don't think Jim&the Sojo staff have the magic bullet with their "vote democrat" drumbeat.
That approach (true diversity, as opposed to "I know what diversity is and I'm going to MAKE you accept it") could work for many things, like sex ed. Instead of arguing over the One Best Curriculum: abstinence only v. Planned Parenthood style, different speakers could advocate each point of view. In the arena of international health education, this is already done, after a fashion. Different HIV educational materials are needed in Muslim countries (this last point is from a friend of mine who works on WHO programs and has a Ph.D. in Health Education.)
Thank you for pointing this out, Borgata. The country isn't really divided into Blue States and Red States, but Blue and Red counties. Countrywide, the Blue Counties are the cities AND their suburbs. Even in so-called "blue" states, the rural counties consistently voted Republican in 2008; the few exceptions were in states with very large black populations. There are, of course, many low income people who do not live in cities.
Neither Sam nor I have accused Obama of any of those things! How are we to be held responsble, in such strident terms? For what would King "call me out" ? Are we holding you responsble for specific failures of the Left? Obama is plainly not a Muslim; he is a very liberal Protestant. In contrast with Jim's column, the President managed to give an entire Christmas address without mentioning sin or the atonement, just as nearly anyone else from the UCC would do.
BlueDeacon, I count you as a friend and brother in Christ, yet you are not advocating Peace on Earth toward anyone. You have refused olive branches from at least two posters here, including my appeal to the examples of Cal Thomas and King. Are you certain that the only reason King was nice to the Birmingham clergy is that they were sympathetic liberals? Would King have assumed that I am an enemy, as you are doing, in violation of Sojourners charge to you to give me the benefit of the doubt? Are all conservatives hopeless? Should I just "chill out" and shut up?
Your attitude is MOST unlike Cal Thomas' and his co-author. You "reject my charge of partisanship" and then pull out the ultimate partisan slur, the race card. My friend, please reread the Sojourners Covenant:
I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)
Your tone is also most unlike King's in "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" You might reread that as well, and learn from it.
...and, according to Cal Thomas, Ted Kennedy spoke at Liberty U. at Falwell's invitation, and was a guest in his home. You are only noticing the bad stuff--and there is plenty, I'm sad to say--and ignoring anything that doesn't fit with your chosen position. You are contributing mightily to the partisan rancor Cal Thmoas denounced in this book, co-written with a liberal. "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That Is Destroying America "
However, I do agree with this: ' Besides, political action (which is what he [Jim] is talking about) should not be confused with "big government." '
I'm not exactly sure what you meant, but I can't see how the poor are empowered by paying one in six federal employees $100,000 yearly, or more, with lavish benefits and lifetime empolyment. The poor would have much more influence if government employee unions had less. A smaller government needn't mean less influence for "the least of these."
I didn't say their actions were indistinguishable or identical, but there is plenty of guilt to go around. Until we all--every one of us, Democrat or Republican-- admit our sinfulness, and repent, there will be no peace. Our sinfulness is why there is Christmas at all,and Jesus, as the solution, is the only thing worth celebrating.
Sorry, both sides are guilty here. And ranting and raving about "the 1%" isn't making anything better. You aren't doing that, and neither is Jim, but the anger is out there: I don't hear Elizabeth Warren warning Occupy Boston to tone down their rhetoric. Christmas wouldn't be overcommercialized if only "the 1%" were getting it wrong!
I've heard those things as well; they may or may not be true. Mary and Joseph sacrificed the lesser of the two permitted offerings, but some think only the very richest folks chose the display of the more expensive sacrifice. However, there are plenty of other places where God shows his passion for justice and concern for the poor. (Which could include the unborn, who are too poor to afford a lawyer and too silent to speak with one). What is debatable is whether this concern should be shown by adopting the the rhetoric of "empowering the poor" by enlarging government and raising taxes again anad again, or by personal charity. Jim is obviously a fan of Big Government, but disagreeing with him doesn't necessarily mean joining the Religious Right. We need more than two choices, or a revival of bipartisanship.
You make some good points, Jim. but Fox News didn't invent the commercialization of Christmas; that was going strong long before Fox even existed. And there are many who disagree with you that religious symbols are an appropriate display, including the Freedom From Religion Foundation, who insists that depecting the Incarnation is an insult. (This, interestingly, is not due to FFR's ignorance, but because of their understanding of the connection between the Incarnation and human sin!)
I came across this as a "related link" from Ashley Baxstrom 's column. She complained that Rick Perry was bringing his religion into politics, but apparently she doesn't feel she should complain that Jim Wallis, though not a Republican, is doing the same thing.
As for Jim's thoughtful column: almost two years later, and not only are there no comments on this blog, but no one seems to have listened to the message. Everyone is still blaming the other guy (or the other gal, if her name is Sarah or Michelle). Jim complained about the "It's all about me" mindset, as if only Wall St. tycoons think that way. What about the football player that asks the cheerleader to sleep with him on prom night? "It's all about me" says his request for sex, insisting that she trade her virginity away for . . . . . .nothing. Except regrets. "Hey, I used a condom. What more can you ask of me, girl?" Well, is a "lifetime commitment," in advance, too much to ask??
Such rampant selfishness is considered normal, and virginity is weird, unless you're ugly, or frigid, or one of those Jesus freaks.
We need to repent for a lot more than our economic sins.
I didn't say a word about forcing "faith" on anyone. But the entire “God’s Politics” blog is about how best to mix Religion and Politics. While the author is free to hold her opinions, it baffles me why she is expressing such views here!
Freedom FROM religion would involve its suppression, which goes against the free exercise clause.
This post mistakenly favors a partisan interpretation of the establishment clause over the free exercise clause. Freedom of religion most certainly does NOT mean freedom from religion. We all have a religion, and the religion of secularism or pluralism must not be favored by the courts, and especially must not be favored on a site that is otherwise Christian.
I am sorry to see such a column on the Sojourners site.
Wanting someone to have a job is compassionate, it's conservatism, and there is nothing oxymoronic about that. If you want an oxymoron, how about "government jobs:" a solution that's been tried, and obviously doesn't work.
I suggest you reread Jim's column, and the comment guidelnes, before you post again.
Great column, Jim! This may be the least partisan column I can remember in literally decades of following you. My one quibble is the headline, which doesn't reflect your column very well. True, folks in the middle, like the Bart Stupaks on the other side of the aisle, aren't doing well these days, and that's sad. But they haven't completely disappeared! Merry Christmas!
Official rhetoric has helped fuel an escalation of tension between the United States and Iran. Do recent negotiations mark a change in direction, or just a temporary detour from the highway to military attack?
Comments
Sorry, Duane. Both bills were good, and protect the public. Compulsory extracting of dues protects a small minority. Unions are a good idea gone bad. In The US, they have outlived their usefulness by many decades. See the attached: 'Right-to-work' means freedom and choice
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
February 1, 2012
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/11101/right-to-work-means-freedom-and-choice
I’m sorry to hear about your job. My employment situation also seems rather grim.
Thanks for admitting what many deny, that the carbon will be released anyway. Still, I’d like to point out an inconsistency: when Obama created temporary jobs by borrowing, he was a hero. But when private individuals invest their own money and create a mix of temporary and long term jobs, your response is a vague assertion of a conspiracy to export the oil after all. Hmmmm
I had understood that the Port Arthur refineries had excess capacity. The area also has experienced personnel, something that may be in short supply in Montana and Washington, even if it makes sense to build a new refinery closer to the source. What is often left out is that this pipeline will be built with private funds. This is a great chance for government to get out of the way and let private enterprise, for all its faults, do what it does best: create jobs.<?xml:namespace prefix = o />
The carbon will go into the atmosphere in North America or in China one way or another. Why play politics with this? Yes, it is consistent with the President's philosophy that Big Government is better than private citizens and corporations, but why play politics with jobs, just to make a point and "send a message"?
You are welcome.
As for your article recomendation, it reminds me of a comment from a Caribbean friend of mine. He was surprised when I told him how common it was for slaves to be raped in the American South. This was in contrast to S. Africa (where he often travelled for work), where any form of sexual mixing was taboo.
My comment today is that both historical situations were very, very sad. But we can rejoice at the fact that today, at least some of God's laws are being followed in these areas: Sex is for marriage only, and we are not to steal labor from or otherwise oppress the weak.
Thank you! That was a great column.
Here is a link to another column I liked, sort of a commentary on King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/11020/a-lesson-from-birmingham-jail
A fair question, Hazel.
And, for the columnist:
What, exactly, constitutes structural violence? The Canadian tar sands oil will be burned here, or in China. It won’t stay in the earth, yet the “morally pure” crowd wants the blame for the pollution, and all the jobs, to go beyond our borders. This is absurd: we are hobbling our amazing productivity and technology with endless regulations and short sighted decisions. We kick the can down the road so the next generation is obligated to pay for our “stimulus” bills—which haven’t worked, by the way. The youth of today will pay interest on their elder’s mistakes, and everyone pays for it with high unemployment. Yes, the rich and the entrepreneurs shouldn’t be allowed to break the law, but when they do their job right, everyone benefits. We need better structures, and less of the “blame the Republicans” rhetoric that this column reeks of.
"This is shameful. People are falling into poverty because of pay cuts, reduced work hours, housing and child-care costs. They are also falling into poverty because of increased health-care costs." Why is Obama imposing an excise tax on medical devices, then? THAT's shameful. Why do ONE in SIX government employees make $100,000/year or more, with lavish benefits and lifetime employment? It's shameful that these excessive wages are only being frozen, not cut. And, yes, there are plenty of other things to cut, but raising taxes on the rich is not as simple as the columnist asserts. If we want taxes back where they were in 2000, how about putting government spending back there, too? This column is amazingly one sided, as if only Jim-Wallis style liberals care about any of this. I care, I just don't think Jim&the Sojo staff have the magic bullet with their "vote democrat" drumbeat.
That approach (true diversity, as opposed to "I know what diversity is and I'm going to MAKE you accept it") could work for many things, like sex ed. Instead of arguing over the One Best Curriculum: abstinence only v. Planned Parenthood style, different speakers could advocate each point of view. In the arena of international health education, this is already done, after a fashion. Different HIV educational materials are needed in Muslim countries (this last point is from a friend of mine who works on WHO programs and has a Ph.D. in Health Education.)
Peace to all of you! God's favor rests. . . .
Thank you for pointing this out, Borgata. The country isn't really divided into Blue States and Red States, but Blue and Red counties. Countrywide, the Blue Counties are the cities AND their suburbs. Even in so-called "blue" states, the rural counties consistently voted Republican in 2008; the few exceptions were in states with very large black populations. There are, of course, many low income people who do not live in cities.
Neither Sam nor I have accused Obama of any of those things! How are we to be held responsble, in such strident terms? For what would King "call me out" ? Are we holding you responsble for specific failures of the Left? Obama is plainly not a Muslim; he is a very liberal Protestant. In contrast with Jim's column, the President managed to give an entire Christmas address without mentioning sin or the atonement, just as nearly anyone else from the UCC would do.
BlueDeacon, I count you as a friend and brother in Christ, yet you are not advocating Peace on Earth toward anyone. You have refused olive branches from at least two posters here, including my appeal to the examples of Cal Thomas and King. Are you certain that the only reason King was nice to the Birmingham clergy is that they were sympathetic liberals? Would King have assumed that I am an enemy, as you are doing, in violation of Sojourners charge to you to give me the benefit of the doubt? Are all conservatives hopeless? Should I just "chill out" and shut up?
Your attitude is MOST unlike Cal Thomas' and his co-author. You "reject my charge of partisanship" and then pull out the ultimate partisan slur, the race card. My friend, please reread the Sojourners Covenant:
I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)
Your tone is also most unlike King's in "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" You might reread that as well, and learn from it.
Well, no, except maybe the ones who snip out the verses they don't like;-)
And you are doubtless more clever than the redaction-maniacs.
( Don't forget Lk. 9:58, while you're at it)
Thank you, Dori. Adding the Menorah would promote true diversity far more than tearing down the Nativity.
...and, according to Cal Thomas, Ted Kennedy spoke at Liberty U. at Falwell's invitation, and was a guest in his home. You are only noticing the bad stuff--and there is plenty, I'm sad to say--and ignoring anything that doesn't fit with your chosen position. You are contributing mightily to the partisan rancor Cal Thmoas denounced in this book, co-written with a liberal. "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That Is Destroying America "
However, I do agree with this: ' Besides, political action (which is what he [Jim] is talking about) should not be confused with "big government." '
I'm not exactly sure what you meant, but I can't see how the poor are empowered by paying one in six federal employees $100,000 yearly, or more, with lavish benefits and lifetime empolyment. The poor would have much more influence if government employee unions had less. A smaller government needn't mean less influence for "the least of these."
I didn't say their actions were indistinguishable or identical, but there is plenty of guilt to go around. Until we all--every one of us, Democrat or Republican-- admit our sinfulness, and repent, there will be no peace. Our sinfulness is why there is Christmas at all,and Jesus, as the solution, is the only thing worth celebrating.
Sorry, both sides are guilty here. And ranting and raving about "the 1%" isn't making anything better. You aren't doing that, and neither is Jim, but the anger is out there: I don't hear Elizabeth Warren warning Occupy Boston to tone down their rhetoric. Christmas wouldn't be overcommercialized if only "the 1%" were getting it wrong!
I've heard those things as well; they may or may not be true. Mary and Joseph sacrificed the lesser of the two permitted offerings, but some think only the very richest folks chose the display of the more expensive sacrifice. However, there are plenty of other places where God shows his passion for justice and concern for the poor. (Which could include the unborn, who are too poor to afford a lawyer and too silent to speak with one). What is debatable is whether this concern should be shown by adopting the the rhetoric of "empowering the poor" by enlarging government and raising taxes again anad again, or by personal charity. Jim is obviously a fan of Big Government, but disagreeing with him doesn't necessarily mean joining the Religious Right. We need more than two choices, or a revival of bipartisanship.
You make some good points, Jim. but Fox News didn't invent the commercialization of Christmas; that was going strong long before Fox even existed. And there are many who disagree with you that religious symbols are an appropriate display, including the Freedom From Religion Foundation, who insists that depecting the Incarnation is an insult. (This, interestingly, is not due to FFR's ignorance, but because of their understanding of the connection between the Incarnation and human sin!)
I came across this as a "related link" from Ashley Baxstrom 's column. She complained that Rick Perry was bringing his religion into politics, but apparently she doesn't feel she should complain that Jim Wallis, though not a Republican, is doing the same thing.
As for Jim's thoughtful column: almost two years later, and not only are there no comments on this blog, but no one seems to have listened to the message. Everyone is still blaming the other guy (or the other gal, if her name is Sarah or Michelle). Jim complained about the "It's all about me" mindset, as if only Wall St. tycoons think that way. What about the football player that asks the cheerleader to sleep with him on prom night? "It's all about me" says his request for sex, insisting that she trade her virginity away for . . . . . .nothing. Except regrets. "Hey, I used a condom. What more can you ask of me, girl?" Well, is a "lifetime commitment," in advance, too much to ask??
Such rampant selfishness is considered normal, and virginity is weird, unless you're ugly, or frigid, or one of those Jesus freaks.
We need to repent for a lot more than our economic sins.
I didn't say a word about forcing "faith" on anyone. But the entire “God’s Politics” blog is about how best to mix Religion and Politics. While the author is free to hold her opinions, it baffles me why she is expressing such views here!
Freedom FROM religion would involve its suppression, which goes against the free exercise clause.
This post mistakenly favors a partisan interpretation of the establishment clause over the free exercise clause. Freedom of religion most certainly does NOT mean freedom from religion. We all have a religion, and the religion of secularism or pluralism must not be favored by the courts, and especially must not be favored on a site that is otherwise Christian.
I am sorry to see such a column on the Sojourners site.
Wanting someone to have a job is compassionate, it's conservatism, and there is nothing oxymoronic about that. If you want an oxymoron, how about "government jobs:" a solution that's been tried, and obviously doesn't work.
I suggest you reread Jim's column, and the comment guidelnes, before you post again.
Please, don't hate.
Great column, Jim! This may be the least partisan column I can remember in literally decades of following you. My one quibble is the headline, which doesn't reflect your column very well. True, folks in the middle, like the Bart Stupaks on the other side of the aisle, aren't doing well these days, and that's sad. But they haven't completely disappeared! Merry Christmas!