I’m tired of thinking...

I decided to give up meat for lent this year. So for 40+ days—carnivore that I am—I ate no meat. Meat is so engrained in our culture—and that was my biggest reason for doing it, I wanted to see if I could break out of the cultural norm of the meat culture.  It wasn’t nearly as bad as a thought it would be, especially after the first few days when I found myself drooling over a half-eaten hot dog at a basketball game. Thankfully, vegetarian hot dogs taste very much like the “real thing” (that’s an oxymoron if there ever was one!).

I stumbled through my time. I found a couple easy recipes that I liked (vegetarian chili is awesome), I substituted garbanzo beans for meat in spaghetti and hamburger helper, and relied on my lunchtime staple of peanut butter sandwiches, ate beans and rice a few times, and hit up Taco Bell when I needed a quick, easy meal.  Yesterday, for Easter, I ended my Lenten fast with a bang, eating Ham for all three meals (not intentionally). Today I didn’t eat any meat, but I’m not sure if I want to keep being vegetarian. For one, the McDonald’s 20 pieces nuggets are calling my name, and I still enjoy a good burger. But, secondly, and most importantly, I’m tired of thinking about it.

I’m tired of trying figure out which restaurant I could possibly eat something at.

I’m tired of getting odd stares when I ask the waiter what the vegetarian options on the menu are.

I’m tired of trying to figure out what to possibly eat while on a road trip.

I’m tired of trying to avoid eating meat.

Basically, I’m tired of thinking about it. I’m tired of thinking about how farming and livestock has become industrialized to the point where beef gets rinsed in bleach and chickens are genetically altered to grow big breasts.  I’m tired of thinking about all the antibiotics I’m taking in when I eat beef because the cows are juiced up on the stuff to keep them healthy.  I’m tired of thinking about the gout my father has and I very well might get if I keep eating red meat all the freakin’ time.

I bet we all know a thing or two about being tired of thinking about things. Those in power don’t want us to think. Advertisers don’t want us to think. Marketers don’t want us to think. The rich and powerful don’t want to think. Why? Because they realize if we think, we might actually start protesting the way things are.

I get it. We’re all busy. We’re all spread thin. We’re all just trying to make it through the day.

But we’ve got to try to start paying more attention, questioning the way things are, asking more questions. I know most of us are don’t have the time, resources, and energy to change the world. But, if we all just thought about things a little more, it could be the start of something big. We’ve got to start thinking about things—and that often requires asking questions.

Why do we live in the richest nation on earth yet still consistently have people living in poverty?

Why do business leaders talk about the logical free market but then sell to our emotions?

Why do we need to keep sending drones to kill “enemy combatants”?

Why is healthcare a privilege and not a right?

Why can’t we end hunger worldwide?

I’m going to try to keep thinking, to keep eating Burger King veggie burgers (even though their fries suck) instead of Wendy’s, to try to keep asking for the vegetarian options on the menu, and I’m going to try to keep thinking. That’s what I ask from you.

Stop listening to FoxNews.

Turn off MSNBC.

Stop and think for your-self.

If you and me, and a few others could start doing that, I bet we could change some things…

My calling is to serve God...and my student loan debt

If you haven’t been paying attention, one of the cuts from the “sequester” was to funding for military tuition assistance programs.  One of my buddies from college is an army vet who has served multiple tours of duty. He was taking advantage of the tuition assistance program to complete a Master’s degree.  Without the financial assistance from the program, he will have to put his schooling on hold.

Thankfully for his sake, the Senate decided to reinstate the program, inserting a measure to re-fund the program as part of a bill to fund the federal government through the rest of the year. Now, it’s not a sure thing, because the Republican controlled House is unpredictable at best, but being that helping our military vets is politically expedient, my guess is that this measure will be enacted.

On some levels, I wasn’t really that sorry for my friend when I heard that he was losing funding for his education, for I thought he might get a taste of why myself and my fellow seminarians have been struggling with for years—trying to figure out how to pay for our own theological education.  I am fortunate that my school, Phillips Theological Seminary, is very affordable and recently even lowered tuition. Along with scholarships I received from the seminary, I have been awarded help from my denomination as well. For me, paying for my theological education hasn’t been nearly as hard as paying for life while I complete that education.

I am far from alone in this struggle. I know of fellow students who are serving two, three, even four churches in order to cobble together one full-time salary.  Once finished with seminary, despite having an advanced degree and a respected position as an ordained reverend, graduates are again piecing together multiple positions or even passing up church jobs because churches can’t pay them enough to repay their student loans (payments of which often comprise 10% of earned income).

I have to wonder what makes what my friend does in the military more valuable to our society than what I will do—working for a church, for a non-profit, in education, some of the above, all of the above? Who gets to make that decision? Why is it that my classmates and I have to take out loans upon loans (which are no longer subsidized thanks to the GOP) to pay for our education while an 18 year old can get college money for volunteering one weekend a month. Do you know how many weekends ministry students volunteer for churches!?

My friend and his fellow soldiers deserve the commendations they receive for serving, and they are not the only ones who serve our country. Anyone who invests their time and talents into a career that is about more than just money is invaluable to America.  I’m talking about teachers, medical service providers, child care workers, firefighters, police officers, artists, and of course pastors and non-profit community workers.  People like this are priceless pieces of our society—their value cannot be measured.

Unfortunately, our society has things backwards and values money-makers like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, and Warren Buffet over people who dedicate their lives to helping others. It shouldn’t be that way.  The Bible tells that we shouldn’t seek after money or possessions, but rather invest in that which last lifetimes.  As a society, we should be investing in people who dedicate their lives to serving others, who choose careers which will have an impact will last a lifetime—or in the case of minsters, an eternity.

That means more scholarships for people going into non-profit work, loan forgiveness for folks who choose careers that are about serving others, and grants for those who inspire us in ways that can’t be measured (pastors, artists, musicians).   That means more funding for higher education in general. 

In reality, this looks like what Democratic Congresswoman Karen Bass recently proposed in the “Student Loan Fairness Act of 2013.” This would create a “10-10” standard in which students would be required to pay 10% of their discretionary income for 10 years, after which the remaining debt would be forgiven.  It would also permanently cap federal student loan interest rates at 3.4%, suspend interest rates while borrowers are unemployed, and reward graduates for entering public service.

This stands in sharp contrast to what Republicans recently tried to do, in repealing the Student Loan Reform Law.  This law takes the loan processing out of the hands of banks and uses the savings to increase Pell Grant scholarships to the tune of $61 Billion. It also lowers monthly payments and shortened the debt forgiveness timeline.  Yet the GOP wanted to get rid of this.  Lest we forget VP candidate Paul Ryan wanted to double interest rates on student loans while giving tax break to millionaires.   

                    

That is why I selfishly wanted my friend to lose his tuition assistance, for I thought he might see which political party really cares about the “little guy”—and perhaps that might influence his decision making next time he goes to the polls. That is why, what Congresswoman Bass proposed, and more, would begin to re-order towards a society which values service to others as invaluable.

If the US Budget was a family budget, it would look like this…

I’m sure you've heard it before…Politicians like to cite the mantra that the US government needs to behave more like a family budget and that the government, like families, needs to learn to live within its means.  Personal finance “guru” Dave Ramsey suggests that the government, like any family, needs to say “enough is enough.” This “family budgeting” talk isn't just coming from Republicans, even President Obama has made the comparison.  The problem is that the comparison just doesn’t work, it’s a poor analogy (see here, and here, and here as well).  But, I’m not going to write why I disagree with the analogy, rather I’d like to paint a picture of what the US budget would look like if reduced to a single family.

Let’s start with the kids, for it’s always the kids that conservatives name when critiquing government spending. We are “bankrupting future generations” they say by borrowing money that will eventually have to be repaid. 

So here’s what our family can do. In order to save money, the family stops paying for as many meals for their daughter, stops saving for her college education, stops paying for her to go to pre-school, and stops paying for her medical coverage amongst other things. Hey, we've got to live within our means, right? The daughter, who happens to be an ethnic minority, is developing Diabetes because she’s just eating a bunch of junk food, because she can only afford the dollar menu at the fast food joint, and she doesn't get any opportunity to exercise.  Despite clear evidence that these fatty foods are hurting her health, dad refuses to limit her access to them or provide her with anything better to eat. We've got to live within our means though, and that means making tough choices.

Thankfully, because of the cuts to spending on the sister, the family can afford to send the white son to a private school, save for an Ivy-league education, establish a 7 figure trust fund for him, get him the best medical care money can buy, and take him out every week to the best restaurants in town among other things.  He’s learning that it’s his hard work and personal responsibility that are getting him success in life—or his father’s fat wallet. Either way, thank goodness we are making the tough decisions now so we don’t “bankrupt” his future.

Let’s look at mom next.  Mom is trying (but failing) to pay for medical procedures like breast cancer screenings, well-woman visits, breastfeeding support, and contraceptives (i.e. what Obamacare provides). Problem is dad says we just can’t afford for mom to get all this coverage.  Funny thing is that dad refuses to pay for mom’s contraceptives, yet then critiques her for being “irresponsible” when she gets pregnant.  Further, dad is absolutely insistent that she keep the baby she can’t afford to pay for and didn't want. Dad grumpily obliges to give mom some help with nutrition during the pregnancy, but as soon as the baby is born, dad refuses to keep footing the bill and disparages mom for being a “welfare queen.”  He demands she gets a job, yet refuses to help out with child care and could care less that she actually gets paid a decent salary or even an equivalent salary to men that are doing the same job as her. If only she would take some personal responsibility.

Dad is doing quite well thanks to his “hard work and ingenuity” he likes to say.  He doesn't like to mention the free public education he received or the fabulous college education his own parents paid for, nor does he like to bring up how he got his good job thanks to a contact his parents had in the firm.  Further, dad gets real upset when anyone starts talking about “redistributing” his income to pay for his daughter’s food or clothing.  Dad says he’ll lose all motivation to work hard if he’s forced to commit more of his salary to providing for his daughter. He likes to say that if he’s just allowed to keep more of what he makes money will just “trickle down” to his daughter. All in all, he likes thing the way they are. His insurance pays for his Viagra and Cialis (which came in quite handy when he was impregnating mom), he gets paid more than his female counterparts on average, and his company gets a nice tax break which in turn pads his annual bonus and retirement account.

Dad also spends a lot of money on home(land) security which he says is essential to keep the family safe. It’s “defense” spending he says.  Forget that he spends more on home security than the rest of the neighborhood combine. Forget that he pisses off some of the neighbors when his remote control helicopters (aka drones) damage their property in the name of destroying “threats” to his security.   Forget that he’s spending $1 Trillion on a single plane. Oh, and if anyone dare threaten to reduce the money he can spend on security, he’ll keep paying for the expensive gadgets and instead cut the salaries of the armed guards he employees and/or make them work longer.

Let’s not forget about grandpa, whose future isn't so rosy. He may have a decent pension from his time as a teacher—but dad doesn't think he deserves so much and seeing to it that the pension is reduced. Grandpa does have some medical coverage, but again dad doesn't want to pay for what grandpa can’t afford and would rather just give grandpa a couple of bucks each month and let him go buy his own insurance (which is far more expensive and he likely can’t get because of his past heart attack).  Dad complains about possible rationing of end of life care, but misses the fact that because grandpa can’t afford adequate health care now, his life will probably end early. Grandpa will end up stashed in some old person warehouse (aka “nursing home”), rotting away due to inadequate care and poor staffing.  But remember, our family values all life.

Grandma is doing much better, no thanks to grandpa’s dead weight.  She’s pretty upset about all this talk about the capital gains tax going up.  She’s worked hard to buy and sell stocks so it’s wrong that she should have to be taxed on money she just sits and waits around for each month. Who cares if the workers in the companies she has stock in pay a much higher rate.  She doesn't really see it as a problem that she’s getting rich off their hard work. Rather, she’s convinced her wealth is due to her own “ingenuity” and “financial acumen.”  Her future is set with her low-tax nest egg, multiple houses (of which she writes off the interest), and the best medical coverage money can buy.

This is what the US government budget would really look like if it was a family budget. But, maybe the conservatives are right. In the end, maybe we do need to run the government like a family.  Maybe the American budget would be better in the end if we made the “tough” decisions.  Perhaps, but I can tell you this, we’d be one big, dysfunctional family. No moral person would dare treat members of their family like this, so we can’t let politicians get away with talk of doing the “right, moral thing” in cutting spending while at the same time talk about running the federal budget like a family.  

If politicians or other leaders want to talk about America being a family, that’s fine, but then it’s about time we showed the same love and care to ALL members of our family.

Men, stop talking about rape! Please!

First it was Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin, then it was Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, and then it was Colorado state representative Joe Salazar.  All men, all talking about rape, all making complete fools of themselves—and deservedly so; why men think they need to be talking authoritatively about rape is reprehensible.  To me, it represents that last vestiges of patriarchalism dying its long, slow, and painful death. So, being that I’m a man, I’m going to shut up and let women speak.

Here’s some of what they have to say for themselves…

http://womensvoicesforchange.org/the-genuine-article-recovering-a-stolen-sense-of-self.htm

http://deeperstory.com/the-sexy-wife-i-cant-be/

http://arapesurvivorsblog.blogspot.com/

http://www.diaryofarapevictim-dianad.blogspot.com/?zx=91123db98693452d

http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/shalini/211/64224/what-rape-victims-need-an-open-letter-to-the-medical-

community.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/unbreakable-blog-lets-sex-abuse-victims-speak/story?id=15481021

http://mystorymyshame.blogspot.com/

http://projectunbreakable.tumblr.com/  

http://herbsandhags.blogspot.com/2012/06/how-i-became-rape-victim.html

http://www.thenation.com/blog/167905/criminalization-rape-victims

http://feministing.com/2011/07/26/rape-victims-and-anonymity/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/12/29/had-the-girl-simply-surrendered/

http://www.thehopeblog.org/2009/11/rape-victim-recovery-tips-from-sexual.html

Read a few of these, read all of them, and if you’re  a guy, let’s just shut up and listen.

Michelle Malkin where are you??

Last June 2012, when wildfires were ravaging the state of Colorado, and a particularly devastating Waldo Canyon fire was wreaking havoc on Malkin’s hometown of Colorado Springs, Michelle was fired up about budget cuts that had caused a reduction in the fire fighting air tanker fleet. Her particular concern was over the Obama administration’s handling of the aerial tanker fleet. She states, without sources, that what was once a fleet of 44 planes a decade ago was now only 9.  She writes that “the Obama administration’s neglect of the federal government’s aerial tanker fleet raises acrid questions about its core public safety priorities.”  Malkin, a fiscal conservative, was essentially criticizing the government for not spending enough money.
 

Fast forward to present day and the so-called “sequestration.”   The sequester, otherwise known as the Budget Control Act of 2011 was authorized by a bipartisan committee as a trade-off for an increase in the debt-ceiling.  The deal was set up to ensure the Republicans and Democrats could settle on some kind of deficit reduction deal.  To spur the two parties to come to an agreement, this “sequester” was put in place, composed of cuts that neither party would like, with the hope that the possibility of such cuts would motivate the two to settle on a compromise deal. Well, to the surprise of no one, no deal has been made as both sides were unable to come to an agreement.

 Now the Republicans are accusing the President of “crying wolf” over the impending budget cuts, and there’s plenty of mud-slinging both ways about who is really at fault over this.  Basically, Dems are okay with some cuts but want to see revenues (taxes) increase as well, while the GOP is completely opposed to any tax increases and will only go along with budget cuts.

 

So what does this all have to do with Michelle Malkin? Well, according to Colorado Senator Mark Udall, some of the budget cuts that will happen because of the sequester is a “slashing of the number of next-generation air tankers the U.S. Forest Service can acquire to supplement its Korean War-era firefighting fleet” and “ Further cut the U.S. Forest Service's Wildland Fire Management fund, which pays for hotshot crews and helping clear brush and fuel from our forests.” So yeah, while Malkin was making a big deal about there not being enough planes when her city was on fire, she’s suddenly silent—no, actually making light of the coming budget cuts.



The true "God" of the GOP

This is my problem with Republicans; they scream and cry for budget cutting—until it actually effects them. When Malkin’s city was on fire and she was being forced to evacuate, cuts to the nation’s firefighting capabilities was unacceptable.  Yet, when there is no eminent threat to herself, she’s fine with similar cuts. Republicans talk all the time about cutting spending, yet it’s spending that will never affect them.  Its millionaires and billionaires calling for cuts to Social Security and Medicare, its guys making seven figures saying that a minimum wage increase won’t help Americans, and its people claiming they care about clean water and air yet then want to eliminate the laws that actually forbid polluting. If you vote republican, please wake up. The GOP doesn’t give a sh*t about you.  They only care about pleasing the selfish, greedy, rich people that put them into office via humongous campaign contributions.  For instance, Republican governors nation-wide are proposing tax-cuts that will—surprise, surprise—overwhelmingly benefit the rich.

Republicans want to have it both ways, to cry out against “excessive spending” then make a bid deal anytime budget cuts actually affect them. They want to have their cake and eat it too.  It’s about time Americans starting calling them out for it.

**Update** 

June 12, 2013, portions of Colorado are up in flames yet again, and where is Malkin? Blaming the government of course, saying nothing of the budget cuts she herself supported, ironically wondering why the government can't spend money any faster??

Stop disguising your hate as “patriotism,” “faith,” “freedom,” or whatever else…

Recently at a high school basketball game in Texas, students from one school were reprimanded for chanting “USA, USA” towards the opposing team.  On the surface such cheering seems out of place at worst and harmless at best, but taking a closer look reveals that there’s more going on. The opposing school, of which the USA chants were directed towards, is largely made up of Hispanic students. The principal and superintendent of the chanting school felt the chant was out of place and had racial overtones.  Even more, four teen boys were asked to take off American flag bandannas   While these boys claim to be simply patriotic (the four appear to be Caucasian) such actions and cheering in context are completely out of place and bordering on racial taunting (I’m at high school basketball games all the time, all across the metro area I reside in and I've never heard anything similar). The school superintendent stated that he thought it was a “teachable moment” for the entire school. So, no harm, no foul, case closed. Not exactly.

Thanks to our friends at FoxNews and their endless need to peddle fear and paranoia, commentator Todd Starnes has put this story out as a case of American patriotism being trounced upon.   Starnes has served this up as a nice, juicy piece of red meat and folks are taking the bait. Right wingers are predictably working themselves up in frenzy, clueless to what’s really at stake.

Borderline racist actions such as this that masquerade as “patriotic” fervor are hardly new.  In 2010, students at California school showed up wearing clothing emblazoned with pro-American messages on Cinco de Mayo.  The school just happened to have a large Hispanic population as well. Coincidence?  I think not.  This kind of thing has been going on for as long as the U.S. has been a nation, feigning patriotism to hide racism or hatred or fear of the other.  The only thing that’s changed is the demographic facing ridicule. Instead of the Irish immigrants, or African-Americans, or Jews it’s now Latinos taking the heat. Unfortunately, this tendency of hiding behind something that looks good on the surface is used far too often. Christians disguise homophobia with words like “the Bible says,” or “sin.”  Others hide behind “freedom” or “big government” to disguise their selfishness and lack of concern for those less fortunate than themselves.

I’m not trying to say that all patriotism is racism in disguise, or that all people of faith are hateful.  There are people who believe homosexuality is a sin because of their interpretation of scripture yet are still able to be loving and respectful to gays and lesbians. There are people who value laws and social order yet still respect the dignity of all human beings, whether they came to this country illegally or not. And there are people who value the freedoms this country provides without disparaging people who need a little extra help from government—because society itself has failed them.What I am saying is that slapping the words “patriotism” or “faith” or “bible believing” on what would normally be considered hateful speech or actions doesn't make it okay. 

The FoxNews story illustrates that some people are just so maniacally insane about their patriotism that they’re blind to what’s really going on.  In many ways, they are dishonoring true patriotism in our nation.  The most fervent patriots should be condemning times when people hide their hate and racism under the banner of patriotism. 

The Bible commands us not take God’s name in vain because we are to understand God as so holy, so magnificent that even to misappropriate God’s name is to insult God.  When people use patriotism to disguise their hate, they are insulting all the great American patriots that have gone before. In the same way, when people disguise their hate under the guise of Christianity, they are insulting Jesus Christ, the person on whom the faith is founded and who admonished his followers to share his love with all.

So stop trying to hide your hate and fear behind something else. If you’re going to hate, have the guts to just hate. If you’re going to be a homophobe, stop being afraid of letting your true thoughts be known.  Or, better yet, stop hating, stop being a homophobe, and stop being afraid of anyone who doesn't talk/think/look/act like you.

Getting Weary of all the “Gun nuts”…



Gun

It seems like there’s a certain portion of our society running around screaming that the sky is falling.  They are waving their hands, jumping up and down, and spinning in circles while yelling at the top of their lungs; “Obama hates the 2^nd Amendment,” “He’s coming to take our guns,” “Obama is dictator,” “You’re not taking my guns without a fight,” and so on. They’ve gone beyond overstatement, beyond exaggeration, and beyond hyperbole. I can think of no other way to describe it than just “gun nuttery.” They’ve become nut-jobs for their guns, they are you might say, “gun nuts.”

I suppose I should have seen this coming a while ago. For when comments from some on Facebook after the tragedy at Sandy Hook were things like “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” and “protect the 2^nd Amendment,” it should have been obvious. We’ve got people flipping their lids over Obama’s 23 executive orders, we’ve got people fighting tooth and nail to keep the CDC from studying gun violence, and we’ve got people ready to Impeach President Obama over universal background checks.  Not because he invaded two foreign countries, not because one war was founded on lies, not because he advocated torture—Universal Background Checks!!

For all the fervor about protecting our constitutional rights, I keep wondering why then these same people aren’t up in arms (pardon the pun) about how the USA PATRIOT Act shreds the Constitution.   How they’re oddly quiet about Obama’s shameful ignoring of the Constitution in regards to his usage of Drones to kill US citizens without trial by jury who have been labeled as terrorists.  Heck, they’re all about the Constitution, yet strangely silent when it comes to ensuring equal protection under the law to Gays and Lesbians.   

Nuts

  I get to see the false panic every day. Trust me, I’ve got friends on Facebook who’s every post seems to be pro-gun propaganda (Of course, they probably think all I post is liberal blog rants J).  It’s beginning to remind me of the story of the boy who cried wolf.  When the gun lobby responds with hyperbolic fear-mongering EVERY freakin’ time anything about gun control is mentioned, the general population is just going to start turning you off.  Then, if (and that’s a monumentally big “if”) the government actually does propose something that will truly threaten 2^nd Amendment rights, no one is going to pay attention.

Look, I’m not a gun person, I’ve shot guns but I’ve got no interest in ever owning a gun. I don’t care if you own a gun. I’m totally cool with the 2^nd Amendment. I understand some people own guns for sporting, for protection, or even for colleciton. But I also realize that guns have “sex appeal,” that they speak to that “small penis syndrome” like an H2 Hummer does, and that they’re an instant ego boost.  I get it. So I don’t like idea of fearful, paranoid people walking around with items capable of deadly force.  People like that do stupid things, ala George Zimmerman (allegedly). As a theological student, I’ve learned we’re all capable of doing bad things—and guns have the capacity to make our bad deeds much, much worse.  Remember, we’re not talking about a freakin’ screw driver; we’re talking about a potentially deadly weapon.

So, here’s what I need all you “guns nuts” to do, I need you to take it down a notch. And for the level headed gun owners I know that are out there, tell your overly dramatic cohorts to take a chill pill, because I’m much more likely to consider your points if you’re not running around acting like the sky is falling.