A Walken Family Reunion...Oh I Wish...

SNL Take

Am I responsible for what my friend says?

In recent days a controversy has emerged over the sermons of Sen. Barack Obama's hometown pastor, Jeremiah Wright. A number of these sermons appear to advance or promote some radical statements. Due to the content of some of these sermons, analysts are being to wonder if this will hurt the Obama campaign. Whether it does or doesn't is not my concern, but rather should it? Are we responsible for what our friends say?

I would argue that on the surface it is not fair to blame a candidate for something someone else says as long as they voice opposition to the statement when it becomes known to them. Obama does not control Wright, nor are many people in the position to tell their pastor that they are wrong. Obama's responsibility is to himself and therefore, publicly declaring opposition to Wright's statements should be enough, as long as his actions are consistent with the opposition. Obama has shown no willingness in speech or action to support some of Wright's radical statements.

Obama's current situation merely articulates the problems politicians run into as they court or associate with religious figures. Recently, Sen. John McCain has promoted his support by John Hagee, a popular televangelist. However, Hagee has called the Catholic Church (which over 1 in 4 Americans belong to) a "whore" and a "false religion." Is McCain responsible for such comments? The answer is clearly no, as long as McCain publicly states he opposes such views. Yet, perhaps politicians on both sides of the spectrum should be weary of the religious company they keep.

Iraq Interactive

Interesting MSNBC interactive describing the complexities of the Iraq issue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17722026

Do All Dogs Really Go To Heaven?

According to a recent book by an Anglican Bishop, most people have a misunderstanding of heaven. I found this interesting to contemplate.

N.T. "Tom" Wright is one of the most formidable figures in the world of Christian thought. As Bishop of Durham, he is the fourth most senior cleric in the Church of England and a major player in the strife-riven global Anglican Communion; as a much-read theologian and Biblical scholar he has taught at Cambridge and is a hero to conservative Christians worldwide for his 2003 book The Resurrection of the Son of God, which argued forcefully for a literal interpretation of that event.

It therefore comes as a something of a shock that Wright doesn't believe in heaven — at least, not in the way that millions of Christians understand the term. In his new book, Surprised by Hope (HarperOne), Wright quotes a children's book by California first lady Maria Shriver called What's Heaven, which describes it as "a beautiful place where you can sit on soft clouds and talk... If you're good throughout your life, then you get to go [there]... When your life is finished here on earth, God sends angels down to take you heaven to be with him." That, says Wright is a good example of "what not to say." The Biblical truth, he continues, "is very, very different."

Wright, 58, talked by phone with TIME's David Van Biema.

TIME: At one point you call the common view of heaven a "distortion and serious diminution of Christian hope."

Wright: It really is. I've often heard people say, "I'm going to heaven soon, and I won't need this stupid body there, thank goodness.' That's a very damaging distortion, all the more so for being unintentional.

TIME: How so? It seems like a typical sentiment.

Wright: There are several important respects in which it's unsupported by the New Testament. First, the timing. In the Bible we are told that you die, and enter an intermediate state. St. Paul is very clear that Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead already, but that nobody else has yet. Secondly, our physical state. The New Testament says that when Christ does return, the dead will experience a whole new life: not just our soul, but our bodies. And finally, the location. At no point do the resurrection narratives in the four Gospels say, "Jesus has been raised, therefore we are all going to heaven." It says that Christ is coming here, to join together the heavens and the Earth in an act of new creation.

TIME: Is there anything more in the Bible about the period between death and the resurrection of the dead?

Wright: We know that we will be with God and with Christ, resting and being refreshed. Paul writes that it will be conscious, but compared with being bodily alive, it will be like being asleep. The Wisdom of Solomon, a Jewish text from about the same time as Jesus, says "the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God," and that seems like a poetic way to put the Christian understanding, as well.

TIME: But it's not where the real action is, so to speak?

Wright: No. Our culture is very interested in life after death, but the New Testament is much more interested in what I've called the life after life after death — in the ultimate resurrection into the new heavens and the new Earth. Jesus' resurrection marks the beginning of a restoration that he will complete upon his return. Part of this will be the resurrection of all the dead, who will "awake," be embodied and participate in the renewal. John Polkinghorne, a physicist and a priest, has put it this way: "God will download our software onto his hardware until the time he gives us new hardware to run the software again for ourselves." That gets to two things nicely: that the period after death is a period when we are in God's presence but not active in our own bodies, and also that the more important transformation will be when we are again embodied and administering Christ's kingdom.

TIME: That is rather different from the common understanding. Did some Biblical verse contribute to our confusion?

Wright: There is Luke 23, where Jesus says to the good thief on the cross, "Today you will be with me in Paradise." But in Luke, we know first of all that Christ himself will not be resurrected for three days, so "paradise" cannot be a resurrection. It has to be an intermediate state. And chapters 4 and 5 of Revelation, where there is a vision of worship in heaven that people imagine describes our worship at the end of time. In fact it's describing the worship that's going on right now. If you read the book through, you see that at the end we don't have a description of heaven, but, as I said, of the new heavens and the new earth joined together.

TIME: Why, then, have we misread those verses?

Wright: It has, originally, to do with the translation of Jewish ideas into Greek. The New Testament is deeply, deeply Jewish, and the Jews had for some time been intuiting a final, physical resurrection. They believed that the world of space and time and matter is messed up, but remains basically good, and God will eventually sort it out and put it right again. Belief in that goodness is absolutely essential to Christianity, both theologically and morally. But Greek-speaking Christians influenced by Plato saw our cosmos as shabby and misshapen and full of lies, and the idea was not to make it right, but to escape it and leave behind our material bodies. The church at its best has always come back toward the Hebrew view, but there have been times when the Greek view was very influential.

TIME: Can you give some historical examples?

Wright: Two obvious ones are Dante's great poetry, which sets up a Heaven, Purgatory and Hell immediately after death, and Michelangelo's Last Judgment in the Sistine chapel, which portrays heaven and hell as equal and opposite last destinations. Both had enormous influence on Western culture, so much so that many Christians think that is Christianity.

TIME: But it's not.

Wright: Never at any point do the Gospels or Paul say Jesus has been raised, therefore we are we are all going to heaven. They all say, Jesus is raised, therefore the new creation has begun, and we have a job to do.

TIME: That sounds a lot like... work.

Wright: It's more exciting than hanging around listening to nice music. In Revelation and Paul's letters we are told that God's people will actually be running the new world on God's behalf. The idea of our participation in the new creation goes back to Genesis, when humans are supposed to be running the Garden and looking after the animals. If you transpose that all the way through, it's a picture like the one that you get at the end of Revelation.

TIME: And it ties in to what you've written about this all having a moral dimension.

Wright: Both that, and the idea of bodily resurrection that people deny when they talk about their "souls going to Heaven." If people think "my physical body doesn't matter very much," then who cares what I do with it? And if people think that our world, our cosmos, doesn't matter much, who cares what we do with that? Much of "traditional" Christianity gives the impression that God has these rather arbitrary rules about how you have to behave, and if you disobey them you go to hell, rather than to heaven. What the New Testament really says is God wants you to be a renewed human being helping him to renew his creation, and his resurrection was the opening bell. And when he returns to fulfil the plan, you won't be going up there to him, he'll be coming down here.

TIME: That's very different from, say, the vision put out in the Left Behind books.

Wright: Yes. If there's going to be an Armageddon, and we'll all be in heaven already or raptured up just in time, it really doesn't matter if you have acid rain or greenhouse gases prior to that. Or, for that matter, whether you bombed civilians in Iraq. All that really matters is saving souls for that disembodied heaven.

TIME: Has anyone you've talked to expressed disappointment at the loss of the old view?

Wright: Yes, you might get disappointment in the case where somebody has recently gone through the death of somebody they love and they are wanting simply to be with them. And I'd say that's understandable. But the end of Revelation describes a marvelous human participation in God's plan. And in almost all cases, when I've explained this to people, there's a sense of excitement and a sense of, "Why haven't we been told this before?"

Published on www.Time.com

Got to love the 3-D

This is the man we are so afraid of...

An Obama Revolution?

As this election year progresses and the Democratic race continues to shape up as a virtual tie between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama, the Obama appeal becomes clearer. The Senator from Illinois has tapped into a long dormant supply of political energy. In the past month, I have heard an almost unanimous voice from my under-30 acquaintances in support for Obama. But why? Why does this political figure seem to speak to them when so many others have not?

Sen. Obama has chosen to frame his campaign around the notions of hope and change. He permeates a message of optimism that change and improvement is possible through cooperation and a new style of politics. While he provides few specific details on what this change will look like (his chief political fault), the under-30 crowd seems not to care. This is a generation that has been sold to all its life, and Obama represents something that, at least on the surface, appears authentic. The under-30 generation's love affair with Obama also speaks to an underlying uneasiness. They have been told continually that our nation's long established social programs are nearly bankrupt, that we face an international threat worse than communism (that being radical Islam), and that the current war (drawing disproportionately from its ranks) will possibly continue for decades to come. It has been told that they may be the first generation in American History that may enjoy a lower quality of life than their parents. Obama, who exudes change and difference, represents in body, mind, and voice this frustration with our nation's current affairs.

This movement has similarities with 1968, with a newly energized youth movement over concerns about the future course of the country. Then, like today, the youth of the United States was tired of the inadequate policies and failed leadership of their parents' generation. In 1968, the "Greatest Generation" had failed to deal with civil rights and had led the nation into an unending quagmire in Vietnam. In 2008, the Vietnam generation continues to fight out the social and economic issues of their youth while ignoring pressing problems at home and has led the nation into a war of choice in Iraq. Yet, the lessons of 1968 should haunt today's youth. The question remains: will 2008 present a "Yes We Can" moment or another "Dream Deferred."

Is it that easy?

This baby is so smart...

McCain's Campaign Motto

It is clear that Sen. John McCain is in a tight race in Florida with Gov. Mitt Romney. Both men have substantial support in the state and each is trying desperately to set the tone and principle issue. For Romney it is the economy and for McCain it is national security. Yet, it appears more and more clear that McCain is perhaps taking the national security issue a bit too far. Two days ago, he inaccurately accused Romney of favoring public timetables for troop withdraw, which he does not. Then yesterday, McCain approached the American people with a new campaign promise. Oh, you might ask, what is this American hero and long time legislator going to offer our country? Lower taxes? Better health care? Reduction in our dependency on foreign oil? No, in the words of John McCain, "my friends" the Senator is offering us more wars. More wars?!?!?! That's right, straight from the Senator's mouth, if John McCain is elected president he will give us more wars. Does anyone really think this is a winning political strategy? I never have viewed McCain as a warmonger but I am beginning to question his commitment to peace.

History in South Carolina?

Last night, Barack Obama soundly defeated Hillary Clinton and John Edwards to win the South Carolina Democratic Primary. Barack's victory clearly gives him an impressive win on which he can build. That said, there are still underlying issues standing in his way (at least as I see the current political environment). Despite the media's renewed confidence in a faltering Clinton campaign and a rising Obama we should not forget Iowa. Even when Obama won Iowa (if the exit polls are to be believed) he only received 36% of the white vote. In South Carolina, despite winning 55% of the overall vote, he won less than a quarter of the white vote. I would like to believe that our country is above racial voting, but clearly there is a divide between the voting blocs. Why can't Obama appeal to white voters in large numbers? Is there a political or racial explanation? I don't know the answer, but his lack of appeal to this voting bloc is not due to a failure to court their support. Obama has waged a clearly unifying campaign. He has not cast himself as the "black" candidate and rarely talks about racial issues. This presents a critical voting problem for Obama, especially as Edwards fades, and the Super Tuesday Primaries are in predominately white/hispanic states. That said, it is clear he has tremendous youth support. In every race he has won the under 30 vote, and usually by wide margins. Additionally, he seems to be attracting large numbers of previously apathetic young voters to the race and the Democratic Party. With this in mind, it is clear the Obama has tapped into something unique within today's youth. I see it everyday in the classroom. Almost, without exception, high school students seem to support this Senator from Illinois. His appeal is strong, and if you simply watch his victory speech from last night, is it any wonder?

Who to vote for?

Of those currently running, who is the best candidate for President?

The 2008 Campaign is upon us, and as the Iowa Caucus quickly approaches it is time for you to vote. Please answer the question above. You need to justify your selection with specifics, not generalizations. Additionally, make sure to vote in the Presidential Poll on the blog main page.

Trying to find out who is "stretching the truth"? Consider checking out this website...
http://www.factcheck.org/

A Political Coward

Recently, former Arkansas Governor and current candidate for the Republican nomination Mike Huckabee was asked about former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's Mormon religion. Two months ago this question would have been meaningless. However, Huckabee has surged in the Iowa polls and now threatens Romney's once certain victory in the Iowa caucuses. Huckabee was asked whether he believed Mormonism is a "cult." Instead of answering the question he stated that it was not an appropriate question. Come on Governor! There is one answer to that question, "No, I do not believe Mormonism is a 'cult.'" So why didn't he say that? Because Huckabee knows that much of his support comes from an uneasiness many evangelicals have with the Mormon faith. Thus, instead of showcasing a moral spine by distancing himself from the religious tests many evangelicals are putting Romney through, he simply plays to it.

But for Huckabee it does not end there. The next day he was asked if creationism should be taught in public school science classes. He once again said that the question was inappropriate. Interesting, a man who continually professes to be a evangelical Christian to friendly audiences is unwilling to answer simple questions based on his beliefs that actually affect governmental policy. If a candidate is going to run on religion then the voters have a right to know what religious beliefs that candidate holds. Let's be candid Governor, you won't answer these questions because they will expose you for what you are: either a man who cynically uses religion for political gain, or a man who holds religious beliefs he does not want to expose to the public.

Prove me wrong Governor! Be candid! And answer the questions!

An Immigration Nation?

Immigration has always been an essential characteristic of the American nation. The United States has long prided itself as a country defined as a "melting-pot" or a "garden salad." In other words, a place where diverse cultural, religious, and ethnic groups come together to forge an entirely new society unique to the world. However, while immigration has often been viewed as a positive attribute for the U.S., it has repeatedly raised the natural fear all people have of "others" or "them."

The 2008 presidential campaign has increasingly been dominated by this once non-salient political issue. As comprehensive immigration reform has repeatedly stalled in the Senate (even with President Bush's support) and as states have taken unilateral steps to deal with the influx of illegal immigrants; the patience of many American citizens is seemingly wearing thin.

What does this renewed interest in the immigration issue say about the United States and the state of our politics? Is immigration (legal or illegal) as big of a problem as some voters make it out to be? What are the advantages and disadvantages of restricting immigration? What are the realistic solutions to this very contentious issue?

Please use the two readings below to guide you in your response. After reading both, address the questions above in a post. Please refer to the articles specifically in your post and comment on the historical nature of this debate (is it new or old to the American story).

Joel Klein, Time
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1688794,00.html

Tamar Jacoby, Foreign Affairs
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20061101faessay85606/tamar-jacoby/immigration-nation.html

Good News from Iraq

The monthly death tolls continue to decrease in Iraq. The November death tolls for U.S. military personnel and Iraqi citizens hit close to two year lows. This is clear evidence that the military surge is working. The increase of 30,000 troops has been able to increase security in Iraq to the point that Iraqi refugees, who once fled the violence, are now returning. While I personally remain skeptical of the Iraqi mission, there have certainly been positive developments over the last three months.

Yet these developments beg certain questions. What happens as the surge ends (the additional 30,000 troops are already in the process of drawing down)? Why has the decrease in violence not resulted in any political progress in the Maliki government? Is maintaining 160,000 U.S. troops in the country, the only way to maintain relative security? Finally, if the recent military successes are due to the increase in troops then doesn't the President have to answer for why it took nearly three years to develop this unoriginal plan?

Read this story to learn more...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071202/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_casualties;_ylt=AmOqKzhuheTeQAJ4UuaKJFYLewgF

Watch this video to learn more...

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=5253633&ch=4226714&src=news

Sports Thoughts

A few thoughts on the weeks events...

Flyer Basketball: My UD Flyers are 5-1 after surviving two close games this week. With a 63-62 victory over Miami and a 55-53 win over Holy Cross, the Flyers are showing an ability lacking in the past...win the close ones on the road. Despite this recent success, I am still wary of the season to come. Potential trouble spots still yet to play in non-conference: Louisville, Pittsburg, and Akron. BG has a lot to prove this year and at least for me, 2007-2008 is the do-or-die for season for him.

College Football: What a joke the BCS is! How can any team claim to be the national champion this year. OSU, the new #1, is undeserving in my opinion to play for the national title, however, the other contenders do little to support my opinion. Honestly, can anyone say that OSU is more deserving to play in the game than Georgia, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, and USC? What a mess, so easily solved by a playoff system!

Evaluating Barbara

In her last chapter of Nickel and Dimed, Barbara Ehrenreich evaluates her experiment to survive on minimum wage. She highlights a number of challenges that continually face the working poor. In addition, she provides her own explanation for what is holding the working poor back from economic success and security.

Please identify the challenges facing the working poor as explained by Ehrenreich. Then assess her explanation of the obstacles facing the poor. Finally, provide you own evaluation for how our society treats or deals with those living in poverty.

Enough with the fake outrage!!!

As our economy falters, our troops fight two wars, and millions of Americans continue to live without health insurance; our political leaders and noise machine media focus on the important issues: patriotism. I for one am sick of both political parties trying to prove which one is more patriotic. This constant quest for one-up-manship drives Republicans and Democrats to focus on the mundane and unimportant. But why? Why do both parties continue to focus on this patriotism competition?

There are two answers. First, neither party can force their ideological driven vision on all Americans. With Congress closely divided and an unpopular President, both parties are frustrated with their own inabilities. Due to their failure to compromise (or simply a lack of real ideas) politicans are driven to issues that have no real impact. But why patriotism? This is where the second answer comes into play: too many Americans buy into it. If we would demand more from our government; if we would demand more from Washington; if we were not so easily distracted from the real problems our nation faces, and actually demanded something, then maybe things would change in Washington.

Up to now, I have discounted the notions that 2008 was a "throw the bums" out election. Yet, as it becomes clear that Congress and the President have no idea as to what to do to help the American people, I am slowing becoming convinced that Washington has to change. However, that change must begin in the living rooms of America.

Is the media driving this race???

After watching countless hours of media coverage about the race for the Democratic nomination, I was left to ask the question: Is the media driving this race? As Sen. Clinton emerged in late October with a seemingly insurmountable lead in the polls, the media began to build up her chief opponent, Sen. Obama. By simply watching the talking heads, it was clear that the media wanted a story. An inevitable Clinton victory was boring. That surely would not "sell." But what always sells? Conflict! The news markets wanted a story they could sell and so used their influence to create such a story. The Daily Show captured my thoughts perfectly. After watching the clip below, just ask yourself: Was there any doubt that Obama was going to be declared the winner of the debate in Philadelphia?

The Logical Tax Debate

As the President and Congress lock horns over federal spending and tax law, the American middle-class continues to lose. Without legislative reforms, millions of middle-class Americans will be subject to the AMT, which was originally designed to catch millionaires who were not paying their fair share of taxes.

At a time when Republicans are championing calls of patriotism and accusing Democrats of not "supporting the troops" the party of the President needs to reevaluate their patriotic duties. In his weekly radio address, President Bush demanded Congress pass AMT tax reform. His call was the right one, but like he so often does, President Bush mixes a sound principle with unsound specifics. In the same breath in which he calls for tax help for the middle-class, he treatened to veto any AMT reform that raised other taxes to pay for the loss in revenue. So basically, President Bush wants tax reform for the middle-class but not at the expense of large corporations and hedgefund manager, who make millions of dollars.

The President and his congressional allies are therefore asking for middle-class tax reform, but don't want to increase taxes on the super-rich to pay for that lost revenue. But, if taxes are not raised, where will the difference by made up? In reduced social program spending of course. But this spending supports many of the social programs favored and supported by middle-class Americans.

It is time for the Democratic Party to abandon its policies of pandering to select interest groups and frame 2008 as an election built on saving the middle-class. Front and center of this election strategy must be the tax issue. Democrats must get middle-class Americans to ask themselves, why should I support a political party so irrationally against taxes? No one likes taxes, but they are a matter of necessity for any post-industrialized society. Therefore, why should those most able to pay and contribute not be asked to provide their fair share? It is the business executives, bankers, stockbrockers, and hedgefund managers who reap the most benefit from the American economy. They receive disproportionate rewards and therefore they should pay disproportionate costs.

While Republicans have adopted the belief that the only way to be patriotic is to pay out $800 billion for a war without question, they should have already lost the political debate. But Democrats have failed to frame the issue. Tax policy needs to be framed in a patriotic context. Through true and revolutionary tax reform, true change can be achieved.

As Thomas Friedman wrote, in his support for a gasoline tax...

"I can't believe that someone could not win the following debate:

Republican Candidate: 'My Democratic opponent, true to form, wants to raise your taxes. Yes, now he wants to raise your taxes at the gasoline pump by $1 a gallon. Another tax-and-spend liberal who wants to get into your pocket'

Democratic Candidate: 'Yes, my opponent is right. I do favor a gasoline tax phased in over 12 months. But let's get one thing straight: My opponent and I are both for a tax. I just prefer that my taxes go to the U.S. Treasury, and he's ready to see his go to the Russian, Venezuelan, Saudi and Iranian treasuries. His tax finances people who hate us. Mine would offset some of our payroll taxes, pay down our deficit, strengthen our dollar, stimulate energy efficiency and shore up Social Security. Its called win-win-win-win-win for America. My opponent's strategy is sit back, let the market work and watch America lose-lose-lose-lose-lose.'"

How does anyone lose that political debate???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071117/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Working Minimum Wage in Maine

Detail what occurred in Chapter 2. Make sure to discuss the events, people, and struggles that Barbara meets. In addition, offer any insights or conclusions that Barbara provides. Make sure to provide textual evidence to justify your response.