Mr. Lee Visits Iowa

Perhaps our blog should have a description more like Jake Keck or Justin Taylor. Perhaps we should admit that this is a blog with social, political, and theological commentary. Yet, I cannot get myself to part with our current banner (for those of you who have yet to notice the change):

Issuing CHILL PILLS, One Crazy Blogger at a Time

I digress. I wanted to bring attention to my friend Jonathan’s political escapades. I credit Jonathan with bringing to light many great things for me:

– The joy that is Red Wine
– Red Beans and Rice
– A better understanding of where guys like Brian McLaren and Len Sweet are coming from, and the culture to which they are speaking against/to
– The West Wing

I will confess that a TV show has got me more interested in politics than anything else ever. This is not necessarily a bad thing if we still consider forms of TV in the category of arts. Well, my buddy Jonathan is putting his money/time/effort where his heart is: in Corn Country.

Personally I hate the fact that Jimmy Carter capitalized on this early primary over a quarter-decade ago, thus making ethanol subsidies an issue that shouldn’t be (THOSE SUBSIDIES SHOULD BE GOING TO HYDROGEN FUEL DEVELOPMENT!!!), but that aside it is probably the most important primary. It gives a candidate momentum heading into New Hampshire. And if a candidate sweeps those two by a heavy margin (think John Kerry), then he or she pretty much wraps up their party’s nomination. That is why Jonathan is in Iowa, campaigning for Mike Huckabee.

So much for Obama, Jonathan?

What has made this interesting is that Jonathan and his friends are there together, campaigning for different candidates. The fact that they have been dialouging about it has made my new favorite blog.

Personally, the only thing about the GOP caucuses that interests me is whether or not Giuliani gets the nomination. It is very interesting to think that we could be on the cusp of not having a pro-choice candidate for President. As much as that saddens me, it would make my choice for President a heck of a lot easier (I’ll give you a hint, its the only time I’ve ever agreed with Oprah). Other than that, I could care less which big business loving, environment hating, orphan/widow forgetting candidate the GOP nominates. And I am refraining from writing about Ron Paul on this blog becuase I would like to remain friends with Aaron and Tom.



9 Responses

  1. Just for my input: an article issued of CNN today about Huckabee:

    I think I am turning into more and more of a single issue voter these days; how a candidate will fair in the international political realm. I do not think a candidate can provide government for our people, save our babies, or really make any in ways to our societies issues without having an enormous handle on what is coming at us from around the world!

    Another lesson we learned from the West Wing, as long as there was a world crisis it was hard for them to get anything done in the oval office or on the hill:) As a reality check look at the domestic bills passed in the 6 months after 9-11. If our candidate doesn’t have the knowledge, courage and diplomatic ability to navigate the insane international road ahead of him we won’t get very far in the next four years.

    By the way I know I am a bit obsessed with international issues lately! Feel free to disagree with me, I know my view is tainted, but I still believe it to be true….

    Plus just as a P.S. to the right—- Do the babies in Iraq being killed by our bombs/ do the ones getting ripped out of the womb in Dafur/Sudan etc without much fight from our Christian government not account for some outcry, some change in the ways we label valuing life???

  2. Man this blog is blowin up! I feel like I am visiting a new blog I just discovered. Matt has emerged from his blogging hibernation. And I feel lost. I just got back from SoCal, and had to sit on the highway outside of Jean for two hours because some Fedex truck spilled its load all over the road (hope none of those packages were next day delivery.) Anyway, love that things have gotten so political recently, weird that it has coincided with me reading a bunch of Anabaptist stuff and thinking of the merits of just opting out of the political system. Oh yeah I got a Dwight from “The Office” bobble head for Christmas.

  3. OK, here goes:

    1. Matt, hydrogen will be AWESOME. More money for the coal, oil, and gas industry. Where do you think hydrogen comes from, molecule fairies?

    2. What is wrong with big business? Do you advocate a return to agrarian society? Or are you referring to unethical business practices, which pervade the whole world economic system?

    3. Is Obama pro-life? I haven’t paid much attention. Maybe that changes my mind…

    4. Vicky, is our goevernment really Christian? Has it ever been? It seems to me it is a humanist government that grew out of the sanitization of many theistic principles. A government of the people can never be truly ‘Christian’, in my opinion. Democracy is simply the logical outworking of the Gospel which gives value to an individual human life…that does not make it Christian, but rather the fruit of Christianity. A dictatorship could just as likely grow from the same tree.

  4. I agree Adam. When I say “Christian government” I am talking about the religious rights idea of what this government should be, namely Bush. Anti-Abortion but not really pro-life because they do not support many things on a global level that destroy life. My argument is simply that as Christians who are voting, we might want to expand our idea of what “pro-life” really means.

    Bush worked to appoint conservative judges, which is a great thing. But he also supported the “knight riders” in 2003 to kill many innocent women and children in Sudan. He doesn’t do nearly enough to protect life in terms of international aid, food supply and clean water. Plus since there is a chance we may not have a pro-life choice, it would be wise for us to become educated and to truly evaluate what it means as Christians to be FOR LIFE as Jesus would have wanted and to evaluate the coming candidates in light of that. I agree that the abortion issue is huge in this argument; I’m just saying it is not the only issue in where the creation or destruction of life is
    in the balance.

  5. Thanks for the clarification, Vicky. For argument’s sake, though…and I am neither attacking nor defending Geirge Bush…but the USA gives more money in foreign aid…billions… than any other country in the world. What more would you have in mind?

    A friend of mine from Nigeria told me that US foreign aid is nice, but does nothing to help because it is stolen by the dictators of the countries to which it is sent.

    So, when the US military goes in and forcefully removes a dictator, thereby giving that country an actual chance to benefit from aid and self-determination, is that a bad thing? Should we do nothing militarily, but send money that is stolen? Or send no money and no troops?

  6. True we give the most money, but percentage of GDP we are one of the lowest if not The lowest. Just think of the the wealthy man who gave out of his riches and the widow who gave out of her poverty, which gift is more admirable?

    I would just say that as much money as we spend on defense and weapons, if we could take a sliver of the budget and possibly buy ourselves more goodwill and security than battleships and tanks ever could.

    I call this the “Wal-Mart theory.” Think about it, if Wal-Mart to a small portion of its marketing budget and funneled it into better health care and benefits for its employees, the PR and consumer goodwill would be much greater than a million smiley yellow face ads. Same goes with building security and peace in the world, or in other words, shalom.

  7. So terrorist appeasement and the goodwill of nations depends on the percentages on pie charts? I have a hard time believing:

    1. Islamic terrorists care about percentages.
    2. China won’t wreck our economy if they feel a greater warmth of generosity from us.
    3. The EU won’t slander us and sell weapons and services to number one up there, if only we give a higher percentage than they do.
    4. The person being terrorized by his own country’s militia wishes first and foremost that the US’s GDP reflected more foreign aid.
    5. etc.

    Sure we could give more, and we should, but the complex problems of the world require more than simply economic solutions. There must be efforts militarily and educationally as well. To think that goodwill comes from more money is overly simplistic.

  8. Well I do not want to be accused of being “over simplistic” but my point was simply what might help us be more effective in creating stability and peace in the world in addition to military means.

    In regards to your first point Adam I would say that Islamic terrorists may not care how much of our GDP goes toward philanthropy but I do not think anyone suggested that. I also do not think we should appease or cowtow to the tyrannical vision of terrorists. I think you and I would be in complete agreement that negotiating with terrorists is a losing proposition. Considering that they want us dead and we want to live, that leaves little room for compromise. What I am advocating is we expand our approach to peace in the Middle East beyond just military force.

    All we have heard for the last four years now is that the war in Iraq is one for the “hearts and minds” of the everyday people of Iraq and the Middle East. The war in the Iraq or achieving stability in the Middle East simply cannot be achieved through military prowess, that has been definitively shown. Even with the greatest army and weaponry in the history of humanity the USA has been unable to bring peace to a region with far inferior military might. Why? Because just like Iran’s President and Hamas realized long ago, power in the Middle East is found in perception. Even a moderate Palestinian who may not wish to see death and destruction come to Israel has their house blown up and then sees Hamas come in and help them financially, are swayed to think more favorably of Hamas.

    So I am not advocating an either/or of military or philanthropy as a Middle East policy, I think it is a both and. So given the meager results our military expenditures have brought us, why not try an avenue of also winning their hearts and minds with food and shelter.

  9. Thanks guys for you insight. All I am saying is that this is a great conversation; one as Christians we should be interested in if we are going to claim to be “for life” and one we should be aware of as we vote in a new leader of our country. If life is valuable because of our belief in creation and redeption and the soul, that goes beyond borders and ethnicities. I know that our governments first job is our protection, I rant on that responsibility often, however Jesus never said do not murder (American babies) but rather do not murder.

    What does it mean to vote according to scripture?? I don’t know the answer because everything is complicated. I would just love to see Christians be as interested in honoring the scriptures as we are in fighting for our one issue! It is bigger than just abortion, there’s a lot of S*!t going on around us and we better figure out quick what that means for us living as Christians here in America.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: