When the Republican bumper stickers fade

So today a socially conservative Republican admitted to cheating on his wife. This is a politician who was being floated as a potential true Christian conservative presidential candidate.

I’m not going to comment on the individual aspects of this. The situation speaks for itself there. We’re all fundamentally broken and there is plenty of judgment for us all if we choose to look there.

However, we can comment on the implications for the Republican party.

I think at this point that the Republican strategy of bumper sticker politics has completely and utterly failed. You can’t say “strong on defense”, “fiscally conservative”, “small government”, “pro-family”, “free market” etc. etc. etc. and then do the complete opposite and expect for people to take you seriously at all, much less vote for you.

(And what difference does it make? You aren’t who you say who you are once elected anyway.)

The political results of this are now clear, and the jig is up. President Obama is very weak on the Federal budget deficit. However Republicans can’t do a thing to capitalize on this because…well, they voted for some of the worst deficits ever. They should be able to go into next years Congressional elections strong, but nobody will believe them.

There are plenty more examples of this, but this is the most recent, obvious, and tragic.

Meanwhile with a parade of social scandals, “family values” sounds more like the punchline of a joke than any real belief.

The Republican Party is basically done. They’ve played the buzzword bumper sticker game for too long. The only hope is if they can maintain some sort of electoral toehold for long enough to prove themselves vote-worthy. And by proving themselves I mean doing as they say.

As of the last week or two the clock went back to zero on that one.

An sci-fi guy doesn’t like the Internet either

Ray Bradbury has this to say about the internet:

“The Internet is a big distraction,” Mr. Bradbury barked from his perch in his house in Los Angeles
…
“It’s distracting,” he continued. “It’s meaningless; it’s not real. It’s in the air somewhere.”

Funny thing is, you’d think the man who wrote Fahrenheit 451 would be more perceptive about the medium. Some true dangers of digital technology are apparent when you place his fiction in a technically advanced world. Tech has the potential to do far more harm to content than a “fireman”.

If you really press the overlords of the RIAA, MPAA, authors/publishers guilds, etc. They will say that even if you own a book, you don’t own the content. They’ve licensed the content to you and it still belongs to them. The fact that you can resell a book, DVD, CD, video game, etc. is highly offensive to many of those folks. There have been efforts to prevent such sales.

In a perfect world, they want you to subscribe to the content. They want to control how you use it.

So now that digital technology is available, things are drifting toward a world where even when you buy content, you don’t possess it. And even if it’s not intentional, this can have bad consequences.

So imagine a world 100 years or so down the line where you don’t actually own the content, it’s in digital form on a hard drive somewhere. At that point it might not even be in your house or in your possession.

Instead of a fireman coming to your house to burn books, the book might just be arbitrarily deleted somewhere. Or maybe just altered?

Without a physical newspaper, how can you look at a past news article and be sure what actually happened? What if some of the classic works were altered? What if the role of a fireman changed overnight?

Anyway, sittin’ at the beach and read this and got to thinking. Digital tech is great, but in the future it might lead to an oppressive abstraction of content.

Challies, on the other hand, does not get it.

Tim Challies has a post today that talks about iPods, Twitter, Facebook, etc. It mirrors some of Anne’s assertions from a few weeks ago:

But the wise observer might ask, if I have 1600 friends, why am I so lonely? Shouldn’t at least one of those 1600 friends be available when I need help painting my living room?

My continued question is “Why is this unique to new technology”? Were we any *more* connected with the “old” technology? Of course not. But the old tech is now part of our daily lives–necessary even–so that’s ok.

So we continue to see criticism of new tech fueled by the shortcomings of old tech. The crux of this fallacy can be seen in this assertion by Tim:

A trend we see today through today’s digital technology is the exaltation of this kind of knowledge, cold facts, at the expense of more intimate knowledge.

I would argue that this is not only wrong….it’s completely wrong. Opposite wrong. My whole career has been possible because the opposite is actually true.

The real trend today has nothing to do with knowledge. The printing press, television brought knowledge. The wires of the Internet brought knowledge. The real trend today has to do with the connection and intimate knowledge gained by networks that are bigger than just the wires.

If you’ve watched the web since the beginning, you can see this play out over and over. Each site and tech is more and more successful, and it’s success is directly attributable to it’s ability to network people together not with facts but with communication. And increased communication opens up the prospect of closer relationships. It doesn’t guarantee it, but it makes it possible.

People involved in security will observe that the current security environment is severely degraded because of the criminal communities created by today’s technology. You’re not just facing lone hackers. You’re facing large networks of people focused on illicit gain. These people didn’t get together via “cold facts”.

Facebook didn’t become so popular because college and HS students were craving cold, impersonal connections. They flocked there because it enhanced their ‘real world’ connections. And us old folks have figured out that the new technology does this in a way that fixes the damage done by old technology.

Challies and others are still trying to associate the pitfalls of older, industrial/mass based one-to-many communication technologies with new technologies. This is a huge error.

The difference is that old tech couldn’t be used to build relationships. The new stuff can with minimal effort. It’s time to recognize this and start seeing how it can actually reverse the problems of the old world.

Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler seems to “get” social networking/media.

Here’s a great post from Albert Mohler. It’s encouraging to see this kind of thing from a leader of Southern Baptists.

In particular, here is the best part:

Twitter has changed my prayer life. More than any development in years, Twitter helps me to know what is going on in the lives of many friends and people far beyond. I have known how to pray in many specific ways. I have rejoiced with friends and have grieved with others. Priceless.

This to me is the key benefit of Twitter/Facebook/etc. It really does facilitate human communication and this is good for the life of a Christian. It’s why I have no problem spending time on it.

I would argue further that social networking is much, much better than the things we tacitly approve everyday that have absolutely destroyed the heart of human community: The automobile+Interstate. Television. The increasing political correctness of the workplace. The physical layout of our new neighborhoods. Strip malls and huge parking lots.

The vast majority of our Industrialized creations are and have been resulting in human isolation. Even many church constructs, which reflect the age in which they exist, have created isolation.

(It’s amazing to me that people will talk about “wasting time on the internet” then spend hours in front of a TV…Or spend an hour on a commute to work… Or sit at a stoplight without lamenting that each breath is a precious gift wasted staring at a suspended lightbulb.

It’s amazing that the same folks who don’t know their neighbors will caution against being good “stewards of time” and “honoring God with our resources” by not spending too much time communicating on the ‘net. But I digress.)

…meanwhile back at the ranch.

Isolation is not how we were designed by God. (And if you’re an atheist/evolutionist, you can at least stipulate that we didn’t evolve this way). We were designed to be tribal and communicative in nature. The internet facilitates this.

Of course, that’s the part about repairing our situation. There are also the newer capabilities that are offered by smartphones and a whole lotta networking. This is the “should we Twitter in church” question.

Mohler stops short of approving these:

I do not believe that Twitter belongs in worship, but it does belong among the people of God. Tweet before and after a service of worship. Every once in a while, take a break.

I think there are valid things to explore in this area, but this is not really a big issue.

So this is very encouraging. Southern Baptists take note.

Is Christian Contemporary dead?

Here’s an interesting post about the disappearance of CCM magazine. (found via Religious Affections Ministries…a blog I almost never agree with but usually enjoy.)

My answer? Well, I’m not an insider but I have observed this world for awhile now.

I think the CCM of old died about the same time the secular music world died. It was a world of Christian music that lived in parallel (and with similar if not identical mechanisms) as the secular music world. But it’s not really their fault…there wasn’t any other place for it to exist.

Now there is a environment friendly to ‘new’ Christian music…one where it should have existed to begin with. The people of the church.

7-10 years ago I would call churches about coming to their church to play, and it was a new and different thing to have a group come in and play music. Now many churches have bands and expanding approaches to music and they’re much less interested in outsiders coming in. It’s not that they’re uninterested. They’ve kind of broken out of the traditional cultural mode and are doing so themselves. Or they’re a new church and they’re starting it that way.

The big problem I see is that ‘new’ Christian music is still maintaining the pop/Nashville sensibilities sourced in the old CCM environments. Which is to say very safe and very limited and very cookie cutter (in most cases). It’s going to get old sooner or later, especially in places that have chunked all traditional music in favor of new music.

It’s going to be interesting to watch where the next thing develops, and when/how it’s adopted by the church. Ultimately the goal should be that there is no “next thing”. That’s the way the old CCM thought, and while there are still large chunks of the old machinery turning out hits…it’s a losing strategy because the recording industry is not a Biblical model of ministry.

Instead, it should all be about what scripture teaches us about music and the style should ebb and flow around that.

Redundancy and functional failure

Had alot of fun in the data center this morning. It was sourced in the area of electricity. And to make a long story short, it was the best case of a worst case scenario.

Anyone who spends any time in I.T. (or, I guess…mars landers, aviation, operating rooms, etc…..anything technical or where the failure of a system is ‘bad’) is familiar with redundancy. Redundancy is basically running multiple things so that if one thing fails the other things will still be working.

You can achieve high levels of redundancy these days….and all for lower and lower prices. But it’s no magic bullet. Even in the most redundant environment, failure is always an option….and much more of an option than people think.

There are several problems.

The first is recognition of a failure. When has a failure actually occurred? This is a remarkably difficult problem. It’s easy to know when the power is out. But how do you know when a web server is down? An error message? A long response time? it’s not as easy as you’d think.

Another problem is functional failure. How do you know that the same condition that whacked the first system won’t turn around and whack the second system? You can put two servers on two seperate sides of the globe, and one bug will bring them both down.

Anyway, just a thought after this mornings festivities. Redundancy is good, but it must be understood in proper context.

Should you Twitter in Church?

Some posts out there in the blog world about Twittering in church:

Should We Use Twitter During Church?

John Piper’s take.

An article from Christianity today.

To me, this is pretty simple. Twittering is sometimes like talking, and sometimes like taking notes. You can tell if twittering is appropriate if it’s appropriate in any of these two categories.

Appropriate during worship? Reading of scripture? Singing? Would you talk or take notes? No.

(Although I will say I have seen public exclamations on Twitter and Facebook that are worship.)

Appropriate during the sermon? Well sorta. Just depends. Some people think twittering distracts you, but you could make the same argument about jotting down notes. Are tweets for an audience? Again…sorta. But some people would twitter for 10,000 or 0 and do it the same way. There is no one reason for twitter to exist.

Some churches are creating boards that post tweets up during the sermon. This creates an open air discussion more akin to sunday school…or even the way the Temples of old worked. If that’s the intent of the forum, then sure. Twitter away.

Whatever the case, we have to remember that our industrial age idea of church…where the rank and file (workers) come in and sit down (factory) and hear a presentation from a leader (manager)…contains elements of Biblical design but has alot of cultural construct to it. There’s nothing bad about this aspect, but in determining what is appropriate we have to put the construct in perspective.

We also have to remember that if we Tweet a Bible verse or a chunk of the sermon, that may be all some people read of the Bible or hear of a sermon all day.

My take on Jon and Kate

OK, this is a reality TV show. Which is to say it’s not real. And it’s also to say that you can’t really comment on them as people because of that.

But in regard to the behavior on the show, I’m actually surprised that the whole thing lasted so long.

I read a book (I thought it was Freakonomics, but I think it’s something else…have to dig it up) that talked about predicting divorce based on the tone of how the people talked with each other. In a nutshell, if people have contempt for each other…they’re probably going to end up divorced.

You can tell if peopls have contempt for each other by how they talk to each other. You can’t use the words they choose, because there’s so much more to communication than that. Saying “I love you so much” can be said sweetly, and it can be said with contempt. Their point was that if the discussion indicated contempt….it was game over for that marriage in a couple years.

(Note that this is a bit different from the “lift your spouse up” advice. You can talk down, make fun of your spouse (both by yourselves and in front of people) in a way that causes damage. This situation is obvious and bad. But in this case the language is more of a gauge to see what’s going on. What do they actually think?)

Anyway, from day one of their show, Jon and Kate’s discussions with each other were dripping with contempt. Even the good natured discussions had veiled contempt. I commented on that to my wife so she can vouch that it’s not just something I’m making up after the fact.

So yeah, if you don’t like each other….chances are you’re eventually gonna scrap. And this fighting may or may not lead to a terminal situation. In the case of the Jon and Kate show, they needed each other more than they didn’t like each other. When the Benjamin’s started rollin’ in they didn’t need each other anymore…poof.

If there is any cause/effect that occurred because of the TV show, it’s that the show brought out that contempt in concentrated form, and provided the means for them to replace each other.

Is there still hope? They are apparently people of Faith, so of course. But they are going to have to choose it, then work to remove the contempt and self-centeredness. They are going to have to mentally choose to love each other.

(BTW, here’s a handy divorce calculator. Shelley and I only have a 3-6% chance of getting divorced. Yay!)

The whole Bible

In church today the teaching was about Baptism and Communion, and a good deal of the sermon spoke about differences in experience and why our church believes what it believes. I got to thinking about what I have learned in the last year or so as we left our home church to see what’s “out there”.

A little technical background. Unless you’ve worked in programming or security, you may be unfamiliar with hashes. Hashes are mathematical fingerprints that sum up a collection of characters to a unique value. For example, John 3:16:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

has an MD5 hash of: 608c0faeca4a9459670c431d4bf9e824

Effectively no other passage or collection of words and letters will result in the same MD5 hash. So, let’s say I messed with John 3:16

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever is a real good person not perish but have eternal life.

Which results in the MD5: 071bb684802e215ef7ddca0165f1cda7

So without even reading the passage, you could know there’s a problem by just comparing the hashes. This is especially useful for large chunks of data. For example, the entire chapter of John 3 has a hash of: b369c7eac65c3e782030ec5f93d43d30

If I said, “here, use this Bible” you could theoretically verify it by creating an MD5 hash of the contents and compare it with the MD5 hash of a known, good Bible.

My point in all this is to say that you can easily test the validity of any belief or interpretation by looking at what they leave out or ignore. It’s easy to “prooftext” and come up with all sorts of things with one little chunk of the Bible. But that type of study isn’t valid. The hash of a prooftext isn’t the same as the hash of the entire Bible.

This is my problem with some of the Systematic Theology texts out there. They’re great references for interpretation and the standard take on things, but if you look in the index there are huge chunks of the Bible missing. They are useful for study, but they don’t hash to the same value as the Bible.

The same is true for some Christian books, but I think everyone knows what they’re looking at. Systematic Theology has a different intent.

As we journeyed through the various denominations and non-denominations, I saw verses that I had rarely seen before outside my own readings. Sure, they were touched on in linear and verse by verse study, but it seemed that certain sections were focused on even then.

So I’ve learned that growing up Baptist gives a great foundation in sound Theology, but there is definitely a focus on certain chunks of the Bible. I’ve subsequently seen that other denominations have other angles and favorites.

I remember playing at a small country church who, when my grandfather asked what they believe, replied “we believe everything from Genesis to Revelation.” This was a quaint and somewhat humorous response. But in retrospect it was pretty profound.

Wow…Ebay missed talent right under their nose.

How would you like to know that key players in of the most successful internet sites worked for you and you were too dense to apply their creativity to your product?

Ironically, at one point right after it bought PayPal, eBay had the leading actors of most of this entertainment revolution sitting in its offices. Chad Hurley and Steve Chen of YouTube fame, Peter Thiel (Facebook), Jeremy Stoppelman (Yelp), Max Levchin (Slide), David Sacks (Geni and Yammer), Reid Hoffman (LinkedIn, board member of Zynga) and others [...] were all too alienated by eBay’s bureaucratic and political MBA culture. So we decided to create our own fun elsewhere instead.

I love my kids

Today I drove my son and my daughter to school for the last time this year. Driving my kids to school is one of my favorite things to do. In fact, it’s probably one of my favorite things of all time. Talking with them, singing with them, hearing them talk to each other…these are all such a blessing.

Even when they’re quiet I steal a glance in the rearview mirror and watch their little faces gazing out into that big world. It’s fun to wonder what they’re thinking about, and even more fun to ask them about it.

Then when I drop them off I hear them greeting and talking to their friends and teachers. I especially get a kick out of all my daughter’s friends making a point to say “hey Canon!” He’s going to have some advantages I didn’t think about!

So it’s a bit sad to close this small chapter. We have one more year of the current set up, then Melodi will be going somewhere for 6th grade(!) and we’ll have some decisions to make for Canon too.

The fascinating thing to me about these little folks is that I would like them even if they weren’t my kids. They’re our children but they’re also turning into great people. My wife always mentions this proverb that “we’ll know our kids longer as adults than as children”. That’s a great thought.

As parents, we’ve been given an incredible (literally) role in the lives of the people we are raising. We should never take that for granted.

More on Facebook

(heh, if you read that…it sounds like “moron facebook”.)

More interesting stuff from Anne regarding Facebook, Twitter, and in the general online experience. I like Anne’s site because we both seem to have spent alot of time thinking through entirely different things about the same subject.

She is processing what these online communities mean and how they intersect with the Gospel and our ‘mission’ here in this life. I’ve already spent alot of time over the years thinking about this, as I was on BBS’ talking about such things back in the mid 80’s (over 300, then 1200 baud!).

But before going into the positives, here is my take on some of these communities at their worst:

LinkedIn = NameDroppedIn
Facebook = IamCoolerthanYouBook
MySpace = IWillRebelAgainstMyParentsWithHorrendousHTMLSpace
Frienster = GoodGriefGoAwayster
Craigslist = SubpoenaMyISPList

All that being implied I still hold that the online communities (most notably Facebook), while the subject of much scorn, are actually healing a large chunk of damage done to the human condition by the industrial age. The industrial age was great. But it had some significant disadvantages for the Gospel. For example….

• Ever notice how many protestant churches resemble a factory in organization and behavior?
• Have you ever gone to the mall or a grocery store and not talked to a single person for hours?
• When was the last time you wrote a letter?
• How many times in your life have you moved away never to see people again?
• Do you really know your neighbors?

These are examples of the way we have distored things. All of these things interfere with the Gospel because they are the practical application of industrial organization on our fallen nature. I see the social networking world busting up many of these artifacts daily. This is a good thing.

What’s really amusing is to see the more conservative among us (I won’t link to them) fighting this phenomenon. To some of our brothers and sisters, the industrial age manifestations have become one with Christianity. Thus, anything departing from previous societal and cultural norms are anti-Christian and somehow opposed to the Gospel. Keep an eye out for these, you’ll see them in the obvious places…and not so obvious places.

So in general, I think social networking is a good thing. Yes, it can become an idol….yes, it can be a vehicle for negative things. But for the most part I think it’s fixing many broken things.

The clock is ticking

As I’ve mentioned, slowly but surely all of our debt is flowing toward the federal government. Most of this process is not visible, but sometimes you get small windows into one of the waterfalls in this toxic river.

Here’s one. Fannie Mae needs 19 billion. They get this by selling stock to the gubmint, who then mints gubs (aka borrowing) and gives them the money.

To put this in perspective, the entire budget for NASA was 18.7 billion–a sum under careful review. Well, as careful as can be expected of a federal agency with private contracts in alot of congressional districts.

So on one hand, there is ‘careful’ review of the space program budget. On the other there is another massive gob of money going cover even more massive losses at Fannie Mae.

And lest some snake oil congressman try to tell you that taxpayers will recoup this ‘investment’:

Fannie Mae’s decision to tap an additional $19 billion in aid will raise its annual dividend payments to the Treasury to $3.5 billion from $1.6 billion. The company said its commitment to pay those dividends, the likelihood of seeking more aid and the deteriorating housing market creates “significant uncertainty as to our long-term financial sustainability.”

They’re basically saying that this huge bazillion dollar company is bankrupt. As in terminally. The amount of debt is too large to functionally pay it back. Fannie Mae is insolvent and as a taxpayer you’re “investing” more in this one payment than an entire year of NASA.

By the way the capacity for minting gubs is getting more and more suspect. The last treasury auction was weak. A few of those and it will be clear that Federal borrowing (and hence, borrowing in general) will become more and more expensive. The more expensive it gets, the less money it can borrow. Then the gravy train stops and we’re all in trouble.

Have a nice day!

Our New Soviet Style Economy

I remember back in high school we learned that the “command” style of politeconomics was bad. The “Free Market” was good. This was back in the Cold War, so I guess it was very important to understand this.

However, I read this story today and suddenly realized that we’re rapidly approaching the former Soviet Union in terms of how our economy runs. No, we’re not going to be goosestepping anytime soon, but the sheer amount of resources being pumped into the economy are making me think we could definitely have a soviet style result….with an American flavor, of course.

It seems our government has an idea for every industry.

The Banking industry needs to function a certain way (particularly in regard to auto loans an mortgages). The Automotive industry should exist in a certain way. Now journalism and newspapers should exist in a certain way.

Energy should be produced and used in a certain way. Crops and farms should function in a certain way through subsidies. Telecom and communications should happen a certain way.

Pay attention. Notice how almost all communication from our government now contains a presumption about how our economy should run.

From wikipedia:

A planned economy or directed economy [...] is an economic system in which the central government makes all decisions on the production and consumption of goods and services

And in terms of government spending, if you google around a bit you see that all government spending (as a percantage of GDP) is easily approaching 50%. You may laugh at the “we’re becoming soviet” idea, but it’s true. How long can this increase in the economic role of government continue? It won’t be long before we find ourselves in a 100% true irreversible command/directed economy. It may already be too late.

When did this happen? When did we start looking to government to ensure that everything happened the way we thought it should? When did we start thinking that a massive, government run economy is a-ok if it has a cool eagle perched on it instead of a soviet bear?

(The eagle is pretty cool though, picture it making that echoing screach sound….awesome!)

The sun is always setting somewhere

The sun is always setting somewhere
Over hills over valleys
While birds fly in lazy circles
Rising and falling in the cooling air

And in the circles are frozen
The eddies, the orbits
The soil and the bedrock
All eternal century’s dozen

These are the trails in motion
the subtle movements and artifacts
arcing through fate

While birds fly far above
Moving like ink
In the sketched formation
The image and purpose of love

Count your blessings

Last year my wife Shelley was diagnosed with a condition called sjogren’s syndrome. Sjogrens is a happy fun immune disorder similar to lupus or rheumatoid arthritis. You can read all about it here.

But in typical Shelley fashion it has it’s own set of special qwirks. In her case it’s a sensitivity and/or allergy to wheat and gluten.

She went to bed early tonight because she’s having a flare up of this condition. Which basically means she just feels crappy, has no energy, has a slight fever, and has to stay in bed until it clears up.

I know I’m not the one who has to deal directly with this ailment, so I can’t really speak for her….and it sounds easy to say this. But when things like this happen, I really feel blessed.

A few weeks ago, a buddy of mine lost his wife (33 years old) unexpectedly to illness. Last year I heard of another old high school era friend who lost his wife. Almost 2 years ago a guy my age at work lost his wife to cancer. Just a few weeks ago one of Shelley’s friends was diagnosed with breast cancer. Fortunately they caught it in plenty of time.

All this is to say that I am so incredibly blessed to still have my best friend, wife, love of my life, and mother to my kids still here. An immune disorder is no fun. But I can do my best to make up for that. You can’t make up for “no longer with us”.

So when we have to drop some extra money at Whole Foods for gluten free cookies, or when we have to go out of our way to the hippie organic store, or when the copays add up to a car payment, or when I have to help out with something or change plans unexpectedly and it’s not ‘convenient’. I’m completely ok with it. In fact, I do it gladly.

It’s an incredible privilege that is no longer possible for some other guys I know.

Some people see us on facebook, or our blog, office pictures, etc. and seem to understand. For others, I can tell they think we’re being childish or cutesy or something over the top. You know, I really just don’t have time to care.

Every day is a miracle directly from God. Every breath is like a million bucks. There are some people who’d pay that just to be able to walk around for a day. I’m going to celebrate that and be thankful in any way I can….

In Christ, we have victory over death and an eternal hope that can’t be conquered. But we also have an abundant life…a unique life that he created for us. This life is full of relationships and blessings that we barely recognize.

Take a good look around you. You’re living in a story that’s better than any feature film.

And I know who my Bond girl is!

In college, the guy with the credit card…

…was always the life of the party.

Obama’s approval rating high, but will it last?

It will last as long as the government can borrow.

So this guy walks into a Christian university

Interesting article about a guy who enrolled in Falwell’s university.

Once ambivalent about faith, Roose now prays to God regularly — for his own well-being and on behalf of others. He said he owns several translations of the Bible and has recently been rereading meditations from the letters of John on using love and compassion to solve cultural conflicts.

It’s a start….

Isa.55.10 For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, 11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

When will we stop using “Federal Debt as a Percentage of GDP”?

I actually like Robert Reich. His analysis is usually pretty good. But what’s more fascinating is his amazing ability to disconnect his rhetoric from his analysis. No matter what his analysis of the facts, he always finishes up with Democrat talking points.

Even back in college when we were reading his material, we noticed this. The Jekyll/Hyde routine was fun to observe.

His recent post on his blog definitely leans toward the talking point side. And it contains what I think is the biggest myth about our current financial mess:

When it comes to the national debt, as I’ve said before, the relevant statistic is the ratio of debt to the gross domestic product. The only sure way to bring that debt down and make it manageable in future years is to get the economy growing again — which requires that, in the short term, the government spend a lot of money (because consumers and businesses won’t).

One thing we should all be learning in this crisis is that the people who know what’s going on actually don’t. The complete failure in assessing financial condition is one of the key points that got us where we’re at. And this ratio of debt to the gross domestic product is completely and utterly irrelevant. There are several reasons, but lets look at the practical one.

When you go to a bank to borrow money, and they ask you how much you make…do you reply with the total profit of the company you work for? No, that’s silly. The money isn’t yours. Only the amount they pay you is yours.

The concept of Federal debt as a percentage of GDP should be equally as laughable. The federal government doesn’t own the country (although this should give some insight into the underlying philosophy here). Even if it did, it’s impossible for the entire GDP (or even most of it) to be taxed. So this figure is just not relevant.

When you’re getting a loan, only the money the company pays you is considered when you qualify for a loan. It’s called debt to income ratio. If we’re to realistically look at the federal government and it’s ability to pay off debt, we have to look at it’s actual income. It’s tax receipts.

The government took in roughly 2.5 trillion in taxes last year. We’re currently a little more than 11 trillion in debt (and we’re about to add another 2 trillion). These numbers aren’t looking good, folks. Anyone who thinks we’ll ever pay this off is crazy. And folks like China are not crazy. This jig will be up sooner or later when the “banks” of the world do the math and refuse to lend the U.S. any more money..

Going back to the analogy, imagine you walk in and say “Well the company I work for made 15 million dollars last year.” How much do I qualify for? Then the bank gave you a loan based on that 15 million figure. You’d have a nice house, but you’d be in a heap of trouble because you could never pay it back.

And the people who lend you money would be in a heap of trouble because you’d never pay it back. This sounds an awful lot like the housing crisis.

In other words, we did it once with housing….and if we use debt as a percentage of GDP as Reich suggests, we’re going to do it again with our entire government.

To all the cars we’ve loved before

Shelley and I recently came across a cool “5 cars I’ve owned before” thing on Facebook. Here is a more comprehensive list.

Mike
1986 Pontiac Grand Prix, black (flipped it downtown in my madrigal outfit)
1987 Pontiac Fiero, gold (run off the road by drunk driver. Tim was with me.)
1988 Pontiac Fiero, black (one of my favorite cars. It lived to a ripe old age, Tim inherited it)
198? Pontiac Bonneville, red (needed a bigger car. Inherited this from mom. Saved me from a couple tickets.)
1994 Saturn SL1, gold (birthday present, traded it in)
1990 Mazda Miata, blue (our first car Shelley and I bought together)
1990 Corvette, red (oh man….)
2000 Saturn SW2, (what happened?!?!?)
2003 Mazda Miata, silver (technically it’s both of ours)

Shelley
1972 BMW, light blue (she had this car when we dated. She was not a fan!)
1989 Chrysler LeBaron, red (we drove around in this alot.)
1993 Mercedes 190, white (a cool car)
1992 Saturn SL2, green (stick shift. My parents gave it to us as a wedding gift)
1997 Saturn SC2, green (sporty little car, sold because a car seat barely fit)
1990 Volvo Wagon 745, red (turbo. The momma car.)
2003 Saturn LW300, white (Lemon. such a disappointment…)
2003 Ford Expedition, black (great car. drank gas.)
2004 Mercury Mountaineer, black (another great car)