BARACK OBAMA IS IN TOWN
I can't decide if I should go see Obama while he's in town today or not. He's going to be at the high school daughter Carrie graduated from, and I think it would be especially interesting to hear if he says anything about the slew of murders we've had lately - what, like 6 in 2 days, plus a couple of other shootings. Many of them right around that neck o' the woods. I was all hyped to go, but then saw you needed tickets. By the time I found that out they were all gone. I did give my email and phone number in case anymore became available. I'm not thinking that's likely. So, I thought I might just go stand outside - maybe take a sign of some sort. But it's raining. Do I really care that much? I dunno. We'll see what happens after the coffee kicks in.
I did read this interesting tidbit about the difference between the Obama's charitable giving and the Cheney's. It seems between 2000-2004 Barack and Michelle gave less than 1% of their income to charity; 5% in 2005; and 6% in 2006. In 2006 Dick and Lynn Cheney reportedly gave 78% of their income to charity. I'm not sure what you can make from that exactly, but it's certain that things are not always what they appear. And I'm not defending or chiding either one. I just thought it was innaresting. I wonder why they only reported the one year for the Cheney's though.
BOOKS
Last night while Jane was at class (and after another 4 mile run) I spent an eon in Barnes and Noble. I was looking for a novel to read. Something classic, ya know. I thought about Catcher In The Rye, or The Grapes of Wrath, or The Idiot, or something along those lines. I mean, there are some classics that I read in high school that I can't even remember. I didn't care about too much of anything in high school. And there are others that I've always thought would sound cool to say I've read them, but... some of them are so big! The only big book I've ever read was Don Quiote. And that was actually what kinda turned me on to reading, but... man, big books are so intimidating. So anyway, I bought John Steinbecks Of Mice and Men. I've never read anything by him - don't know anything about him, or this book - but I've heard of him. And it was a small book. I love small books. Nothing should be allowed to be over 200 pages (in my book). I dunno... I didn't want to spend a ton of money, in case it's another one where I read the intro and set it on the shelf with the other gazillion books I have. Plus I have Kerouac's On The Road that I'd still like to read. I also got a hankering for Anne Lamott's Traveling Mercies. Daughter Carrie has that - though I think it's loaned out at the moment. I probably should have just asked one of my kids for a book - they are both VERY well read. Hmm.
AND...
Well, I guess that's about it. I also hoped to get some new running shoes today. Mine are a couple years old, and even though I only run on the treadmill and they still look brand new, they've got a lot of miles on them. Plus I have no casual tennis shoes to wear since I gave my other ones to the boy, so my current running shoes would become my everyday shoes.
I used to wear almost nothing but tennis shoes for a long time. Then I started wearing what I always called "hard" shoes - even though some of them weren't really hard-soled, but they weren't tennis shoes. This winter I've mostly been wearing my work boots every day. But in the summer I almost always wear tennis shoes. They look better with shorts - which I almost always wear in the summer. And I don't wear sandals too much. Never cared for sandals. And my tennis shoes have to be loose enough that you can just slip them on and off. I can't stand having a tight shoe on. In fact, I usually buy wide shoes, and I don't have that wide of a foot. That's just the way it is. And there's your song reference... so I'll stop.
10 comments:
uh, Bruce Hornsby and the Range?
Yes, Obama is at my old alma mater--he brazenly took a day off from campaigning yesterday because he was about 40 million dollars up on Clinton in fund raising--so, he should be all rested and in good voice.
That's an interesting point about the Cheney's, considering how villified they are by the dems re: gov. contracts that they believe he's giving away to a company he used to work for--even though he doesn't hold any stock, and is no longer affiliated with them. He is the target of so much conspiracy theory it's ridiculous. I think they only reported that one year of his charitable donation because 78% of his yearly income...considering his net worth, age, and how long he's been in politics is...enough, really. That's a LOT of money.
I'd also like to take a moment to say that money is not evil. I hear kids giving up on the idea of success because they somehow think it corrupts. They should get rich, and give it to the poor. But don't use the old "root of all evil" line as an excuse not to prosper and spread it around.
In regards to money, I think some people are made to be rich and give to the poor and some are made to give up money, dedicate their lives to service and be poor.
I wouldn't say that I've given up on sucess because I think money is evil. I'd say I'm successful because I realized that money does not mean sucess. I remember what it was like to have a wad of cash walking out to my car after work every night (i was a waitress, dont' get any funny ideas). By this country's standards I wasn't really rich, but I had a lot more money than I needed and I have nothing to show for it.
Now I'm poor. I took a low paying job at a non-profit organization. I think I'm fairly successful. If only I could decide how to spell sucessful...successful...??
Oh, and I'll bring some classics home just in case you might want one on your trip. I have Catcher in the Rye at least.
Hi Dan,
I made each of my kids read a big book (Scottish Chiefs, a historical novel about William Wallace) during high school. I think it is good to learn that they can read a big book so that they aren't intimidated by them, and I think it provides a sense of accomplishment. Then when they finished I said, "Wasn't that great?" and they were like, "yeah sure mom."
I'm still not sold on the whole "money is not evil" thing, MR and Carrie. I just don't understand how we can look at someone like Cheney and say, "good job" giving all that dirty money to the poor and getting his big tax breaks, like money is what they need.
Sometimes I think that we think helping the poor means making them more like us, i.e. giving them money and job skills so that they can get out of their "bad" neighborhood and get a good job and a house in a "good" neighborhood and send their kids to a "good" school, etc. When we (I mean we who feel a need to "help" the marginalized) need to become a part of their communities and help them get some money and some job skills so that they can give back to their community while still being a part of it, without ever permanently leaving.
I don't really see any Biblical precedent for the trickle down effect of "get a lot of money and spread it around" mentality. I think that's what people wished Jesus would have done, but he did the exact opposite. I'm not saying everyone should do this, but I think we've had enough examples of rich people giving such and such an amount of money to poor people, and it doesn't change anything.
I think a lot of people look at the rich young ruler and say, "well if he'd of just had a better perspective on his money then everything would of been okay, he could have kept it and used it." When really I think Jesus was saying if he'd of had the right view of is money he would have realized that he shouldn't have had any of it.
A lot of (Emergent?) people want to talk about getting back to the Acts Church mentality and they skip over 2:44-46.
Anyway, just just wanted to get the other side out there.
isaac
I don't wish to be on either side of this.
Money is a necessary evil and I can't be convinced otherwise. There is nothing about what Isaac said above that I disagree with.
However, I would rather see someone with money donate a large chunk than not donate a large chunk. I don't think it's right to be wealthy or rich or whatever other word you want to use to describe someone who has a ridiculous amount of money. BUT, I would definitely not be above accepting a large donation for the institution in which I work or any other institution trying to make a positive change in the name of Christ.
People living in poverty need our assistance, but so do people in the suburbs and that requires money too. I'm not saying that requires mega-church and huge sound systems and of that junk, but they need ministered to as well. I'm not sure what that looks like but I know that telling them they're not Christ like for being wealthy isn't the best approach. It puts up walls and drives them to people like Joel Olstein who justify their wealth as God's blessing on them - which it may be - but from what I read in the Bible, God doesn't say keep if for yourself. He blesses the poor and the weak. From what I read, I am much better off being poor than to be wealthy.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I just don't want to get so caught up in wanting to help the poor and the opressed that I forget that the oppressors are just as deserving of God's grace as anyone. I don't want to forget that the rich and the wealthy are my neighbors as well and so I am called to love them just the same and no differently than I am called to love a homeless man.
I just re-read what Isaac said. I know money is not going to solve problems. But it is necessary. For example, I don't remember you being as passionate about this topic until you went to AU. Your education or at very least the institution in which you learn and the people you have met there have instilled in you this desire. That takes money. And it takes a little bit of money to run a ministry, it takes a little money to get things started - to buy a house in a poor community, to start a garden. I think a lot of people go way over the top with how much they think it takes. But it takes a person with some business experience to teach a person how to act at a job interview.
Think of all the missionaries you know - be it overseas or in the inner cities of the US. They have to get some people to commit to financially supporting their cause. Money sucks. I think we have a lot more to learn and a lot more to figure out.
Again, I'm not sure where I'm going with this.
much love.
"...money is the answer for everything." Ecclesiastes 10:19
Just thought I would throw that out there without any context just for the fun of it. heh heh
Boy, I pulled the pin on that grenade, didn't I? Hahaha... and I just came here to find out what's wrong with Dolly.
It's ironic that the people we're talking about don't usually want anyone trying to change them, they just want to be left to their own devices. Which means my plans for them and your plans for them are pretty much irrelevant.
But someone's paying for that pizza you're bringing them.
I feel the "Shane" speech applies here. Shane was a gunfighter who wanted to settle down and just be a farmhand, helping out a good family, but with evil everywhere, he found he couldn't get away it and eventually "draws" on his special ability to liberate the farmers. The speech he gave was about guns. He says "A gun is a tool like any other, as good or as bad as the man who uses it." I think the same applies to money. For SOME it's a passionate pursuit for the purpose of personal gain and for others it's the natural by-product of their gifts. I personally think it's easier to be a moral person when you don't have to worry about things like food and shelter. You know, like Maslow's hirarchy.
Wow, there's actually some intelligent discussion taking place on my blog! I appreciate the comments.
First - yes: ding, ding, ding. It's Bruce Hornsby and the range.
Second - Grace... no offense but I'm glad you're not my mom or my teacher (but we can be friends, right?). :)
Third, in regards to the money thing. Lots of good thoughts here; especially from those Horwedel kids. Gosh, you must have great parents. :)
I actually just got a dvd of Donald Miller's called "Free Market Jesus." It's pretty good. We'll probably be viewing it over a couple of Sunday mornings - maybe in June. On the back cover it says: "The average american encounters more than 3,000 advertisements each day. The formula for most ads is: 1. You are not happy; and 2. You will be happy if you purchase this product." Miller addresses how this has helped to shape our screwed up culture. I think that's so true. It's not *just* the money that's the problem. And I don't think we can say it's *just* money that can create a solution. IMHO.
I think this is why the way of Jesus is so important. He's been trying to teach us a new way - not one that depends on money, or does without it - but a way that supercedes it, or transcends it. It's much like government.
Money is over-rated, I don't care what that Ecclesiastes guy says.
Peace all. Thanks again for the good discussion.
Hmm... I've also run across a couple sites in googling "dick cheney charitable giving" that seem to cast a little doubt on this 78%. Seems you can count corporate matching funds and pro bono speaking engagements (Not sure what happens if you don't like bono). Some estimated it as closer to 1 or 2% in reality - as in the charitable giving that normal people make. So... who knows.
Post a Comment