“Just asking, but I wonder -- if Newt won't be bought for $1M -- how much could Michael Savage raise from those who might like to ask Obama not to run for re-election? Could enough be raised in promised payments from those with deep pockets to actually set the economy right? If so, then maybe this would provide Obama with a solution that he needs while also appeasing those who actually do feel that a change of leadership would change the direction that the nation and the world are heading. What would Michael Savage say? How much are people willing to put on the table in an appeal to buy out an incumbent office holder?”
akgobears on Dec 13, 2011 at 11:29:33
“why doesnt your party spend as much time coming up with solutions as it does playing little games ???? Could it be because they have no solutions ??? And after 3 yrs of crying and whinning about Obama one would think your party would come up with something to actually offer the american public other than a carnival show and the clowns that go with it ............”
“"But I'm equally passionate about the urgency of creating a culture of meaning that responds to the deepest needs of the human soul." .... Parker J. Palmer, Center for Courage & Renewal
The Angel (or the Devil) is in the details, of course. While agreeing in principle, I think that pointing at a problem is only the first, and the easiest, step. What next? Will the organizations of faith embrace a means of creating a "culture of meaning" if this is intended to contrast with a culture of belief?
Do we not already believe that the scriptures are alive in the world, and that by seeing the world through the scriptures we bring meaning into belief and belief into meaning?
The broader culture of meaning that pervasively surrounds us is a culture of corporate influence. In what might be called a huge sin of idolatry, we have named corporations living beings under the laws of the United States. These beings have shaped the context for judging value.
Rail as we might against consumerism, we haven't the marketing voice to speak loudly enough from our souls to echo into the canyons of the national culture. We must make the spaces where soft voices can reach large audiences.
So, what comes next? Is it time to take a stand for life and put an end to corporate personhood?
“Does the average American feel that international faith in the American dream is both necessary and justified?
Our money regulators and money lenders will remain the same. Trust will continue to erode. Lending will decline and rates will rise. The stressed family situations of "low income" workers will not be improved. The lack of work opportunities for the unemployed and underemployed will not change. The United States is trying to tell the world "it is alright ... we are still all on a path to prosperity."
I believe that the average American is rediscovering the need to look locally for trust and community. There is no security without community. Money holders who feel that their security rests in their personal net worth may ultimately have to come to terms with the hollow lie behind that hope. Those who no longer believe that they will become an individual with high personal net worth have every reason to see the myth toppled. Inequity isn't the problem ... gross inequity is the problem ... and Americans have yet to agree upon what is gross.”
sjvanb on Aug 1, 2011 at 08:33:05
“no longer a goverment by the people for the people its for the rich only”
“Isn't the issue one of protecting the money lenders? The idea that any event will raise the cost of borrowing means that lenders do not trust borrowers. Does a federal "insurance" program for money lenders actually help? Tax payers are insuring that lenders will "trust" borrowers ... but how has this been working for us? Lenders recognize that borrowers default, and risky loans are risky because banks and personal lenders do not know how to identify the risks -- and part of this ignorance is based on a falsely constructed federal insurance program for poor loans. Insurance cannot be a substitute for understanding the risks. So, once again, at a federal level I am more concerened about what is NOT being done to change the equation over what magic of accounting is being applied in efforts to balance failed equations. If we do not trust, we cannot lend. This is the wave that is rolling over us all. We have too much concentrated money and too little basis for trust. We have too little trust because we do not have the means to explore complex situations openly, fairly and efficiently. We have too little trust because we operate on deals rather than on committments to each other.”
“Convergence between the two dominant American parties confirms what the world already understands. There is no choice. Whether we remain hopeful or become (or remain) distrustful of the man who sits in the oval office, the results are irrelevant ... and the false drama actually can distract us from the work at hand. When a president finds that he doesn't have the votes needed to go in one direction he has to grasp for other options. There simply are not many options for doing what is right, so one hopes for doing lesser wrong. Fighting for the right and failing must be measured against assuring a lesser wrong.
Any president who actually feels that he has the power to influence voting and vote formulation which is conducted away from the public eye is kidding himself and the public. The president is along for the same ride that we are all facing. America is not looking for a way to restore middle America and a balance between wealth and poverty. America is divided, even when it presents the face of unity for the purpose of keeping on keeping on.
Through our lack of transparency, we are pushing our collective confusion toward massive conflict, and when we try to settle the resulting massive conflict with arbitration, we will fail. Only then will we be willing to rediscover democracy.
If our legislature were transparent, we would understand that the problem is our process, not the best efforts of good people alone.”
greysells2 on Apr 11, 2011 at 12:21:48
“Convergence between the two dominant American parties confirms what the world already understands. There is no choice.
It also confirms that the system is "fixed" by those two parties to exclude other perspectives and priorities from public discussion. In a big country this is not necessarily good.”
pyro on Apr 11, 2011 at 10:59:13
“America is not looking for a way to restore middle America and a balance between wealth and poverty.
“A central issue here relates to the "technology" of planning together. Where the "will" to plan together may exist, the means of managing highly complex social issues may require some special capacities. I believe that organizations of faith can develop and share such capacities; however, many faiths are anchored in the business of "telling" more than in the art of "asking," and when different communities come togeher in a special opportuinty for collaborating to build a better future, the civic leadership has the challenge of guiding the inquiry as the group finds its path.
To what extent does the modern interfaith movement embrace 21st century planning tools to assist in the mission of bringing different communities together?”
Abdul Malik Mujahid on Jan 31, 2011 at 00:18:20
“Excellent question Tom. Thank you for raising it. Unfortunately whether these are planning tools or listening ability, we have a need to learn more at the national and international levels of the interfaith movement.
However at the local levels the interfaith movement has performed far better since they are more used to personal touch and relationship. There are many success stories which are yet to be told.”
“It is not what Sarah does or does not represent that matters. It is the vacuum into which she speaks. There is a hole in the fabric of our understanding of what is going on, and Sarah fills it for many. It is a voice that tilts reason in the direction of some much hoped simplicity in life. Was it not our friend Albert Einstein who said "an explanation should be as simple as possible .... but no more so."
In a complex world that is changing in unknown dimensions, simplicity sounds like a worthy goal. I feel that to argue against this emotion is fruitless. Maybe we should find new ways to serve this emotion. We have tools at our fingertips that can make complex situations more understandable to our average citizens. Our leadership at the top may well recognize that such tools must be recognized and broadly used. We cannot have an informed electorate if we don't separate the message from the noise ... And we cannot separate the message from the noise if we persist with oratory, debate, and expert analysis as usual.
Sarah tells us that we need a new model, even if she cannot herself be that model nor point us toward it.”