Published...

Hey friends,

I just published a piece in Perspectives. Thought it was time to change the subject since the last post was in August.

Hope everyone is well.

Liberals: Not Wasting Crises Since 1933

I posted this on my personal blog, here's hoping it sparks some discussion here.

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, let slip just after the election. "This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before," he continued. Obama has seized the opportunity, following the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who took full advantage of the fear created by the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression.

Let's review: in October 1929, two months after the crash, unemployment peaked at 9% and then declined to 6.3% by June 1930. Congress and President Hoover then passed the Smoot-Hawley tariffs with the intention of reducing imports and protecting American jobs. By November unemployment was 11.6% and the Great Depression was beginning. FDR was elected in 1933, promising in his acceptance speech:

"Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth... I pledge you, I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people... This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms."

FDR believed that through greater central planning of the economy, more powerful unions and massive social programs he could improve the economy and dramatically shift the power balance towards statism and the Democratic party. He succeeded only in the latter. The first of FDR's New Deal interventions in the economy after taking office in 1933 was the National Industrial Recovery Act, which set prices and wages. Then came the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which allowed FDR to control prices and output of all the nation's farmers. These interventions and others, combined with anti-business rhetoric from the White House created much unpredictability in the marketplace and business investment fell off the cliff. For the first 21 months of FDR's presidency, unemployment was above 20%. In 1940, after 7 years of FDR's New Deal, unemployment was 14.3%. When WWII started, unemployment declined dramatically as millions of unemployed men went to war and FDR changed his focus from radically changing the free market to winning the war.

Not only did FDR's policies extend the Great Depression, causing much suffering, but he left us with a much, much, much larger and oppressive federal government that continues to rob us of our liberty and tax dollars to this day. He took full advantage of the crisis at hand to move the country a long way toward statism.

Obama is seeking to do the same, having learned from FDR's example. Massive deficit spending didn't help the economy when FDR tried it, but it did help the federal government usurp more power from the people, so Obama rolled out a $1 trillion "stimulus" bill. His health care "reform" is a thinly disguised attempt to force us all into socialized medicine.

Most of Obama's efforts to revive the economy focus on creating government jobs. Unfortunately, creating more government jobs does not mean more net jobs, since the money used to create them is taken out of the market, which would have been more efficient at creating jobs with that money. However, as Obama learned well while in Chicago, government jobs create a group of people that rely on the government for their paycheck and will tend to vote for people that favor their continued employment.

FDR used the Great Depression to move this country away from individual liberty and limited government and toward statism. Let's hope Obama is not as "successful."

Obama at Notre Dame

Any thoughts on President Obama's commencement address at Notre Dame? It brought back memories of President Bush's address at Calvin a few years back. Although this situation had the notable difference that Obama is an opponent of an official, important position of the Catholic church, while Bush's major problem was a war that the Democrats decided was no longer worthy of their support.

Where the Wild Things Are

I was largely unaware of this project until a couple months ago when I heard Dave Eggers (Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius; What is the What) cowrote the screenplay with none other than Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and just about any sweet music video of the last 15 years [yep that one with Christopher Walken])

This trailer was just released today and I've watched it almost a dozen times already. I can't believe how freaking cool this movie looks and having the trailer set to the Arcade Fire music only ups the potential cool by a factor of 100.

But don't take my word for it...
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/wherethewildthingsare/

Wozofoto

Sorry to use this blog for shameless self-promotion, but just in case your walls are looking a little bare, please check out my new website:

Wozofoto.com is a deal-a-day site, offering a new photo by a different photographer everyday. For $10 you can get a 5x7 or 8x10 that would cost you multiples more elsewhere. Larger sizes are also available for an additional fee. Photos are printed at professional photo labs with archival quality inks and paper. Your photos will be printed and shipped to you so fast they'll be on your wall in about a week.

What's the catch? The photo of the day is here today and gone tomorrow. One day, one photo. Thanks for checking it out the site - let me know what you think.

Share on Facebook

Animal Collective

Am I the last one to discover the band Animal Collective? Hope not. If you don't know em, give their newest album Merriweather Post Pavilion a whirl. 

If Beta Band suddenly became DJs they might sound something like these guys. If you don't know Beta Band, then shame on you. Watch High Fidelity and then we can talk. 

Animal Collective is categorized, somehow, as "psych folk" or "noise rock", neither of which really describe what they do. They are melodic and electronic, crisp and eccentric, high energy and utterly irresistible. Honestly it took a couple listens before I got it, but now I cannot stop. Try "Brother Sport" or "My Girls" as introductions, but be sure to give the whole album a chance.

I have not gotten my hands on any of their older work, so if you perchance get lucky, maybe pass it along?

Liberal Fascism

Jonah Goldberg's booke Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning is one of the most interesting books I've read in a while. I thought I might stir the pot a little with some of Godberg's thoughts. 

Many on the left don't even know what the word "fascist" means, yet they will hurl the label at anyone with different political opinions (see Stuff White People Like: Comparing People to Hitler). Goldberg argues that American conservatism is incorrectly viewed by the left as somehow related or growing out of fascism. Instead, liberalism comes directly from an intellectual tradition that has much in common with fascism. He does not argue that liberals are Nazis or anything of the sort. Fascism is expressed differently in different cultures, Nazism was one expression, progressivism is another. Racism and violence are not essential components of fascism. Here is the author's definition of fascism:

Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the “problem” and therefore is defined as the enemy.

I always wondered why history books described Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy as "right-wing". The truth is that fascism is right-wing leftism. It was the international socialist movement that labeled fascism as right-wing, as national socialism was heresy to the internationalists (nationalism vs. class struggle). The internationalists saw fascism as the last gasp of capitalism - fascists would not completely take over the means of production but would instead regulate industry to the point where industry's goals were perfectly in line with "the People's" goals.

Conservatism as an intellectual tradition has nothing in common with fascism. It opposes all forms of political religion and instead views the state as a necessary evil intended to protect our God-given rights. Goldberg writes that "a conservative is one who protects and defends... private property, free markets, individual liberty, freedom of conscience, and the rights of communities to determine for themselves how they will live within these guidelines." However, conservatives are not immune from the temptation to engage in totalitarianism. They are sometimes tempted to fight fire with fire: e.g. opposing a multi-cultural/post-modern society by trying to impose a Christian/traditional values society instead of promoting a free, open society that allows the best ideas to win.

Liberalism, on the other hand, traces its roots to progressivism. Progressive views of the role of government are much closer to the fascists. They tend to believe that the government should do about anything, as long as it is "good" for people. It can't be tyranny, they are doing nice things for people. Goldberg documents how many American progressives openly admired Hitler and Mussolini and were in fact jealous of what they were accomplishing, until their militarism overshadowed their domestic agenda (which was not much different from what you hear from the left today). Goldberg argues that American liberalism "is a totalitarian political religion, but not necessarily an Orwellian one. It is nice, not brutal. Nannying, not bullying."

I'll close with a quote from Richard Weaver that Goldberg uses in the book to summarize why this subject is important.

The past shows unvaryingly that when a people’s freedom disappears, it goes not with a bang, but in silence amid the comfort of being cared for. That is the dire peril in the present trend toward statism. If freedom is not found accompanied by a willingness to resist, and to reject favors, rather than to give up what is intangible but precarious, it will not long be found at all.

I was on the news. Check it out.
http://www.kmov.com/video/lateststories-index.html?nvid=332751&shu=1

Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed

Sarah and I watched the Ben Stein documentary, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" last week. It was a really interesting look at intelligent design and those promoting it within the world of academia.

Stein chooses his fight carefully. Instead of taking on evolution directly, he points out that evolution does not explain how life began and argues that the idea of a designer is at least the equal of other theories on how life emerged from non-living things. No one knows how life came from non-life, but the scientific community has decreed that only non-intelligent design theories are worthy of discussion. Stein details the persecution of those in the scientific community that raise these points and argues that intelligent design deserves to be part of the debate.

The most fascinating part of the documentary is when Stein interviews Richard Dawkins, the prominent atheist and author of The God Delusion. According to Dawkins, there is little to no chance of God or a creator, but he believes that a plausible explanation for the beginning of life on earth was a visit from aliens billions of years ago.

I believe the scientific community is trying to diminish the role of God in society so that He can be replaced by a new god - the state. 

Jaydiohead

My opinions of "mash-ups" have been nothing but bad since that horrible Elvis mash-up album came out years ago. Luckily the idea has been significantly redeemed when I started listening to Girl Talk and now Jaydiohead. I have been listening to this non-stop since someone told me about it and I downloaded it. Not only was I reintroduced to Jay-Z but the quality of Radiohead's music really gets highlighted in this format. Anyway, take a listen if you're curious. It's a free download here

Bobby's 2008 Favorites

So I had been holding off posting these in hopes of annotating my list. Alas, I never found the time and it would be 2010 before I'd likely finish. So here they are. Please ask me about any specific titles if you want more info. For book info, feel free to check out my GoodReads page.

Music

Fleet Foxes - s/t*

Bon Iver - For Emma Forever Ago*

Damien Jurado - Caught in the Trees*

Beach House - Devotion

Cool Kids - Bake Sale

Walkmen - You & Me

Black Mountain - In the Future

Bonnie "Prince" Billy - Lie Down In the Light

Vampire Weekend - s/t

Sigur Ros - Med sud i eyrum vid spilum endalaust
*top three

Live Shows

Fleet Foxes @ the Hi Dive

Sigur Ros @ Red Rocks

Mumford & Sons / Laura Marling @ Falcon Bowl

Deerhoof @ Bluebird Theater

Books

(published 2008)

Fiction:

Netherland - Joseph O'Neill

White Tiger - Adiga Aravind

Atmospheric Disturbances - Rivka Galchen

Story of Edgar Sawtelle - David Wroblewski

Nonfiction:

Traffic - Tom Vanderbilt

Happy Gloves - Miyako Kanamori

Sizwe's Test - Jonny Steinberg

Childrens:

Bats at the Library - Brian Lies

Madam President - Lane Smith

Wave - Suzy Lee

Little Matador - Julian Hector

Little Hoot - Amy Crouse Rosenthal

(read in 2008)

Invention of Hugo Cabaret - Brian Selznik

Gilead - Marilynne Robinson

Watchmen - Alan Moore

All the Pretty Horses - Cormac McCarthy

Plainsong - Kent Haruf

Movies

(in theaters)

Slumdog Millionaire
The Dark Knight

Man on Wire

(on DVD)

The Visitor

The Band's Visit

Young at Heart

This American Life (tv series)

War/Dance

No Country for Old Men

Favorites From '08

2008 has come to a close. What are everyone's favorite books, movies or music from last year? Here's a few of my favorites. Yes, Bobby, I liked the Indiana Jones movie and I am not ashamed. 

Books

Liberal Fascism - Jonah Goldberg
Capitalism and Freedom - Milton Freidman
America Alone - Mark Steyn
John Adams - David McCullough
The Post-American World - Fareed Zakaria

Movies

The Dark Knight

Burn After Reading
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Iron Man

Music

Kings of Leon - Only By the Night
Death Cab for Cutie - Narrow Stairs
The Ranconteurs - Consolers of the Lonely

Fleet Foxes - Fleet Foxes

Conor Oberst - Conor Oberst

Stuff White Christians Like

One of my favorite blogs is stuffwhitepeoplelike.com. If you're not familiar, it is the definitive guide to stuff white (liberal) people like. Stuff white people like includes: awareness, gifted children, knowing what's best for poor people, hating corporations, comparing people to Hitler... you get the idea.

I am pleased to present a shameless ripoff blog: Stuff White Christians Like at stuffwhitechristianslike.com. Any suggestion that I am posting stuff white Christians like under the pen name Abraham Calvin is preposterous! And the other poster, Luther Zwingli is certainly not a pen name for a good friend of mine in the Chicago area - equally preposterous.

Stuff White Christians Like officially launched Saturday night at 11:59 pm CST. Because the posters wouldn't dream of blogging on the Sabbath, there will be a new post every Saturday night at 11:59.

I hope you like it. Feel free to pass on the link to friends and email stuff white Christians like to abrahamcalvin at gmail.com.

Calvin College Reunions

Hey! This post is not as thoughtful as Jon's recent post...still thinking of comments for it as it did promote great reflection.

So, I got a mailing recently asking if I would participate in reunion planning for Calvin....which got me thinking, I haven't been to a reunion, haven't been inclined to go, and don't see the point as they currently are scheduled at an odd time...In fact, each year the mailings seem to inspire cynical comments about awkwardly sitting at an Improv session.

so, I'm wondering. Have any of you attended a Calvin reunion? If so, why? How was it?

Would any of you consider attending a Calvin reunion? Why? What would draw you in?

The only "reunion" I've ever attended was with many of the friends who read/write for this blog. They have been wonderful times of good conversation and reconnection in various locations. The focus was on maintaining friendship across the miles.

I most recently attended the alumni reunion at my grad school...which was great because it included a continuing ed component focused on my profession, as well as offered some great opportunities to network and reconnect with professors and classmates. Again, all in my professional circle, with an immediate "application" if you will.

This may be a bit snarky, but Calvin alumni reunions seem to have less than interesting topics, time to reconnect with classmates, but not necessarily faculty, and are great for boomers and beyond but lack a connection to our generation X/Y/Millenials. In addition to possibly missing our generation, I think the concept of a reunion as functioning as a time/place to regenerate giving to Calvin could also use some re-thinking.

Thoughts?

Conservative Charity

Democrats are making an effort to peel off evangelical Christians from the Republican base by stressing their commitment to "social justice." Conservatives are not very good at talking about the poor and are often assumed to be greedy and uncaring.

To start, social justice, as promoted by the left, is based on the false premise that inequality is evidence of injustice. Inequality is portrayed as a societal problem to be remedied by government. However, I think most people would agree that people choose different paths in life and some acquire skills that are more useful to society than others. The fact that a brain surgeon, who after years of training makes more money than a fast food worker should surprise and upset no one. The chance to make more money than the fast food worker probably played a part in the surgeon's desire to complete the necessary training. People have a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and equal protection under the law. People do not have a right to economic equality.

Although the poor are not, as a rule, being denied justice, that does not mean we are free of responsibility to help them. Liberals have labeled conservatives as greedy and uncaring because we oppose income redistribution, however, Arthur C. Brooks' research in his book Who Really Cares shows that label to be the furthest thing from the truth. Brooks found that in the U.S., conservatives actually give more of their money to charity than liberals.

Brooks defined "liberals" as the 30% of the population calling themselves "liberal" or "very liberal" and conservatives as the 40% of the population calling themselves "conservative" or "very conservative." He was surprised to find that in 2000, conservative households gave 30% more than liberal households, even though liberal households earned 6% more on average. 24 out of 25 of the most giving states (charitable gifts/adjusted gross income) went for Bush in the 2000 election.

Brooks saw an even bigger difference when people were asked whether "the government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality." This is the crux of the argument between fiscal conservatism and liberalism. The 43% who disagreed with the statement gave 12 times as much as those who agreed strongly. The difference also carried over into volunteer hours and blood donation.

Many (certainly not all) liberals substitute political opinions for private giving while conservatives are more likely to actually give and volunteer. Favoring tax policies that "donate" other people's money is not charity and opposing them is not greed.

So conservatives do care about the poor. Why do we oppose income redistribution? It takes away economic freedom and stifles opportunity. Punitive tax policies reduce incentives to be productive. Less production means less opportunity. As Ronald Reagan once said: "I believe the best social program is a job." Private charities are much more efficient than government. Thoughtful givers can focus their gifts on efforts that help lift people out of poverty while government programs tend to keep poor people dependent and, well, poor. What's more, Brooks' research shows that these programs depress charitable giving.

I fear that President-elect Obama's policies will not help the poor. Instead his policies are likely to make them more dependent on government and reduce their opportunities to help themselves. I believe conservative policies are better for everyone, we just need to get better at explaining them.

Sorry for the book, but I had a hard time condensing my argument. I'm interested to hear everybody's thoughts.

So I was roaming around on the net and look what I found...the ever elusive Aaron Kupchella! Apparently he's in the Beijing Big Band. Pretty damn cool. I found this within Facebook. Anyone know if he's got an account on Facebook?


P.S. - The pic came out a little small here...but that's definitely him on the far left.

Reorganizing

I reorganized the stuff on the right side of the blog, hope you guys don't mind. I think it would be cool if we let each other know about movies, books or music that we enjoyed (or if you didn't like it, save somebody the $10 they were going to spend on that movie). It's really easy to do, just make sure you're logged in and then click on the little button below each section or click on customize at the top right. My ratings were on a 5 * scale, but rate things however you like.

A new bank

I posted this on my blog, and thought it would be interesting to discuss on this blog as well.

I have several blog posts churning around in my head. One on the current financial situation and God's economy. One about ministering to those that hold positions of power. One about the importance of mission of outreach in the face of recession and depression. But, the thoughts haven't crystalized quite yet. Maybe they aren't appropriate for a blog post, but rather a conversation or two.

Earlier this fall, Peter and I switched banks for our savings account. I read a book about consumerism this summer that got me thinking more about the relationship between micro and macro economics and our community. As an urban planner/community developer, my partner Peter found a great bank in Chicago/Detroit/Cleveland called ShoreBank. Their misssion is "to be a community development and environmental bank that enjoys a proud heritage of serving Chicago, Cleveland and Detroit. ShoreBank is committed to building stronger communities, creating a healthier environment, and helping its customers achieve financial success. When you bank at ShoreBank, you will experience friendly, expert customer service while also having the satisfaction of knowing that your deposits will have a positive impact in the community."

I can't argue with that. Not only is their savings account high yielding (as competitive as an ING account), but it also gives back to the community. Something "conservatives" and "liberals" can agree on.

Check out the history and vision here.

I won't pontificate about the current situation of other banks. It's complex. The solution will be complex. But, I am encouraged that there are alternative options for stewarding money and resources.

Also, if anyone is looking for a helpful budgeting/finance tool: mint.com has become our new friend. I'm visual, and seeing a pie chart of our expenses each month by category is great. The software is free, safe, and great.

What are your thoughts on money and the economy? What does stewardship of resources look like? Is there a boundary between stewardship and hoarding?

Why We Disagree

Why is it that conservatives and liberals have a hard time agreeing on anything? Clearly there is something very different about the way we see the world. Thomas Sowell's book A Conflict of Visions - Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles attempts to describe these two very different worldviews. Sowell is a conservative economist and while most of his books promote conservatism, I think he's even handed in this book. Here's his take, I'm interested to see if you guys agree or disagree.

Sowell's argument is that the basic difference is that conservatives ("constrained vision") see human nature as unchanging and fundamentally selfish while liberals ("unconstrained vision") see human nature as something that can be changed and improved. These opposing visions then have very different ideas about how society and government should function.

Conservatives then see society as constantly evolving as people, using limited resources and limited reason, establish a society that correctly harnesses man's true nature. Limited government with checks and balances is seen as an ideal system, as politicians and the elite are not exempt from man's basic, selfish nature. Capitalism recognizes the role of incentives in behavior and rewards self interested people for creating goods and services that help others. Justice requires procedural fairness and not results-based fairness.

Liberals on the other hand, think that people can be brought closer to their potential by instituting wiser and more moral policies. They believe that people can be conditioned to do the right thing for the right reason, rather than out of self interest. While conservatives seek the best trade off using limited resources, liberals seek an equitable solution. The elite, with their superior wisdom and morals, should guide the masses toward a more perfect society. Even if there is procedural fairness, there can't be justice is there is too much inequality.

Most people are not all the way in either camp, but does this sound about right?

Bucket List

Have any of you seen this movie. It isnt novel and it isnt all that well done. It isnt a new idea, but it really got me thinking. The premise of the movie is that these two guys get terminal cancer and set out on a quest to accomplish some tasks and have some experiences before they die. Sometimes I get really frustrated with my life because I think it is too mundane. Over the past few years I really havent been seizing life in both little and big things. It is so hard with a baby and school and work. Jaime and I got to talking about our bucket lists and what we wanted to do both in the short term and long term. Simple things like trying a new restaurant, going on a short trip to bigger things like vacations or excursions. Anyway I think it is an interesting scenario because on the one hand it is a very narcissistic endeavor but life is only what we make out of it. It is more than just resolutions. What are the experiences in life that we have to seize to flesh out deficiencies. I was on a role this summer. A friend and I took a baseball trip and watched games at fenway, yankee stadium, and shea. Then Jaime I went to see Radiohead on their Rainbows tour (really great light show by the way) we even went to this mexican restaurant that we have been meaning to try for like 2 years (it was terrible, but now i know). Anyway I need to get back to work. By the way this post was on my list I have been meaning to write it for several months.