In a rally this morning, broadcast on CNN, McCain proposed something new for Florida. They will take the oil proceeds, and give them to Florida, so that the oil wealth can be "shared" among all Floridians. McCain stated that this was because a state knows what to do with its money better than the national government.
Really? Does he actually not realize what he just said? He just advocated sharing the wealth! Or does he somehow think socialism is bad if Obama says it, but not McCain? Or that socialism is bad nationally, but just fine on the state level?
And to put the cherry on top, he then quoted Obama, saying that Obama had advocated "spreading the wealth". Does McCain think that "spreading the wealth" is different from "sharing the wealth"?
I suppose McCain is right. Sharing the wealth sounds slightly more socialist.
Showing posts with label wealth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wealth. Show all posts
9.29.2008
777
Today, the market had it's largest point drop ever. 777 points. As many Christians know, that's a significant number- the most holy number throughout the Bible, a triple of sevens. (This is the real reason why 666 is considered the number of evil- it's one less than seven, and Evil in the Bible is considered not the opposite of Good, but almost at the level of Good. This is why it's so insiduous and deceptive- it looks like the real thing. Also, of course, in ancient Hebrew numerology, 666 fits the alphabetical rendering of Nero's name.)
And, as every Christian Fundamentalist knows, the number 777 is still as significant in real life as the number 666. This can only mean that the point drop was an Act of God. He is judging this nation for its pursuit of wealth and mammon, for its lack of care for the poor and outcast, for its not pursuing justice. Can you say, "Chickens coming home to roost?"
I knew you could.
And, as every Christian Fundamentalist knows, the number 777 is still as significant in real life as the number 666. This can only mean that the point drop was an Act of God. He is judging this nation for its pursuit of wealth and mammon, for its lack of care for the poor and outcast, for its not pursuing justice. Can you say, "Chickens coming home to roost?"
I knew you could.
8.24.2008
Where Your Money Comes From Matters
I'm not a teetotaler. I'm not into beer, but I love a good glass of red wine. I can't stand grape juice for communion; give me the warmth of Christ going down the gullet any day. But I stand strongly against alcoholism, drunk driving, or even drinking to excess. I think most people stand with me on that.
What your wife does for a living matters, and where the money that funds your life, and your campaign, comes from matters. Cindy McCain is worth 100s of millions, and by extension so is John McCain. That money comes from her inheriting the wealth of her father, invested in Hensley & Co., one of the largest distributors of Anheuser-Bush. She remains the owner of that company.
There is nothing wrong in selling alcohol, or being a large distributor of it. It is technically drug dealing, but only technically, because alcohol is a drug, but nothing like marijuana or cocaine. But would I want to have that as my job?
I can say, yes, I would be okay in selling alcohol, as long as I could control who drank it, and how much. I've heard of a guy who bought a tavern in a state that allowed only one bar per county, a long time ago. He cut everyone off before they could be drunk. He'd sell two or three beers per person, and then stop.
We have a moral obligation for every single act in our lifetimes. I have a responsibility for everything I do, and everything I produce. And I could not in good conscience sell something that I know a substantial proportion of my customers would become addicted to, and an even larger number would abuse. Those who are controlled by alcohol lead a life of hopelessness, going from one binge to the next, with damaged relationships and a bottle as king. Prohibition was a failure, but it was based on a sincere desire by progressives to defend women from the attacks of abusive husbands. There are too many ways that alcoholic abuse hurts not only the abuser, but their entire family, their friends, and the rest of society.
Thus there is something troubling about McCain building his campaign and livelihood on the back of wealth created through alcohol sales, and alcohol consumption. If there were some way for a distributor to end abuse, or even severely curtail it, this would be a different matter. But there is not. McCain seeks to be the leader of our country. Regardless of our last Democratic President, we desire a man who will have high personal ethics as much as high corporate ethics. McCain's campaign and livelihood have been built on the sale of alcohol, and therefore upon the misery of others. This I cannot countenance.
What your wife does for a living matters, and where the money that funds your life, and your campaign, comes from matters. Cindy McCain is worth 100s of millions, and by extension so is John McCain. That money comes from her inheriting the wealth of her father, invested in Hensley & Co., one of the largest distributors of Anheuser-Bush. She remains the owner of that company.
There is nothing wrong in selling alcohol, or being a large distributor of it. It is technically drug dealing, but only technically, because alcohol is a drug, but nothing like marijuana or cocaine. But would I want to have that as my job?
I can say, yes, I would be okay in selling alcohol, as long as I could control who drank it, and how much. I've heard of a guy who bought a tavern in a state that allowed only one bar per county, a long time ago. He cut everyone off before they could be drunk. He'd sell two or three beers per person, and then stop.
We have a moral obligation for every single act in our lifetimes. I have a responsibility for everything I do, and everything I produce. And I could not in good conscience sell something that I know a substantial proportion of my customers would become addicted to, and an even larger number would abuse. Those who are controlled by alcohol lead a life of hopelessness, going from one binge to the next, with damaged relationships and a bottle as king. Prohibition was a failure, but it was based on a sincere desire by progressives to defend women from the attacks of abusive husbands. There are too many ways that alcoholic abuse hurts not only the abuser, but their entire family, their friends, and the rest of society.
Thus there is something troubling about McCain building his campaign and livelihood on the back of wealth created through alcohol sales, and alcohol consumption. If there were some way for a distributor to end abuse, or even severely curtail it, this would be a different matter. But there is not. McCain seeks to be the leader of our country. Regardless of our last Democratic President, we desire a man who will have high personal ethics as much as high corporate ethics. McCain's campaign and livelihood have been built on the sale of alcohol, and therefore upon the misery of others. This I cannot countenance.
4.15.2008
I don't get it.
I was away from the internet and the news for the last few days, so I missed all of the hub-bub about Obama's remarks on the bitterness of the disenfranchised. I agree with the candidate- not the best choice of words, but fairly accurate for how the poor masses feel- he seems to have his finger on our collective pulse, so to speak.
So I was shocked and confused by Hillary's response- that Obama was "out of touch" with small-town America. Granted, it doesn't appear that most of the public is believing her on this one. But how could she even imagine that we would believe her? Obama grew up in poverty and overseas. He is the most committed Christian candidate we've had for this office since Carter. Or does Hillary think small-town America is the same as wealthy America, and therefore Obama is out of touch with the wealthy?
Let us compare this with a candidate who has little open display of her Christian beliefs- so much so that she said that if she'd heard what the Rev. Wright said from the pulpit, she would have long ago left that church, telling all of us who do attend churches that she's very unfamiliar with actually being part of a church, rather than just attending. For all of us have heard items from the pulpit that we strongly disagree with from time to time- its part of being part of a church, as opposed to a cult, where everyone agrees.
Let us compare this with a candidate who with her husband made 109 Million since leaving the White House. This is not to say Obama's hurting economically- he's made a couple million in book sales. But they aren't even in the same league. If we're asking who's more out of touch with the poor, the small-town resident, the average voter- is this even a contest? How could she not see she's shooting herself in the foot?
Perhaps this is why Obama appeared to be more angry than I've ever seen him before, in his response to Hillary's attacks. Oh, he wasn't frothing at the mouth, like some sort of John McCain. His anger is certainly understated, but also fully present. You can say a lot of things about Obama. But to accuse him of being "out of touch" with the poor and downtrodden is simply too ludicrous a proposition.
So I was shocked and confused by Hillary's response- that Obama was "out of touch" with small-town America. Granted, it doesn't appear that most of the public is believing her on this one. But how could she even imagine that we would believe her? Obama grew up in poverty and overseas. He is the most committed Christian candidate we've had for this office since Carter. Or does Hillary think small-town America is the same as wealthy America, and therefore Obama is out of touch with the wealthy?
Let us compare this with a candidate who has little open display of her Christian beliefs- so much so that she said that if she'd heard what the Rev. Wright said from the pulpit, she would have long ago left that church, telling all of us who do attend churches that she's very unfamiliar with actually being part of a church, rather than just attending. For all of us have heard items from the pulpit that we strongly disagree with from time to time- its part of being part of a church, as opposed to a cult, where everyone agrees.
Let us compare this with a candidate who with her husband made 109 Million since leaving the White House. This is not to say Obama's hurting economically- he's made a couple million in book sales. But they aren't even in the same league. If we're asking who's more out of touch with the poor, the small-town resident, the average voter- is this even a contest? How could she not see she's shooting herself in the foot?
Perhaps this is why Obama appeared to be more angry than I've ever seen him before, in his response to Hillary's attacks. Oh, he wasn't frothing at the mouth, like some sort of John McCain. His anger is certainly understated, but also fully present. You can say a lot of things about Obama. But to accuse him of being "out of touch" with the poor and downtrodden is simply too ludicrous a proposition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)