Don’t mess with Texas

When comparing Texas and California, this cartoon from The Economist tells you everything you need to know:

Never mind the Economist’s statement that they are the “nation’s two biggest states” (I think Alaska might have something to say about that) or that the Dallas-Fort Worth area is made up of “flat, ugly countryside” (OK, that might not be too far off).  The fact remains that CAHL-EE-FOR-NEE-A is old and busted, while the Lone Star State is the new hotness.  (Emphasis mine.)

These days California’s unemployment rate is running at 11.5%, two points ahead of the national average. In such Californian cities as Fresno, Merced and El Centro, jobless rates are higher than in Detroit. Its roads and schools are crumbling. Every year, over 100,000 more Americans leave the state than enter it.

The second worry has to do with dysfunctional government. No state has quite so many overlapping systems of accountability or such a gerrymandered legislature. Ballot initiatives, the crack cocaine of democracy, have left only around a quarter of its budget within the power of its representative politicians. (One reason budget cuts are inevitable is that voters rejected tax increases in a package of ballot measures in May.) Not that Californian government comes cheap: it has the second-highest top level of state income tax in America (after Hawaii, of all places). Indeed, high taxes, coupled with intrusive regulation of business and greenery taken to silly extremes, have gradually strangled what was once America’s most dynamic state economy. Chief Executive magazine, to take just one example, has ranked California the very worst state to do business in for each of the past four years.

By contrast, Texas was the best state in that poll. It has coped well with the recession, with an unemployment rate two points below the national average and one of the lowest rates of housing repossession. In part this is because Texan banks, hard hit in the last property bust, did not overexpand this time. But as our special report this week explains, Texas also clearly offers a different model, based on small government. It has no state capital-gains or income tax, and a business-friendly and immigrant-tolerant attitude. It is home to more Fortune 500 companies than any other state—64 compared with California’s 51 and New York’s 56.

The article goes on to point out Texas’ weaknesses (education, immigration) and says that we can learn a lot from the “inventive” Golden State.  Sounds like the only thing they’ve “invented”, however, is big government with excessive taxation and regulation.  Thanks, but no thanks.  I think I’ll stick with the state where the inventions come from the private sector.

Oh, and one other thing:

Previously:
Chuck Norris for President of Texas

Derek Webb’s ‘Stockholm Syndrome’: Conflict and controversy

There’s been a lot of talk on the Interwebs lately about the “controversial” new album from Christian musician Derek Webb, Stockholm Syndrome.  The controversy seems to be primarily over one particular song on the album, “What Matters More”, due to the song’s use of the word “shit”.

I don’t really do music reviews, but after listening to the album for several days, I did want to weigh in with a few thoughts on it.

First, lyrics aside, let me make a comment about the music.  I would describe the style as experimental, synth-heavy electronica with moments of dissonance and incongruity.  (See, this is why I don’t do music reviews.)  Some have compared it to Wilco and Radiohead, which is probably a fair comparison.  Sometimes the music works (“Black Eye”, “What You Give Up To Get It”) and sometimes it severely gets in the way (“The State”, “American Flag Umbrella”).

But the music is a key component to understanding the deeper message of the album.  Dissonance in music is meant to create tension, to make the listener intentionally uncomfortable, and it frequently does so here.  This isn’t a feel-good album that you would likely queue up on your iPod while cruising around town on a lazy Saturday afternoon.  Instead, it’s an often heavy, sometimes depressing manifesto with serious themes and a specific purpose.

The tension created by the music serves as a natural backdrop for those themes.  Stockholm syndrome is a condition in which a hostage develops an emotional attachment to his captor.  In such a situation, you would expect to find conflict and resistance, but instead you find loyalty.  In the same way, Webb argues, we as Christians have “married our conscience to the State”.

Typical for Webb (a Libertarian), most of the songs on Stockholm Syndrome have political undertones (or overtones) and/or address controversial social issues in the Church such as homosexuality.  And “What Matters More”, while getting most of the attention, isn’t the only song to push the envelope lyrically.  “Freddie, Please”, a song about a deceased homosexual watching his own funeral, uses the word “queer”, and a few other songs mention sex and drinking.  Suffice it to say, while some of that has to be taken its proper context, this isn’t an album I would listen to in the car with my two young daughters.

But of course this album isn’t really targeted at kids, it’s aimed at adult Christian believers.  Just as the music invokes tension and discord, the lyrics are deliberately designed to be raw, uncomfortable, and controversial.  They’re meant to provoke a response — even if it’s a negative one — and to an extent, that strategy appears to be working.  Webb’s record label, INO Records, will only release an edited version of the album (minus the “s” word), and their stance has naturally generated a lot of buzz and curiosity, driving sales of the original version on Webb’s website.

As for “What Matters More”, the song is pretty much a musical adaptation of the quote from Tony Campolo: “50,000 people around the world died of hunger today. That’s bad, but what’s worse is that most of us don’t give a damn. But what’s even worse is that for many of us, it is more bothersome that I just said the word ‘damn’ than that I said 50,000 children of God died of hunger.”  If you agree with Campolo’s argument, you’ll probably agree with Webb’s song.  But personally, I’ve always thought such an argument was extremely arrogant, as if to say Christians don’t have the ability to condemn sinful behavior as long as there are starving people in the world.

In “What Matters More”, Webb slams Christians who disagree with homosexuality for the same reason:

Say you always treat people like you’d like to be
I guess you love being hated for your sexuality
You love when people put words in your mouth
‘Bout what you believe, make you sound like a freak

‘Cause if you really believe what you say you believe
You wouldn’t be so damn reckless with the words you speak
Wouldn’t silently consent when the liars speak
Denyin’ all the dyin’ of the remedy

Tell me, brother, what matters more to you? Huh?
Tell me, sister, what matters more to you? Huh?

If I can tell what’s in your heart by what comes out of your mouth
Then it sure looks to me like being straight is all it’s about
Yeah it looks like being hated for all the wrong things
Like chasin’ the wind while the pendulum swings

‘Cause we can talk and debate until we’re blue in the face
About the language and tradition that He’s comin’ to save
Meanwhile we sit just like we don’t give a shit
About 50,000 people who are dyin’ today

Tell me, brother, what matters more to you? Huh?
Tell me, sister, what matters more to you?

Brother, what matters more to you? Huh?
Tell me, sister, what matters more to you?
Tell me, what matters more to you? Huh?
Tell me, brother, what matters more to you?

This isn’t the first time Webb has caused controversy with his music (see here and here), and he knows exactly what he’s doing.  There was no way the label was ever going to release the album as-is, which is exactly his point.  (For the record, I think the controversy over a couple of cuss words is way overblown.)  That said, if his goal is to offend and alienate a portion of his audience so that he can appear to take the moral high ground, then that’s not constructive, it’s conceited.

After listening to the album multiple times, I can certainly appreciate the artistic vision of it.  Not all art is happy and pretty, and neither is Stockholm Syndrome.  It’s a difficult album to digest, and if nothing else, it’s at least prompted a number of discussions about issues that need to be discussed within the Church.  Nevertheless, while I understand the message Webb is sending with his latest effort, I can’t say that I fully agree with it.

Race for Texas governor officially on …sorta

On Monday, Senator Kay Baily Hutchison officially announced that she will be officially announcing her intent to someday run for governor of Texas.  Or something like that.

I was surprised as anyone.  I thought she had been already been running for governor for months.  I’m so used to her not doing anything substantive as a senator, I just figured she was taking the same approach to her gubernatorial campaign.

But running she is, and she’s already raised $6.7 million.  Combined with the $6 million she had leftover from her Senate run, that puts her ahead of incumbent Rick Perry, at least financially.

And so far campaign finances are the only thing the two candidates seem to care about.  Hutchison accused Perry of raising funds while the state legislature was still in session (a no-no), and Perry’s staff replied that she is a “liar, liar, pants on fire” (to paraphrase).

If this is any indication of how the rest of the primary season is going to play out, then I’m not interested.  At least Carole Keeton “One Tough Grandma” Strayhorn was good for a few chuckles now and then.

Previously:
When will Kay Bailey Hutchison resign?

Donald Miller’s tribute to Robert McNamara

Just thought this was interesting, considering I’ve discussed (and quoted) author Donald Miller a few times and recently blogged about Robert McNamara.  Seems Miller had a a few words to say on his blog about the former Secretary of Defense as well.

Yesterday, Robert S. McNamara passed away. MacNamara was President of Ford Motor Company before going to work at the Department of Defense. He was instrumental in the bombing of Japan in World War II, and is often called the architect of the war in Vietnam. But toward the end of his life, MacNamara began to reconsider his actions. He even wrote a book confessing what he felt were his wrongs. He left the Johnson administration and ran the World Bank, some believe, to make up for the many lives lost under his command.

I don’t have a strong opinion about the war in Vietnam. War is messy, and I tend to believe we had good reason to be there, though it certainly didn’t turn out the way we would have hoped. But hindsight is twenty-twenty. I am more interested in MacNamara, though. I am more interested in a man with a distinguished career suddenly coming out and admitting he was wrong. It is so rarely seen by a government leader.

Like many of those who commented on Miller’s blog, I don’t know that I can buy the theory that McNamara’s move to the World Bank was a way to make up for his role in the Vietnam War.  Not that he wasn’t remorseful for his actions — I have no way of knowing that — but I tend to agree more with John Perkins’ assessment of him as an economic imperialist rather than reformed benefactor.  Maybe that’s the pessimist in me, or maybe I’m just disillusioned.

Previously:
What do Iran, Honduras, and Robert McNamara have in common?

Knut the ‘psychopath’ polar bear now considered ‘beloved’

The AP is reporting that Knut, Germany’s once-famous “beloved” polar bear, is able to stay at home in the Berlin Zoo after the zoo paid out a $600,000 settlement over an ownership dispute.

Beloved?  Since when?

Last time the now-brownish bear was in the news, zoologists had labeled him a “psychopath”, and he was being kicked out of the zoo because he was no longer earning his keep.

So does that mean he’s completed some court-mandated polar bear rehab, or have the Berlin Zoo’s ticket sales just picked up since his eviction notice?

Who knows.  But it wouldn’t be the first time a renewed marketability has transformed a has-been freak of nature into revered legend. (*cough* Michael Jackson *cough*)

Previously:
Knut not so cute, gets the boot
Knut the ‘psychopath’ polar bear gets visit from lonely fan

What do Iran, Honduras, and Robert McNamara have in common?

In a blog post a couple of days ago about Honduras, I mentioned a book by John Perkins called Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.  Coincidentally, that same day it was announced that Robert McNamara, the former defense secretary in the Kennedy administration and a key figure in the book, had died.  It’s funny to think how McNamara is related to the events unfolding in Honduras, as well as the ongoing protests in Iran.

Confessions centers around Perkins’ career as an “economic hit man” in the ’70s and ’80s, a position whereby governments in underdeveloped nations were made to accept massive loans from organizations such as the World Bank for infrastructure improvements and other public service projects.  Once in debt, those nations would then be willing to accept contracts with American companies, who would exploit the countries’ natural resources for their own gain.  Such nations would also become politically indebted to the U.S., thus furthering American political influence around the world during the Cold War.

Robert McNamara is remembered by most for his contributions to the Vietnam War, but according to the book, he played a major role in this expansion of the U.S. “corporatocracy” as well:

McNamara was a frequent visitor to our discussion groups — in absentia, of course.  We all knew about his meteoric rise to fame, from manager of planning and financial analysis at Fort Motor Company in 1949 to Ford’s president in 1960, the first company head selected from outside the Ford family.  Shortly after that, Kennedy appointed him secretary of defense.

… As we sat around the table discussing world events, we were especially fascinated by McNamara’s role as president of the World Bank, a job he accepted soon after leaving his post as secretary of defense.  Most of my friends focused on the fact that he symbolized what was popularly known as the military-industrial complex.  He had held the top position in a major corporation, in a government cabinet, and now at the most powerful bank in the world.  Such an apparent breach in the separation of powers horrified many of them; I may have been the only one among us who was not in the least surprised.

I see now that Robert McNamara’s greatest and most sinister contribution to history was to jockey the World Bank into becoming an agent of global empire on a scale never before witnessed.

As Perkins points out, this process of economic empire-building began in 1953, when the U.S. organized a coup to oust Iran’s prime minister and replace him with the Western-friendly Shah.  In 1979 the Shah’s reign ended with the Iranian Revolution and the appointment of the anti-American Ayatollah Kohmeini.  Today the massive “Green Revolution” protests in Tehran and the growing threat of Iranian nuclear weapons are direct descendants of those earlier events.

The current crisis in Honduras is also at least indirectly related to the empire-building described in Confessions.  American foreign policy relating to Central and South America during the Cold War was driven by the desire to not only extend our economic influence over the region but also our political influence, a clear extension of the Monroe Doctrine.  As such, Marxist revolutions such as the ones in Cuba, Nicaragua, and El Salvador became direct threats to the U.S. and our economic interests.  If ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya had gotten his way, he likely would’ve led that nation down the same anti-American path as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.

In my earlier blog post, I quoted Roger Noriega, the former assistant secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, in his argument for removing Zelaya.  Such a position, it could be argued, stems from a vision of Latin America eerily reminiscent of the corporatocracy described by Perkins.

According to Tom Barry at the International Relations Center:

In a February 2006 report entitled “Two Visions of Energy in the Americas,” Noriega warns Latin American and Caribbean countries against going down the path of energy outlaws who violate the laws of the free market—pointing to Venezuela and Bolivia.  In his essay, Noriega advocates that corporations and governments “can and should work together to foster genuine growth and development in the hemisphere that serves both the bottom line and the moral imperative of helping raise millions out of poverty through the sound stewardship of natural resources.”

… What is more, Noriega encourages “Western energy companies” to “use their capital and technical expertise as levers to encourage countries in Latin America and the Caribbean to adopt clear and fair policies that make investments safe and sound.”  Noriega rightly notes that there is political sentiment in Latin America and the Caribbean that represents a “setback for market principles” and constitutes a “vision of energy in the Americas” that may run counter to the expectations and interests of the United States and U.S. energy corporations.

Another example of Robert McNamara’s legacy as it relates to Iran and Honduras is the Iran-Contra scandal which became public in 1986.  Through complex covert operations, the U.S. sold arms to anti-Khomeini forces in Iran and then used the money from those sales to fund anti-Sandinista forces in Nicaragua, with Honduras serving as a base of operations for the CIA.

My point is, these various events occurring around the world today are not isolated events.  History doesn’t exist in a bubble.  The consequences of decades-old decisions are still feeling felt today, just as today’s decisions will have consequences for decades more to come.  While I don’t think we should necessarily continue the Cold War-era empire-building described in John Perkins’ book, I don’t think it’s wise to fully retreat from those policies either, as the results of kowtowing to despots like Chavez, Kim Jong-Il, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be disastrous.

Instead, I agree with George Santayana: “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

Previously:
Choosing sides in Honduras
Obama and the end of the Monroe Doctrine

Obama and the end of the Monroe Doctrine

In 1823 President James Monroe established a policy which came to be known as the Monroe Doctrine.  The doctrine stated that efforts by European governments to colonize land or interfere with states in North, Central, or South America would be viewed by the U.S. as an act of aggression.  The policy effectively marked the entire western hemisphere as being under the protection and influence of the United States, and revolutions like the one in Cuba in the 1950s were seen as a direct threat to the U.S.

The Monroe Doctrine drove much of America’s foreign policy in Latin America through the 20th Century, but that may be coming to an end, if President Obama’s stance on the recent upheaval in Honduras is any indication.

Obama should have welcomed the removal of Zelaya from Honduras. Zelaya had recently sided with the Iranian ayatollahs in their suppression of a democratic election: no wonder he demanded readmission to Honduras in the name of God. His illegal attempt to defy the constitution through a plebiscite his supporters were tooled-up to rig was condemned by the Honduran Congress, the Supreme Court, the Attorney General and the chief Electoral Tribunal.

… But Obama has a soft spot for socialists, hence his insane cosying-up to the Bolivarian fruitcakes. He has invented a brand new kind of foreign policy: supporting regimes that are violently anti-American. Call it neo-masochism. Obama has reversed the Monroe Doctrine as well as the definition of “democracy”. In supporting the megalomaniac dictators who are trying to drag Latin America into the year 1917, he is mouthing the same claptrap as Miguel D’Escoto Brockman, president of the UN General Assembly and former lieutenant of Ortega in the Sandinista dictatorship, and Miguel Insulza, Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS) and Fidel Castro’s champion.

It remains to be seen how the crisis in Honduras will play out or what the repercussions will be for that nation and throughout Latin America.  But whatever the outcome, Obama’s lack of support for the Honduran government is alarming, and coupled with his equally flaccid stance against nations like Iran and North Korea, the position of the U.S. has been significantly weakened, not just in the western hemisphere but worldwide.

Previously:
Choosing sides in Honduras

Choosing sides in Honduras

On June 28, the President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, was seized by that country’s military on the orders of the Honduran Congress.  Upon being escorted out of the country, he was replaced by the head of the Congress, Roberto Micheletti, who was named interim president until the scheduled election in November.

Zelaya’s removal from office was prompted by his pushing of a referendum which would’ve allowed him to serve a second term in office, something not allowed under Honduras’s constitution.  Supporters of the coup argue they were only siding with the rule of law.  But the international community, including the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Obama administration, have sided with Zelaya, ordering that he be restored to power.

Who’s right?

Roger Noriega, a former assistant secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs during the George W. Bush administration, argues that the Honduran government acted correctly in removing Zelaya, a “capricious blowhard” whose friends include Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Raul Castro.

Zelaya’s self-serving lawlessness was ignored completely by OAS leadership and, as far as one can tell, by every government in the region that now dares to pass judgment on Honduras’ constitutional order. The feckless regional diplomats who have failed to confront undemocratic caudillos in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Honduras are complicit in their abuses. Today, they have neither the credibility nor moral authority to pass judgment on those desperate patriots who act to defend their freedom, in Honduras or anywhere else.

Noriega’s position shouldn’t come as a surprise.  He is an ardent supporter of free market oil and energy investments in Latin America by American companies, a vision of a U.S.-backed “corporatocracy” that reads straight out of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.  Such a vision requires fairly weak but stable Central and South American governments who are friendly to the United States, exactly the opposite of those led by Chavez and Castro.  By backing Zelaya’s attempt at extending his power beyond constitutional limits, U.S. corporate interests in Honduras could be greatly damaged.

Corporate interests aside, however, the reality is that the Honduran Congress and military acted within constitutional guidelines by removing Zelaya, an act also backed by that nation’s Supreme Court.  Therefore, the call to return Zelaya to power makes absolutely no sense.

Imagine if this had happened in the United States.  Imagine if George W. Bush had tried to push through a referendum that would’ve allowed him to serve unlimited presidential terms, something disallowed by the 22nd Amendment.  Had he then been impeached and ultimately removed from office, would the international community still expect him to be returned to the Oval Office until his term expired?  Of course not!  So why is it demanding that of Zelaya?

President Obama called the removal of Zelaya a step backward from the “enormous progress of the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions in Latin America.”  Yet it was actually the democratically-elected Congress that was following the constitution, not Zelaya.  If Obama really believed in upholding Latin America’s “democratic traditions”, then he would be siding with the Honduran Congress, not with the likes of Hugo Chavez.

As the Wall Street Journal points out, supporting Zelaya is “one more act of appeasement toward an ambitious and increasingly dangerous dictator.”  At some point, that appeasement must end.  It may be too late for Venezuela and Cuba, but it’s not too late for Honduras.

Update:
This editorial explains that while removing Zelaya wasn’t the government’s only choice, it was by far the best one:

The Honduran institutions had only three options.  The first was do nothing and let things follow their course leading to an irreversible situation of an established regime administered in perpetuity by Chavez and Zelaya.  The second was to try to get rid of the president for willingly, which would have allowed sufficient time Zelaya to request support for the Venezuelan military, making Honduras the scene of a bloody war.  They opted for the third option, an unexpected and bloodless military coup to prevent Zelaya to consummate his plans to remain in power.

I choose freedom over tyranny

Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. … Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.

– John Hancock

Happy Independence Day!

Lucy Van Pelt, Liberal

This Peanuts comic strip from 1962 is a perfect example of how (big “L”) Liberals think: Everything is somebody’s fault — even natural phenomena — and somebody’s bound to be punished for it.

If Lucy were old enough to vote, there’s no doubt she would support Cap-and-Trade.

Microsoft: Internet Explorer 8 perfect for porn addicts

Microsoft wants you to know that Internet Explorer 8 is the perfect web browser for porn addicts.

At least that’s the message I walked away with after (reluctantly) watching their new IE8 commercial, in which a wife projectile vomits after finding porn on her husband’s laptop.  (If you care to see it, it’s available here.)  The point of the commercial is actually to promote IE8′s InPrivate browsing feature, aka “porn mode”, which hides the browsing history from, well, unapproving spouses.

Really, Microsoft?  Really?  Of all the various features of Internet Explorer you could’ve promoted, you chose to lead off with this one?  Yes, the commercial is disgusting, but what I really don’t understand is why Microsoft thinks InPrivate is such a killer feature.  After all, Chrome and Firefox 3.5 both have identical features, but those browsers are also much faster than IE and adhere better to web standards.

It seems to me that if Microsoft really wanted to go head-to-head against their competitors, they would try to do so in a way that spoke directly to the user base that would be most likely to use their product.  That’s the tactic they took with their “Laptop Hunters” commercials, and it’s the reason those ads work.  They’re not targeted at technical users, but rather non-technical consumers who, when shopping for a new computer, just walk into Best Buy and purchase whatever’s on sale.

And that should be the target audience of these Internet Explorer ads: the people who know nothing about Firefox, Chrome, or Safari, and couldn’t care less.  They could talk about the speed improvements over previous versions of IE.  They could talk about improvements in supporting web standards.  They could talk about web slices, accelerators, or other new and unique features.  Instead, they resort to low-brow slapstick that says nothing about the product other than it’s great for married men with an addiction to hardcore pornography.

Not exactly a winning message, if you ask me.

(By the way, the vomit commercial is just one in a series of ads — all featuring Dean Cain — that comprise their Browse for the Better campaign.  Ironically, as part of the campaign, Microsoft will donate 8 meals to Feeding America for every download of IE8.  Here’s hoping the recipients of those meals can keep their food down.)

Previously:
Internet Explorer 8: Faster but no Firefox
New Microsoft ‘I’m a PC’ ads: too little too late

Rescued

This weekend we watched the Liam Neeson movie Taken.  In the movie, Neeson’s estranged daughter (played by Maggie Grace) is kidnapped while vacationing in Paris.  Neeson then spends the remainder of the movie tracking her down before she’s lost forever.

Although the movie isn’t necessarily meant to have a Christian message, I couldn’t help but to think about how it is a perfect analogy for our relationship with God.  We often talk about the need to seek forgiveness for our sins and come back to God, and that’s true.  But we forget that God isn’t just sitting idly by while we wander off.  He’s actively pursuing us, just as Neeson’s character pursued his daughter.

In the parable of the lost sheep (Matthew 18:12-14), Jesus said:

If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them wanders away, what will he do?  Won’t he leave the ninety-nine others on the hills and go out to search for the one that is lost?  And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he will rejoice over it more than over the ninety-nine that didn’t wander away!  In the same way, it is not my heavenly Father’s will that even one of these little ones should perish.

This isn’t a picture of a callous supernatural being who sits around waiting for his worshippers to return to him.  No, this is a heavenly Father who loves His children and will stop at nothing to get us back.  This is a Father who loved us enough to give Himself up on the cross to pay the penalty for our stupid mistakes, a Father who has declared war on our kidnappers, just as Neeson’s character declared war on his daughter’s.  Titus 3:5 says that God “saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done, but because of His mercy.”

The question, then, isn’t whether we’re too lost to be rescued.  The only question is whether we want to be rescued at all.

The earth moves and you find me
Alive but unworthy
Broken and empty, but you don’t care
‘Cause you are my rapture, you are my savior
When all my hope is gone, I reach for you
You are my rescue

– Seabird, “Rescue”