Forget $700,000,000,000. The real cost of the government’s TARP bailout rescue plan? $2,900,000,000,000. (That’s 2.9 trillion for my readers in Oklahoma, or more than 4 times the original figure.)
The special inspector general appointed to oversee the bailout package, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), said that the $700 billion does not include the additional financing and associated programs run by the Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Once it is all added together, the $700 billion sum balloons to $2.9 trillion in taxpayer commitments. …
“$2.9 trillion is just short of what the entire federal government spent in fiscal year 2008,” said Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.). “It’s like having a second United States government budget, dedicated solely to saving the financial system. And that is truly surreal.”
Surreal doesn’t even begin to describe it, if you ask me.
Blue Like Jazz: Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality by Donald Miller is a wonderful book. Beautifully poetic, humorous, and deeply insightful, it is composed of a series of seemingly random essays about various topics such as love, grace, and community. Miller’s book challenged me, as it should. I don’t agree with him on everything, but I followed along his journey anyway, willing to listen to what God had to say to me through it.
So when I heard that they were making a movie version of the book, my curiosity was piqued. First off, it’s not like this is a novel, but it’s not purely an autobiography either. Secondly, it’s not structured in such a way that it would easily translate to a screenplay. So I was excited to see the end result.
Blue Like Jazz portrays a vivid tension between Christianity and the world. I thought it was fantastic. It was hard to swallow some the direct obligations towards Christianity – they are so true though. The times of hope and resolve allowed me to emotionally connect to the character of Don. I laughed out loud and swallowed hard at times when reading through the script. The story touched on every single issue that outsiders have with Christianity (Judgmental, Hypocritical, Antihomosexual, Sheltered, Too Political, and Proselytizing based on the research of unChristian). It’s an emotional ride that brought me to an ending that gave me much hope and confidence in (1) Being Christian (2) The story I am developing with God on a personal level and (3) Jesus.
The Evangelical viewer is going to come face to face with some tough criticisms. However, the honest Christian is going to come away feeling refreshed. The cultural elite are going to laugh at the cynicism and debate that takes place during the Reed College scenes and they will appreciate the genuine tension that Don has with God. Your Juno fans are going to love the the witty dialogue, emotional connection to each character and who they represent. They will also love the scenes dealing with rabbits, the Pope, condoms, college parties, and the journey Don is on. The dialogue comes off as very genuine, even when reading it as opposed to seeing it on screen. Homosexuals who believe in God will love the relationship between Don and Laura. Conservative Christians are going to have the hardest time with it – but it is a necessary affliction they need to feel. The postmodern crowd of Christianity is going to rave about it. Since the story is about a guy who is in college your college students will love it on so many different levels, especially, the character development of Don. I think majority of criticisms will come from your extreme conservative and your extreme liberal – However, majority of the world rides the fence.
I suppose that because I disagree with homosexuality, that puts be into the category of “conservative” Christian rather than “postmodern” Christian. So it’s probably no surprise that the way homosexuality is apparently portrayed in the movie concerns me a great deal. Further, the arrogance of the statement that such concern is a “necessary affliction they need to feel” leads me to believe that this is not simply about including a homosexual character in a Christian movie, but that there is an obvious agenda behind it. That is to say that if I’m a conservative Christian, then I must be wrong, and this movie is supposed to put me in my place. (It should be noted that in the book, Laura isn’t a homosexual.)
What message is this movie sending not only to the Christian community, but to non-Christians? From the review it seems to be that true Christianity (the “honest” kind that is not judgmental or “antihomosexual”) is made for the majority of people who “ride the fence” between conservative and liberal. It’s the kind that doesn’t pick sides or stand for absolutes, but loves the sinner while refusing to hate the sin.
That is not the Christianity of the Gospel, and I don’t believe that was Miller’s intent in the book.
Please understand this is not an indictment of Donald Miller or his book, only a reaction to a review of the screenplay. I’m still curious about how the movie will turn out. I just hope the review is way off the mark.
Update, 4/16/09: Here’s a good interview with Donald Miller and producer Steve Taylor (who was kind enough to respond to my original blog post), discussing how they deal with the controversy surrounding their work:
A few observations about the interview:
The interview was conducted at Mars Hill Graduate School in Portland, Oregon. According to their website, MHGS is an “evangelical and progressive institution. The faculty consciously submits to the authority of Scripture and the model of a hermeneutical framework that interprets the Bible in light of its grammatical, historical, literary, and theological contexts. Relational hermeneutics is a full-bodied, soul-engaged, heart-transforming encounter that involves the subjective worldview of the interpreter as much as the process of interpretation.” I’m certainly no theologian, but my assumption is that their views on issues like homosexuality are probably more liberal than those of conservative seminaries in the South.
Miller contrasts Christians in the Pacific Northwest, who he deems more “balanced” because they didn’t grow up in a religious environment, with Christians in the Southeast, who he characterizes as being more apt to get drunk and sleep with their girlfriends. I thought this was an interesting statement, if only to demonstrate how he views conservative “red state” Christians.
Miller mentions supporting Barack Obama for president. He doesn’t elaborate why, but he wouldn’t have supported him without having his reasons. Again, this demonstrates a difference between Miller and conservative “red state” Christians. For example, as a Christian I disagree with abortion and homosexuality, and therefore will not vote for a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage candidate, regardless of political party. Miller obviously feels differently if he actively supported someone like Obama.
These observations are important to keep in mind because they show where Miller and Taylor are coming from as they produce this movie, which is to say that their point of view is probably much more liberal than that of conservative Christians like myself. It will be interesting to see how that point of view affects the message of the movie.
Longtime Obama supporter Patricia Jones Blessman donated $10,000 to the Presidential Inauguration Committee to ensure she would be able to attend the historic ceremony in January, but unfortunately she missed the swearing-in due to “security mayhem”.
Blessman says she felt treated “like nothing more than an ATM” by the inaugural committee. …
“Bereft, bittersweet disappointment does not even begin to describe the emotions we are left with on what should have been a joyous mountaintop experience. The irony is that we paid for this madness,” Blessman wrote in an email dated Jan. 22 to Julianna Smoot, a co-chair of the Presidential Inaugural Committee and the national finance chair of Obama’s presidential campaign.
That’s OK, Ms. Blessman. You’re not the only one to feel disappointed and ripped off by President Obama. You’re just the only one to get a refund as a result of it.
So begins Relevant Magazine’s feature article, the last interview of Jerry Falwell, which was conducted two weeks before his death in May 2007. And I think that one statement pretty well sums up how most Americans, Christian or not, would describe him.
As anyone who has spent time in evangelicalism’s inner orbit knows, there are really two Jerry Falwells. One, of course, is the fundamentalist most Americans have seen on television, the man who once denounced homosexuality as “a vile and satanic system” and the feminist movement as “a satanic attack on the home.” This is the Jerry Falwell who not only blamed the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on a long list of domestic minorities (homosexuals, feminists, pagans, abortionists, etc.), but who also tried to cash in on the public outrage over those remarks by telling his supporters in a letter signed by his son Jonathan—that he was being victimized by “a vicious smear campaign” and asking them to send “a special Vote of Confidence gift … of at least $50 or even $100.”
The other Jerry Falwell, the one I’m seeing today, is more akin to a religious Willy Wonka—a whimsical, mercurial figure who delights in unexpected acts of generosity and trickery. This is the Jerry Falwell who gives away college scholarships to kids who hit baseballs over his fence, who plays lighthearted pranks on uptight fundamentalists and speaks adoringly of his grandchildren. This Jerry Falwell has made some unlikely friends over the years, including Senator Ted Kennedy and Penthouse publisher Larry Flynt, both of whom praise Dr. Falwell as a decent human being while condemning his political views.
I’m not sure why the interview is only now being published, but it’s fascinating nevertheless, particularly in light of the recent rise of technically-progressive megachurches such as Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church and Andy Stanley’s Buckhead Church. Falwell’s dark wood office walls and Diet Peach Snapple habit seem somewhat antiquated by comparison. Yet even two years after his death, it’s amazing how controversial the founder of the Moral Majority still is. This interview, however, shows the human side of him, a side that rarely if ever is portrayed by the secular media.
“Normally when you see a squirrel, it’s just a squirrel. But now it’s like I know him. He’s a very worthy adversary,” Dave said when I embedded with his forces this week. …
“Our house has lost $15K in value with the sheet metal, six holes in the side of the house, roofing being torn out, a radio with 24-hour sports talk being blared out the back window (yesterday it was Rush). And now we have a fake owl outside the window in an effort to scare him. Oh, we also have a spotlight to prevent him from chewing.”
That’s not Rush as in “Today’s Tom Sawyer, mean, mean pride.” It’s Limbaugh, who’s been known to actually attract rodents.
The squirrel has chewed holes right through the eaves to get into the attic. When Dave would nail sheet metal over one hole, the squirrel would gnaw another. This required him/her to hang upside-down from the rain gutter, which it’s also been eating.
Since being forced back to Internet Explorer on my work computer a few weeks ago, I’ve been looking forward to the release of IE8 with the expectation that anything has to be better than versions 6 and 7.
The good news: It’s better. The bad news: It’s still Internet Explorer.
I downloaded and installed it last night, a process that took much longer on my Windows XP machine than it should’ve. And of course it required a reboot, typical for IE but unheard of for any other browser.
After booting back up and logging in, I fired it up and was pleasantly suprised. The speed difference between 7 and 8 was immediately noticeable, and sites that used to be wonky under 7 such as Google Reader now seemed to work properly (imagine that).
But despite all the other new features (see here for a full list) and some relatively good reviews (Wired called it “Microsoft’s First Truly Modern Browser”), the fact remains that it’s still Internet Explorer. And I don’t mean that as a compliment.
Many of the same UI changes introduced in version 7 still exist in 8: The Home Page button is still in the lower right-hand corner of the toolbar and the Refresh and Stop buttons are to the right of the Address Bar. And guess what, it’s still as awkward now as it was then. Seriously, Microsoft?
And while the benchmarks may show IE8 to be faster than Firefox 3.05 and Chrome, IE’s speed will always take a backseat to Firefox’s extensive library of add-ons.
That isn’t to say it’s a horrible product. As IE is concerned, it’s a really good browser, certainly far better than version 7. Those who are happy with Internet Explorer will like the upgrade. I just don’t think it’ll do much to win back the ones who’ve already moved on to other browsers.
Firefox is the grandchild of the venerable Mosaic browser and free-roaming son of Netscape. Although Firefox has a myriad of user-friendly, forward-thinking features, a decently secure framework, and an open-source ideology, its most prominent is extensibility. When convincing a Firefox user to abandon Firefox for anything else, even temporarily, you won’t have to fight them over giving up the AwesomeBar or about:config tweaks—you’ll hear a common, understandable refrain: “What about my extensions?” The repository of extensions maintained by Mozilla currently has over 6,000 entries, covering everything from blocking advertisements, to managing your clipboard, to allowing you to further customize your browsing experience with scripts a la Greasemonkey (here’s 10 of our must-have picks). Combine the passion people have for extensions and the ability to sync those extensions across multiple computers and portable installations, and you’ve got a force to be contended with. …
While many or most IE users stick with it for lack of wanting to try something else, Lifehacker readers definitely don’t fall into that crowd—the majority of readers who voted in favor of Internet Explorer are sporting Internet Explorer 8. By contrast, nearly 20 percent of those surfing the web right now are using Internet Explorer 6, which had its initial release in 2001. Version 8 could mark a resurgence for the brand, though. It’s the first version of Internet Explorer to have a strong focus on web standards compliance, as well as increasing rendering speed. And like Chrome, Internet Explorer 8 maintains a separate process for each tab to increase stability and security. Internet Explorer 8 has also beefed up its security measures from previous versions, including active filtering against malicious cross-site scripting and ActiveX isolation from the core of the browser.
In January, the Texas State Board of Education voted to remove the requirement that public school textbooks include both strengths and weaknesses in the theory of evolution, thereby making it the unchallenged standard taught to science students. A new bill proposed by State Representitive Wayne Christian seeks to minimize the effect of that decision by saying that students cannot be penalized for not believing certain scientific theories such as evolution.
Opponents of the bill argue that it creates a slippery slope by allowing students to conveniently believe anything they want and still get an automatic pass. Don’t believe in plate tectonics? Pass. Don’t believe in the theory of relativity? Pass. Don’t believe that the earth revolves around the sun? Pass.
“Students could claim they believe anything they wanted in anything in science and if that’s what they say, the teacher would be forced to give that student an A,” said Steven Schafersman, president of Texas Citizens for Science. “That’s how bad this bill is written.”
But if you read the text of the bill (HB 4224), that’s clearly not the case:
(c) Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because he or she subscribes to a particular position on scientific theories or hypotheses;
(d) No governmental entity shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students to understand, analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.
In other words, students don’t have to believe the theories they’re being taught, but they still need to understand them. A student can’t just sit there and say, “I don’t believe in evolution, so you have to give me an A.” As long as he can pass a test over the material, a teacher who disagrees with the student can’t flunk him simply because they disagree.
I say, if evolution is, in fact, completely true, then what’s the harm in debating its strengths and weaknesses? The point of school is to educate our children, and a big component of education is teaching critical thinking skills, teaching kids how to research, debate, formulate an argument and then communicate that position. To me, allowing for debate about the topic of evolution in school is a perfect opportunity to teach these skills.
This bill — at least as I read it – provides an opportunity for exactly this type of debate. Of course, it doesn’t require the debate, but it at least allows it to occur.
And it’s for precisely that reason that pro-evolution groups are so opposed to it.
I normally don’t follow college basketball; there are just too many games. But I do tend to get caught up in March Madness. Not to the point of bringing a TV and rabbit ears to work like a former co-worker of mine used to do every year, but I do enjoy watching games when I can.
That said, here are my pics for the men’s tournament. Yes, most of them are safe bets while a few are probably long shots. (Predicted winner in parentheses) Discuss.
Sweet 16.
Pitt vs. Florida State (Pitt) Duke vs. Villanova (Villanova) Louisville vs. Wake Forest (Louisville) Kansas vs. Michigan State (Kansas)
LSU vs. Gonzaga (LSU) OU vs. Syracuse (OU) UConn vs. Purdue (UConn) Missouri vs. Memphis (Memphis)
Elite 8.
Pitt vs. Villanova (Pitt) Louisville vs. Kansas (Kansas)
LSU vs. OU (LSU) UConn vs. Memphis (UConn)
Final Four.
Pitt vs. LSU (Pitt) Kansas vs. UConn (UConn)
Over the last couple of days, everyone in Washington has suddenly been outraged over the revelation that AIG is contractually obligated to pay out $165 million in bonuses to its executives, even after the company has taken $170 billion in taxpayer bailout money.
The employment contracts became so complex, with pay packages consisting of stock options and other forms of deferred compensation, largely because of Congress’ attempts to control soaring executive salaries. In 1993, Congress limited the tax deduction companies could take for cash payments to $1 million. The result was a cottage industry of lawyers, consultants and advisors who structure even bigger pay packages with creative legal strategies that now make the AIG bonuses difficult to rescind.
Before Congress got involved we used to give them a $2 million salary and a corporate jet,” said Lynn Stout, a UCLA professor who specializes in corporate governance and securities regulation. “And it was much cheaper and safer.”
This is why Congress should just butt out and let the market decide how much executives should earn. But of course, that would be too easy, wouldn’t it?
For the record, I’m not in favor of seeing my tax money go to pay for these bonuses. But then again, I’m not in favor of any of these bailouts, so whatever.
Since joining Twitter last November, I’ve gradually blogged less and less, not because I wasn’t interested in blogging, but because there are times it’s just quicker and easier to fire off a quick tweet and be done with it. But then a lot of times I feel guilty, as if I have some sort of obligation to meet a blogging quota. (I don’t, do I?)
Then, of course, there’s the Facebook versus Twitter dilemma. When I want to announce something amazingly profound to the citizens of the Interwebs, like how I could really go for a ham sandwich right about now, do I post that nugget of eternal wisdom on Facebook or tweet it?
Of course some people do both. There’s the Twitter Facebook app that ports your tweets automatically to Facebook (in the form of your Facebook status). And the next version of TweetDeck will allow users to post their updates to Twitter, Facebook, or both. I don’t really like this approach, personally, simply because not everything I say on Twitter is necessarily appropriate for Facebook, and vice versa. Plus, at times it borders on spamming your friends, and Facebook users are already being spammed enough as it is.
So to help navigate these perilous waters of social networking, I’ve devised a simple “Blog-Facebook-Twitter” decision matrix in the same vein as Rock-Paper-Scissors.
Does what you want to say require more than 140 characters or involve block quotes of any kind? If so, then Blog beats Twitter.
Do you have the overwhelming desire to use the “@” symbol when referring to someone or tag everything with a “#” hashtag? If so, then Twitter beats Facebook.
Do you want to make sure that everyone you have ever met in your entire life sees your announcement and that it will be commented on by the kid that beat you up in First Grade that you are now inexplicably Facebook friends with? If so, then Facebook beats Blog.
I hope that helps. And be sure to follow me on Twitter. You know, just in case I get any more cravings for lunchmeat.
Thomas Jefferson counseled us, “We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.” Yet the feds have skyrocketed our national debt by trillions of dollars, and they plan much more fiscal expansion, with few expectations of resistance. George Washington admonished, “To contract new debts is not the way to pay for old ones.” But we keep borrowing and bailing out, and we watch the stock market plunge further every time we do. …
How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen, or will history need to record a second American Revolution?
While I’m not (yet) in favor of seceding, I would love to see Chuck Norris run for governor some day, if only to debate (i.e. put the smack down on) Kinky Friedman. Plus, wouldn’t it be fun watching Arnold Schwarzenegger wet his pants the first time he met a real “Governator”?
How weird is it that I go to Dallas every day but have seen almost none of it?
Like many residents in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, I live in the suburbs but work in Dallas. I drive to work five days a week to my office in North Dallas, then drive home when I’m done. And that’s pretty much the extent of my association with Big D.
I was reminded of just how foreign Dallas is to me when Fort Worth urban blogger Kevin Buchanan took a self-guided tour through the city, comparing Dallas’s urban design to that of Cowtown’s. (And yes, I know how much he hates that term; wouldn’t want to promote Fort Worth’s agricultural roots too much, would we?)
Anyhow, while I disagree with Buchanan on a lot of things, I agree with him that much of Dallas is designed more for car traffic than foot traffic. It’s designed to accommodate workers who commute in by car to work, not for residents or visitors to spend leisure time there. And while there are a handful of attractions to be found, there aren’t many, and those that exist are spread out really far from each other.
As a result, there’s very little incentive to drive way back across town to visit on my time off. After all, what would I do when I got there? If you’re going to a Mavericks or Stars game, there’s the American Airlines Center, but the adjoining Victory Park is almost completely vacant. (What few restaurants and retail stores open there struggle to stay in business.) You could go to the Dallas World Aquarium, but the nearby West End is also pretty vacant. There’s the State Fair in the fall, but the fairgrounds are pretty quiet the rest of the year. Or there’s the Sixth Floor Museum if you still have any interest in the JFK assassination.
But if you just want to stroll around town to eat and shop and listen to live music, you won’t be going Downtown. Other than the beautiful skyscrapers, there’s not much there.
Contrast that with some other big cities like Chicago. I’ve visited Chicago a few times on business, and when the weather is nice, it has a lot to offer. Grant Park and Millenium Park sit between downtown and Lake Michigan, offering plenty of family-friendly space to hang out. The Navy Pier, Lincoln Park, and the Magnificent Mile also offer plenty of activities, just to name a few. Downtown is extremely pedestrian-friendly, and the buses and trains allow most workers to take public transportation to work rather than have to navigate the already-insane streets.
Dallas, meanwhile, can’t even figure out how to build a convention center hotel.
Listen, I don’t mean to bash Dallas, I really don’t. I just don’t have any strong feelings towards it, despite the fact I’ve lived in the Metroplex for over 20 years. Yeah, I guess I could make more of an effort to get to know the city better. Who knows, maybe I would learn to appreciate it more. But for now, other than a biweekly paycheck, there’s not much compelling me to come back.
Error: Unable to access Twitter at URL (http://www.twitter.com/statuses/user_timeline/jasonspooner.json?count=5). Verify service status. (HTTP code 401.)
