PREACH IT, KEITH

I'm not always an Olbermann fan, but on this day he could be my pastor.

SPREADING THE WEALTH IN AN AGE OF SELFISH CHRISTIANS

Conservatives regularly oppose state-supported social programs for the poor, arguing that they interfere with market principles and diminish incentive for individuals to achieve. In rare moments of compassion (or cold calculation), when they consider how the catastrophic failure of the proletariat will affect the ruling class, they will say any relief should come from private rather than public sources.

Politically conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists will continue this argument by suggesting that such relief is the responsibility of the churches, not the state.

Fine.

Where are they?

Let me say that I have read about and witnessed extravagant and impressive acts of giving from faith communities, and there is no doubt in my mind that well-intentioned and well-motivated believers are far more capable of addressing the needs of the poor than most agencies, public or private.

However a new book, Passing the Plate: Why American Christians Don't Give Away More Money, delivers some sobering news about the reluctance of believers to part with their cash. In his review, Ron Sider (author of Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger), lays out some of the disturbing data:

• 20% of Christians give nothing.
• Those who do give average 2.9% of their income.
• 20% of Christians give 86.4% of the total.
• 5% give 59.6%.
• As our income has quadrupled, our giving has declined.
• The facts suggest that as we get wealthier, we get stingier.
  
• If Christians who attend church regularly would tithe (presumably the standard 10%), there would $46 billion extra available for serving the poor.
  

For the record, I happen to believe that relieving the suffering of the "poor" (in all manifest meanings of the word) should be the prime objective of our churches. Above mall-like worship centers, gymnasiums, and Starbucks, we should be serving "the least of these." And, it appears that as hard as it is to get believers to give, when they do we are more likely to fund our edifice complex than the poor.

A couple of disclosures: My wife and I used to give over $500 a month to an organization that serves the poor in Central America--we quit giving to churches years ago (see edifice complex comment above)--until things came to light about how the funds were not being used honestly. Now, we will only give to actual people in actual need. But, it is terribly inefficient and ad hoc.

Also, it appears from Sider's review that while evangelicals still have nothing to brag about, they give better percentages than other Christian groups.


So, I cannot take conservative Christian's arguments seriously when they protest loudly about "socialism" and "redistributing the wealth," while they are actively keeping more for themselves than even their doctrines demand.

We must be a culture that takes care of those who can't take care of themselves. If we aren't, we embrace a form of social Darwinism where the weak are trampled underfoot, and civilization as we know it deteriorates. Public means of support are terribly inefficient and often not the most effective, but until "believers" step up and get as aggressive in living out the gospel as they are preaching it, I cannot support a political ideology that would benefit the powerful over the weak.

CRACKER MAP (updated)

This map has been a point of discussion at The Ready Room, and in several email threads. Based on the reported numbers from Tuesday, the bluer an area the stronger the vote for Obama in comparison to the vote for Kerry in 2004. The redder the area the stronger the vote was for McCain than for Bush. The less color, the closer the vote was to '04.

The rash of red in the South seems to suggest a disturbing racial pattern. The southern areas with larger African-American and Latino populations are bluer, but Old South whites seemed to vote Republican in dramatically higher numbers this year than in 2004.

I tend to side with Occam's Razor in assuming the most obvious answer is the best. The reddest areas seem to be where the whitest Southerners live. What else would move them so deeply?

McCain supporters are strongly denying this is about race. Maybe so. What's another explanation? Somehow you would need to isolate an issue that was unique to that area.

Before you are tempted to make the reverse racism argument, take a look at the West. Not a lot of black voters in Montana and Nevada.

**********UPDATE 11/11/08**********

As pointed out by Stephanie (Mrs. Ready Room), today's NY Times supports the cracker map thesis, adding terribly disturbing interviews with crackers that position Inland and Deep South as being out of step with the rest of the country and on the wrong side of history.

While not exactly in Cracker Map territory, this picture was sent to me from Mike in Springfield, MO. This was sent to the local paper.



And, this news: The Sapulpa (Oklahoma) Herald did not print anything about Obama's victory in their paper Wednesday. The cracker-dominated county went overwhelmingly for McCain.

God, bless America. Please.

POST-GAME SHOW

My emotions are still too raw and unprocessed to do more than this for now.

An assessment and course correction on my predictions: First, I had a math error. I never got around to posting my state list. What I found as I marked the results on my paper copy last night was that I had misapplied Georgia. Early Sunday I had Georgia in the Obama column, thinking that the unanticipated African-American turnout would subvert the polls. However, late Monday I switched it back to McCain, but forgot to change the math. So, my real prediction was 375 to 163. Assuming Missouri and North Carolina end up the way they are looking now, I will have picked every single state in the country correctly, with the exception of Missouri. Some of you will find that amusing.

My prediction: 375-163
Likely outcome: 364-174

My prediction: 52%-45%
Likely outcome: 53%-46%

Not bad. Better than most of the people who are paid handsomely for their analysis.

I have more to say about where we go from here and what we should talk about next, but I'm still trying to assemble my thoughts. Not to mention the amount of work I need to attend to that has been put off while I followed the campaign.

IT'S A GOOD DAY

I voted at about 8:00 this morning in my swing state. Pretty uneventful, until I turned in my ballot and noticed that our Republican governor was right behind me submitting his ballot. On the way out of the building I wanted to turn to him and say, "I canceled you out, buddy. This state doesn't belong to you and yours anymore." But, my better angels prevailed (and my instinct for self-preservation, since I suspect his secret service detail might have interpreted "cancel you out" differently than I would have intended).

Instead I simply smiled at him, nodded, then looked up at the beautiful blue sky and choked back a tear. The time for rancor and division is over. It's a new day.

It's a good day.

Goodnight, Toot

I cannot imagine the exhaustion and emotion of two years of constant campaigning, nearly at its end. Then, on the eve of the greatest night of your life, you get the news that the woman who raised you passes from this life.

Thank you, Madelyn Dunham, for your life and your work. You done good.

May you rest in peace.

Our hearts go out to you, Barack.

MARK IT

Popular Vote*
Obama 52%
McCain 45%
Other 3%

Electoral College*
Obama 390
McCain 148

Winner*
All of us.

*Assuming voting irregularities are held to a minimum.

I know that's more dramatic than predicted by the pollsters and pundits. I'll give you the list of states and the analysis behind it. Tomorrow.

40,000 in Springfield...

MISSOURI!!!


Sorry Sarah. Eli's comin'.

FEAR AND LOATHING IN LOST GREATNESS

James Dobson's flying monkeys are at it again. The Word from the King of Chaos, the Wicked Pitch from the West is here--the Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America--designed to scare the beJesus into us. I wondered how long it would be before JD would once again offer us a toxic blend of bad theology, Rovian politics, and hide-under-your-covers fear appeals. Praise God and pass the gunpowder. This man likes the smell of gaypalm in the morning.

Dobson's Focus on the Family Action (Don't you remember that passage in chapter one of II Bealiah where Jesus encourages us to create cultural hit squads in case anyone disagrees with us and threatens our power?), feeling the pressure of being Left Behind, or Behind the Left, felt the need to use the power of time travel to scare us straight.

Sorry Barack. Dr. Dobson gave us the news: we got a bad case of loving you. Apparently, no pill's gonna cure our ill; and, in fact we are probably going to die miserable deaths at the hands of pornographic terrorists.

When faced with the likelihood of a Christian man being elected as a Democratic president, What Would James Do? It appears that he would scare the shit out of you.

According to Focus on the Fantasy, an Obama administration will result in a hijacking of the Court, ushering in nearly mandatory gay marriage, public elementary gay factories, the shuttering of Christian schools, adoption agencies, and publishing houses. Christian doctors and nurses, counselors and soldiers, teachers and broadcasters will all be out on the street. The Boy Scouts will be abolished. The streets will be littered with exterminated fetuses. We will terminate unwanted newborns like roaches. Our gunless citizens will be overrun by porn-juiced criminals. Americans will be killed abroad, and several major U.S. cities will be destroyed by terrorists. Our country will become communist, but for some reason at war with Russia. Israel will virtually cease to exist. Health care will become so rationed we will start euthanizing the old and infirm. Our economy will collapse, we will suffer electrical blackouts, while buying $7 gas.

Honestly, in the midst of all that, $7 gas doesn't sound so bad.

The letter is prefaced with a statement that includes a call for mutual respect.

Of course, there are many evangelical Christians supporting Senator Obama as well as many supporting Senator McCain. Christians on both sides should continue to respect and cherish one another’s friendship as well as the freedom people have in the United States to differ on these issues and to freely speak their opinions about them to one another.

Oh, yes, let's be respectful of the infidel wolves masquerading in sheep's clothing. Respect them until you get a clear head shot. If this is how you cherish friendships, all your enemies should shave their heads, move to Tierra del Fuego, and change their names to Chris (unless their name is already Chris, in which case they should change it to Terry).

Dobson and his kind are driving thousands of people out of the faith. They do so by devouring their young. They observe that young evangelicals may make up the margin of difference in this election. Then they tell them they are wrong. "We want you to be part of our Family, but everything that matters to you is crap. Now, sit up straight and repeat after me...."

On behalf of young evangelicals (one of which I'm not) told by Dobson they are wrong, let me say: "Are not. You are."

WHEN THE MAN COMES AROUND

Last summer my family had the opportunity to attend an Obama town hall meeting. It was great. Not as exciting as tens of thousands of people at an outdoor rally, but a solid, reasonable display of intelligence and leadership. At one point during his answers to audience questions, my 15-year-old daughter sighed and said, "I feel calm listening to him. He makes me feel safe." Back then I took that to be the words of a teenager who is more than a little intoxicated by this good-looking, charismatic man. But, reading Joel Klein's article "Why Barack Obama is Winning" in Time magazine, I now understand what she was feeling.

Klein closes with this assessment:

His has been a remarkable campaign, as smoothly run as any I've seen in nine presidential cycles. Even more remarkable, Obama has made race — that perennial, gaping American wound — an afterthought. He has done this by introducing a quality to American politics that we haven't seen in quite some time: maturity. He is undoubtedly as ego-driven as everyone else seeking the highest office — perhaps more so, given his race, his name and his lack of experience. But he has not been childishly egomaniacal, in contrast to our recent baby-boomer Presidents — or petulant, in contrast to his opponent. He does not seem needy. He seems a grown-up, in a nation that badly needs some adult supervision.