I don't care about John Edwards.

Unless you're completely cut off from the outside world you heard about John Edwards admitting to having an affair. He's been denying it since December and today he finally 'fessed up. But you know what? I could care less.

It's been less than one day and I'm already sick of hearing about it. When I was at the laundromat tonight CNN was on the television and that's ALL they were talking about. Pundit after pundit was paraded in front of the camera to say the exact same thing: "Ohhhh, John Edwards is such a naughty boy. He'll never be president now!" The talk radio shows were overtaken by callers shrieking about how Edwards is a hypocrite. Today's news amounted to nothing more than a bunch of 55-year-old office women bitching about what a skank Debbie from accounting is.

I DON'T CARE!!!!! I don't care at all. Is this really that big a deal? Is there really ANYONE in America that is actually surprised that some guy cheated on his wife? Yeah, he's an asshole for doing it but there are plenty of other assholes in the world that are guilty of much worse.

I get so tired of all this smarmy mock outrage that comes out of the media over crap that really doesn't matter. There are plenty of real issues that people should be getting upset over: People are still getting killed over lies in Iraq, America continues to hemorrhage jobs and millions of Americans continue to live well below the poverty line. Why aren't people up in arms over these things?

Anton Lavey was wrong when he said it's a shame stupidity isn't painful. It is painful - other peoples stupidity gives me a migraine.

Shayne

Not QUITE as funny as the Will Ferrel GW video from 2004...but close.

A story and a rant on health care.

As you've probably gathered, there's no real "theme" to this blog, other than "things that Tim (and now Shayne) obsesses about". With that in mind, what I post about most often is, of course, myself, but politics and religion also usually factor in prominently. I generally know my stuff when it comes to myself and religion, but I'm a bit of a hack when it comes to politics. All of this to give you advance warning that over the next few months leading up to the American Presidential elections, you're probably going to be reading a lot of amateurish political arguments in this space.

To kick things off, Angel and I have been complaining about the US health-care system again for the last several days, and I realized that there might be an interesting story in our situation. This weekend in particular we got to moaning because Angel received a letter in the mail informing her that her employee insurance was being canceled, because being in the last semester of her nursing program she's been unable to work the requisite 20 hours a week to maintain coverage. The good news is that if she wishes, she can keep that insurance for $425/month, or can get insurance through the University of Washington for $1000/10 weeks. The bad news is that we can't even come close to affording that right now without taking out a loan. She can't work because of school, and I make right about $31,000/year between my two jobs. Do the math, and $425/month is about 20% of our present income. Being that we live in Seattle and are working on paying down my student loans and a reasonable mortgage, Angel has temporarily joined the ranks of the 44-45 million uninsured in America. I, on the other hand, am maintaining $75/month private coverage, which means that if I have a medical bill over $2500, we'll only have to pay 20% of it (under $2500 and we pay 100%). I work for two socially-conscious and politically liberal non-profit organizations, both of which have good health-care coverage for employees. At both jobs I'm intentionally employed for a number of hours just below the threshold for medical coverage, because they can't afford to pay insurance costs (or have chosen not to pay insurance costs?) for an additional employee.

I'm not pitching this as a woe is me story, because in some ways we've chosen our lot, and we could still be covered if we really wanted to. I was getting insurance through my job at the warehouse, but decided that it was worth dropping to have a more rewarding and socially responsible--though ultimately lower paying--job. Angel could have chosen not to go to grad school, or to go part time in order to maintain her level of employment. We also could probably afford coverage now had we not decided to buy a home. Ours isn't a large problem of social justice, and for us going without insurance isn't a major risk because we're young and healthy, and could still probably recover from a large medical debt. Our situation is something to think about though, because I think we're representative of a large and generally invisible demographic of people who are uninsured. We're not poor, we're not sick, and a lack of insurance is probably both temporary and benign.

What I am asking though is what our situation says about the social wisdom in the American set up? Angel and I have both faced negative pressure against improving our lot in life because we've wanted to maintain insurance coverage. If we had any chronic illness, pregnancy, or other major medical cost, either I would have continued to work in a dead-end warehouse job, she would have not gone to grad school, or we would have not purchased a home. We're both people who have been preparing for work in jobs that will benefit society, but would likely not have been able to do so had we not been willing to take (unnecessary) risks and lucky enough to be healthy. We're still presently in a situation where a nasty fall or an unexpected pregnancy could put us in a hole that we might not be able to dig our way out of. Medical bankruptcy is a real possibility until we're well insured--and society of course foots the bill on that one. Is our "freedom" to be insured or not really a positive thing for us or anyone else? Aren't health-care costs creating problems beyond just illness? Wouldn't the "American Dream" be more accessible without this so-called freedom?

Which is one more thing that leads me to say raise our taxes and put in place a social safety net that reaches across the population. Regulate the health-care industry and admit that the way we've been doing things in this area is ass-backwards. Quit with all of the ideological BS and figure out how to do it. I don't care if it's federal or state by state. Stop voting for people who support the status quo on health-care and social programming and start voting with the international evidence. The situation we've got isn't good for anyone.

(Oh, and watch The Edukators.)

Liberal Thoughts from a walk in the Seattle rain

We'll never have single payer health care in the US, but a few questions I've got after watching "Sick Around the World":

Regardless of what our bumbling federal government decides, would it be possible for state governments in Washington, Oregon and California to refuse to pay drug companies more for prescription medicine than British Columbia does, make it illegal to sue doctors or hospitals except in cases of abuse or gross malpractice, make it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage in our states, put a cap on doctors' salaries and (especially) administrative salaries at hospitals and insurance companies, and cover insurance costs for individuals who can't afford to pay for it? What rights do states have? Could Seattle decide to do that?

Interesting stuff on the Universal Healthcare Issue

Take and hour to watch Sick Around the World on the PBS website. Whether you like a market based system or gov't run single-payer, it gives a basic picture of the way that others are doing healthcare better than us, and potential options for change. It's really not that difficult. The Swiss example is maybe the most interesting.

Give Me Socialized Health Care or Give Me Death !

As a card carrying member of The Godless Liberal Heathen Club I am oath sworn to uphold various beliefs and ideas. Collectively these beliefs and ideas are known as "The Esoteric Laws of the Magnificent Kennedy" and to date there are 1,347 of them. In order to gain entrance to the GLHC, a candidate is "compelled" to memorize all the Laws and recite them from memory at an induction ceremony. The ceremony itself is a secretive affair involving a ritual baptism in John Locke's platinum bidet, copious amounts of libations and interpretive dance....but that's neither here nor there. Now I know many of you may not be familiar with these laws since membership in the club is restricted to college professors, politicians, Hollywood types and the French. So for your convenience I'm going to list a few of them for you:

1. Gay people should be allowed to get married if they so choose.
   
2. Bill Clinton was the greatest president in the history of the universe.
   
3. Destroying the environment is a bad idea and we should stop doing it.
4. Grown men should be allowed to marry farm animals and small children.
   
5. Religion has no place in (public) schools.
6. War is very bad...especially when it's declared on nouns. (i.e. drugs and terror)
   
7. Rich people should be taxed all to hell.
8. Life on Earth developed over millions of years due to evolution/natural selection.
9. Although Charlton Heston starred in many great films (ex. Omega Man, Soilent Green, Planet of the Apes) he became a real horror show later in life.
10. Stephen Colbert's speech at the White House Correspondent's Dinner is the single greatest moment in television history.

As you can see, my list is nowhere near exhaustive. Were I to copy down every Law it would take 12 hours to read and then Ted Turner would come to your house to kill you. Just know that our Laws are many and varied. And, although we DO have to memorize every one, only the most gifted members of the Club are able to combine all 1,347 tenets into a coherent world view.

But just knowing the Laws isn't enough. We GLHers are also duty bound to disseminate the Laws into society by any means available to us. Some accomplish this by infiltrating the mass media. Others insert themselves into the political world and introduce legislation that reflects GLH dogma. You'll be able to see an example of this next year when Senator Ted Kennedy introduces the Baby Fetus' For Biodiesel Act of 2009. The Act was ghostwritten by Al Gore and represents a masterful synthesis of several Esoteric Laws. Also, be sure to catch Gore's upcoming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth II: the Quickening" in which he begins to plant the seeds for the BFBD Act before it's formally introduced.

Unfortunately I have no political or media ties so I'm forced to work with what I have: Blogs here and on MySpace. That means that, right now, you get the honor of reading (if you're still actually reading this that is) about my current cause célèbre: socialized health care! HOORAY!

I've been interested in the idea of socialized health care for some time now but lately I've really started to get obsessed with the idea of it. I think it has something to do with the fact that I currently work for a large prescription drug insurance company. I'm not going to mention the name or anything but there's a good chance more than one of you has called me and begged me to override a rejected pharmacy claim for oxycontin...you junkies! I just don't understand what the U.S.A's friggin' problem with socialized health care is. Why aren't Joe Six-Pack and Jill Sleeping-Pill-Addict out in front of the White House screaming for this? Why, as a nation, will we sit back and let the government waste billions of dollars launching missiles at poor people in other countries while millions of people here in America go without health care?

Every single day at work I deal with people who are getting screwed because their insurance company drastically raised their co-payments or stopped covering some medication they need. Then, when I foolishly decide to listen to talk radio I get to hear fuckwits like Sean Hannity lie to his mush brained listening audience about how socialized health care is SOOOO expensive and how it's the next step towards all of us becoming dirty pinkos. Do you know, as a nation, we consistently spend more on health care that any other nation IN THE WORLD?! Every other industrialized nation on the planet offers health care to ALL of it's citizens yet we spend more than they due annually and millions of Americans still go without. Does that sound right to you? Does that sound like something that should happen in "the greatest country on Earth?"

I've gotten into arguments with people about this before and I swear to you that every time their counter-point is essentially, "I don't want to pay for health care for poor and lazy people." Well you know what, you already are. Why do you think your premiums keep going up? Hospitals off set the cost of treating uninsured people by charging YOUR insurance company more for YOUR operations. Then your insurance company raises your premiums to cover their loss.

Why not just eliminate the insurance companies and cut out the middle man? Either way someone is going to wind up getting your hard earned money for health care. Is it really that horrible of a prospect to think that part of what you make in a week is going to help someone out instead of making some CEO's stock increase by a fraction of a percent?

You can feel free to disagree with me if you want (if you do please do it in comment form...I'm pretty desperate for attention) but you better make a really good argument. Part of my job entails telling elderly people that the medication they need to live is no longer covered under their insurance because it's to expensive. It's pretty hard for me to be objective when I have to do that every day.

Also, if you're curious about where I got some of the information from in this blog you can look it up here, here, here, and here. I was going to provide direct links to articles and stats but I'm a typical lazy commie liberal. Besides, it's not like this stuff is hard to find.

Shayne

bell hooks, inequality, illness, and so forth.

Hi everybody. Along with international travel, whining about church, and gallivanting with teenagers, I've been occupying my time lately reading books by bell hooks, a black feminist sociologist and educator who I've been put on to by a couple of friends. She talks a lot about oppression, racism, poverty, patriarchy, classism, political action, art, education, and the struggle for equality, so in many ways she's the consummate liberal. Actually, wait, maybe I am the consummate liberal, because I'm a white, moving-towards-upper-middle-class patriarchal racist classist lazy male who likes to tell people that I read books by people like bell hooks. In any case, by happy, blog-producing coincidence, this morning the Seattle Times ran a short opinion piece by Jerry Large that points to a major reason that I, a well-off white male, am so intrigued by the ideas of people like bell hooks who argue and work for class equality. In essence, the research suggests that when material equality exists in a culture, and resources are distributed evenly (through whatever means), everyone benefits, not just those on the bottom.

Large's point, in short, is:

We know poverty can affect diet, living conditions, access to medical care.

But inequality puts stress on people at every level. Poor people suffer most, but so do wealthy people in societies where there are large gaps between rich and poor. High-income white Americans have higher rates of diabetes, cancer and hypertension than poor people in England, according to a study reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association two years ago. (Read the whole article here)

In essence, rich folks trying to "protect their money" by voting against upper-class or big business tax increases (and consequently improved social programming) are shooting themselves in the collective foot. Even if they do end up with greater material wealth, their overall health and quality of life decreases with the increase in resource and social disparity. This sense was palpable in the air for us in (more equitably organized) New Zealand, and Angel's studies in Nursing and Public Health have been pointing our thoughts in that direction for a few years. (In fact, Angel's favorite professor Steven Bezruchka was Large's source for the article.) We both see a healthcare system with equal access for all as one necessary battle in the struggle for a healthy and just society, but the point here is bigger. In fact, material and social equality--or at least relative equality--would be beneficial for all of us, and would play a significant role in improving physical, mental, and social health across our society. To put a bit of a spin on MLK's well-known quote, poverty and oppression anywhere are a sociologically measurable threat to wealth and happiness everywhere. So, bell hooks, even though I might be a part of your problems, I'm listening to you because I think your ideas will help me out in the long run.

There is a PBS Documentary series on this topic airing now called "Unnatural Causes ... Is Inequality Making Us Sick". (Info online here) Feel free to argue with me, but you should really watch the series, which should provide a lot more fuel for Large's and Bezruchka's position. I'm hoping that they post the whole series online in the near future.

Staying in Communion

So, today I had my meeting with one of our bishops, and generally things went well. Her advice was--should I make it through our commission on ministry--to start seminary in Canada at VST. Should I decide to stay there after a year or two, it would be a possibility to speak with the bishop in Vancouver about transferring in as a postulant (technical term for someone who's been sent to seminary by their diocese to prepare for ordination), which is generally less trouble than transferring in as someone midway through the discernment process. I'd finish my seminary there, and be ordained through the Canadian Church (and thus not tainting my resume with America). Otherwise, should Angel and I decide not to stay in Canada, I would have to do at least a year of seminary in the ECUSA--San Francisco, NY, etc. Seems pretty sensible to me :). A kind and gentle experience with the heirarchy, and it looks like a set-up that Angel and I can work with. Big ups, Bishop Nedi.

Looking back towards our previous days' discussion on discernment/ordination/the establishment, the fact is that I value the community aspect of Anglicanism too much to break off into a non-denominational group. While I think that there is value and need in the church for independents, it just doesn't work that well for me. I believe in the universality of the body of Christ--there is no right church or wrong church. Under that philosophy, I would ultimately stay "in communion" no matter where I go. However, there's something important to me in the symbolism of being a recognized part of a "catholic" church. It communicates something of the all embracing, historically connected, eternally existing nature of the church that I think I'd be in danger of losing should I go it alone. It's a big part of what drew me here, and I'm not ready to leave it yet.

I mentioned something yesterday as well about how I feel that Anglicanism works a little more smoothly in communally oriented cultures than it does in individualistically oriented ones, like the US. The point, I think, is that the Anglican system relies inherently on human trust for the community: you put yourself in the community's hands in the expectation that it's only through the community that we connect with God. When we all take that attitude, it works--people value the community at all levels, and thus look out for one another, practice neighborly love, etc. The shepherds take care of the flock, and the flock looks out for the shepherds. In some cultures, that sense that "we're all in this together" is stronger than in others. In the US it's weak, and the sense is that you have to take care of yourself because nobody else is going to do so. (That's why, Kiwis and Canadians, Hell will freeze over before we have a fully universal healthcare system here--if I can figure out a way to pay for insurance, why can't they?) Anglicanism here is essentially the same as it is elsewhere, in that it teaches a communal ethic and praxis. However, it often doesn't function naturally within our culture, because it's constantly struggling against the cultural push to take care of yourself, and to distrust your neighbors and leaders. (That sort of attitude creates a lot of unnecessary anxiety, by the way.) Not a universal sentiment here, but it's widespread enough to be noticeable on a daily basis if you're tuned in (especially if you're tuned in to Fox News). Particularly as we're getting a big infusion of (inherently individualistic) post-evangelicals (including myself), there's a significant struggle between individualism and communalism, which I think is creating ripples in lots of places. And that's a piece of why I want to move to Canada.

What I'm thinking

Whew! I'm humbled and delighted at the outpouring of advice, as well as the depth of discussion created by my posting of Mike's original letter! I do feel a little bad--and would like to apologize--about posting the letter prior to getting Mike's full public opinion. I know he presented himself in a way that he may not have done publically otherwise. (Don't worry Mike, I'll tell Karen to go easy on you :). In any case, she understands the frustrations of trying to change things from within the establishment as well as any, so I suspect that she might not disagree with you as totally as you think... ) Clearly though, he shouldn't feel bad about what he said, because what he struck a chord that was sufficiently challenging that folks got a little defensive--always a sign that you're somewhere close to the truth.

And indeed, I posted originally because Mike stated so clearly what one side of my mind has been saying, and I was eager to hear if anyone would be kind enough to voice the other side, and "talk me down" so to speak. In this discussion, John Hebenton has been, for my money, the best advocate of staying with the institution. I have to admit that his views might be skewed a bit, being part of the (relatively) very healthy New Zealand Anglican Church. NZ is just a better world than the US all around :). In the US, my experience is that Anglican/Episcopal heirarchy functions a little differently, with our individualism and distrust of our neighbors throwing some unfortunate wrinkles into the Anglican system, which in my view functions most effectively in communal cultures, as does Catholicism. I'd like to comment more on that later, but I'm pressed for time right now and wanted to let you all know--who've been kind enough to put in a lot of time trying to help/persuade me--a little bit about what I'm thinking.

Tomorrow I have a meeting with the bishop who is in charge of discernment in our diocese, partly to discuss my place in the process. I think I've sorted out the gist of what I'm going to say--informed in many ways by this discussion.

Having spent two years in formal discernment in the Church, I've come to realize that there are currently several very strong pulls in my life, all of which I see as essential to fulfilling my calling. There's the pull to pursue the priesthood in the Anglican Communion, the pull to settle somewhere which promises to be a long term home, and the pull to give Angel the opportunity to get her career as a nurse practitioner established.

We've realized that the best hope for a long term home for us might not be in the US, because we've drifted out of connection with our culture, and neither of us has the desire or will to stay around and fight the political and ideological battles that will be facts of daily life in our chosen careers. (Remember that she works in health care and I work in religion and social services...) We've realized that essentially we're trying to fight the culture we live in on a number of levels, and that's not really where we want to spend our energy. So, it seems that the most promising location for us to accomplish our goals seems to be the Vancouver, B.C. area. It's got Nurse Practitioner jobs, it's got an Anglican seminary, it's absolutely beautiful, it's no further from family than we are now, it has a culture similar to New Zealand's (which we loved), and it's a two hour drive away from our present home, so we can maintain our present relationships, at least on some level.

My hope is that I can continue in the process of discernment, and ultimately the process of ordination, in the diocese I'm in, and also achieve the above stated goals. I think I can, if the community is willing to work with me and bend a few of it's less important principles. I think I am called to the priesthood, and that I have a voice that will be valuable for this community. I also want to give back to the people who have helped and supported me here as much as possible. However, the fact is that if this diocese isn't willing to send me to seminary in Vancouver--i.e., if it wants me to go to New York or San Francisco for at least a year--I'm not at a place where I'm sure that I'm willing to make the sacrifices that it would take to be ordained here. I'd rather step back and go through the steps I need to with the Diocese of New Westminster--albeit continuing in discernment during my time here in Seattle. I'm confident that I can fulfill a priestly role, and find work to support myself and Angel in any case, so I'm at peace with that. One of the functions of the discernment process is to help the discerner realize when it might be time to "wait" when it comes to ordination, and I'm at peace with my situation if that should be what we decide. (At the same time, my prejudice is that "wait" would be a decision that's made based primarily on unnecessarily rigid enforcement of diocesan procedures, rather than a healthy view of what's good for me and the church community in general).

I am of course putting the cart before the horse here--I'm not at a point where I've been presented by my congregation, and my bishop isn't at a point where she, or the Commission on Ministry, are making any decisions. However, I'm confident in my calling at this point, and I think that the Church will recognize it. (If not, what a relief in some ways!) I need there to be a full understanding--a full level of honesty about where I am--in order to continue in this process (more great advice from John H.) , and we're at a stage where this discussion is important.

With that, thanks once again for all of the great, and often very touching, advice. Now, it's off to pick up my wife and have my 28th Birthday dinner!

My second anonymous letter in two days (sort of)

Some advice on my dilemma: Somebody give me some advice here. What do you think? Can somebody defend the other side?

In my inbox today, under the title "Unsolicited, totally inappropriate advice"

"Hi Tim,

We don't really know each other - we're Facebook friends, and we have a common friend in the inimitable Karen Ward (who would disagree with me in the strongest terms on what I'm about to say). I friended you on FB when I saw that you were asking questions that resonated with me on the Anglimergent site. In any case, you don't know me, so obviously take this very impertinent advice with a grain of salt. However, for whatever it's worth, here's what some dude you don't know thinks after reading your latest blog post:

Don't do it, brother. Don't get ordained. Don't endanger your marriage. Don't submit yourself to a denominational hierarchy which you're completely right not to trust, for all that it's made up largely of well-intentioned, faithful people. It's preoccupied with priorities that have very little to do with what it sounds like God is calling you to - or with God's kingdom, for that matter. (I'm not for a moment denying that these are thoroughly mixed up with kingdom priorities and kingdom-hearted individuals within TEC.)

My opinion is that you have much to lose and little to gain by becoming a covenanted part of that hierarchy. You don't need them. You don't need their permission, and you don't need their resources. Just move wherever it makes sense to go for you and Angel, find some Jesus-followers with similar callings, and start doing church. Do it as Anglican as you're called to do it. I'm an Anglican, and I have strong, active friendships and partnerships within the TEC system, but that's not my primary place of ministry and Christian community. The church I'm primarily a part of is nondenominational (but not isolated or stand-alone - we have *strong* peer network relationships with both denominational and nondenominational communities) with Anglican "DNA" - we use the BCP in worship and much of our tradition is very Anglican. But not exclusively so, and we're not formally affiliated. We don't need a bishop's permission to experiment, and we're free to forge generative friendships with folks in TEC *and* (for example) CANA - and, of course, ELCA, PCUSA, PCA, EFree, etc., etc. And we do!

You don't need permission. You don't need ordination. You don't need a building (start in a home or rent a coffee shop), a pension, or a full-time salary (get those through other means - Angel's job, you work part time, etc.). All you need is a small collection of people who are hearing God's call in similar ways and are bold and humble enough to listen to the Spirit and each other in community.

I could say more, but I've already said way more than I have any right to say. But I just wanted to offer this opinion: you don't need to make this bargain. It can be done without turning over your future to an organization that has other things on its mind. We're doing it. It's hard as hell sometimes, but it's friggin' wonderful too.

Peace,
(Person whose name I removed b/c I didn't get their permission to post this, but you probably wouldn't know anyway because I don't.)"

This is reassurring anyway

America's Unfaithful Faithful

It's true what they say about politics and religion

As you can probably tell from my recent posts, those two subjects are likely to drive me insane. Politics have me contemplating leaving the country of my birth (again), and religion has me questioning everything I've done in life to this point. When you put the two together, I have these potentially irreconcilable needs to 1. move away to B.C. and 2. stay put in the US to finish jumping through hoops so I can be ordained sooner rather than later. (There's also a number 3, which may be incompatible with either or both of the other two--the need to support my wife in her career development). It feels like I've hit a breaking point on a lot of things, and some sort of shift of direction has got to happen in my life trajectory. I'm not convinced yet that ordination in the Episcopal Church and I are compatible--though I have to stay optimistic.

The frustration is that my concerns have very little to do with calling. The role of priest, as I understand it, and as the church outlines it, is as appealing as ever. Theologically the church works, and it seems that on the other side of this process the church works. The frustration is what the next 3-5 years look like. Right now they look like uncertainty, which is driving both Angel an I crazy. At this stage in the process, I really am at the mercy of the Bishop and the Diocesan Commission on Ministry. I'm relatively confident that my church will support my ordination. Once I get to BACOM and the Bishop, I'm relatively certain that they will also (though no guarantees). However, after that it is all up in the air. Worst case scenario, they may tell me that I have to spend three years in seminary in a different state and two doing CPE's (ministry placements). Best case scenario, they may tell me that I can go to Vancouver, do one year of seminary and settle--doing placements there and getting acquainted with the Canadian Church. It could also be anything in between, and it could be that they'll say that I'm not cut out for this. It could be that they'll say that I am cut out for this, and that I have to fulfill requirements that will be potentially damaging to my marriage (i.e., spending a year somewhere and then returning--which would be essentially impossible to make work with Angel's work, at this stage in her career, so could require us to live apart during my training. That's one path that, for me, could be a deal breaker with this church). All of those are real possibilities. Maybe I'll get a significant say in this, maybe I won't. I don't know yet.

The more I get into it, the more I realize that I don't trust this hierarchical power thing that we have going in the Episcopal Church. We're supposedly moving towards a less clerical and more communal, lay-led structure, but we have some work to do--particularly in our approach to ministerial training. Can an episcopally structured church really model a communitarian style of leadership and decision making (can Americans?) ? Can it provide the room for structural change that is needed to integrate Gen's X,Y and Z, and provide a place for young ministers to be formed and do their work? Spiritually, I believe in Anglicanism. In considering the job that priests do, and the way that they function in this church, I'm content with Anglicanism. Structurally, at the top, I have questions about whether our system is capable of adapting to change quickly enough to continue to meet needs. Economically and culturally, I have questions about how committed to doing what's right among the poor this church can be. And, of course, the church in BC stands out there as a great uncertainty, since I know from my experience in NZ that each diocese within the church is it's own story.

Underwhelmed at the Caucus

So, I had my first Caucus experience yesterday, and my vote officially contributed to the sending of two delegates from our district for...

Hillary Clinton!



Obama-mania was in full swing in our district--he got 7 out of 9 delegates, but I ended up standing my ground on Clinton.

I'm under the impression that about 50% of the country hates Hillary, but I just couldn't bring myself to vote on something other than the issues. There's no way I could vote for another Republican in this election (or in any election for the foreseeable future, until their policies shift 180 degrees), and I'm cynical about the value of Obama's charisma. Is America really going to be united, and what about his leadership would represent real change? He's a party-line Democrat with policies that aren't as well fleshed out as Hillary's. He's an Icon that a lot of people seem to be projecting their hopes upon, but where does that get you in the American political system?

People don't like Hillary b/c she's old Washington, but ultimately, who cares? It's important to be inspired, but the change that really will make a difference in the US will be policy change. I don't particularly have a problem with Obama's policy positions--he's moving in the right direction--but he either doesn't go far enough or hasn't fleshed out his ideas enough on the issues that matter to me (healthcare, the environment, foreign policy, social safety nets for the poor, LGBT equality, Iraq, immigration, eroding civil rights, the recent consolidation of power in the executive branch, etc.). Hillary simply has a much more developed sense of what she's going to do to make changes. Obama may be more electable, but I just can't get over the hump of thinking that all of the hope and inspiration will be pretty useless once he gets in the White House (look at the Bill Clinton policy legacy--another pretty inspiring guy--and a whole lot of people have been pretty inspired by W at some point or another), and that his policy positions simply aren't refined enough.

We'll see how things shake out. Obama still won the state, but the race is unpredictable at this point.

The impossibility of hope?

The human mind comes to truth about complex situations by organizing disparate data into a cohesive unit. When you realize the key to the interpretation of all of this complex data, there's frequently a moment of clarity: an "Ah Ha Moment" when it all clicks (Einstein talked about this when he came up with the theory of relativity, and I could almost feel it happening when I was working on my thesis). Sometimes the click signals a revelation of truth, and sometimes the click is overruled at a later date by new data.

Today, I had one such moment that I hope you can overrule, ironically when I was in conversation with some of the most compassionate people I know, at Multifaith Works.

Americans have as much opportunity, or more, as any other citizens on the planet. Our GDP per capita consistently ranks as top five in the world. We're as educated as anyone in the world. We're a democratic country, where decisions are made freely by the population, and our leaders are chosen directly by the people. Yet, 45 million people go without health insurance. The leaders we choose let children live in squalor. We're happy to let veterans live on the street without support. In every other industrialized country, people do better than we do.

The problem isn't an inadequacy of resources or freedoms. Ultimately, the way it shakes out, the problem is that we care at least a little bit less about other people than they do in other developed countries, and a little bit more about ourselves.

Politics

Does anyone think it's disturbing that a guy who doesn't believe in evolution is a strong competitor to be our next president? Haven't we learned anything in the last seven years?