Sometimes you wake up at 3AM and want to write...

Money. It drives almost everything in the world today, and yet it is also the thing that Jesus talked about more than anything else. The funny thing about that though is that in church you never really hear about money the way that Jesus talked about it.

It seems like most churches have the same agenda as any corporation: Get more money. When the rich man came to Jesus and asked how he could get to heaven, he said "Sell all your possessions and give to the... church"? Right? Is that not how it went? Matthew 19 and Luke 18 certainly tell a different story... but what about those disciples in Acts that sold any property, land, possessions, etc and gave it to any as they had need? Well, would that be the same thing as giving to a church today? Not really. For as far back as I can tell, "the church" in a worldly corporate sense has always been driven to add to their number in their one location. These days we have churches that are bigger than sports arenas. For hundreds of years the Catholic church has built huge buildings, including not just a sanctuary building, but housing, schools, almost everything imaginable. This made sense for them though, because they actually WERE a school in a sense. Many catholic churches were built to house the priests and nuns, giving them a place to live and learn in proper solitude from the outside world. When people do that today we call it a "cult compound"... but that's another issue entirely. Somewhere along the line though, churches became more and more ornate, more decorations, more art, more gold, more architectural significance, and the church leadership became more and more concerned with gaining wealth. I suppose it was only a matter of time before the Christian church took a lesson from what the Synagogues were doing for centuries as well.

Things were a little different before the corporate church took hold. People in the early years of Christianity didn't meet in a group building. Some of course met in the local temple, but for the most part that wasn't an option seeing as they weren't exactly welcomed with open arms. No, the typical "church" was a few people in a house. Maybe I got reminded of this with the story about the home in San Diego that got fined for having a weekly bible study that met in their house... but anyway, that is what it was about. Just people getting together in the street, in a house, wherever they happened to be they gathered around and heard about their daily message of choice. So back then, where did the money go? While it is true we do have ONE reference of people gathering money to provide for a teacher of the Word, most of the time it went TO THE POOR, DIRECTLY. There was no idea of corporation, no savings account unless you perhaps consider Judas being the "bank" of Jesus' crew... they pooled their money together, he held it, and they used it as they had need. Well, what would they have spent money on other than food? Some new sandals perhaps? Maybe new robes? It's possible. How about the church in Acts? Pretty much the same way. People sold their possessions, pooled the money, and for the most part it was used to provide for each other. The earliest form of Communism perhaps. Yes, people always hate it when I refer to it that way... but that really is what it was like. There were no funds toward a new roof, or new parking lot, or new choir uniforms, or anything else like we have today... there wasn't even a budget. There was probably no yearly stewardship campaign to motivate the people to loosen their purse strings...

So where did things change? Well I think it came with the idea of the church being centered at a consistent location. Once you have that ONE thing, everything else falls apart. When you build the building, then you have a place of operation for the orphanage, the school, the giant auditorium, the pews, the offices, the kitchen... don't get me wrong of course. I don't think any of those things are evil and worthy of full blown condemnation to hell. I just think it got the focus away from what it was all supposed to be about. Selling ALL PROPERTY AND POSSESSIONS AND GIVING TO THE POOR. If you run a charity today, the one thing that most people look at is how much of each dollar given goes to benefit the actual target of the charity. Most of the time it is less than 80 cents per dollar, but there are plenty of charities that are almost half administrative expenses. Well what about if we look at churches the same way. What percentage of each dollar given to the church actually goes to the poor? I think that is how we really need to start looking at how things are run. In my search for a "church home" I hope I actually start finding some that will divulge that information.

Well what about me? How does my life reflect all this? Obviously I am not perfect. I own a home, I have a car, I have furniture and technology and all that... but I do live pretty simply. I decided a long time ago that the acquisition of goods didn't really suit me. I have never bought a car new, I have never paid someone to build me a home, all the furniture I own fits inside my bedroom... it allows me to live pretty cheap. There is more to it than that though. Living cheap by itself doesn't mean a thing, and I will fully admit that in the last year I haven't given much of anything to anyone... but in the last year my salary has also been $0... at least since September. Before that I can pretty much account for where SOME of my money has gone. $16000 here, $7000 there (half of which was repaid), a car given here, a car sold there (with so far no indication of payment), a few hundred over there to help with rent, a few hundred here to help with a phone bill... I could almost say that I spend more money on other people than I spend on myself. Almost. Things change a bit when you are unemployed, but when I did have money I can safely say that I did pretty well with things.

What most people ask me about when I tell them any part of this, and they always ask it, is if I felt like I was getting taken advantage of. It almost makes me laugh to think about it because of all the implications that come with that question. Do I feel like someone takes advantage of me because I give them money and the spend it? Not really. For that I would have to put some value on money, which other than providing for myself to eat and sleep and have a shelter I really don't. For the most part I wouldn't even blink an eye at someone stealing from me or mugging me. People question that I don't even lock my car or front door... the same implications. I am not that attached to anything I own. I give freely, expecting nothing in return, and expect nobody to share the same view that I do on possessions. Somewhere along the way we all seem to have lost the idea of living as a community and giving to others freely, and have fully embraced our global ideals of capitalism and accumulation of wealth. We put value, even sentimental value, on things that hold no real relevance in the grand scheme of things. I think more than anything in this entire diatribe on the state of our greed and lack of concern for the reality existing outside of our own walls, this one thing is what bothers me the most about how far we have come in two thousand years.

Many seem to think it is okay to just allow the government to take care of those in need, which flies in the face of the original idea, at least in a Christian sense, of how we are told to live our lives and use our money... but when I look at the fact that the government gives about 20% of it's budget to Medicaid and welfare, it's hard not to make a comparison to the amount that churches actually use on similar things... or even individuals... although there is the issue of the fact that a huge chunk of that money would go to administrative expenses rather than the actual program, far worse than any of the charities... even the bad ones. I know that if I give a dollar to a homeless person (or apparently homeless in any case) at least 100% of that dollar goes to them, even if it does get spent on alcohol or drugs.

And there is more... there is tons more. A lot of what is in my head can't even really be converted to language, but I think the idea is clear. If this were any sort of an official document I would probably trim half if not more of what is in here, but I can't be bothered to proofread or edit.

You know, if this were a sermon, in spite of all the extraneous stuff, it would probably be titled "Widows and Orphans". Yeah, I know I never mentioned that specifically, but that's pretty much what it is all about.

Tea Party April 15th, 2008

So already there is controversy surrounding the grassroots effort to protest the tax system (and government spending system) in the United States this year. Of course as a lot of people already know that actually pay attention this was not by any means the first "Tea Party" in recent years, but it was the first to actually get some media attention, mostly thanks to Fox News. Of course this meant that they themselves were taking credit for it after the fact even though they had nothing to do with the planning or execution of the events.

Let's actually look at some of the people that have been given credit for the Tea Parties around the country.

Dick Armey : Probably not a real credit, just CNBC making yet another teabagging reference

Newt Gingrich: Had nothing to do with it but probably saw a chance to take some credit

The Republicans: Had nothing to do with it since just about every tea party had signs indicating that "Republicans suck too"

Fox News: They did give a little publicity to it before it happened, but that's about the extent of their credit goes

Ron Paul: Although not directly planning all of this, he did have the idea and started the main force driving the planning - The Campaign for Liberty

Right Wing Extremists: I wanted to throw this in because the Department of Homeland Security in their infinite wisdom labelled everyone that opposed the size of government as people to keep a close eye on... right in there with the KKK, militias, and any other groups that criticized government as a whole. Nothing new.

So what was really behind all this? People. People sick of paying taxes that are too high and getting nothing in return for it other than government spending spiraling higher and higher every year. CNNs coverage of the event consisted of a single interview of a person on the street in Chicago that was questioned by the reporter, after saying that Obama claimed to be like Lincoln, as to why he was protesting taxes since he was eligible for a $400 credit for his two year old son that was with him. She didn't even let him finish talking about why he was there before the barrage of unrelated questions came... like Illinois getting $50 billion from the stimulus and wasn't that awesome? How could someone possibly protest when their state was getting money from that government?

Anyway, for those that weren't aware, here are some quick notes of truth about the Tea Parties

- Planners of the event were not affiliated with either major party
- No news organization or corporation or lobby had any part in planning when, where, and how any of the events would take place
- I knew about the event coming up for at least the last 6 months, if not a year. The date was already planned, details got worked out later.
- The closest thing to anyone actually affiliated with any official organization taking part would be Campaign for Liberty, and End The Fed
- The protest was focused mainly on HR 1207, trying to increase transparency in the federal reserve.
- Other people were there in part against the tax rates increasing (proactively), the current level of taxes being too high, the tax system being corrupt, and a lack of representation about how our taxes are actually spent. For those that actually responded and called in, the bailouts were opposed 99-1, and yet passed easily in congress.

And overall it was a major success... counts at each event from what I have heard ranged from 2,000 to 10,000 at each location... and those locations were far more numerous than just what was covered on CNN or Fox.

So sometimes it is about both...

I don't always have to blog about just one thing, or just two things, but if I do blog mostly about TV and Politics, the two definitely go together. Ever since JFK made Nixon look like a zombie, the two were inseparable.

So coming up this week are the first new episodes of Survivor and The Dollhouse, and I am looking forward to both of them. The Dollhouse because Joss Whedon has a tendency to make a decent series every once in a while, especially when the networks hate it. Already Fox indicated that they were less enthusiastic about the pilot episode they saw, which means only good things for the series. In fact, the new series almost mirrors the way Firefly started out. So instead of what was probably a great pilot episode, we get to start with a chase... again. So as long as Joss ignores the suits and avoids the vampires, I think it could still turn out just fine.
And I am looking forward to Survivor also, just because I am. It is really the best show on television to see an almost real world example of the internal workings of the human mind, but instead of holding back and avoiding doing the horrible things that most people do, it's all out there in the open, with a running commentary on it by each person. It's like an office workplace with alcohol thrown in the mix. People always say too much, backstabbing goes on constantly (but this time we actually get to see it), and people get sent off the island because nobody likes them... or because too many people like them and they are a threat. It is seriously just like the real world for those who choose to see it.

And politics... seriously, I just wish there would be an uprising of the people who are paying all the taxes and are tired of getting nothing to show for it. Personal taxes are about a third of what the government spends every year, and corporate taxes are most of the rest. Corporations are already starting to move overseas since we have one of the highest corporate tax rates of any country in the world, and I can't help but think that individuals are going to start doing the same if they get the chance. I can just see some billionaire going and buying a country, and then developing it to the point that it is easily livable with reasonable infrastructure physically, and then just opening it up to all comers. There would be a mass migration of people with money heading for new scenery where they actually get to hold on to their hard earned money... or for most of the rich people in the world, most of thier great-great-grandparents' hard earned money. They could buy Canada.

American Idol Season 8

Okay, so continuing on with my theme of never picking the winner on American Idol, I decided to go with that and once again pick the non-winner this year. After the tryouts are over, I will name the definitive non-winner.

And for those who aren't in the know, every year on Idol there are "plants" in the running that already have ties in the music industry or to the show itself, or even those that have already had record deals with various labels, that always seem to have some sort of influence on who ends up making the top 10. In season 7 David Cook was the only one of the top 10 that wasn't one, and he ended up winning, probably due to the efforts of votefortheworst.com

http://votefortheworst.com/20090113/dictionary_plants_american_idol_8_so_far
But of course this does include a few spoilers as to who does and doesn't make it past Hollywood week, so you might click with caution.

And for your time, here is an awesome picture of Chris Daughtry

What still bothers me

So here we are, a day before the election, and the typical question people ask is "who are you voting for". The response I always get from my well thought out, well researched, and properly worded response is "who?". Seriously, we can't possibly have gotten this far in our country when people don't know who is running for president. Most people know about Ralph Nader in general, but they don't even realize that he is running for president. Every time though, without exception, whenever I say I am still deciding between Barr and Baldwin, people seem to think I am not talking about the presidential election. But seriously, if you are in Texas your vote doesn't really count. McCain will win Texas with at least 55%, so the only vote that does anything at all to get noticed is one that goes for neither of the two parties that are getting us into the current mess. But this blog obviously isn't going to be read by enough people (if any) to make much of a dent in that either, but it still just bothers me that people are crazy enough to think that they are throwing their vote away if they DON'T vote for the winner.

So we are spending HOW much now?

Well, the initial bailout for Bear-Stearns was $29 billion, Fannie and Freddie got $200 billion (initially, with freedom for the Fed to give as much as they wanted to), AIG got $85 billion, $168 billion additonally for stimulus, and now $700 billion dollars (plus who knows how much more)... so that is something like $1.3 trillion dollars for "stimulus" and "bail-outs". The ENTIRE federal budget this year was $2.9 trillion to start with... and the ENTIRE reciept from income taxes was $1.25 trillion. That means already this year we have spent more money trying to "fix" the economy in the short term than we have taken in from the top source of income to the federal government.

But what is causing this whole problem in the first place? Why are all these businesses failing? Well, most of them are banks. You would think banks would be plenty safe considering all of their regulation and income, right? Well, not really. People who are getting loans now are misrepresenting their income, even being ENCOURAGED to overstate their income to get bigger and better houses than they can afford, and in the end can't make their payments on their Escalades and 3000 sq ft houses on their meager incomes. Basically what happened is that 10 years ago, people complained that the poor people couldn't qualify for loans based on their bad credit and no income. So a law that was passed back in the day got repealed so that anyone could get a loan, the "sub-prime" thing everyone is talking about, and now we are seeiong the effects of it. Companies when they have to forclose on a property have to auction off that property... and knowing people that work in the forclosure sector, let me tell you that they ALWAYS lose money when they have to forclose. Banks hate forclosing, but it's just what has to be done. But that isn't even the real problem. At least there, money is backed by a property. The big issue is when the loans get overlent. It used to be that banks had to have money in the bank as a percentage of what they lent out. For every 10 dollars they lent, they had to have a dollar in the bank. This was the issue back during the depression when the banks had rushes on them and they didn't have anything on hand to deal with it. Banks went under because all of their loans failed and they didn't have ANY money to back it up. Of course now banks often loan 60 dollars to every dollar that they have on hand because it is just created out of thin air in a computer, or the loans are actually given from someone other than them. When you go get a car loan, often the loan is actually through someone else. Lots of banks are paid to give out loans and have to meet certain quotas, but those loans aren't even done through their banks, they are FHA loans or done through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac even today... and there just isn't enough demand for them. A caller in to Rush Limbaugh the other day said this and said it isn't that there isn't money, because they have tons they need to loan (unlimited, because they create it out of thin air) but people just aren't getting loans. And now with the "crisis" the congress has actually cleared away ANY requirements to have cash on hand, and banks can basically create loans in an unlimited number without having anything at all to back it up. It's just created numbers in a computer system that gets transferred between banks. From 10% to 0%... and when you realize what this actually does (Indie Mac anyone?) it is a very scary thing.

At last count, there is only $900 billion dollars in actual physical US currency in circulation... and we owe 10 times that much. How much more do we have to print before people around the world realize that it is backed by nothing and it becomes completely worthless?

Disillusionment of politics

So it really makes me wonder if the powers that be in Washington, on both sides, actually care at all about the money they force us to send them every year. Both candidates for president are promising to spend more money, both candidates are promising that the government will do more things (which sounds nice to SOME people that actually get a benefit from what the government does), and both are promising that they will be the best person for the job. Neither the R or the D vice-president is superior to the other in my opinion after having watched them debate, just like neither the R or the D presidential candidate are superior to the other... but my biggest concern right now is Congress. While MY representative, Jeb Hensarling (who I am definitely a fan of) voted against the bill in the house, which didn't pass, BOTH Texas senators voted for it. 700 Billion Dollars. Billion with a B. That is nearly a trillion dollars, which it probably WILL end up being by the end of this. Now I for one did get my 600 dollar "economic stimulus", which didn't even make a dent in anything, but when I think about it, even if every single person in the US got that (which they didn't) that would be 305 million people getting it, for a total of 183 Billion Dollars. This bill is basically spending the equivalent of $2000 for every single person living in the United States... is that not insane? If you consider there are only about 170 million people that are actually working, that is $4000 per taxpaying person. I personally didn't intend to give banks and insurance companies $4000 of my income this year, did you?

So instead of doing something that would be helpful, like letting the lying, cheating, and stealing banks that have already been discovered to be commiting fraud at every turn, the government is giving them money. Couldn't smaller companies just pick up the slack? Or even larger ones. Bank of America and JP Morgan-Chase have been buying out the banks that are failing... there are plenty of insurance companies that could buy up the ones that are failing. Plenty of them make a ton of money and have it available to spend. So why in the world is the government trying to give them money? Well... a simple reason. Money. It's the biggest scam in the world, and nobody bats an eye. The companies that are getting bailed out are some of the biggest donors to political campaigns. And not just one side or the other.
Look at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. From Banks and insurance companies, which this bill concerns, she recieved $228,000. That is about 10% of her TOTAL contributions. Crazy Democrats, right?
Well then lets look at my own two senators from Texas.
Kay Bailey-Hutchinson
$439,000 from banks and insurance companies. Closer to 5% of the total, but that is still a TON of money for a political campaign.
John Cornyn
$734,000 from banks and insurance companies. About 5% of his total.

The only people that donate more to political campaigns in general than banks, "wall-street" securities firms, and insurance companies are lawyers, and we can see the effect that has with nothing getting done in the court system for reform. It's the same thing with these huge corporate bail-outs. They allocate money and tax-breaks for the companies (I am not against the tax breaks), and they get their kick backs. Not directly of course, because that would be illegal. It is just "campaign contributions".

Well I for one am tired of it. With the exception of my own representative, who voted NO on the bill in the house, I have no incumbents in any position in government that I care to vote for ever again. I won't go so far as to just vote for any random Democrat that is going up against them, but I will certainly find a valid "third-party" alternative.

I am fed up with the people in government that probably don't even remember when they first sold their soul to the mighty dollar, it was so long ago.

Hensarling voted no, and my former district Rep Sam Johnson (who I am also a huge fan of) voted no, but there are a TON of representatives in the House even from Texas that voted yes, so there is no end to the level of my disappointment with the politicians in Washington that supposedly represent MY state right now...

Update: Johnson and Hensarling voted NO on the second go round in the House that actually passed. Still my heroes.