So Sarah Reads Her Palm, Obama’s Still in the Game

I haven’t done a political post in a while, so here we go! My first point will be conservative. My second will be liberal.

1. So Sarah Palin reads notes off of her palm. Big deal! If I could read a word off my palm and deliver an eloquent, articulate commentary (as she did), then I’d say I’m doing pretty good!

2. A few days ago, Barack Obama said that the health care bill might fail. But here’s why I admire him: he’s not giving up on the issue! He’s not doing what Bill Clinton did: the health care bill died, so he abandoned the issue and tried to become more conservative. President Obama is reaching across party lines to do something about America’s health care problems. It’s probably more than a political issue for him, since he’s said on more than one occasion that, while his mom was dying in the hospital, she had to haggle with her health insurance provider to get coverage for her medical care.

I hope that President Obama fights for conservative ideas—tort reform, no abortion funding, conscience provisions, competition along state lines (or at least taking measures to break up the state-by-state monopolies that health insurance companies have). He talked about these ideas in his speech to Congress about health care, but some of them died in the Congress. I hope that he commits to them, while pushing for other ways to bring down the cost of health care.

Emergence of Monotheism, Drunken El, Antichrist Defeats Hosts, Palin on O’Reilly

Here are some odds and ends:

1. I read more of Mark Smith The Origins of Biblical Monotheism yesterday, and page 49 is crucial because it offers insight as to when Smith thinks the shift from polytheism to monotheism occurred within ancient Israel. According to Smith, Israelite religion was initially tolerant of the idea that YHWH was for Israel whereas other gods had domain over the Gentile nations (Deuteronomy 32). The reason was that, at the time, foreign religions did not threaten the worship of YHWH in Israel. This began to change in the eighth century B.C.E., however, when the neo-Assyrian empire was promoting and creating a new world order under its dominion. In response, ancient Israelite religion became more monotheistic, affirming that YHWH should be worshipped by Israel and the other nations as well.

I hope Smith fleshes this out more in the course of his book. What I’ve heard in my classes is that Assyria and Babylon did not force the nations they conquered to abandon their national religion. In some cases, the imperial powers actually honored the gods of the nations they conquered. But could it have been the case that Assyria and Babylon were still promulgating Assyrian and Babylonian religion, thereby challenging Israelite religion with another way to see the world? “Yes, we’ll tolerate you, and your god does exist,” the imperial powers may have told Israel, “But our god is still the most powerful, for we are in control of so much of the world.”

2. On page 44, Smith refers to a Ugaritic document in which two pious sons hold the hand of the drunken god El. I’ve not read the Ugaritic source, but what Smith says reminds me of the story of Noah in Genesis 9: Noah gets drunk and lies down naked, and his sons Shem and Japheth cover him up. I wonder if this story-line was a common motif in the ancient Near East.

3. Smith talks about how many ancient Near Eastern deities in Ugaritic literature were seen as stars. Such a belief occurs in the Bible (e.g., Isaiah 14:13). Smith cites a passage that somewhat baffles me, indicating that perhaps I should see what some commentaries have to say: Daniel 8:9-11 states that the little horn (Antiochus Epiphanes) grew to the hosts of heaven and cast some of them down. I wonder how the author of Daniel believes that the little horn did that. What goes through my mind is II Thessalonians 2:4, which states that the man of sin will exalt himself above all that is called god, sitting in God’s temple as if he is God. Maybe the Antichrist (if you want to call him that) will cast down the hosts of heaven by undermining their authority and banning their worship, as he demands worship only for himself. Also, he may discredit the gods of other nations as he conquers their countries.

4. I watched some of the Bill O’Reilly interview with Sarah Palin on Greta. O’Reilly was grilling Palin over her lack of governmental experience, and she replied, “I never heard you criticize Joe Biden’s lack of experience.” O’Reilly replied, “But Joe Biden has lots of experience.”

Palin seemed to be talking to O’Reilly like he was part of the liberal media, even though many consider him to be a conservative voice. Also, her reference to Joe Biden was kind of a goof-up on her part. Good thing that O’Reilly gave her a hard interview. She’ll need practice on that.

Vorlage to I Kings 3, Palin on Oprah, Stupack Interview

Here are three items:

1. I’m continuing to make my way through David Carr’s From D to Q, which is about Solomon’s dream at Gibeon in I Kings 3, as well as early Jewish interpretations of it. Yesterday, I was reading about the pre-Deuteronomistic Vorlage to the story: the story as it existed before the Deuteronomist added his contribution. My impression (which could be wrong) is that Carr believes the original story was (at least in part) a justification for the sanctuary at Gibeon. Solomon had a dream there, and God appears to people in dreams or epiphanies at sanctuaries that he recognizes: Shechem (Genesis 12:6-9), Mamre (Genesis 18:1-16), Beer-lahai-roi (Genesis 16:7-13), Gerar (Genesis 26:2-5), Beersheba (Genesis 26:24-25), Bethel (Genesis 28:10-22), Shiloh (I Samuel 3:10-14), and Jerusalem (II Samuel 24:15-25; I Chronicles 22:1; II Chronicles 3:1).

The Deuteronomist has a slight problem with Solomon worshipping at Gibeon, for he believes that Jerusalem is the place God chose to place his name, and is thus the only legitimate sanctuary. Consequently, in I Kings 3, he sees a need to apologize for Solomon’s activity at Gibeon: people worshipped at high places at the time, for Solomon hadn’t yet built the temple for God’s name. It’s ironic that the Deuteronomist feels he has to apologize for Solomon’s behavior, for his general stance is that God let the Israelites do what was right in their own eyes before the time of the temple (Deuteronomy 12).

Carr believes that parts of I Kings 3:15 belong to the pre-Deuteronomistic Vorlage. There, Solomon goes to Jerusalem where the Ark of the Covenant is located and offers sacrifices. Carr maintains that the part about Solomon offering sacrifices is from the hand of the Vorlage, whereas the part about Solomon doing so in Jerusalem is the contribution of the Deuteronomist. If this is true, it sort of ruins an interesting thought I read in a commentary during my weekly quiet time on I Kings 3: God gave Solomon wisdom, and he immediately decided to worship at Jerusalem instead of the high places.

2. I watched Sarah Palin on Oprah a few days ago, and I thought Sarah did an awesome job. She was articulate and glib. She answered Oprah’s questions. Oprah conducted herself professionally, but she appeared uncomfortable. My favorite part of the interview was when Oprah asked Sarah if she felt snubbed because Oprah didn’t invite her onto the show during the campaign. Sarah replied that she didn’t have time to think about it at the time. I loved it! Not everyone thinks Oprah is the center of the universe? Say it ain’t so!

3. I’ve found myself cussing Chris Matthews out a couple of times this week. I like his show because Pat Buchanan is on it, and I also enjoyed Chris’ interview of Congressman Stupack, the Democrat whose amendment to the health care bill would ban federal funding for abortion. Stupack sounded level-headed and reasonable, and he answered Chris’ questions in a forthright manner. Chris often tries to corner people and read sinister things into what people (particularly conservatives) say. But he appeared a lot more serious and a lot less self-righteous in the Stupack interview.

Earth Day Ramblings

For some reason, the environment has been on my mind this week. I don’t think it’s because today is Earth Day, since that fact didn’t occur to me until last night. But it’s pretty ironic.

On Sunday morning, I watched This Week with George Stephanopoulos, and George was interviewing our fearless Republican leader in the U.S. House, John Boehner. George asked Boehner whether or not there was a Republican plan to address climate change, and Boehner responded (1.) that cows send carbon into the atmosphere, so it’s not dangerous, (2.) that we don’t really know if humans are the cause of global warming, (3.) that we need to get other nations onboard to address the problem, and (4.) that Obama’s plan taxes companies and ships jobs overseas.

For (1.), environmentalists can respond that we don’t want too much carbon in the atmosphere, which is what happens when we add automobiles and smokestacks to cows and our breathing. What’s interesting, though, is that people laughed at Ronald Reagan in 1980 for suggesting that trees and Mount St. Helens cause a lot of pollution, and now the federal government does studies on the natural causes of global warming. Bobby Jindal made fun of them in his response to Barack Obama’s State of the Union!

(2.) and (3.) contradict each other, since, if we’re not the cause of global warming, then we can’t do anything to stop it. Sarah Palin made the same blunder when she said, “It’s not important what causes climate change, but that we do something about it” (not an exact quote, but that was the drift).

I don’t entirely understand (4.), since I’m not sure where the tax comes in. Under Obama’s cap-and-trade proposal, companies that emit more carbon will have to buy credits from those who don’t emit as much. The ones buying the credits will then pass on the cost of purchasing them to their consumers, or they will cut other company costs.  That will mean higher energy prices and/or a loss of jobs. But that’s not exactly a tax, since the government isn’t getting any money out of the deal (as far as I know).

On Sunday night, I ate dinner with a relative of mine whose job is evaluating smokestacks. He said that companies are afraid of Obama’s proposals to combat climate change.

On Tuesday morning, I was reading the April 4 Newsweek while I was waiting to see my therapist. First, I read an article by Newt Gingrich. He explained how Obama’s cap-and-trade proposal will lead to higher energy prices, but his thesis was more-or-less “drill, baby, drill, and develop renewable energy while you’re at it.” Newt is a Republican who has some level of environmental consciousness, so I wonder if he thinks global warming is caused by humans. If so, then isn’t “drill, baby, drill” harmful to the environment? Maybe he sees drilling as a temporary solution for our energy needs while we seek ways to produce renewable energy.

Next, I read an article that said global warming isn’t even a problem. Colder climates are getting warmer, already warm climates aren’t getting that much hotter, and the threat of global cooling is being warded off. Plus, if our carbon emissions ever become problematic, then we can plant more trees to suck them up! So said an article in liberal Newsweek!

George Will has also asked why we should fear climate change, since who’s to say that one climate is better than another? And I’ve read about plants and shrubs underneath sheets of ice in Antarctica (I think), indicating that it wasn’t always cold there.

But there are possible downsides to global warming. There are scientists who suggest that global warming was the cause of many of our recent hurricanes, since heat causes water to move faster. Fortunately, we’ve not had as many hurricanes lately, but they were coming one after another for a while! And not having a long, cold winter prevents certain diseases from getting killed off. Sure, we have cold days during the winter time, and conservatives like to say when those happen, “Man, Al Gore talks about global warming, but it’s FREEZING right now!” But here in Cincinnati during the winter, it’s the North Pole one day, and a tropical island the next.

Afterwards, I read an article about Carol Browner, President Obama’s energy czar. She was Bill Clinton’s head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and she tried to be really tough on businesses at the time. Now, she is much more pragmatic and open to compromise. From what the Newsweek article was telling me, she’s not a hypocrite, for she lives a pretty green lifestyle and walks to work whenever she can. So she’s not like Al Gore, who lectures us about climate change right before taking off in his private jet!

The article said that a lot of companies don’t find environmental regulations to be all that expensive. That may be how some of them see the situation, but, as I said above, my relative told me that many companies are afraid of Obama’s proposals to combat global warming!

Finally, I read an article by Thomas Friedman, a guru of the liberal left. At Jewish Theological Seminary, students quoted “Thomas Friedman” with solemn reverence in their voice! He said that the search for renewable energy flopped in the 1970′s because we had an oil glut at the beginning of Reagan’s first term, and one of Reagan’s first acts as President was to remove the solar panels from the White House. I often cited the U.S. government’s failure on renewable energy as an example of the inefficiency of government. But government was probably inefficient in that case because it had no will. At least that’s an alternative explanation.

Friedman also said that Americans are not that eager to address climate change, which he attributed to two factors: (1.) Al Gore is the symbol of the environmental movement, and (2.) people are more responsive to combatting global warming when the poll question is asked a certain way. I think it was when I was reading this that my therapist was ready to see me.

I hope you got something out of today’s meanderings! Have a good Earth Day, or just “day,” if you’re not an environmentalist.

Frum and the Relevance of Less Government

In the waiting room a few days ago (to see my therapist), I read David Frum’s Newsweek article against Rush Limbaugh, Why Rush is Wrong.

Frum argues that the conservative message of less government will not mobilize voters as it did in the 1970′s:

The conservatism we know evolved in the 1970s to meet a very specific set of dangers and challenges: inflation, slow growth, energy shortages, unemployment, rising welfare dependency. In every one of those problems, big government was the direct and immediate culprit. Roll back government, and you solved the problem. Government is implicated in many of today’s top domestic concerns as well…But the connection between big government and today’s most pressing problems is not as close or as pressing as it was 27 years ago. So, unsurprisingly, the anti-big-government message does not mobilize the public the way it once did.

To my surprise, however, Frum is still somewhat of a conservative. He laments: Decisions that will haunt American taxpayers for generations have been made with hardly a debate. The federal government will pay more of the cost for Medicaid, it will expand the SCHIP program for young children, it will borrow trillions of dollars to expand the national debt to levels unseen since WWII. And, while he maintains that Republicans should focus on the high cost of health care rather than tax cuts, he is firm that their proposed solution should be “free market health-care reform,” not socialism.

I think Frum has a lot of good ideas, but I’d hardly call a commitment to less government politically irrelevant. There are still people who believe that big government suppresses the economy and liberty. I recently checked out a 2006 book, Size Matters: How Big Government Puts the Squeeze on America’s Families, Finances, and Freedom (and Limits the Pursuit of Happiness, by Joel Miller. In some cases, oppressive government intervention is obvious to Americans, for I still hear middle-class people complain about taxes and regulations they deem unreasonable.

In other cases, many don’t seem to realize that the problems the government claims it wants to solve may be caused by government in the first place. How many Americans know that the Community Reinvestment Act pressured lenders to make high-risk loans, which resulted in our current economic crisis?

Joel Miller argues that big government drives up the cost of health care, and, while I haven’t gotten to that part of the book yet, I’ve heard from others how that could be the case. Under Ben Witherington’s posts ‘Sicko’– It’s Enough to make you ill and Canadian Nurses love ‘Sicko’: Hand out free tickets to help prevent the Canadian system going the American way, there were commenters who showed how government over-regulation limits the supply of hospitals in America, driving up the cost of health care. Michael Tanner documents in Leviathan on the Right that the Republicans in Congress under Newt Gingrich sought to restrict hospital competition. And, on the radio a few nights ago, conservative conspiracy theorist Dr. Stanley Monteith (a physician) said that the feds really clamped down on county clinics, which provided inexpensive health care. Frum assumes that government intervention is no longer a problem, when it very well may be.

I also think that a message of fiscal responsibility can be popular with a lot of Americans. During the election, I heard Obama supporters lament that the Bush-deficits would have to be paid by our children. And one criticized Governor Sarah Palin for taking out a bond, which future generations of Alaskans would have to pay.

One thing Frum’s article brought to my attention is that Obama’s S-CHIP expansion can easily become another entitlement. To be honest, I don’t give a flying flip about most conservative critiques of the expansion. It covers the middle class? Heck, the middle class can use help with their high premiums and health care costs! People would leave private insurers for the government program? Oh well! The private insurers will have to compete for once. Poor babies! But another entitlement? That’s something that concerns me, especially since the cost of our current entitlements continues to go up, leading many to forecast a significantly higher tax burden for future generations.

Maybe less government can be a powerful message, if Republicans articulate it well and actually practice what they preach.

Since Ann Coulter’s Been Cancelled from the Today Show…

…I want to share with you this! Couric vs. Coulter. It’s the Katie Couric/Ann Coulter smackdown. This is Ann Coulter on the Today Show after her book Slander came out.

Katie can’t beat up on Ann the way she did on Sarah Palin. When she throws Ann a hardball, Ann not only hits it out of the park. She throws one back, putting Katie on the defensive. And Katie Couric obviously gets annoyed during the course of the interview, her phony grin notwithstanding.

In my opinion, Ann owns Katie in this interview.

The Left’s been going out of its way to crush dissent this week. Anyone hear about those new Pelosi rules that will limit Republicans’ ability to propose alternative legislation or add amendments? See here. Whenever I hear something like that, my heart rejoices that there are people like Ann Coulter who aren’t afraid to fight back.

Perception and Narrative

There’s one thing that Sarah Palin has taught me: People emplot reality in different ways.

I was reminded of that as I read various stories today on the feuds among McCain’s staff. Some of his staff anonymously portray Sarah Palin as a diva who was out for herself. They say she didn’t accept their help to prepare her for the Katie Couric interview, since she thought she’d do fine on her own.

But another aide says she didn’t accept their help because she was booked–her schedule was full, and there was no time!

So one group sees Sarah as supercilious, while another offers a different explanation. They are two different interpretations of one reality.

We’ve seen that a lot with Sarah Palin. She said she killed the Bridge to Nowhere, while her detractors say “no.” In her mind, she technically did kill it, since she decided not to supplement the federal funds for its construction.

She said she supported sanctions against the Sudan, but her opponents say “no.” After all, one of her officials said it was a bad idea, and she only supported it when it was too late. In her mind, however, she did support it at some point, so she was part of the coalition that wanted to do something about the situation.

One reality. Different perceptions.

The Democrats Won

Okay, the Democrats won. It happens! I grew up under a strong Democratic Congress. Here are some reactions:

1. President-elect Obama, please don’t raise taxes on anyone. You may be flexible on this, since you said at one point in your campaign that we shouldn’t raise taxes in a bad economy.

2. Obama will most likely appoint liberals to the courts. This may be good for certain vulnerable people in society. But it will not be good for the unborn or traditional marriage. Oh well. At least Bush got two Supreme Court appointments in!

3. Governor Palin, go back to Alaska and be an outstanding governor! Also, become a national columnist and a pundit. That will keep you in the national eye, but not enough for people to critique your every move. You’ll also gain knowledge on national issues and the ability to articulate it better. Then, you’ll be a powerful Presidential candidate in 2012.

4. One good thing about the Democrats being in power: they’ll have no one else to blame if they mess things up. The President won’t be able to blame the Congress, nor the Congress the President, since both are from the same party. The Republicans will eventually get more power–I just don’t know when.

5. On that note, I’m somewhat curious about what will happen under a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. The last time this happened was under Bill Clinton, but that didn’t last too long. Before that, there was Jimmy Carter, who was a disaster. And the economy wasn’t so bad when LBJ was President and had a Democratic Congress. What will be the effect of Democratic policies?

6. I will be praying for President-elect Obama, that he won’t be assassinated. I talked with someone who worked on a secret service agent’s home, and the agent said they’re planning to increase Obama’s protection because there are kooky elements out there. I want Obama to have his chance to lead. Plus, I’d feel really badly for his family if something happened to him.

7. I’ll also be praying that Obama will have wisdom. His lack of experience still bothers me. He’s only been in the Senate for four years! He’s untested. That may be why it’s good he has Joe Biden by his side, as much as I disagree with him. At the same time, surrounding himself with establishment politicians and bureaucrats contradicts his agenda of change, but I guess that’s a dilemma any President faces: he wants experienced people, and experienced people are in the political establishment.

8. Conservatives wondering what to do: hang close to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. I became a Rush-devotee, or “dittohead,” after Bill Clinton won in 1992. It will give you a chance to laugh at the Democrats, and it will be a friendly place for you as you endure the mockery of liberal friends, family, and coworkers. Plus, it’s fun being a critic! That’s one thing I thought I’d miss out on when the Republicans won in 1994 and 2000.

9. I can’t for the life of me find the results of certain races. Did Al Franken win in Minnesota? Did the gay marriage ban pass in California?

10. Indiana went blue. That’s pretty sad! Now, I can’t boast about being from red-state Indiana, or tell my liberal colleagues, “You have to see where I’m coming from–I’m from red state Indiana.”

Has There Ever…

Has there ever been a Presidential election in which the candidates campaign down to the very last minute? I’m still getting automated calls, as well as calls from Obama volunteers. And Obama and McCain are still stumping. Amazing!

While I was waiting in line to vote this morning, a smiling African-American young man was handing out Obama leaflets. Another African-American man who was standing in front of me said about him, “It’s too early for him to be smiling!” Obama may be ahead in the polls, but no one sees this election as a sure thing, at least not at the present moment. Are Obama supporters afraid that Obama will lose on account of his race? I don’t know.

I have a few posts to write–academic stuff. While I do that, I’ll be listening to Sarah Palin’s convention speech. That was when McCain looked like a shoe-in! It was before those disastrous Palin interviews. I might as well reminisce while Rome burns!

Thoughts on the Election

I voted this morning! I was planning on sleeping in and going to the polls at 10, but I couldn’t sleep because I was in my self-pity mode, so I got up at 5:30. When I got to my polling location, I didn’t have to wait that long to vote, and I was moved to the front of a line because my name was in the N-Z category.

I was right on top of things, and the election worker commended me for coming in prepared. I have an Indiana ID, which doesn’t count as voter identification in Ohio, so I was ready to present my phone bill and a bank statement. I then pointed out my name in the registration book, and I signed in.

We vote by filling in squares. That takes care of the hanging-chad and Diebold computer problems. I hope I filled in the squares completely. I can be a perfectionist on that sort of thing! In any case, I made sure that I thoroughly filled in the square beside “McCain/Palin“!

That’s right–I didn’t experience a flash of light that compelled me to vote for Barack Obama. It’s interesting: I can be fairly open-minded when I’m writing on my blog or thinking about the candidates and issues. But, when I enter the voting booth, I am rigidly right-wing! I go with my gut instinct. Some of this is planned, since I enter the voting booth with my Republican flyer, which tells me who all the Republicans are. And I go with my gut on things I’m not too sure about. If it’s a tax, I vote against it, whether it’s for schools or jails. I also voted against a bond for conservation. Why put our city into debt? I probably would have voted against Sarah Palin’s sports center had I lived in Wasilla at the time!

In a couple of state Supreme Court races, I didn’t know who was in what party, so I voted for the man instead of the woman. Why? I guess part of me sees men as more fair and level-headed than women, who tend to be emotional. But don’t throw tomatoes at me! I can understand why someone would vote for the woman instead of the man, since women can be more compassionate. Also, if the woman was a Republican, I voted for her.

One thing I’d like to say: I’m different this election year than I was in 2006 and 2004. When Obama representatives called me, I politely told them I was voting for John McCain, and they were cool with that. In the first case, a woman called me and asked if I’d be voting for Senator Obama. I replied, “No, I’ll be voting for John McCain, but I have a lot of respect for Senator Obama. I even read his book, Audacity of Hope! Besides, I expect you guys to win, anyway.” She still encouraged me to go to the polls and vote my conscience.

This was a middle-aged African-American woman, and I kind of like that group of people–maybe because I’ve gone to church with middle-aged African-American woman, or I like their characters on TV, or they seem so nice, no-nonsense, and sincere. One group I can’t stand is liberal college students. That may be because I never fit in with my age group, and I resented their self-righteous liberal dogmatism, which treated other opinions as if they didn’t matter.

But, when a young white woman called me and asked if I would be voting for Obama, I was polite again. I said, “No, I’m voting for John McCain.” She thanked me for my time, and I said, “Thank you for participating in the political process.” She laughed at that!

I never got calls in 2004–maybe because I rarely answered my phone back then. In 2006, I got one from moveon.org, and another from the Sierra Club. I drank at the time, so I got into a big debate with the moveon.org guy while I was drunk, trying to watch Phyllis Schlafly on C-Span. The conversation ended pleasantly, though. In the case of the Sierra Club lady, she called me when I had just come home after a hard day at school. “As you probably know, our elected officials aren’t doing much about our nation’s energy needs,” she told me. I replied, “They would if the Democrats didn’t get in the way!” She wasn’t all that friendly after that–she was like Jimmy Carter at the 1980 debate, who seemed baffled that anyone could believe the way conservatives do.

I think I’m more polite and open-minded now because I don’t hang around my school as much (I don’t have classes.) Most of the rabbinic students are dogmatically liberal, and being around dogmatically liberal people makes me, well, dogmatically conservative. At the same time, I’ll be going to a meeting tomorrow morning, and I’m not looking forward to the liberal gloating I’ll most likely hear!

Be sure to vote–for John McCain!