Monthy Archive: October 2008
« September 2008 | Main | November 2008 »

If you read this blog, PLEASE sign in to my guest book on frappr. No personally identifying information is needed, so this is risk-free. Just provide a name (even a nickname), your zip code, and any statement you want to make ("hi" is sufficient).

If you want to know more about me, click here.

October 03, 2008

Life : Blogging again (I hope)

So things are settled down enough now that I hope to resume my M-W-F blogging schedule next week. First couple of weeks may be lighter fair; but I should have something to say.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 06, 2008

Books : Books 2008/10/06

Current count of books pending to be read: 80
Read two, purchased none

Books finished this week:

Anathem

by Neal Stephenson

Not Stephenson’s best book; but given the quality of his last six, that still leaves it better than most fiction I have read. The story and world in which it is set are quite interesting, and as with all of Stephenson’s works there are some interesting ideas to ponder. I’m just not sure it needed to be 900 pages this time.

As with all of his books, Anathem is full of little digressions that account for its size. However, while I found the digressions in his previous books to be as compelling as the main story (which is quite an accomplishment for Stephenson since on face value many are on what seem to be boring subjects), in Anathem the excursions rarely grabbed me. Perhaps the world is just too different from ours to lead me to care about those details, while previous books are clearly meant to be some version of our earth, so the digressions seemed more relevant.

When You Catch an Adjective, Kill It: The Parts of Speech, for Better And/Or Worse

by Ben Yagoda

A series of entertaining essays on the parts of speech, talking about their history, use and miss-use.

Computer Games Played: LotRO
DVDs Watched: none

Next Book: TBD

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

October 08, 2008

Life , San Francisco : Why SF

I’ve had a number of people ask me these past few weeks why we are moving to San Francisco. There were even interesting rumors at work that this was part of some re-org that was yet to be announced. The truth is that this was purely a lifestyle choice for Anne and me. We are and have always been “city people” and this was our chance to get back into city living.

This past week provided a number of examples of why we like cities.

Last Friday the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra gave a free lunch concert in at a plaza near my office. Anne came over and joined me for the performance. Sunday we went to a members-only reception at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA) and toured a couple of the exhibits there. Then, after a short break at home, we spent Sunday evening at a free Bluegrass music festival which was running all weekend in Golden Gate Park. Five stages scattered around the park with new acts every hour and a half at each stage. Big name people too – we saw Earl Scruggs (only surviving member of the Blue Grass Boys who gave the genre its name), Rickey Skaggs, and Emmylou Harris.

All of these events were free (OK, we had to pay for membership in SFMOMA; but we do that anyway). None required us to drive or park anywhere. They were all things we could do on the spur of the moment. Cities tend to provide those opportunities. While there are cultural activities down in the South Bay (as the region where we had been living is know), they tend to require more planning and more cash, not to mention driving and parking.

The only thing we didn't do this weekend that we hope to do more of is go to a play. We made it to a few TheatreWorks productions down in the South Bay; but it was never very convenient. Our hope is that having the San Francisco theatre district a MUNI ride away, we will be able to go to stage productions more often.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 10, 2008

Faith , Life : Whither Church

One of the still-open issues with regard to our move to San Francisco is what will Anne and I be doing to be a part of a community to fellow believers in the city. This is slightly complicated by the fact that we have an outstanding commitment to support our old church at least until the end of the sabbatical in February (including continuing to serve on the leadership team). Our compromise on this is to go to our old church every 2-3 weeks (about a 45 minute drive on Sundays) and investigate other options in the city in between.

Before we signed the lease at the new place we did identify at least one church we thought we would be comfortable at in the city; but that is a long way from having peace that God wants us to get involved there (and in fact our "comfort" is not always what He is interested in). I've since been back to that church a couple of times and continue to like what I see; but have yet to sense anything in my spirit that would indicate we are supposed to go there.

Last week we tried out yet another church, and very quickly both of us got a strong sense that it was not the place for us. Not that there was anything obviously "wrong" with the place (although the message was a bit more political than we like – I'd be interested in visiting again after the election). In some respects it was actually quite nice; but both of us sensed that it wasn't what God had planned for us.

The other question is if God wants us to be involved in an institutional church at all. I have written a lot in this blog about how I believe in the Simple Church movement; but until now God has kept me involved in fairly traditional churches. This move might be when God has us switch to something more house-church-like. Then the question becomes, do we find an existing network of house churches to be a part of, or do we start one on our own.

So far, I am comfortable that we are doing what we are supposed to be doing in the transition; but I have no clear sense yet of what God has planned for us beyond that.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Faith : Online Bible Study

A while back I mentioned the idea of doing a blog that was an online interactive bible study – allowing people to post their thoughts on passages of scriptures. Well Barry, a friend of mine in Wales, has decided to make a go of this, and I will be both posting and commenting on it.

For those who are interested, take a look at http://openbibleblog.blogspot.com/

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 13, 2008

Books : Books 2008/10/12

Current count of books pending to be read: 79
Read one, purchased none

Books finished this week:

Body Politics: Five Practices of the Christian Community Before the Watching World

by John Howard Yoder

Very interesting book. I’m going to have to look into some of Yoder’s other works.

The book is a short examination of 5 practices of the church (confession, baptism, communion, roles, and meetings) and proposes what they would have meant to the first century church; which, as one might expect, is quite different from what they mean to the modern institutional churches. As an example, Yoder believe that what we now think of as “Communion” (“the Lord’s Supper”, “the Eucharist”) was originally a full shared meal, and that the idea that believers ate together regularly was as important as remembering Jesus’ sacrifice. He reasoning is that the common meal was a means to establish the egalitarian nature of the church – everyone ate together: slave and free, rich and poor, Jew and gentile; and that we have lost that meaning by consuming thimblefuls of grape juice and tiny crackers. Yoder does a similar analysis of the other topics, and has certainly challenged my thinking in certain areas.

Computer Games Played: none
DVDs Watched: none

Next Book: Inside of the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 15, 2008

Faith : Open Source Christianity

A short explanation of geekdom followed by what I hope is a relevant observation.

Most companies that produce software carefully guard the source code for their applications from prying eyes. This however has a downside that relatively few people get to look for bugs in the code. The engineer who writes the software obvious tries to write bug-free code, and often the company requires a “code review” where a handful of the engineer’s peers formally review the code looking for problems. Occasionally someone within the company might spot a problem when they are looking at the code for other reasons. The bottom line is that very few eyes ever have a change to look at the code, and the result is often very buggy software getting released to customers.

In the last couple of decades an alternative approach has started to gain ground – the “Open Source” movement. The idea is that the engineers publish their source code on the web for everyone to see (or at least anyone who wants to look), and provides some means for people to suggest improvements to the code. The result is that for the larger Open Source projects, hundreds of engineers are looking at each line of code trying to improve it.

Of course with hundreds of people trying to make changes, the threat of chaos is always present, not to mention that every idea someone has to improve a piece of code is equally valuable. So most Open Source projects have a small number of “Gatekeepers” who decide which changes make it into the product and which are set aside.

More recently, the Open Source approach is being used for things other than software. Wikipedia, for instance, is an encyclopedia whose “source” is open for anyone to edit. Of course some people make changes as jokes or deliberate misrepresentation, but there is a cadre of people who monitor Wikipedia for such changes and remove them.

So where am I going with all this?

I’ve been chatting with some “emergent/emerging church” people lately and I realized part of what they are looking for is a more “Open Source” model of Christianity. Too many institutional churches have a small group of “professionals” (pastors, priests, etc.) who maintain control over all aspects of the faith. What the emergent/emerging folks are looking for is an open model where every believer has a say in what the church is.

What’s more, I believe there is a core of truth in what they are looking for. I have written many times here that I believe that it was God’s intent that every Christian be responsible for “doing the work of the ministry” and that those who “lead” are really there to serve everyone else and enable them to be successful in their ministries. Even in the context of meetings of the church, I believe God meant for everyone to have a chance to share what they feel God placed on their hearts as opposed to the usual model where most of the people watch a few professional Christians perform on a stage.

I even think that part of God’s reason for this is much the same reason behind Open Source Software – more people individually listening to God make it less likely that there will be errors. Individuals fail, and when that individual is the Pastor of your typical institutional church, many people can be led astray. However if everyone is encouraged to listen to God and share, then people can raise questions when they see something that seems wrong.

Or Not.

The problem I see with many (but not all) segments of the emergent/emerging church movements is that in their desire to hear all voices, they tend to create a Christianity of Consensus, which is not always God’s Christianity. It is the Christianity that the majority of people want it to be, with all of the sharp edges rounded off and hard surfaces padded. What I have learned from my walk with Jesus is that real Christianity has some real challenges that are uncomfortable – things I certainly would prefer were not true about my faith. There are things God asks His followers to do that are hard, that demand we change, that put us at odds with the surrounding culture. If we allow the majority to define our faith, too many people would prefer to have a version of Christianity that is much easier than God intended. As a result, it will lose its identity, its benefits, and its impact.

What the emergent/emerging church movement lacks is some mechanism equivalent to the Gatekeepers used by Open Source software, or the diligent editors of Wikipedia. People who are trusted to say “I know you’d all like Christianity to be like that; but here’s what it says in the Bible. . .” Unfortunately that kind of role is exactly the kind of authority they are trying to avoid; and they are not entirely wrong in fearing it. I don't have all of the answers on this. I'm not sure how to avoid a Christianity of Consensus without swinging too far the other direction; but some balanced answer is needed.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

October 17, 2008

San Francisco : location, location, location

I hope to get out my camera and do a short photo essay on our new neighborhood soon; but until then here's a brief description of the area. I'm in a block bounded by 3rd Street on the Northeast, King on the Northwest, 4th on the Southwest and Berry on the Southeast, where our place is near the center of the block. Looking at our block and the 8 blocks adjacent or diagonal to ours, we have is very easy access to:

- A grocery store (Safeway). This is directly across the street (so it serves as our extended pantry – easy to run across the street and buy things to make dinner)
- A book store (Borders)
- A branch of the SF public library (perhaps I won't be buying as many books!)
- A waterfront (well, canal-front) Park
- ATT Baseball park (home of the SF Giants)
- Several restaurants - including an Amici's Pizza, which was one of our favorite pizza places down in Mountain View as well as a sushi bar, a steakhouse, a couple of sandwich shops and an ice cream parlor and several others, not all of which we have had a chance to try.
- Two coffee shops
- A phone store (AT&T, our provider)
- Two banks
- Two MUNI stations (SF's subway/light rail system)
- The SF terminus of Caltrain (commuter rail, runs down through Mountain View)
- The terminus of two major city bus routes (behind the Safeway, very close).

One of the two bus routes that terminate behind the Safeway (the 30 bus) seems to go past a lot of useful places
- Whole Foods Grocery Story (which is almost close enough for us to walk to if we aren't buying too much)
- Moscone Convention Center (main convention center for SF)
- Yerba Buena Gardens (mixed arts complex)
- The Sony Metreon (large shopping/movie/restaurant complex)
- SF Museum of Modern Art
- Union Square (center of SF's main shopping district)
- SF's Chinatown (one of the best in any American city)
- North Beach (traditional Italian neighborhood, and the edge of the old "beat" area)
- past one end of Fisherman's Warf (tourist trap; but our favorite breakfast place is near one of the stops there)
- the Marina District (classic SF waterfront area with view of Golden Gate Bridge)
- and finally to near the Palace of Fine Arts and Exploratorium Science Museum

Its nice to have such a useful bus route nearby!

The MUNI also takes us into Downtown, including a stop that is only a couple blocks away from my office. Walking to downtown is also not out of the question – it is only about a mile to get to Market Street (which is as close to a “main street” as SF has). Even walking to my office isn’t bad – only 1.6 miles, 1.7 if you take the scenic route along the bay.

The only problem with our immediate neighborhood is that it is so recently gentrified. Now that newness has advantages – the area is clean, safe, shiny; but on the flip side it has not yet had the time to accumulate unique local stores and restaurants the way other older neighborhoods in the city have. Most of what we have in our immediate area are chain stores and chain restaurants. Fortunately, we only have to go 3-4 blocks to get to older and more interesting areas with local shops and restaurants.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 20, 2008

Books : Books 2008/10/20

Current count of books pending to be read: 78
Read one, purchased none

Books finished this week:

Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary

by Lee Strobel

I generally have liked Lee Strobel’s books in the past; but I find myself with somewhat mixed feelings on this one. His analysis of why so many people who are not in a relationship with Jesus stay away from churches is quite good; but his solutions, seeker-friendly churches like his home (mega) church Willow Creek Community Church, seem too focused on one narrow approach. Or perhaps I am just no longer certain that getting people to go to institutional churches at all a worthy goal in unto itself. Stobel seems to take the position that the key to getting people “saved” is to get them into church, while I believe in a more missional approach where the church goes out and meets people where they are.

Computer Games Played: none
DVDs Watched: none

Next Book: Company

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 22, 2008

Faith : What is a Pastor?

I was involved in a discussion about church leadership in another blog, and there was a point I wanted to expand on here.

In most of the (protestant) churches I have been a part of over the years, the person in charge of the church was referred to as the “pastor”. In the larger churches, there main leader was known as the “Senior Pastor” and there were one or more “Associate Pastors”. Sometimes the additional “Pastors” were assigned very specific areas of responsibility, so you’d have the “Youth Pastor” and the “Men’s Pastor” and so on. Sometimes the Senior Pastor didn’t have complete control – there was a committee of laymen who had oversight over at least the finances and who had the ability to hire and fire pastors. The committee was known by names like “Board of Deacons” and the like.

All of this fairly transparently mimicked the corporate world. Pastors today are primarily managers, or better yet Presidents and Vice Presidents of the local church. So you have the President (Senior Pastor) and various Associate Vice Presidents (Associate Pastors) and the Vice President of the Youth Department (Youth Pastor). Then in some churches they all were held accountable to the Board of Directors (Board of Deacons). How corporate can you get?

Now I’m going to set aside the whole Board of Deacons question for now (that’s yet another post someday), and simply ask – is this corporate model of Pastor as Manager/President a Biblical one? The short answer is that while Pastors are mentioned a number of times in the Bible, I see nothing to indicate that their job was to manage or direct the people in the church. There isn’t even evidence of people being appointed as pastors. There are three titles used for people being appointed in the Bible: elder, overseer, and sent-one (apostle). Some have argued that “overseer” is the same office as “pastor” yet Paul uses both words in his writings and consistently uses them in very different ways.

So if the Pastor was not the appointed manager of the church, what is he? Unfortunately the Bible provides few clues. The first clue is the name itself – the word is actually a synonym for Shepherd. So whatever Pastors were meant to do, the role of a shepherd was intended to be an inspiration for it. What did Shepherds do? They ensured that the sheep were safe, well fed, healthy, and that they did not wander off (which would likely result in their being neither safe nor well fed and eventually unhealthy). The other clue is Ephesians 4:11 which couples Pastor together with Teacher in a way that indicates that the roles are related.

On that foundation, I will add my own personal observations.

There have been a few occasions in my walk with The Lord when I have been a part of a group of Christians that did not have structure imposed on it from outside; but rather was allowed to create its own structure organically, naturally. When this was allowed to happen I have noticed that there were always a few individuals in the group who were very focused on how everyone else was doing. If someone didn’t show up for a few weeks, they would be the first ones to become concerned, and would likely be the people to start phoning and making sure the missing people were OK. Those same people tended to be the ones to invest a lot of time with new people, nurturing them, answering their questions, making sure they were comfortable within the group. Those same people would also be among the first to come to someone’s defense when there was a problem and would be the first to speak up when “troublemakers” would disrupt the meetings. Their focus was on the well-being of all of the individual members of the group, and their energies were directed toward keeping people included, safe, and growing in their faith.

I claim those people were the shepherds, the pastors of those groups. They did not manage people. They did not lead. In fact I would go so far as to say the people who I have thought of as being “pastors” were poor candidates to be leaders. Their energies were focused on the (spiritual) health and wellbeing of the individuals in the group – making sure they were in condition to contribute to the group and that they did not get lost or stray away. But as a result, they were focused on trees and not the forest. They tended to lack a sense of the “big picture” of where the group was moving as a whole and so would fail to lead it anywhere.

In military language, they were the medics – keeping the troops healthy and ready to fight while someone else decided where to go and who to fight. I can’t think of an equivalent role in the corporate world (perhaps Humans Resources, although few corporate Humans Resources departments really invest much more that lip service in those kinds of activities). And therein lay the problem – by modeling the pastoral role on the corporate manager as opposed to the Biblical model of shepherd, we have effectively eliminated from the church people who do what pastors are supposed to be doing. The “pastors” are too busy managing the church, and too often there is no one actually guarding, nourishing, and encouraging individual people in the community. No wonder so many people leave!

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

October 24, 2008

Observations , San Francisco : Time and Space in the City

When living in the suburbs, you tend to measure distances in miles, and to a lesser extent (not always consciously) in stop-signs and traffic lights. Limited access roads (highways, expressways, etc.) tend to distort the geometry of suburbs making places that look farther away on a map actually “closer”.

Distances are even more convoluted in cities where distances are primarily measured in transfers – how many times you need to wait for a new train, bus, trolley, etc. in your journey; and then by the mode(s) of transportation themselves – places reachable by bus are generally father away than those reached by subway regardless of the number of miles involved.

The wildcard in the city is walking. It is the only mode of transportation that requires no waiting and which can often provide short-cuts over other modes (through parks, against the flow on one-way streets, etc.). Spending an extra 10 minutes walking can often be worth it if it eliminates the need for another transfer.

The result of this is that the sense of distance in cities (for those who are acclimated to the environment) is very complex and bears little relationship to what is seen on a map. Having spent a fair amount of time in London, I have a reasonable sense of distances there, and particularly those places where a little more walking can buy big savings on travel time. I am slowly learning the same lessons in San Francisco.

The other artifact of the cost of transfers is that if you need to be someplace on-time (like a movie), you almost always end up there early since you have to assume worst case transfer times (you assume you always just miss a bus or train and have to wait for the next one). The result is that you always need to plan ahead not just your route; but also what you will do with your extra time when you get to your destination. You almost need to practice a form of double-think, simultaneously thinking you are going to be late and thinking you are going to be early.

While I am still learning the essential data for San Francisco, I already have my “city thinking” up and running and trying to optimize my travel around town.

The other thing I note is that travel to/from a city is not symmetrical. When traveling into a city you need to consider the cost and effort to park (or the cost and effort to use alternative transport into the city), as well as the effort to get from your parking place (or transport terminal) to wherever you need to be. On the other hand, since suburbs are built around car travel, you can generally assume that ample parking is available near anyplace you want to go. The result is that it is “harder” to travel from the suburbs into the city than to travel from the city into the suburbs. While going from Mountain View into SF was something that Anne and I did not take lightly the last 19 years, we find going from SF back down into Mountain View much easier.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 27, 2008

Books : Books 2008/10/27

Current count of books pending to be read: 77
Read one, purchased none

Books finished this week:

Company

by Max Barry

Ahhh. No one does corporate satire like Max Barry. Think what the Dilbert comic strip would be like if done as a novel by Douglas (Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy) Adams. That’s what Max Barry’s novel’s are like. I particularly enjoyed his “Jennifer Government”, set in a dystopian future where companies can get away with just about anything to increase sales. “Company” is in some respects a scarier stories since it is set in a plausible present day. I won’t spoil the details here.

Computer Games Played: Civ 4: Colonization
DVDs Watched: Iron Man (film and extras)

Next Book: TBD

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

San Francisco : Voting in San Francisco

Anne and I will be availing ourselves of the opportunity to vote a few days early this year. They are predicting long lines on Nov 4, in part because of heavy turnout and in part because the ballot is so long. Not only do we have the various national, state, and local officials to elect; but there are also 12 state-wide ballot initiatives and 22 local ballot measures to vote on (propositions A-V). The Voter Information Pamphlet, printed and mailed to every voter in the city is 272 pages long. Some “pamphlet”!

Certainly the most entertaining of these measures (and keep in mind, this had to get the requisite number of signatures to appear on the ballot at all) is local Proposition R “Shall the City change the name of the ‘Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant’ to the ‘George W. Bush Sewage Plant’.” Say what you will about San Franciscans, they do have a sense of humor.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 29, 2008

Faith , Introspection , Observations , San Francisco : Looking at their faces

Living in the suburbs, it is often far too easy to ignore those that are different from yourself.

You can travel from your safe, middle-class home to your safe, middle-class job to a safe, middle-class shopping mall or restaurant (or safe middle-class church on Sundays) and finally back to your safe, middle-class home; all the while zipping on the expressway or freeway past those neighborhoods where other kinds of people live.

That's not to say you don't know that there are people who are different from yourself, or that you don't care about those among them who are in need. Perhaps you donate used clothes to Goodwill or the Salvation Army, or donate to charitable organizations that serve those in need. Yet in the suburbs it is very easy to take on an out-of-sight, out-of-mind perspective and to get comfortable only interacting with people similar to yourself.

Living in the city, that is much harder. Riding the subway or public bus, you come face to face with a broad range of humanity – all ethnic groups, assorted subcultures, almost all socioeconomic strata ("the rich" being excluded since even in the city they find ways to zip past everyone else). People different from you are no longer "out of sight" and therefore are much harder to keep "out of mind" (not that many people don't try).

But even in the city where you are constantly exposed to people who are different, it is easy to begin to objectify and collectivize them. There are "the poor", "the punks" the "ethnic minorities" (pick one) as if those categories define who they are. It is easy to fall into the subtle trap of thinking about the individuals who are like you are the groups who are not.

As I have been riding public transportation these past weeks, I have been taking the time to look at the faces of the other people, and I keep seeing people who really are "like me". Some may belong to different ethic groups or subcultures. Some may belong to different economic strata. Some may be drunk or on drugs. Yet looking at their faces I keep seeing people with hopes and fears are not so different from mine – people who at some level want the same things out of their lives as I do.

I keep thinking about the observation that as different as humans and chimpanzees look, 95% of their DNA is the same. I think an equivalent statement can be made about the hearts and minds people of different cultures and backgrounds – for as different as we might act and appear, deep down we are all far more the same than we are different.

I had several reasons I wanted to move to the city – access to culture, exercise (I am already losing girth), etc. I also had a sense that God had several reasons for wanting me up here (my experience is that God rarely does things for just one reason, although we may be limited to only understanding a limited number of those reasons).

I am starting to see that one of those reasons is to get me to be more comfortable interacting with people who are different from me. Put me in a room with other college educated professionals, and I do fine; but I'm never sure what to say when faced with people's whose backgrounds are very different. My sense is that this is one of the things God wants to work on in me while we live in SF, and that my rides on the subway are the beginning of those lessons.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

October 31, 2008

Observations : The State of Discourse

sigh

I had to bite my cyber-tongue this week reading a post on a blog I follow. It was a very political post on a normally non-political blog explaining why the foundations of the United States would shatter if Obama gets elected (or something along those lines). The statement that really caught my ire was in the midst of the author echoing the current McCain sound-bite about Obama being for redistribution of wealth, the author states how Obama is "for socialism not democracy" – as if those were mutually exclusive terms. I started to compose in my mind an explanation of how socialism is an economic system while democracy was political power system and that there is nothing to prevent someone from supporting both ideas. Fortunately I took a quick look at the existing comments and the author's replies and realized that he wasn't interested in hearing other opinions, so I didn't bother.

I wrote this post on my own blog instead.

The bottom line is that I am beyond disappointment in what passes for political discourse these days, particularly from Republicans (Obama, in my opinion, has done a bit better staying focused on issues, but only a bit). The thing is that there are real issues here which can be discussed and debated in front of the electorate - the candidates just aren't doing it.

Take the issue of "redistribution of wealth". The reality is we already have a progressive tax code. Those with higher incomes already get taxed more than those with less, so there is a graph you can plot that shows how much tax you pay for a given level of income. Both candidates want to change that curve. McCain wants to move the whole line down, while Obama wants to change the angle so it is lower at lower incomes and higher at higher incomes. Neither of these approaches represent a fundamental change in the nature of our country, despite the rhetoric.

What's more, some of that income is already being used to assist those at the bottom of the income scale, so America already practices "redistribution of wealth" (taxing the "rich" and giving to the "poor"). In addition, the recent bail-outs of major corporations also represent taking money from a bunch of people and giving it to a small subset of them – another "redistribution of wealth", although one which would appear to tax the middle class and give to the rich (perhaps with good reasons, but a redistribution nonetheless).

My point is that which approach is best between McCain and Obama is a quite reasonable question. Historically, have across the board tax cuts resulted in stronger economies where everyone's boats (even the middle class and poor) have been elevated by the rising tide? If you lower tax rates on higher income, has that in fact resulted in increased investments which resulted in higher incomes for everyone? Conversely, when we have raised the tax rate on higher incomes, has that historically caused downturns in the economy which caused the incomes of lower and middle class workers to decline? What about when we have lowered the tax rates for middle and lower income workers? Has that historically resulted in increased consumer spending which has driven the economy to grow? Or has the money just been spent on cheap imported goods and therefore taken out of our economy?

While I have some ideas on what the answers to these questions are (and therefore whose economic plan will actually be better for the country), I could be convinced to change my mind with more and better data. I would love to hear both parties make the case from hard data as to which approach is better.

But instead I get things like "Obama is a Socialist", "Obama is running for 'Redistributor in Chief'". McCain talks about how he's the one to reach across the aisle and do things in a bipartisan way; but he seems to be the one who is doing most of the name calling which, in my experience, does not lend itself to cooperation.

And the economy is not the only area where there could be serious discussion. On a variety of topics, the two candidates have made proposals that are at some level reasonable (there is at least some reason to think that they might work). So where are the people making the case why one side will be more effective than the others? Instead both sides seem to be going for an emotional response from the electorate.

I know. American voters are not intellectuals and have the attention span of a 2 year old. Emotions are the only way to connect to most of them. The candidates are only doing what works. I shouldn't expect more.

It is all very frustrating.

I do at least give credit to Obama that he occasionally tries to take the high road. I haven't seen much of that from the Republicans this year. Very disappointing from a party I called my own when I was younger.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)