I rarely blog about politics (quite on purpose), but one thing I noticed about last night’s “Town Hall” Presidential debate was that it really wasn’t a town hall. The people in attendance were mostly like props – they were extraordinarily constrained.

The only woman who looked like she had any passion about her question to the candidates was Teresa Finch, who asked

How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got us into this global economic crisis?

Obama answered first. He blamed George W. Bush (as well as McCain) and then said

I’m going to spend some money on the key issues that we’ve got to work on.

He said those issues included (1) energy, (2) college affordability, and (3) a net spending cut.

McCain’s response was

The system in Washington is broken.

He talked about his record of reform and attacked Obama, mostly on spending. McCain then briefly mentioned that he had proposals for the economy and that we need energy independence (consisting, in part, of drilling offshore and nuclear power).

Neither candidate answered the question of trust. Obama said he would continue to spend money. McCain didn’t really say much at all. This underscores the problem with the debate, with the current political climate, and with the current economy – a lack of trust.

The candidates and their campaigns did not trust the town-hall style format last night, setting all sorts of rules in place and preventing true discussion of issues. So the debate failed to be an effective town-hall. The debate failed to tell us much new about the candidates or their views.

The American people do not trust Washington – or its Senators – to fix anything, especially when Washington’s best attempt at a so-called financial rescue plan is laden with irrelevant pork spending, once again. Neither does it inspire trust when the candidates are asked for a response to this problem, and they reply with attacks on the candidates’ perceived opponents.

Wall Street and the Big Banks do not seem to trust each other, the government, or anybody else. So they seem to think that not doing business is the best way to deal with that.

The greatest problem facing America today is a lack of trust. It is dubious that candidates recognize this or can do anything about it. Congress is self-defeating; whenever it tries to “fix” anything, the problem typically worsens. Thus, Washington is impotent to deal with America’s trust crisis.

This is not new – government almost always appears to act in a self-defeating manner, primarily because people are self-interested and short-sighted. Am I being cynical? Perhaps, but I believe people are basically selfish, hence the root of these problems. How about you? What do you think?

For those of you who have ever read Don Miller’s book Blue Like Jazz, Miller now has his own blog. He’s the guy who gave a prayer at the end of the first day of the Democratic National Convention.

His first blog post is quite humorous – it’s his email correspondence with Barack and Michelle Obama. Check it out here. The blog is running on WordPress, of course.

Oh, and if you haven’t read Blue Like Jazz, I do highly recommend it!

Will Evangelicals Help Save The Earth? runs the subheading of this story from the Natural Resources Defense Council.

It’s an interesting question, and the article/column is excited about a February ’06 statement by Evangelical leaders called the “Evangelical Climate Initiative”, which you can read about at www.ChristiansandClimate.org.

In the Bible (Genesis 1), “God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’” That was the first recorded command to humankind, right after God created and blessed them. (The second chapter of Genesis does give us the story of God’s command to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which may, chronologically have occurred first, but I mean, here, that it is not the first-mentioned command.)

Clearly God gave the authority to “fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion [...] over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Rather than see that as a blank check, however, I believe that the God-given authority comes with responsibility. We (human beings) are to responsibly exercise our dominion over this world.

I’m all for a healthy environment; I have/get to live here too. Perhaps the better question than, “Should I, as a Christian, be pro-environment?” is to ask, “How are we to care for this world that God has entrusted to us and balance that with being fruitful and multiplying?”

My brother (Ben) highlights a call in the Washington Post to stop stereotyping evangelical Christians. The Post column rightfully points out the role of Christians in the promotion of social justice, because of “a love for their neighbor.” It does sound like evangelicals are working to “save the earth.”
Social justice is not all that Christians are called to do, of course. There is Jesus’s essential call to “make disciples of all nations.” And I neglected to point out, above, that the human responsibility to manage the earth is truly a job of management. God does not say “the whole world is yours.” On the contrary, the Bible often says that the earth is the Lord’s. We are stewards.

Clearly, Christians should not and do not want to see the climate entrusted to them ruined. Perhaps that should be another reason to not stereotype. Not everyone agrees on how far or where to go in caring for the environment. But regardless of what we think about global warming, let’s ensure that we don’t forget about how we handle the gifts we have been given:

For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master’s money. Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ (Matthew 25:14-30)

Republicans say they’re there; Democrats say they’re not! In this article from the 6/22/2006 edition of the NY Sun, reporter Eli Lake reports that “the American military has found more than 500 shells of ordinance containing Sarin or mustard gas.”

The Washington Post writes that US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield “told reporters yesterday the munitions and canisters found are dangerous to coalition forces.” The newspaper also writes that unnamed representatives of intelligence agencies told reporters that the finding was insignificant.

Sounds like some WMDs are there. Ok…except that those particular 500 have likely been there since prior to the first Gulf War. Well, that does still mean that WMDs are in Iraq, as shells filled with chemical weapons do count as WMDs (even if they are somewhat degraded).

Perhaps the biggest impact of this news is that it raises the possibility that recent reports that there were no WMDs in Iraq when the USA invaded are still premature. That idea, in turn, brings up the prospect that other WMDs may have been missed. Why didn’t the UN weapons inspectors ever find these (since they’ve been there, apparently, since prior to 1991)? Why didn’t the US weapons inspectors/investigators find these in the last couple of years of searching until now?

Scarily, if there are or were other WMDs in Iraq since or when the USA invaded, the risk that parties not aligned with Western interests (at least) may have obtained what was there.