natalie's narrative

Happy Thanksgiving!

60 Minutes interview with the Obama's

I continue to be impressed by the Obama's, especially with tonight's interview on 60 Minutes.  When Michelle (a Harvard law grad and mother of two) was asked how she will be first lady, she responded that one of the things we've learned is that women are capable of doing more than one thing well at a time.  She's had to juggle being a mother and having a career for a long time, and she's done it well.  I was pleased with her answer, because often the assumption is that something has to struggle, whether it be your family or your career, when you're a working mom.  At the same time, working fathers are never faced with that assumption.  

Michelle also made a remark about making a difference within their local community:

[T]here are many issues that I care deeply about. I care about military families and the work/family balance issue. I care about education. I, both Barack and I, believe that we can have an impact in the D.C. area. You know, in terms of making sure we're contributing to the community that we immediately live in. That's always been something that we try to do. Whether it's in our own neighborhoods or in the schools that we've attended. So there's plenty to do.

You can easily tell that the Obama's are a family that take into consideration their local community, and care about what's happening in their area.  I wonder if any other presidents have focused on the D.C. area and its issues while they were in office?

Yes we did!

Emily Hunter McGowin has an excellent post regarding evangelicals' respose to Obama's victory.  She does a great job of pointing out how the negative, fearful reaction betrays a trust placed more in our government than in God.  Jesus makes it clear that our kingdom is not of this world.  (I wish I would have had a copy of Shane Claiborne's Jesus for President after the 2004 election, but I digress).  

Emily also points out how uncharitable evangelicals' responses are in light of such an historic election.  I unfortunately saw a lot of this when I logged on to my Facebook account today.  Emily writes:

Finally, I was deeply disturbed by evangelicals' overall uncharitable response to what is an historic moment in American history, no matter your political affiliation or religious convictions. One of our country's "original sins" was the mass enslavement of an entire race of human beings, for no other reason than their skin color and physical features. The text of the Constitution itself considers black African slaves only three-fifths of a person. This infamous blot on an otherwise ingenious founding document (called the “constitutional compromise”) is an embarrassment to all Americans, let alone Christian Americans who proclaim the equal worth of all before God. 

But now, US citizens have elected the son of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya to be their President. Regardless of one's political leanings, this is an amazing thing and a reason to celebrate. No, the plague of racism in America is not defeated in this historic event. And, yes, there are plenty of reasons for evangelicals to be concerned about the possible future decisions of our new President and his counselors. But, for now, at this moment, evangelicals should be able to celebrate a great step forward in the cause of justice.

Anyway, I should have remained blissfully ignorant and avoided Facebook, because the tone here in the Chicago area is so fun!  I was in the Loop Tuesday night for class, and it was awesome to see such enthusiasm for our political process.  I know I complained earlier about McCain/Palin supporters not knowing anything about their actual policies, but I think people have overall become more involved and informed, which is encouraging.  We need to keep this up so as to not have a repeat of the past few years!!  

Spread the wealth

I try to catch whatever snippets of presidential campaign coverage that I can, and I've noticed that John McCain has derisively referred to Barack Obama's policies as "spreading the wealth" several times.  Over the past few years after delving more into Scripture and reading books by Shane Claiborne, I've realized that the Bible--and the Christian faith--is all about wealth redistribution.  So I found it a little odd that McCain was so critical of the idea.  I wondered if he worried about alienating his Christian voters.  Then I realized that perhaps the Christians who support McCain probably think that the phrase "God helps those who help themselves" is found in the Bible.

Anyway, I can't bring myself to vote for someone so critical of Leviticus 25, of jubilee, of 2 Corinthians 8:14-15 and Acts 4:34.  When God provided manna in the wilderness, those who accumulated too much found their hoarded manna spoiled.  After we've just vividly seen the results of the wealthy and powerful in our society making decisions with no government oversight, which has essentially been the logical end result of unrestrained capitalism, I find it hard that a candidate so critical of sharing wealth could win this election.  

Even Alan Greenspan has realized, after this current crisis, that his free-market philosophy is not the answer.  Even just a regular capitalist country has some measure of wealth redistribution, such as pooling money (taxes) to build roads, schools, and provide fire protection, among other things.  

I don't understand what's so awful about spreading the wealth, unless of course you ARE one of the wealthy.  Of course the interests of the wealthy are the ones that the Republicans are so intent on protecting, so why am I so surprised about McCain's comments?

Okay, back to my contracts reading...