natalie's narrative

Post bailout...

Finishing up Brian McLaren's Everything Must Change as a study break/reward is getting interesting in light of our post-bailout scenario.  The government has just approved a $700 billion taxpayer-funded rescue of Wall Street, after our free-market hypercapitalism went awry.  I started reading this book over the summer, before huge wads of money were thrown at our financial institutions.  McLaren discusses the pressing need to address poverty, AIDS, and the shortage of drinking water, among other things.  He also discusses the insane amount of wealth we have here in the USA.  Knowing now that $700 billion can be freed up so quickly should put us to shame.

McLaren refers to the "equity system" in our society, which assures that some members of society do not end up with an unfair advantage over other members.  The equity system is a system of justice that is supposed to develop and enforce laws, distribute society's expenses (through taxes), and establish and protect the press and court system so as to expose inequities.  Since laws, distribution, and the courts at times fail us, nongovernmental organizations and charities have been developed to address inequities. 

When the equity system ends up sputtering, our society can see some serious problems.  The equity system has become unable to "intervene, recalibrate, [and] reorder," because perhaps our leaders have removed the mechanisms that allow the equity system to work.  McLaren reminds us we're living in a time of "'free markets,' and the word free suggests that the equity system should be in handcuffs, if not a straitjacket so as to not interfere" (231).

McLaren continues:

"One naturally asks, What are markets to be free from?  What are they freed for?  For what purpose?  Are markets freed from government regulation so that the rich can achieve luxurious levels of wealth, leaving the poor to starve or barely survive in degradation and indignity?  Are markets free so that inequity can reach its apogee, providing liberty and justice for a very few?  Are markets free so that those who plunder the environment can do so without accountability, or so that those who exploit the labor of the poor can do so without impunity?  Is there no equity system that seeks to redress these injustices?  Are the powerful free for the purpose of pursuing prosperity and security without equity?"  (231)

An unfettered free market, which many Christians have supported by being in lockstep with conservative politicians, results in CEOs flying to Washington in private jets to ask for government money, while these CEOs' factories and plants continue to be shut down, causing more job loss and struggling families.  These same CEOs will say on television that they "Think they're doing just fine" with an $8 million salary, all the while their employees hope to at least be able to preserve their retirement savings in the failing economy.  Yep, reading Everything Must Change after the bailout(s) has been enlightening.

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...

This will give you goosebumps...

...well, it gave me goosebumps, anyway. Have you heard of the idea that Jesus is present among the poor? He did say, Whatever you do among the least of these, you do to me. I read Dan's blog, Poser or Prophet, a Vancouver Christian who resides among the poor. He shares a recent experience that confirms the presence of Christ among the poorest of our society: The Pietà: Christ Bleeds in a Thousand Places.

Community economics

In Jesus for President, Claiborne and Haw discuss the way our consumerist, individualistic society may affect our ability to love our neighbor. Acquiring a lot of possessions, a car for each person, and “a house full of ‘my’ stuff purchased cheaply from China,” makes it more difficult to follow Jesus’ teachings (261). We become more worried about protecting our things—about theft, security, and getting even more—that we lose sight of loving our neighbors in need.

If a community focused on loving Christ and loving others shares resources among its members, it frees itself up to live out the gospel. Claiborne and Haw share the story of a group of farmers in Belize that has little wealth but a lot of co-operation—and creativity. When a robber broke into their homes, they responded by printing and circulating currency that is worthless to the national economy but useful to them, and they built this robber a home once he was released from prison. Such a communal act of deterrence and forgiveness wouldn’t be possible outside of a community setting. And since they don’t store up treasures on this earth, they don’t have the temptation to kill those who intrude (261). They can truly pray the Lord’s Prayer, “…as we forgive those who trespass against us.”

Within our individualism and greed, we expend energy protecting our houses built on sand, while this farming community lives “free from the economic fear of being toppled by the enemy.” Free from fear, they can aim their focus outward to redeeming the enemy (261). A great quote from the book: “You cannot follow Jesus socially (in relation to your enemy) if you are not following Jesus economically” (261).

I was immediately reminded of the mess the U.S. is in, what with our “homeland security” and post 9/11 debacles. According to Brian McLaren’s Everything Must Change, the U.S. has about half of the world’s wealth, while only comprising 3% of the world’s population. So here we are hoarding our assets, while continuing to build up our military. The U.S. military is exponentially bigger than that of any other countries, and we have hundreds of bases all over the world. 

It’s evident we’re pretty big on protecting ourselves and our wealth. If anyone so much as threatens us (by stockpiling “weapons of mass destruction” that we sold them in the first place, for example), we will pre-emptively invade their country, no matter how miniscule their military forces. While expending a lot of our resources on “defense” ($550 billion a year), our leaders urge us to continue shopping. George W. Bush has even uttered the words “I encourage you all to go shopping more.” Keep consuming, or else the terrorists win…

Our national situation is a great example on a larger scale of how hard it can be to love your neighbor when you put yourself and your possessions first. It would be difficult to prevent the 16,000 children from dying from hunger-related causes each day when $550 billion goes toward protecting ourselves. And although I recognize the problems with security-driven things such as living in a gated community, I still want to save up for things like a trip to Europe or a MacBook Air instead of focusing on others’ needs and creatively subverting the status quo. The gospel, and trying to follow Jesus economically and socially, challenges me on the most basic level as well: that I have to think critically about choices and systems that I didn’t even know existed before.

"We moved out of Jesus' neighborhood"

I'm reading Will and Lisa Samson's Justice in the Burbs, and each chapter ends with a meditation by different people involved in the emerging church. I really wanted to share one by Claudia Mair Burney:

    Jesus lives next door. He's an eight-year-old girl and her three-year-old brother. The Son of Man looks like those starving Ethiopian children. He only gets breakfast and lunch at school, when he makes it. His mama is a crack whore. Nobody knows where his daddy is. I heard his mama lets her "Johns" do thing to him.
    Poor King of Kings.
    Jesus is two houses down and has six children. Now he's pregnant with the seventh. I don't know if he hasn't figured out what birth control is, or what, but how does he expect his husband to feed all those babies on that salary? And you know with all those kids the Lord of Lords can't work. That means hardworking taxpayers' money has to go for Christ's food stamps!
    He needs to get fixed.
    The Lord is a crazy man--paranoid schizophrenic. If he doesn't take his medication, he walks up and down the street, cussing and spitting on everybody he passes. He's homeless. Nobody knows where his family is--if he's got one. Digs out of the trash cans for food. Somebody ought to get him off the street.
    Jesus is nothing but a nuisance.
    I'm starting to see the Son of God everywhere I go. He's always crying or begging or looking pitiful. Why doesn't he pull himself up by his bootstraps? This is America! Makes me mad. He's ruining our neighborhood.
    Somebody ought to do something about him.
    Somebody.

Creative capitalism…thanks again Art!

Bill Gates gave the Harvard commencement speech this year, and he talked about his experience at Harvard and his work in global public health. I first learned of his and his wife’s work through their foundation in a public health class in college, and it is really impressive. It’s great to see someone who has an insane amount of money actually putting it to good use.

He and his wife, Melinda, learned about the millions of impoverished children who were dying from preventable diseases that had been eliminated in the US years ago. They also learned that treatment and prevention were not costly, so they began to wonder how anyone could let this continue. He says in the commencement speech:

“The answer is simple, and harsh. The market did not reward saving the lives of these children, and governments did not subsidize it. So the children died because their mothers and their fathers had no power in the market and no voice in the system.

But you and I have both.

We can make market forces work better for the poor if we can develop a more creative capitalism – if we can stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or at least make a living, serving people who are suffering from the worst inequities. We also can press governments around the world to spend taxpayer money in ways that better reflect the values of the people who pay the taxes.

If we can find approaches that meet the needs of the poor in ways that generate profits for business and votes for politicians, we will have found a sustainable way to reduce inequity in the world. This task is open-ended. It can never be finished. But a conscious effort to answer this challenge will change the world.”

This approach always interests me (although at first glance looks contradictory to a recent post), because I think it’s a combination of two great things. Capitalism can be a great thing—to a point. Once making money takes precedent over everything else, however, capitalism can also do a lot of damage, as we have seen. Sharing, giving, and helping people are great things, too, yet a lot of ambitious projects have failed.

I no longer wanted to work in social services, because giving of myself and my time to someone who had no incentive or tools to improve her or his situation just bothered me. Providing assistance to a family that is going through a financial crisis is a good thing, don’t get me wrong, but why not fix the deeper issues? Shane Claiborne has a great analogy for this situation. He adds to the old adage: “Give someone a fish, they'll eat for a day. Teach them how to fish, they can eat for a lifetime.” Claiborne says we need to ask who owns the pond and who polluted it.

Getting to the deeper issues would mean, instead of handing out emergency cash or simply helping people with crisis management, why not work on things like employment, education, and better/more affordable health care? In a public health situation, instead of treating the disease in less-than-stellar hospitals, why not focus on affordable, accessible prevention? We can harness the power of capitalism to work on those things, just like Bill Gates says that we can make market forces work better for the poor. See, look, I read Marx, vote mostly Democrat, yet I can say good things about capitalism and “market forces”!

Sharing as nonsensical charity…offering a genuine alternative to capitalism

Thanks to Leveller’s, I came across Dan’s blog, Poser or Prophet: On Journeying with those in Exile. He has done an awesome series on Christianity and capitalism, which is very challenging too! There’s so much that I would like to point out here, but it would be almost everything he’s written. Let’s say he does a great job of pointing out how pervasive capitalism is in our language and how we think about Christian “charity.” He says we’ve outsourced our contact with the poor to organizations and social workers.

He also writes about the upside-down, nonsensical values of the Kingdom. We are so familiar with capitalism, and it makes a great deal of sense to us, but following Jesus turns all that familiarity and common sense upside down. Why would anyone want to pursue “downward mobility”? Oh, I guess that’s what Jesus pursued…

His other posts are great, as well, especially this one about patriotism (we US Americans can certainly apply what this Canadian says!).

Surprised... *edited*

and saddened by what I read in the Chicago Tribune today. In the article, "Students stage walkout over peer's shooting death," a Chicago minister mentions that 12 Chicago Public Schools students have been killed on their way to and from school this year. Last Thursday, a high school student, Blair Holt, was shot and killed while riding a CTA bus to school. Four other students were injured. After reading this, and after the Virginia Tech shooting, what is stopping us from passing stricter gun laws??? Is the NRA really that powerful?

*The Tribune has an article today (Wednesday): "Year of grief, violence: 27 city students slain." Twenty seven! A quote from the Chicago Public Schools chief:

"Schools Chief Arne Duncan called the deaths 'horrifying.' If 20 students were shot and killed in Winnetka or Barrington [Chicago suburbs], the outcry would be deafening and residents and politicians would mobilize for gun control, he contended."

Sexism?

At Melissa Rogers' blog, she posted about the National Organization for Women filing complaints against the Department of Health and Human Services, since the DHS funds a Fatherhood Initiative. It is a $50 million push to support lower-income fathers, assisting them with employment and parenting skills. NOW asserts the initiative is against the law since it is only focused on men.

This caught my attention, because where I work, we are involved with the Fatherhood Initiative. I would also consider myself a feminist. I work with lower-income couples who are expecting a baby and have had the chance to see that, many times, dads are left out of the picture, either by their own choice or simply because of the way social services and our society are set up.

Imagine a 20-year-old new dad, not ever having to think about anyone but himself, who is possibly a high school dropout, and struggling with learning disabilities. He may have grown up in a home with a single mother, and may not have had too many male mentors in his life. He may not have had many people to teach him good decision-making skills. Many of the dads we work with are like this, in some ways, yet a lot of programs are geared toward new moms. Plus, our society in general considers mom the main caretaker. According to DHS's "Promoting Responsible Fatherhood" website, "About half of all children spend some part of their life apart from one or both of their parents, and most often the parent that does not live with the child is the father." I think there is a genuine need for more of a focus on fathers.

The employment emphasis is especially exciting, at least considering what I see every day. Almost everything hinges on dad having a good job. A growing family just can't fit in grandma's 2-bedroom apartment, and dad really needs to have a reliable car to even get to his job. WIC and Medicaid are great, but there are a lot of other expenses! Obviously I think that mothers should be allowed these services too, but what company would hire someone with a big pregnant belly? What if mom wants to breastfeed? How's she gonna do that AND work?? Maybe there are some things I don't know about this initiative that could be not-so-great, but maybe some aren't willing to support something that comes from conservatives and the current administration...?

Oklahoma All Kids Act

I heard about this at my work. There are 146,000 uninsured children in Oklahoma, and of those, 84% belong to families whose income falls below 300% of the federal poverty guidelines. Presently, Oklahoma's insurance program, SoonerCare, covers children at or below 185% of the federal poverty level.

Tomorrow (Wednesday, February 21), Oklahoma's Senate Appropriations committee will consider the Oklahoma All Kids Act - SB 424. This bill would extend coverage to children ages 18 and younger whose family income falls between 185% and 300%. It would also allow families to access private insurance or employer-sponsored insurance for dependent children through a subsidy program, along with helping families who have limited or costly insurance plans.

This may seem like a costly program, but doing nothing would be even costlier. Children who have health insurance are more likely to get immunizations, regular check-ups, and treatment for common health problems that affect children, such as asthma or ear infections. They are less likely to make trips to the emergency room, and they would have better school attendance, too. In order to cover the costs of treating the uninsured, family premiums could increase by more than $2,000 by the year 2010 if we don't address the issue now. For every dollar spent on this program, the federal government will pay 78 cents, and the state of Oklahoma will pay around 22 cents.

The Senate switch board number is 405.524.0126.

The members of the committee are:

Senator Johnnie Crutchfield - Co-Chair
Senator Mike Johnson - Co-Chair
Senator David Myers - Co-Vice Chair
Senator Tom Adelson - Co-Vice Chair
Senator Patrick Anderson
Senator Randy Bass
Senator Randy Brogdon
Senator Kenneth Corn
Senator Brian Crain
Senator Mary Easley
Senator Clark Jolley
Senator Charlie Laster
Senator Owen Laughlin
Senator Jonathan Nichols
Senator Susan Paddack
Senator Nancy Riley