Okay, so just another political beef. I am getting so annoyed at pundits saying McCain chose Palin to get Hillary supporters. That’s just plain stupid. I wonder if they’re saying that just to make sure to turn off any stupid Hillary supporters. Palin was chosen to solidify the base. I, for one, had been praying McCain would choose Palin. I didn’t think that would make me vote for the ticket, but I might. I just might. Three major issues (which I won’t name) seem a bit fishy with this ticket, and I’d like to see them talk more.

I don’t see myself voting for Obama, and I think Palin did a good job tonight of naming some of the reasons. I’ve always liked Obama. I like his charm, his oratory skill, and I have to admit I like that liking him makes me feel less racist. But most of his positions are ridiculous, and the ones I like, I think he’s dreaming if he thinks he’s going to enact him.

Okay, so Obama’s speech was great last night (except for the annoying misquote of scripture at the end). I really enjoyed his humor, eloquence, and somewhat empty promises. I’m still annoyed he picked someone who whitens his teeth for his VP though. If McCain’s objective was to take away steam, he did it by picking Sarah Palin as his VP. That’s a home run. It just emboldens his image as a maverick. I’ve been thinking and hoping he might pick her just because it would make things interesting, but then all the stuff they’ve been saying in the last two days made me think he might go more traditional. Anyway, I am glad he picked her. Southerners will like her belief in state self-sufficiency It will add a little spice to his campaign. Plus, she’s from Sandpoint, which is like an hour away. Speaking of stupid reasons to like a candidate…

Rachel and I have a pet peeve in the current election. The people they are interviewing sound like they come right out of Idiocracy:

Commentator: Why are you voting for Obama?
Response 1: I want change!
Commentator: Why are you voting for Obama?
Reponse 2: Eight is enough!
Commentator: Why are you voting for Obama?
Response 3: Our troops need to come home right now!
Commentator: Why are you voting for McCain?
Response 4: He’ll drill for oil!
Commentator: Why are you voting for McCain?
Response 5: He’s a true conservative!

Oh my goodness, I swear these people just listen to campaign slogans and don’t stop and think for five seconds.

This video drives me nuts. An American girl was in South Ossetia visiting her aunt when Georgia started bombing South Ossetia. As she starts to tell her story, you can hear the producer telling the newscaster to cut them off. What cracks me up is when the newspaper tells the aunt there is an impending commercial break, the aunt replies, “I know you don’t want to hear that.”

My friend Nathan sent me this bit of political humor, and it’s pretty scary.

The recent GAFCON statement has my head twirling a bit.

I am not sure what this will mean for Anglicanism, but I am a bit concerned. I share some of the concerns that Archishop Williams and Bishop Wright, as well as others, have voiced (see some responses to GAFCON here).

Anglicanism has always had great diversity, and while I agree that communion needs to be broken with classic liberals, I worry that this is not just Anglican-style schism. One of the most beautiful things about Anglicanism is that it is quite diverse. Now I realize there are limits to this diversity, but I wonder where the limits will be drawn. I don’t want Anglicanism to become another evangelical denomination. Evangelicalism is just one strain of Anglicanism, and while in many ways, I am in that strain, I find much of benefit in the Anglo-Catholic and latitudinarian strains.

I often find myself agreeing more with Jim Wallis than with Os Guinness. Will that mean that I will be labeled as a liberal within the new regime because I am more liberal in the areas of economics, the environment, and politics? I find myself agreeing more with the sacramentality of Schmemann, Waterland, and even Pusey than with Stott. Will I be labeled as a Catholic? (Catholics seem to be tolerated, and if you’re in San Joaquin, slightly lauded, but how long will that last?)

My reading of the Scriptures often has me agreeing more with liberals than with evangelicals when it comes to the way of Jesus. How much latitude will there be to follow the Scriptures wherever they go–even when that leads away from evangelicalism?

I am finding it increasingly more difficult for my faith to have a home.

Most of my friends are Ron Paul fans, and I have to admit I find the guy fascinating. I watched his fundraising drive last year closely, and I have somewhat followed his campaign. I’ve known about him since college through my friend Nathan and through Scary Gary’s work in his campaign. I think he might be just what this country needs–a start at a big change. That said, I think I want that more for shock value. I like a lot of what he says, but I also find much with which to disagree.

Let’s just say I’ve been rethinking economics over the past five years (incidentally, about the time I joined the blue party). Rachel and I were discussing Ron Paul this evening, which led into a conversation on socialism vs. capitalism (along with some communism and fascism). I was mostly talking about the problems I see (biblically) with a “free market.” Lo and behold, I came home to see Doug Jones had blogged some of these things in a critique of Sowell’s economics. I haven’t had the chance to read Jones’ other critiques of Sowell, but this hits it on the head. The free market will work great in the resurrection, I’m sure, but sin will always mess it up here.

For me, one of the biggest problems I have with the libertarian way of thinking is its focus is on me. My rights. We have certain rights, and the government is taking them away. Okay, sure. I understand the sentiment. The recent bans on spanking and homeschooling in California drive me up the wall. As the Five Man Electrical band sang, “Hey! what gives you the right!” But, I question if the “American Dream” is a really a “right” we should have. Don’t get me wrong. I strongly desire those things: the perfect car, home, and job, but do I really have an “inalienable right” to pursue wealth at that level?

As I said to Rachel, the platform of the Republicans is “You can be rich!” I really like this idea. The problem is that the way to get there will often trample the poor.

The Democrats say to the poor, “You don’t have to be poor!” So who does their plan screw over?–well, the rich, and…me…and a lot of you. People that aren’t poor–we say we are, and we all have our financial problems, but we aren’t homeless, and in America, you always have the ability to pull yourself out of poverty. This isn’t Bangkok or Bogota.

I don’t want democratic style socialism. My middle class living might go down to lower middle class. That would be annoying. I would feel even more poor (such a relative term).

But is it such a bad thing to sacrifice my potential wealth for the sake of the poor? If Jones’ is right in his exposition of James, and I think he is,* that’s exactly what we’re called to do.

* I know, I too am shocked I’m finding so much common ground with Doug Jones lately.

I thought this was a funny statement from the Washington State Convention:

“Early speakers made numerous references to President Reagan and God, but none to President Bush, whose low approval ratings could be a drag on the GOP ticket in November.”

On Friday, we went to Moscow to spend some time with Isaiah. We enjoyed a terrific Italian dinner at the home of Lisa Jackson, and we met some new friends, as well as some old friends. Throughout the course of the night, our old friend Davey Henreckson mentioned that he has been interested in political theology, and he asked me about my recent reading of Caputo’s What Would Jesus Deconstruct? As we discussed the book a bit, I mentioned that I had been shifting toward a biblical theology of nonviolence over the past several years. I was shocked to find out that Douglas Jones has been doing work in this area. If you haven’t checked out the Biblical Theses on Violence, I highly recommend it.

I also found out something interesting at church today. After the service, I started talking politics with Bishop Cavalcanti. It turns out that he was a political science professor before becoming a bishop. After this discussion Fr. Jerry mentioned that Bishop Cavalcanti was a major player in South American politics, but we know little of him since he doesn’t write in English. A search on Amazon confirmed this as his name pops up in many books on evangelicals in politics in Latin America. One of them calls him a “leader of the evangelical left,” which I find a funny term since those are almost exclusive adjectives in America (though I would probably throw myself under a title like that).

An interesting weekend to say the least.

Home schooling by parents without “credentials” is against the law says a California appellate court.

ETA: Schwarzenegger denounces the ruling.

While we’re on Colbert, see the evidence for yourself.