Obama on Faith Based and Community Initiatives

Straight from Barack Obama in an exclusive phone call with Relevant
Media Group's president and founder, Cameron Strang on July 1. Full
text available here.

Strang: For a variety of reasons,
Congress wouldn’t support President Bush’s Office of Faith-Based and
Community Initiatives. Why do you feel they’ll support your plan?



Obama: Based on the assessment of those who actually worked on
this in the Bush White House, part of the problem was that the Bush
Administration had a tendency to maybe politicize the office
unnecessarily. And I think that’s a mistake. I think you really have to
have an attitude that this is a program designed to help all comers,
not just those who supported you politically.



The second thing is that there has to be some very clear criteria and
accountability in these programs. I don’t think taxpayers want their
money wasted, whether it’s a faith-based or a secular program, so we’ve
got to be able to document success in whatever programs are funded.



We also want to train more sophisticated groups—the big megachurch or
Catholic Charities—to work with the small storefronts, or the synagogue
or mosque that doesn’t have as much know-how, in applying for federal
funds to be able to participate. So I think that if we make it broad,
if we have clear standards and clear principles governing the program,
if it’s not perceived as being an extension of politics but rather a
way to ensure services get to the people who need them, then I think we
can generate support from Congress.



Strang: Your plan specifically prohibits discriminatory hiring
policies based on religion. Don't you think faith-based organizations
that would otherwise want to join this program would bristle at the
limitation that they can’t hire a staff that reflects their
organization’s values?



Obama: I think it’s important to distinguish between people who
are hired as part of a church to carry out that church’s mission or
ministries, or administer the church. There’s always a religious
exemption there from Title VII. It’s important for us to make sure that
a Christian church can hire Christians or a Jewish church can hire
people of the Jewish faith. That’s different from programs that are
specifically funded by the federal government and offered to the public.



I’m going to have my Council on Faith-Based Partnerships review all our
policies, review relevant law and regulations, executive orders and
court cases. But the simple principle is that we should not
discriminate against faith-based organizations in being able to carry
out terrific programs [funded] by the federal government, but we want
to make sure that those programs are run in a nondiscriminatory manner.




And that’s not going to encroach on the ability of those faith-based
organizations to do what they need to do when it comes to their core
religious mission. They are going to be able to hire and carry out
those functions of a church, or synagogue, mosque or temple, but they
can also participate in federal programs as long as those are done in a
way that is not encroaching on a separation of church and state, is
open to the public and is not involved in proselytizing.



Strang: Not being able to proselytize through a program that receives funding—how would that be enforced?



Obama: You know, the truth of the matter is, a lot of
faith-based organizations currently are doing a great job on this
issue, and they recognize that when they are administering federal
funds, their priority has to be to provide high-quality services and
they are not interested in discriminating or proselytizing. Obviously,
there may be some who try to use these funds in inappropriate ways, but
I think that’s the tiny minority of those who really just want to serve
their communities and do the right thing.

Obama on Abortion

Straight from Barack Obama in an exclusive phone call with Relevant Media Group's president and founder, Cameron Strang on July 1. Full text available here.

Strang: Based on emails we
received, another issue of deep importance to our readers is a
candidate’s stance on abortion. We largely know your platform,
but there seems to be some real confusion about your position on
third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your
stance for us?



Obama: I absolutely can, so please don’t believe the emails. I
have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states
to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a
strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I
don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the
mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in
pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother
carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a
medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term
abortions.



The other email rumor that’s been floating around is that somehow I’m
unwilling to see doctors offer life-saving care to children who were
born as a result of an induced abortion. That’s just false. There was a
bill that came up in Illinois that was called the “Born Alive” bill
that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I
did vote against that bill. The reason was that there was already a law
in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply
life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this
bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think
it was going to pass constitutional muster.



Ever since that time, emails have been sent out suggesting that,
somehow, I would be in favor of letting an infant die in a hospital
because of this particular vote. That’s not a fair characterization,
and that’s not an honest characterization. It defies common sense to
think that a hospital wouldn't provide life-saving treatment to an
infant that was alive and had a chance of survival.



Strang: You’ve said you’re personally against abortion and would
like to see a reduction in the number of abortions under your
administration. So, as president, how would do you propose
accomplishing that?



Obama: I think we know that abortions rise when unwanted
pregnancies rise. So, if we are continuing what has been a promising
trend in the reduction of teen pregnancies, through education and
abstinence education giving good information to teenagers. That is
important—emphasizing the sacredness of sexual behavior to our
children. I think that’s something that we can encourage. I think
encouraging adoptions in a significant way. I think the proper role of
government. So there are ways that we can make a difference, and those
are going to be things I focus on when I am president.

Al Gore's Latest Speech

Renewable energy in 10 years - 100% 0-carbon electricity for everyone. That's bold and probably not going to happen, even if we all wanted it and were willing to spend for it. Nevertheless, it's the right direction.

McCain "Documentary" on Obama's Iraq Policy

Here's a link to a 7 minute video put out by McCain. I still have to give his campaign credit for having better multimedia than Obama's, to my surprise. The point of the video is to show that Obama has flip-flopped on the issue of Iraq. I noted a few irregularities:

1. Obama initially claims additional troops will not solve things and probably will make things worse. I can take "worse" to mean that Iraqi's will continue to be dependent on American military might while advancing their own military and politics more slowly. The video then shows him one year later saying that additional troops would result in increased security and lower violence. I don't hear a flip-flop; I hear apples (long-term results) and oranges (short-term results).
2. Our troops are doing a good job of their assigned task. That is difficult to question considering few, if any, other countries have militaries that could or would do something similar. Applauding the troops' work does not equate with opposing a troop surge.
3. The war in Iraq has gone on for at least 5 years now. To show clips from various years of Obama speaking about the war should be expected to change because the situation in Iraq is changing. I consider it illogical and foolish to hold the same position through 5 years of such a situation. One formulates a response and a plan to what transpires. This is poor politics on McCain's behalf.
4. It's not as simple as voting for or against additional funding for the war. This may reflect a broken political system that makes it difficult to vote about items individually.
   
5. The "translation" pages are bogus, appealing to Americans that don't, or won't, think critically about such weighty issues. Worst of all, it's called a "documentary". Please, callit political propaganda or something else accurately reflecting its true nature. This is, again, dirty politics from McCain.
   

Argument for Christians Voting

Brian McLaren writes several good points for still engaging the politics of this world as an argument against not voting or writing in "Jesus". I agree with him.

Obama's June Gift Average: $68

Source: email from BarackObama.com

Obama ad: America's Leadership

Promoting Obama's foreign policy and an example of his bi-partisan record of changing things together. 30 seconds.

Water Footprint Quiz

This isn't a great inventory. It is something. I read on Earth Day that 1/3 of our water usage is in flushing toilets. I've been going with the "if it's yellow, let it mellow" philosophy since.

Computer vision syndrome

I have thought for years that all our time in front of screens cannot be good for our eyes. Here's a bit more about the potential problem and what you can do for your eyes' health.

Nearly 150 million people in the United States work on a computer every day, and it is estimated that close to 90 percent of them experience computer eyestrain. While mass computer expansion at home and in the office has provided a big boost to global communications, computers have and will continue to take a toll on our eyesight. In fact, occupational health experts agree that the source of today’s top vision complaint in the workplace is the computer monitor.

The following suggestions may help:

1. Greater hertz or frequency of the monitor’s screen will reduce the flicker in the screen. In addition, the higher the pixel count of the monitor’s screen, the better the resolution, resulting in enhanced reliability. Resolutions of at least 110 pixels per inch are recommended.
2. Glare from lights reflecting off the screen will lower the contrast, thus forcing the eyes to work harder. A glare-reduction filter can reduce this potential problem significantly. One bearing an American Optometric Association seal of approval is recommended.
3. Adjustable work stations allowing for appropriate placement of the computer screen at angles 10 degrees to 20 degrees (slightly below eye level) are most comfortable. Also, a monitor on a base that swivels will reduce unnecessary head and eye movements.
4. Ergonomically designed chairs and keyboards, and proper ambient illumination, can provide additional relief. The keyboard, screen and copy should all be as close to equal distances from the eyes as possible. Workstation lighting should be shaded to avoid reflections on the monitor. Typical office lighting was designed for working on paper on a flat desk surface, and is actually twice as bright as the optimal lighting conditions for computer work.

From Highmark. Full article here.

Budget Hero

So Americans are a bit obsessed with heroes right now - Heroes the TV show, Guitar Hero, and now Budget Hero. It lets you call the shots and make the decisions for the federal budget. Check it out and post the following (all shown in the final summary)

1. Your 3 chosen badges and if you achieved them - mine were Health & Wellness, Green, Economic Stimulus (3 for 3 achieved)
   
2. What % of GDP the debt is in 2018 - mine was 17%
   
3. Year of the budget bust - mine was 2057
4. What % of GDP the federal government is in 2018 - mine was 18.7%

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/features/budget_hero/

Candidates on Social Security

Here's a brief summary of the candidates' positions about Social Security in two (and a half) paragraphs. Maybe it's helpful for you.

John McCain hasn't yet made a full-bodied Social Security proposal during the presidential campaign. However, it seems that 1) he welcomes a bipartisan compromise to ensure a politically feasible reform, and 2) he would prefer giving younger workers the option of diverting some of their FICA tax to individual retirement accounts. This will give payroll taxpayers more freedom to choose how they want to fund their payroll tax-based retirement. However, it will also reduce the Social Security funding the 3.3 workers would normally provide for the one retiree. This will make it even more difficult to avoid Social Security bankruptcy (which is why many on the left believe McCain wants to kill Social Security).

Senator Barack Obama, on the other hand, opposes any privatization of Social Security. He believes, in contradiction to Senator Hillary Clinton, that Social Security is in crisis. His primary fix is to increase the payroll tax cap from $102,000. All workers contribute 6.2% and employers contribute 6.2% of payroll to Social Security, except those whose annual payroll exceeds $102,000. They pay nothing on their payroll over that cap, which means the highest income workers are taxed proportionately less than their lower income worker counterparts. Obama wants to tax more of the income of upper-middle-income and high-income workers, but presumably still at the 6.2% FICA tax rate every other worker pays. He also wants to establish automatic workplace pension plans for those workers working for employers who do not provide a pension plan, which is about half the workforce. "Under this plan, employers automatically enroll their employees in a direct deposit IRA account. Employees may opt-out by signing a written waiver. Even after enrollment, employees will retain the right to change their savings levels, reallocate investment portfolios or end contributions to the account." Employers will not finance the plan, would merely be a forwarding agent for employee contributions, and they would be eligible for tax credits to defray any cost to the employer. Of course, these contributions would be in addition to the standard FICA tax, not part of it.

From Evangelicals for Social Action, written by Bret Kincaid - whole article here

Yahoo! acronym

Somebody told me Yahoo was an acronym. Looks like she/he was right!

The Web site started out as "Jerry and David's Guide to the World Wide Web" but eventually received a new moniker with the help of a dictionary. The name Yahoo! is an acronym for "Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle," but Filo and Yang insist they selected the name because they liked the general definition of a yahoo: "rude, unsophisticated, uncouth." Yahoo! itself first resided on Yang's student workstation, "Akebono," while the software was lodged on Filo's computer, "Konishiki" - both named after legendary sumo wrestlers.

From Yahoo! Media Relations.

Candidate Emails and Videos

Well, this is a disappointing post for both presidential candidates.

Obama's campaign director finally launched a video with some graphics, about a month after McCain's campaign released a longer, more interesting, and far more detailed video. At least Obama's into the video arena now. I hope it improves.

McCain's email on June 27 included links to 2 negative ads. The mud slinging continues. I don't doubt that both candidates will air them on television. I'm disappointed they are being promoted online as well. I hope it stops.

His July 11 Love video is nicer. I did notice that there's a shot of him and Regan but none of him and Bush Sr. or Bush W. Still trying to get that conservative vote - while mentioning that he's been a "maverick." I'll be curious to see how it turns out.

McCain's latest briefing video (July 10) is visually appealing. A balanced budget by 2013 doesn't make sense to me - why that long??? I don't think he has the facts right about Regan being part of deficit reduction in the 80's like Clinton was in the 90's. Here's a chart of national debt. I'm not saying Clinton did anything great - it's the economy and the president's influence on that is highly arguable. You can see the video here:
http://www.johnmccain.com/economicbriefing/

Farm Bill

I hadn't heard much about the U.S. farm bill lately until reading this from Bread for the World. Looks like we have legislation until 2012 that was partial success and partial failure.


The U.S. farm bill was finally enacted into law on June 18, 2008. After a long process that included passage by both the House and Senate, delay due to a clerical error, vetoes by President Bush, and votes to override the vetoes, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 is now law. It expires in FY2012.

Bread for the World members worked long and hard to make the new farm bill more fair to struggling U.S. rural and farm families, people in the United States who are hungry or at risk of hunger, and poor farmers around the world. The final law includes a significant increase – approximately $10.3 billion over 10 years – in U.S. nutrition assistance. Bread for the World members helped increase mandatory funding for the McGovern-Dole international school meals program from $60 million to $84 million. The Hunger-Free Communities Act, which was a focus of our Offering of Letters in 2005, was included in the final version.

Unfortunately, the bill maintains the status quo on commodity payments for generally wealthy farmers. It does not set the new direction for agriculture we need, especially in light of the global hunger crisis. However, our efforts changed the public and congressional debate about the farm bill, made nutrition the most critical component of the bill, and highlighted the unfairness of our commodity policies, which had previously passed with little input from anyone outside the Agriculture Committee.

Deet-free insect repellents

Consumer Reports Greener Choices recently reviewed insect repellents, finding the chemical Picaridin to be as effective as DEET. Wish I knew this a week ago before camping for 5 days straight with cousins in Wisconsin!

Picaridin is a chemical repellent that’s considered as effective as deet at the same concentration by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). When used properly, it’s also considered safe by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Our tests found that Cutter Advanced Sport with 15 percent picaridin scored better than two repellents with 7 percent deet. It protected against both mosquito species for an average of almost 3 hours and against ticks for 11 to 12 hours.

Whole Article

Obama's Faith-Based Initiative

I don't like Obama's decision with this one. Here's the best paragraph I recently read about it.

Perhaps the most controversial component, at least from the perspective of those who have generally supported federally funded faith-based initiatives, is the issue of discrimination in hiring. Most everyone agrees that these federally-funded programs must have a secular purpose and that they cannot discriminate on the basis of religion against those who are served. But what about those who are hired to serve in the programs? Obama said his program will not permit hiring discrimination on the basis of religion, which means faith-based organizations cannot consider religion as a factor in hiring people to deliver federally funded services in a religious organization. Harvard Law Professor Martha Minow, who has advised the Obama campaign on this issue, reportedly said that “Mr. Obama would move to ‘return the law to what it was before the current administration.’” It was President Bush who issued executive orders to allow religious organizations receiving federal funds to consider religion a factor in hiring. Obama’s reversal of this policy has sparked criticism from the Christian Right but also from moderates like Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals, who said this part of the CFNP was “extremely disappointing.”

This paragraph was taken from the full article found here.

US Finally Issues Health Warning over Mercury Fllings

Amalgam dental fillings - which contain the highly toxic metal mercury - pose a health risk, the world's top medical regulatory agency has conceded.
After years of insisting the fillings are safe, the US government's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a health warning about them. It represents a landmark victory for campaigners, who say the fillings are responsible for a range of ailments, including heart conditions and Alzheimer's disease.
Earlier this month, in an unprecedented U-turn, the FDA dropped much of its reassuring language on the fillings from its website, substituting: "Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and foetuses." It adds that when amalgam fillings are "placed in teeth or removed they release mercury vapour", and that the same thing happens when chewing.
The FDA is now reviewing its rules and may end up restricting or banning the use of the metal.

Straight to the Source.

White House Lies to the World about Biofuels

A new report from the International Monetary Fund estimates that biofuels are responsible for as much as 30% of the global food shortage. Despite this fact, at the United Nation's emergency food summit in Rome, USDA Secretary of Agriculture, Edward Schafer, defended the U.S. government's decision to spend billions of dollars subsidizing corn and soybean-based ethanol and biofuel, falsely claiming that biofuels contributed only 2% to 3% of the overall increase in global food prices over the past year. According to USDA spokesman, Jim Brownlee, Mr. Schafer was unaware that his statistics were off by nearly 90%.

Myths and Facts about Biofuels