Federal tax tithing?

Faith-based initiatives.

What’s so wrong with grassroots faith-based organizations stepping up the plate and supporting the health, happiness, and well-being of those in the local community? Absolutely nothing is wrong with that concept. What is wrong, is the federal government setting aside an entire bureau to support such initiatives.

Tax monies paid to the government are payment for goods and services rendered. To be provided by the government they are paid to. I don’t donate money to the United Way and expect the roads to be maintained or my bank account to be insured. The federal government is uniquely suited to collecting large amounts of money and overseeing the distribution of said funds.

Imagine that a group of kids wants to build a tree house. They can each pitch in ten or twenty dollars. They give the money to a neighborhood parent. This parent decides to distribute the money to several friends who know a little about construction. Each is told that they are to assist in building a tree house. With no “general contractor,” each plans away and puts his or her small sum of money to use in purchasing supplies and constructing some part of the structure. What the kids might end up with is three ladders, a window, and maybe a few walls. When money is spread out, it rarely goes as far in purchasing goods or services. This trend and the desire of many Americans to put their money into bulk purchases is evidenced by the success of Sam’s Club and Costco. If your average citizen realizes that utilizing bulk economics is a reasonable way to stretch a dollar, why would the government, with its enormous purchasing power, choose to portion out tax dollars in what is the equivalent of buying toilet paper at a convenience store?

Another problem is the oversight of each of these mini spending sprees. That’s where we would end up with a tree house with duplicate ladders and no floor. Throughout the country, people have countless ideas about how to help each other. The issue comes in when there’s no coordination amongst all these people. When faith organizations work together within a community they can bounce ideas off each other and hopefully figure out how to put each of their skills to use in concert. When each of these groups is faced toward Washington D.C. for sustenance and some small amount of guidance, local events may be overlooked.

One last concern I harbor as a civil libertarian, is that I don’t feel that government should support any religious organization past the tax-deductions already afforded said organizations just as I don’t feel that faith groups should have to pay taxes in the event that the beliefs and actions of the government come in conflict with doctrine. When the government gives money to support faith-based initiatives, the government gives official credence to the groups backing the initiatives. What is my recourse if the government decides to disburse my tax dollars to a group that does not support my ideals and ethics? And what recourse is there when the government imposes regulations on the people a faith-based organization must serve or even hire? Both the federal government and faith-based groups tread a disastrously slippery slope when they become entangled.

I do believe that faith-based groups should be just as eligible to apply for grant money as any other not for profit organization. I don’t believe money should be set aside specifically for these groups when there are many offices already established to release and oversee grant funds. If these groups are as effective as our government would have us believe, they should be a shoe-in for grant funding and in no need of a specific bureau from which to receive money for public service.

Kid Rock is a Hero. Really?

I went to the movies today. I’m not going to bitch and moan about the barrage of commercials shown before the previews even start. I’m just going to express my seething distaste for one particular commercial.

First, this was one of those commercials-marauding as a music video. I’m sure you’ve seen them lately. They’ve been used to pitch sporting events, television shows, and car insurance. While these bursts of faux entertainment are annoying, the display I witnessed at the theater was nothing less than reprehensible. To set the stage: the two ‘stars’ of the video were Kid Rock and Dale Earnhardt Jr. We all know what a phenomenal musician he is. Then there’s the premise of the song. Kid Rock is singing all about being a hero and refusing to back down, no matter what the circumstances. Here’s the best part: the whole production was a shallow, mocking, ‘tribute’ to the National Guard.

I’m sure that some marketing genius did the math. Scruffy, free-living, Pamela Anderson dating ‘rocker’ plus Nascar legacy equals instant admiration from the type of people just itching to be recognized, perhaps by donning a uniform and likely being sent into one of the interminable battle zones the United States has laid claim to around the world.

I’m not sure which I find to be more insulting. Is it the obvious ploy for the affections of lower-middle class middle Americans by the use of pseudo-rugged ‘B’ list celebrities? Or is it the way that one of those so-called celebrities is claiming that he is some sort of civilian hero when the closest thing I’m sure he’s ever come to service is getting head from a groupie in the local ROTC?

I have no problem with the men and women serving in the National Guard. I think that they are an undeniable strength when the country is beset by disaster. I can’t help but admire someone who dedicates time and energy to training all year long. And when those people drop everything to serve within the United States and abroad, that is a selfish act I’m not sure I could match. But why would anyone think it’s appropriate to ply actual heroes with such a condescending attempt at entertainment bribery?

The job

Open the book
Read what's on the page
But read it and weep
Because time won't stand still
Won't quit to play catch-up
We've got to run head long
Dive in
Crash through
There is only to tackle
No wasted breath
No room for error
How can drive be grown
In place of frustration/apathy/ignorance
What tools do I wield
To build the house
For a lasting home

Quiet

I know I have the best friend I could ever want,
But I ache with mortal emptiness.
It's a frightening void
Without shape or form;
I'm open to unwelcome influence.
I long to name it,
To embrace it until it's owned.
When I can wrap my arms around the nothing,
I can get it to talk.
I can lay down some rules.
We can agree or duel.
My soul can soothe and lighten
The damp, inky blackness of fear.

I don't need to be afraid,
But in being afraid
I shouldn't feel shame.
The two are mighty conspirators
Determined to silence the boldest heart.
But we cannot be silent.
Our bodies would be mere bystanders
In the massacre of our spirits, souls, and selves.

Silence is the bludgeon
Time uses to break our knees,
To hobble us into crippling inaction,
To press us into the service of those who hate us, at best,
And those callowed with indifference, in the most dire cases.

We will not be victims.
We will speak,
Though we may tremble.
We will speak
Over our fear and shame
Knowing that they are a miserable pain
Waiting to be drowned.
We will cover them,
And when we rise up from those waters,
We will know that strength,
Grace,
Hope, and
Wisdom
Are the fruits of our struggle.
And we will know
That fear and shame must be put to rest each day,
Each moment.

There is solace when we feel weak.
There is mercy and rest
For the timid heart.
But the refuge is not of bricks.
It is a lean-to
For brief respite in the storm.
The battle continues
And lest it worsen,
Or more seriously,
Pass over, leaving ruin,
We must leave comfort behind
And wade the deeps,
Walk in to seek those lost,
Dragged under,
More alone than ourselves.
When the ephemeral calm
Lays us to rest
We will have saved and been saved.
And we will know
It can be done again.

Clash of the titanic twits

Yes, one more Broadsheet article for the day. Anyone who knows me knows that I can not stand Bratz Dolls. They look like prostitutes. I'm also not fond of Barbie. So when I read about the Barbie v. Bratz lawsuit, my first thought was, let them fight to the death. Um, and how's that for trivia, Barbie has a middle and last name.

____________________________________________________________________
Barbie vs. Bratz XVII: The Reckoning
Brace yourself, America: The enduring struggle between the forces of Barbie and the forces of Bratz is gearing up for a final, epic battle -- albeit not fought on the blood-stained field of Golgotha but on the more traditional terrain of the courtroom.
Mattel, which first introduced the world to the miracle of structural engineering known as Barbie Millicent Roberts in 1959, is suing the living daylights out of Bratz creator Carter Bryant, a former Mattel employee, on the grounds of copyright infringement. Looks like there's only room for one lushly proportioned polyurethane poppet in town.
And in no uncertain terms! Wait till you see the frantic internal Mattel memos released as part of the court documents, describing the success of the Bratz brand as "a rival-led Barbie genocide." Yes, the G-word, conjuring horrible images of shaven-headed Skippers corralled in Barbie prison-of-war camps being terrorized by machete-wielding Bratz dolls (or maybe that was just my sister and me). Not content to let Barbie have the last word, MGA memos counter that Mattel planned to "litigate to the death" (italics mine) and that "this is a war, and sides must be taken."
It's interesting to note the context of these memos -- written in 2003, as the nation geared up for war and the militaristic language of "you're either with us or against us" was at its peak. But in 2008, with all of us sadder and wiser, all parties would do well to remember that most little girls have the sense not to view inanimate objects as role models, and instead think of the fate that eventually befalls the vast majority of these toys, Barbie and Bratz alike: They wind up bald, naked and covered in dog slobber in a pile beneath the bed, condemned forever to a dollie Gitmo of their owner's creation.
I think Barbie herself said it best: "Pizza party, anyone?"
-- Rachel Shukert

The revolutionary idea of the day is. . .

people should be able to marry whomever they choose! I'm a blogging fool today, but couldn't resist posting this article from Broadsheet:

__________________________________________________________________
Quote of the day: Mildred Loving
"We loved each other and got married. We are not marrying the state. The law should allow a person to marry anyone he wants."
-- Mildred Loving on her court challenge to Virginia's anti-interracial-marriage law, as quoted by the Washington Evening Star in 1965. The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that Mildred, an African-American, and her husband, Richard, who was white, had the right to marry, legalizing interracial marriage throughout the country.
Loving died on Monday at age 68, the Associated Press reported Tuesday. She was predeceased by her husband, who died in a car accident in 1975, in which Mildred was also injured. Before their successful court battle, the couple was arrested and forced to move out of the state of Virginia to avoid jail time for the crime of "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth."
Publicity shy, Loving gave few interviews late in life. Yet she did make a statement last year on the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling to voice her support for gays' and lesbians' right to marry, according to the New York Times. Every June 12, the anniversary of the ruling, events mark Loving Day to celebrate the legalization of marriage by interracial couples.
-- Katharine Mieszkowski

Birth control nightmare. . .

This is a quote I read in the Planned Parenthood e-newsletter:

"To talk of condoms as 'safe sex' is a form of Russian roulette ... The AIDS virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom." — Colombian Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, head of the Catholic Church's Pontifical Council for the Family, who unscientifically argued against condom use in the developing world. He died on April 20 at age 72.

For the love of God. Like it's not bad enough just to tell people to respect the sanctity of sperm, this guy took it on himself to spread blatant misinformation about condoms. : (