I have to be honest, this $700 billion dollar deal is starting to annoy me.  It sounds like most normal Americans aren’t too psyched about it, but I’m doubtful most people understand credit and Wall St. better than Treasurery Secretary Paulsen.  There is a definite trickle down effect if nothing happens.  Part of me says -well, so be it.  Don’t make bad loans, don’t assume more debt than is reasonable for your salary.  American was built on greed – manifest destiny, anyone?  So it’s not surprising that we’ve gotten ourselves into this mess, and no one wants to take the hit.  How appropriate.  (Can you tell I’m not terribly enthused by my tax dollars going to bail out people who don’t have any sense of fiscal responsibility?  I’m all about mercy and love and justice, but I also am about people avoiding foolishness)

So when the “bailout bill” didn’t pass, I just sorta raised my eyebrows, and moved on.  And then it was reworked.  And THIS probably bugs me more than anything – all the extra pork built in.  We’ve heard a lot in the news about pork and earmarks in the elections – these are the (ahem) “little” deals senators and representatives tack onto bills that get federal dollars to work towards one of their pet projects, hence acquiescing their voters.

Here’s a list, courtesy of CNN of the extra earmarks tacked onto the reworking of this bill:

1. Creation of a seven-year cost recovery period for construction of a motorsports racetrack: Track owners currently follow a seven-year depreciation schedule and write each year’s depreciation off their taxes. The IRS wanted to increase the depreciation timetable to 15 years, which would mean the track owner’s depreciation would be cut in half. The measure in the keeps the seven-year depreciation schedule for two years and would cost taxpayers $100 million.
2. A refund of excise taxes to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands for rum: A $13.50 per gallon excise tax is placed on rum imported into the United States. The measure extends to December 31, 2009, a refund of $13.25 per gallon tax back to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, which are both U.S. territories. The refund has been in place since the early ’90s. The measure would cost taxpayers $192 million.
3. Income averaging for amounts received in connection with the Exxon Valdez litigation: The measure would allow the plaintiffs who won damages from Exxon Mobile for the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez to average the award over three years rather than treating it as income in a single year. The measure was backed by Alaska Rep. Don Young and would cost taxpayers $49 million.
4. Secure rural schools and community self-determination program: The program replaces revenue rural communities used to enjoy from the sale of federal forest land. The measure is sponsored by lawmakers from Oregon and Idaho. The program would cost taxpayers $3.3 billion.
5. Deduction of state and local sales taxes: The measure allows citizens who do not pay state income taxes to deduct the amount of sales tax they pay over a year from their federal income tax for two additional years. States that benefit include Texas, Nevada, Florida, Washington and Wyoming. The measure would cost taxpayers $3.3 billion.
6. Provisions related to film and television productions: In order to keep movie production in the U.S., production companies would be allowed to deduct the cost of producing the films from their taxes. Rep. Diane Watson, D-California, has been one of the program’s biggest supporters. The measure would cost taxpayers $478 million over 10 years.
7. Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products, wool research fund and wool duty refunds: The measure helps U.S. worsted wool fabric makers and clothing manufacturers. The bill extends provisions through 2014 or 2015 that were originally sponsored by Reps. Louise Slaughter, D-New York, and Melissa Bean, D-Illinois, in 2007. The measure would cost taxpayers $148 million.
8. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa: The measure would extend for two years provisions meant to help economic development in the U.S. territory of American Samoa. The measure would cost taxpayers $33 million.
9. Transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters: The measure would allow employers to provide benefits to employees who commute to work via bicycle, such as help purchasing and maintaining a bicycle. The measure would cost taxpayers $10 million.

Ok, so I don’t frequent YouTube super often, but I know there’s a lot of great stuff on there.  It’s a huge procrastination black hole just waiting to happen, so I generally avoid it.  I ended up on a co-workers blog and she had this posted.  It’s pretty hysterical.  Oh, and this isn’t really a political statement, just me sharing something amusing.  :-)

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4]

Today I got a phone call from a reporter/columnist (or their minions) at the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal – don’t I feel special?  Normally I wouldn’t take that kind of call and make up a nice excuse to get back to work, but I had a hunch it would be interesting, so I went for it.

Mostly the standard political questions – are you a registered voter, what party, did you vote in primaries, etc, etc.  Then the nice southern lady started asking about my opinions about different political candidates – whether they would be fit leaders, who you think would be the best for the job of president, what’s your current approval rating of President Bush (ha!  only asked if you approve or disapprove, how’s that for fishing for an article!), who do you think has the advantage on certain “issues”.  

But my favorite two questions came right smack in the middle of a bunch of other value judgements – if you could pick one person to go to dinner with who would it be? (names all current candidates, plus Clinton)  Hehe.  As if THAT’s a good measure of public interest and voter responsibility.  I think Obama would be the most interesting to talk with.  McCain would probably be a snooze-fest, and I’d probably get super annoyed with Hilary.

The other question that I found most interesting was – who do you think is most fit to lead this country….(and then some sort of jargon-y thing I can’t remember that was pretty generic).  I laughed and said, “Well isn’t that the question we’d all like the answer too!”  The lady laughed as well, and I said “I don’t know.”

Media polls are pretty hilarious – the questions are too generic and have very targeted answers.  The personal information they seek is obviously going to be used to establish categories of political support.  Case in point – she asked if I was a protestant or catholic or….(I answered before I heard the rest).  But the only subcategories were evangelical or fundamentalist.  Ummmmm, yeah.  I think that is just dumb.  The media is obviously fishing for an interesting article on evangelical support for so-and-so or such-and-such an issue.  It annoyed me.  And frankly, it just made me realize just how much the media wants to spin an issue.  Can’t someone be an evangelical pro-life democrat?? Or a catholic African-American independent that cares about national security?  What about a traditional Lutheran with republic leanings that’s not in favor of the war in Irag?  Nope.  Scandalous.  That just doesn’t fit into the pie chart as nicely.

Okay, so I’m sorta interested in politics, and I’ll state up front that I’m not registered with a party, I’m truly a moderate.  I’ve voted both democrat and republican at various elections, and I really hate having to “pick” a ballot.  That’s lame.

A friend posted a link to this article – it’s pretty interesting.  Having been on staff with InterVarsity for 3 years, I’ve encountered Christians who are very conservative, and those that are quite liberal, each with their own justifications and foundations.  I don’t have TV currently, so I can’t watch any part of the Democratic National Convention, so I’m stuck with online news or random tidbits.  This is one of those random tidbits, posted by a friend. 

It’s regarding the prayer offered by Donald Miller, the author of Blue Like Jazz, at the DNC.  If you don’t know the book, it’s sort of popular amongst young Christians and is especially connected to the emergent church (what does that mean anyways? i have no clue…)  I’m not sure who the author is, but here’s a little preview with some random quotes:

“The real question that is going unasked here is how is it a good thing if Christianity is so plastic as to be easily circumscribed within the architecture of either the Democratic or Republican parties? Why would the fact that Christians are no longer of the same mind about which political party to get in bed with be a good thing? Its as though Wallis and Miller are reveling in the fact that finally some of us Christians are different than the religious right and are able to express that difference by opposing them through the apparatus of the Democratic party. What is ultimately the point of rejoicing for Miller and Wallis is that Christians are finally dividing from one another over the causes they find important….”

“Evangelical identity, at least in the U.S. is so utterly determined by the American political imagination and the capitalist economy which grounds it, that it is unable to express or realize itself except through the political-economic architecture of America, regardless of what political subdivision it finds itself in…For Christian politics to be truly Christian they must be, at their very core, nonreactive. The peace of the city of God is in no way determined, constituted, or defined by the agonism of the earthly city.”

“Insofar as we allow the promisory imagination of the gospel of Christ to be circumscribed by the political logic of the earthly city we are failing to truly embody our theopolitical calling as the ekklesia of of the triune God. And in so failing we become simply another branded commodity to be bought, sold, and fetishized in the ubiquitous market of global captitalism. I fear that Donald Miller, by casting in his lot where he has may have done just that.”

You can check more out here: http://tinyurl.com/67ygmq

An interesting discussion.  The blog post is a bit long and most definitely wordy, but if you’re interested in this type of thing, it’s a worthy read.  I find it especially interesting after all my classes on religion and post-modern society, it reminds me of our conversations about the commodification of Jesus (remember all those WWJD? bracelets?  someone made oodles of money off that).

Ever since one of my previous posts about food, I’ve been doing a little research of my own.  I’ve looked up a few things on wikipedia, read some reviews on Amazon for a few different books, and even checked out a few from the Grinnell library (I can check out books for the full academic year!  I’m like a professor in hiding, a ninja professor!)

I found one book that’s been very interesting by Marion Nestle called ‘What to Eat.”  She’s a nutritionist that goes through every aisle of the grocery store and discusses different elements of each food – the merits of organic vs natural meat (and why they aren’t the same), the nutritional value of certain foods, origins of weird labeling practices, etc etc.  She takes away some of the guesswork of figuring portions and pricing out, since no company ever has the same portion size as another.  So far, I’ve learned A LOT.

She talks a lot about the USDA and FDA, and their links to trade associations and lobbyists, and the rather disappointing ways consumer health has been compromised for the sake of US agriculture (i.e. the bottom dollar).  At some points, its frustrating and down-right infuriating, especially when you think of safety hazards involving such things as mad cow disease or E Coli, or the idea that the USDA almost approved certified organic status to products where pesticides were used and sewage for watering.  Yum.  There’s also the mater of COOL – country of origin labeling.  Do you know where that chicken came from?  Probably not.  The apple?  Maybe…

In some ways, the author definitely has a bone to pick with various government agencies.  But, it’s understandable why – these agencies are not necessarily concerned with handing out unbiased health advice, especially if it compromises lucrative industries that hand them huge campaign gifts every year.  No wonder there is so much conflicting advice about food – half of it is paid for by the very trade association that produces the product!  They want to find any way to convince you to eat their food, and preferably more of it.

*sigh*  It’s disappointing, because where is a regular average person supposed to turn for advice on what foods to eat if such (cough) venerable government agencies such as the USDA and FDA can’t even whole heartedly tell people that large amounts of saturated fat and meat products cause high cholesterol and heart disease?  

I’d like to read her other book, Food Politics….we’ll see.  I’ve got a few others, one that studies differences in diet across cultures.  Now THAT should be interesting