Andy Borgmann's Blog

I am a Duke Basketball fan. I know, I know! Nobody likes Duke. Although, supposedly they have the most fans. I guess nobody knows where they are. My guess is they are probably somewhere in a blue lake of fire, with the blue devil, Coach Krzyzewski and Christian Laettner. Annnyways...any Duke fan knows we live and die by the three-point shot. And Obama's largest problem in getting to the White House is that he can't possiblity keep sinking all these threes...

Everybody knows Obama is a great speaker. The things I have heard him say are some of the most elegant and societally profound words spoken in my lifetime. But like Duke's ability to sink the three pointer, Barack has to continue that or else he's done for.

We saw this for the first time this past week when he commented that Americans are "bitter" and because of this they cling to religion and guns. I think what I resent the most about his comment isn't even the attack on religion, but it is that I am forced to agree for once with Hillary Clinton. These words are incredibly pretentious and elitist.

Now we all expect Bush to say stupid things. Heck, Bush even acknowledges that he says stupid things. And we are ok with that. We didn't elect him for his ability to speak and lead. We elected him because he aligned himself with the values of the majority of Americans.

Heck, even McCain can get away with calling his wife a cunt in front of the press because we don't like McCain for temper control, we like him because he is courageous and politically balanced.

Not Obama.

Obama we like because he inspires us by his words. When he fails to do that, it would be the same as President Bush encouraging Laura to have an abortion, or John McCain surrendering to the French, or Hillary not paying her health insurance premiums (oh wait she didn't).

Now I don't think this is what Hillary meant when she said Obama hasn't been vetted, but I think it applies.

There is no way for Obama to continue his speaking eloquence before someone in this cell-phone camera, YouTube world captures something worse. Unfortunately, Barack can't fall back on the "ohh I made a mistake" or "I misspoke" because he is Barack Obama and admitting a oral mishap takes away what we love about him.

Up until this point I was rooting for Barack. I really was. But that seems to be changing. First I blogged about his hypocrisy in giving charitably, and now this. The three point bricks keep coming, and I am afraid it won't be long before the time is running out, down by two, and Barack throws up one last attempt to win it all, only to hear the thud of the ball bouncing off the back of the rim.

I, single handedly, have figured out how to end world hunger. I wish I could say this revelation came while in deep prayer, but alas, it did not. It came when analyzing Obama's recently released taxes from 2000-2006. The answer to world poverty: everybody should run for President...

When a President releases his taxes, most of us are just curious what the leader of the free world makes. Not I. I go straight for the "Schedule A" and see how much they gave to charity. Seeing Obama's "Schedule A" intrigued me, so I went looking for as many of the presidential income tax returns as possible.

More than 20 years of Presidential Income Tax Returns + a conceited sense of superiority + Microsoft Excel = one fun afternoon for Andy Borgmann. You can view the result here.

The conclusion: George HW Bush and Bill Clinton were by far the most generous, each of them averaged giving over 30% of their income to charity. Ronald Reagan and would be President Barack Obama would be the least generous, averaging under 5%.

But before I judge Barack Obama too much, he at least made his taxes public when he didn't have to.¹ And lets be honest. Do we really think George HW Bush and Bill Clinton were that generous before their taxes were public?

In 2002, Barack Obama made $259,394. Andy Borgmann made $6,863. In 2002, Barack Obama gave $1,050. Andy Borgmann gave $822.67. In 2002, Barack Obama gave .4% of his income. Andy Borgmann gave 11.99%.

Amazingly, Barack upped his giving to $77,315 by 2005.²

Now I could take this many different ways. But I'll leave the critique of the hyprocsiy of a man who claims to want change the world for the oppressed but has such a piss poor record on giving to Allen Hunt this weekend.

My two favorite biblical narratives about giving are Matthew 6:3 and Luke 2:1-4.

Matt 6:3
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing

Luke 2:1-4
As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 3"I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.

While most within the church (including Pastors and "Giving Conferences") need to re-read Matthew 6:3 a bit more, thanks to the IRS, they don't really make that possible for the Presidential Candidates.

But giving isn't about the amount. It is about the percentage. Dropping $50 bucks in the offering plate or to Salvation Army might be incredibly generous according to Jesus. But if you dropped $5000 on QVC purchases in the same week...well...you are materialistic.

Likewise, you can give $500,000 and appear more generous than just about anyone, but if you make $10 million, you are in fact less generous than millions of Americans.

We are all blessed to different degrees. God's challenge for us is to give in accordance to what has been given to us. And those who have been given much, much more is expected.³ Now if only all of us would be given the most powerful job in the world, and consequently our taxes be made public, we would collectively give enough to make a difference.

Is it me or do I feel we are settling on the Presidential Candidates? I know I am not the only one:

I have said before, I am a Christ-centered Bible believer, usually Conservative, who believes big government is the worst thing that can happen to this country. With all that said, I consider Obama my current candidate. But then Stephen¹ got me thinking about write-ins and 1996...

In 1996 there was some serious rumblings about Colin Powell running against Bill Clinton. Man that would have been nice. But alas, Powell did not want to run, so we were stuck with Clinton, Lewinsky, and Bin Laden² oh my!

My 2008 conclusion: I have decided to write-in Colin Powell as my vote for President and I think he just might actually win!³

Why do I think he could win? Because he doesn't want the job...

The way I see it, to win the Presidential Election with three candidates you need 218 electoral votes. According to my math, that is 48,427,488 popular votes.⁴

I sincerely believe that to get 48 million people to do something, it would only take the right 7 or 8 people. In this case I think those 7 are Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and James Dobson.⁵

I created an Excel spreadsheet (which can be downloaded here for your own use) and here are the results: write-in Powell beats Obama 255 to 236.

So why would Powell make a better President than Obama and McCain?

He has a stellar international reputation. We are in a desperate need to fix our international image. It effects our economy, our safety, and the well-being of all human life. Our international image is a pro-life issue.

He argued against the Iraq War. Before it was cool to be against the Iraq War, Powell was against it. He argued against it with Rumsfeld and Bush in the room. And this isn't because he is a pussy like Sheehan and the Democrats. It's because he knew it wasn't the right thing to do, and it wouldn't make us any safer.

He argued for the Iraq War. Powell realizes it isn't about him. He was loyal to his "boss" - even when they disagreed. Since we are all the boss of the President, I appreciate someone who is loyal to his constituents and his country.

His nickname is the Reluctant Warrior. This is what I want in my President in this day and age. I don't want a Bush or McCain who is looking for a fight. But I also don't want a pussy like Obama or Clinton who won't stand up when we need it. Powell was a General in the US Army. He knows when he needs to fight. And he knows when he doesn't.

Bi-Partisian Reputation. We need it. Americans care less and less about political parties. We need candidates who agree.

Conservative Spending. I don't know why I think this, but Powell strikes me as a guy who can control spending. He might not back the FairTax, but he seems like he wouldn't spend like Bush and Clinton.

He's one of the smartest men in politics. Usually intelligence and politics is an oxymoron. Not with Powell.

He's relatable. If intelligence and politics are oxymorons; relatability and intelligence are definitely an oxymoron. Powell's got both. He is Kerry and Bush mixed in one.

So how do we do this?

Simple. The 7 people above put their full support behind him. They encourage the people they influence (which has got to be above 48 million) to write him in as President and that doing so isn't throwing away their vote.

We then setup a website (say Powell08.com) and ask people to register their commitment to vote for Powell. By November, there will be enough commitments that people will realize they aren't throwing away their vote by writing-in Powell and we will have the first unofficial, three candidate race.

So what if he doesn't take the job?

Fine. It is his choice. But at least we will send a message to all politicians that we are not happy (which we aren't). I am not sure constitutionally speaking how it would be settled, but I'll let the courts figure that one out.

But think what happens if he does take it. He will have no special interests because nobody donated to his campaign. He won't worry about reelection because he didn't want it in the first place. He will be free to do what he does best: get things done in a fair and intelligent manner.

So the balls in your court 7. Are you going to be like Colbert above and throw in the towel and just reluctantly vote for McCain? Or are you going man up and do something revolutionary. They say talk radio has no influence anymore, prove them wrong in a way they can't dispute.

I am currently sitting in 13D on a US Airways flight bound for Phoenix. If I were to guess, we are at 36,000 ft, right over Birmingham. Allen's asleep next to me. My thoughts drift to our conversation this weekend (and Monday in Fresno) on the radio show. If you missed it, I said that if it comes down to McCain and Obama, I am voting for Obama...

Fresno


WSB

I am a Christ-centered Bible believer, usually Conservative, who believes big government is the worst thing that can happen to this country. So why in the hell would I vote for Obama? Good question...

I think to answer this question I must respond to why I wouldn't vote for Obama.

Issue #1: Abortion. I am pro-life. I am about as pro-life as they come. I support repealing Roe v. Wade. I also support taking care of the poor, especially children. I have stated it a million times, but being pro-life is more than just anti-abortion. But here is my rub Republicans. You have had 20 of the last 28 years in office. Many of those were when you controlled both the White House and Congress. NOTHING has happened on Roe v. Wade. And even if you did do something (unlikely), it just goes back to the States. So I am sick and tired of abortion as the wedge issue and I for one will no longer allow it to dictate my voting. So even though Obama is Pro-Choice, I am not ruling him out.

Issue #2: Taxes. I hate to break it to America, but the President isn't suppose to have anything to do with taxes besides approve or veto. Constitutionally speaking, it is Congress' job to propose and set the budget. My disdain for the past 12 years of Congress should not be minimized. You have done a worse job than Carter - and I mean that! You have essentially become a worthless body that gets nothing done and passes all responsibility to the President. You undermine the very nature of Check and Balances, and then just blame the President when all goes to crap. So I have two motives in voting for Obama. One, I don't think he'll do much to raise taxes because Congress won't let him. But IF he does successfully do that, I think it will finally be the wakeup call to America to kick Congress in the pants to regain their true Constitutional authority.

Issue #3: Health care. Universal health care is the absolute worst idea this country is facing. We have the best Doctor's in the world and we need to keep it that way. Inversely, the Fair Tax is probably one of the best ideas available to this country. Neither will EVER pass. No matter what a President has to say, Congress, and the American people, will never allow for Universal Health care (or the Fair Tax). Obama likes it. I don't. It won't pass. Doesn't rule him out.

Issue #4: Government size. I hate big government. I hate it so much I think the seatbelt law is unconstitutional and should be revoked immediately. My philosophy is that the government has two jobs: 1.) protect us from others and 2.) do only that which it solely can do (i.e. road building, education, etc...). So why would I vote for a man who is a borderline socialist? First of all, the government has increased in size ever since FDR, mainly thanks to Republicans (including Bush). So Republicans, you aren't any better. Second, I am again charging Congress to find their collective balls and take control of this issue. It is Congress' job to keep government small.

So I have provided four major issues I disagree with Obama. Why am I still voting for him? Because of cheerleading. That's right! Cheerleading...

The largest threat this country currently faces is from a radical Islam that wants America wiped off the face of the earth and a global image that is increasingly anti-American. We are in a worse PR situation than Brittney forgetting her panties.

But what America fails to realize is that this is not the Cold War. This is not World War II. We are not fighting a war against an enemy we have/had formal relations with. Or an enemy that has borders. We aren't fighting a war that cannot be won by brute force. We are fighting a PR war. So America needs to put their panties back on and get out there, and voting for Barack is the first step.

America is the greatest country in the world. But we have become like that gorgeous girl in high school who thinks she is fat and ugly, and nobody likes that girl even though everybody wants to sleep with her. Everybody wants to "sleep" with America, but nobody likes it (except for maybe Australia). And what is worse, Americans don't even like it. We have become ashamed to be Americans. This seems like a minimal concern, but it has large implications for our domestic safety, our international image, and our economy.

Barack seems to be someone who remembers the greatness of this country and more importantly inspires others to see the greatness. Even though he makes JFK look like a Conservative, he does share the JFK-esque of inspiration. When Kennedy said we were going to put someone on the moon, he meant it, and we did it. When Barack says America is great and change is coming, I believe it, and I want it. He seems to stick up for what is right and his intentions are good, even if I don't agree with some of his methods.

The election is 9 months away. I might change my mind. There is still a lot to be said. But for now, I am going to buy America some panties and support Barack Obama.

Today is Super Tuesday! Frankly, I don't see anything super about it. Although for the first time in about a month I got a wonderful night's sleep. After waking up, I went to my precinct and voted for Mike Huckabee. I debated voting the Democrat ticket, but I realized there is no way Obama is going to lose Georgia, and Huckabee needs my vote more than Obama. Once in front of the voting machine, it literally took me 15 seconds to do everything I needed to do to cast my ballot.

I left the precinct, swung by Taco Bell, and then went to Dick's Sporting Goods. Why? Senior year of high school, my ex-girlfriend (and it might have even been two ex-girlfriends) stole the tennis racket out of my car (which I always kept unlocked). I blamed my sister for losing it for years. It wasn't until Sophomore year of college when I was hanging out with this ex-girlfriend that she finally came clean. We laughed. It also wasn't until today that I went and bought a replacement.

The funny thing was, I stood in front of the rackets for 5 whole minutes trying to make my decision - that is 20x longer than it took me to cast my ballot for the next future leader of the world.

I have written a couple times recently on how stressful life has been. We have been adding stations, adding employees, adding sponsorships, adding marketing campaigns, adding luncheons, and increasing production elements. All this means added work and stress. Yesterday I left work because I seriously felt like I was having a heart attack. The only saving grace is that I can sleep in until whenever I naturally wake up, but even that is getting infringed on because of new morning meetings. This brings me to tennis...

I love racket sports. I played a lot of Tennis in high school. And then in college I switched to Racquetball. I tell you, there is nothing more stress relieving than beating around some blue balls as hard as you possible can (that's for you Kyle).

The past couple of months I have realized that the increase in stress and the decrease in physical activity is going to be disastrous if I don't change anything. I am still skinny as ever, so I "look" healthy. But I have to admit I feel like crap. I am hoping Tennis changes that.

So what does this have to do with politics? As I was driving home from Dick's I began to ponder, "in 4 years, which decision will make a bigger difference in my life?" According to the time comparison, the tennis racket will be 20x more important in my life.

My money is on the racket.

I would like to thank the American Family Association for reminding me why, as a Bible-believing, Evangelical Christian, I hate Christian political organizations. Why? It only took one look at their 2008 Official Voter Guide. I seriously laughed when I saw it.

First off. It should be stated a 501(c)3 organization is not allowed to endorse a political candidate. The way around it is to release a voter guide about the "issues" and assume that those who align with your organization will align with the person with the most yes-es. You know the people at AFA wish Huckabee's name started with an "F" just so they could have put him in front of Guiliani (although then they probably wouldn't support him because his name would be a swear word and we all know the Bible talks A LOT about swearing {sarcasm} ).

So what did I do? The only responsible Christian thing to do: I created my own version of an official AFA (only this time AFA = "Andy's Faith Awareness") 2008 Voter Guide to make fun of them. I included a Jesus column (as well as a column for me and the AFA as well). I added eight "faith based" issues the AFA should have mentioned. And I also assigned a numerical value to the AFA, Jesus, and Andy column on a scale of 1 to 10 on how important that would be to each "candidate". Take a look.

Click for a larger version (Or Download the PDF to print out and give to friends )

Now admittedly, I do not get to speak for Jesus. I will acknowledge this. I wish the AFA would. But given my extensive reading of scripture, the above 1-10 scale resembles how I interpret a modern-day Jesus would rank the political issues. Please also note, that I do not always "agree" with Jesus. Why? It isn't because I am right and Jesus is wrong; but because I at least have the integrity to recognize that what I think about our current American socio/political culture is potentially wrong.

What I would rather point out is the difference between AFA and Jesus. I hate to break it to you, but Jesus could careless about gun laws and taxes. Remember his answer about paying taxes to Caesar? The ambivalence was astonishing. Don't get me wrong, I want small government. I want low taxes. But to say that low taxes is a "faith" issue is irresponsible at best.

But now lets look at what Jesus did talk about more than just about any other topic: taking care of the poor? Ohh but wait, it isn't on the list. Ohh so gun laws and taxes make the list, but taking care of the poor somehow is not a family value?

Let's talk about pro-life. Sure we all know Jesus is against abortions, but what about the death penalty? What about health care? I hate to break it to you, but being pro-life is more than being anti-abortion.

But then I get the predictable response from my friend when I object and she states:

Are you going to mention in your blog that it is the church’s responsibility to take care of the poor (not the government)?

Now I don't blame her for this comment. Why? Because it is quite the popular assumption within the faith community. But I have to call BS. That mindset is fine, but you don't get your cake and eat it too. If you are going to scream at the top of your lungs for traditional marriage and abortion, then you have stated that your intentions are to yield the "churches" role, at least in part, to the government. If you want to lobby the government for pro-life laws, then you better be willing to lobby the government for poverty laws as well.

So why does this matter? Well you will notice that I put "?" marks under the candidates column for the issues I created. When I originally went to do this I was going to include where I thought the candidates stood on these issue. But then I realized that was the wrong approach. The AFA (and other's like it) have a lot of authority in a very powerful constituency. Millions of people look to them for political guidance. But if they turn non-faith issues into faith issues (i.e. gun laws), and forget to mention issues that are faith issues (i.e. poverty laws), then they are doing a huge disservice to the American political arena, and more importantly the body of Christ.

As a Christian political group, we must recognize that we are following Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove and Fox News closer than we are following Jesus - and that is a horrendous offense. As Barack Obama said at a recent Sojourners event in Atlanta, GA, "before we get carried away, let's read our Bibles now. Folks haven't been reading their Bibles."

I will close with this. Before I get labeled a helpless liberal, I want to state sincerely I have not decided who I am voting for. The way I look at it, I am either voting for Huckabee or Obama. The point is, I would vote for each of them because of what my faith tells me is important. Neither Huckabee or Obama or Guiliani or Edwards are Jesus Christ. Neither one of them is right on every issue. The AFA can continue to follow Coulter and Hannity and Limbaugh and Rove, but for me, I will follow Christ.

Last night Allen posed the question, "who would Jesus vote for?" Like only the Allen Hunt Show can, we received responses from across the political spectrum. At one point, I got on the air and said that if elections were held today I would probably vote for Huckabee (if he were in it) or Obama (probably who I am going to vote for).

I like Huckabee. He gets a bad wrap because of his stance on science (which I disagree with) and comments about people with AIDS made back in the 80s (who wasn't ignorant about AIDS in the 80s...sheesh, forgive the dude). But in all seriousness, I think Huckabee is incredibly compassionate to the poor and recognizes that being Pro-Life is more than just being Anti-Abortion. It means taking care of the poor and having a social responsibility.

But that really isn't the point of this entry. I came across CNN's "Millionaires-In-Chief" article this morning and I think I have a modified response, but the same conclusion. If Huckabee isn't in the picture, I am voting for Obama.

Here's the thrust of the information:

A couple of things stand out to me big time.

1.) Fred Thompson (and Ron Paul) are the ones who are held by the true "Fiscal conservatives" as "their guy." But Fred's info here is alarming. He is the only one who's net worth is less than that of his 2006 income. How is he going to be a federally fiscal conservative if he is personally fiscally inept.

2.) Mitt Romney seems to have more money than god (good thing since he is Mormon who believe they will one day become a god). The other interesting thing about the article is that until he ran for President, he owned stocks in casinos (real family friendly) and companies doing business with Iran (real "pro-American" there).

3.) John-"I-am-taking-care-of-the-poor"-Edwards seems to have built a nice nest egg for himself there. Making money is not wrong. Hoarding money is. I'll respect his stance on the poor when his net worth is significantly less because he gave it away to help those who in poverty. Either that, or provide he IRS return showing that he gave ridiculous amounts of money away.

4.) Barack. Barack is quite poor - relatively speaking of course. Only person who didn't make over 1 million in 2006.

Now Barack's political poverty isn't why I would vote for him. Nor is it why I think Jesus would vote for him. But I think it shows why people want to vote for him. I said last night on air that voting for Barack was like voting for the "anti-Politics" vote. He's different. He gives politics and the Presidency a chance. I think most of us wanting to vote for Barack have no clue if he will actually be a good President. What we do feel like we know is that no other legitimate candidate will be. Thus the only shot we have at having a good President is by voting for Barack.

Does this mean Jesus would vote for Barack. No. I am sort of with Allen in believing that Jesus probably wouldn't vote. But it means that as a Bible-believing, somewhat-conservative, Christian, I am not counting the dude out just because he is pro-choice (even though I sort of want to just to stab that at Oprah).

Sidenote: I'll blog some other time why even though I am pro-life, I have no quarrel with voting for Barack (and you can thank Bush for this one).

It's 5:12 am "locally" (locally here is defined as 35,000 feet over Whitehorse, Canada). It is now the second time this day (April 14th) I have experienced 5 am. Traveling over the International Date line is weird. I actually will arrive in Chicago before I took off in Japan. Take that Back to the Future. I am just sitting down after an hour conversation with a Marine named Mark, who apparently is also super claustrophobic on planes like I am and decided to stand back with the flight attendants for an hour.

Mark was reading a book on Philosophy when I first started talking to him, and I later found out he had served in Iraq twice and Afghanistan once. We talked about everything from the historical context of the problems in the Middle East, to traveling the world, to our homes, and what we want to do with the rest of our life. It was a good hour.

One thing I brought up with him was an observation I had made about Japan while there: I wish Europe was more like Japan. I loved Japan. These are words I never thought I'd say. In fact, in all my extreme desire to travel, traveling to the Far East never really interest me. This changed on this trip. I could go many different routes with this, but I am going to stick with one.

About 51 years ago, the USA dropped two Atomic bombs on Japan. They were our enemy, and we were in a bitter, bloody fight and we decided this was the best course of action to save lives. You would think there was some modern day resentment by the Japanese, but there was none. Contrast to Europe, who would all be speaking German right now if it weren't for our help, and they hate our guts. So let me get this straight: here we have a country where we killed innocent men, women, and children, and they were the most friendly, warm, "American" place I have been to (except Israel was more "American, but that's another story).

I just don't get it. Transition to a conversation between Hoey (APU student) and a part-Japanese kid on the trip whose Grandfather fought against America in WW2. He proceeds to tell us that his Grandfather even admits it was good for America to use the A-Bomb as it probably saved Japanese lives. Hoey proceeds to tell him that it was/is never ok for us to do something like this and I step back and think: man this is strange.

We have built so much "white/American guilt" that we hate ourselves more than those we wronged do. Why? Why can't we recognize that if we have been forgiven and the Japanese have moved on, why can't we? Better yet, why can't anyone but the Japanese recognize that America is not perfect, but that we are a good country, trying to do good in the world.

America has done some historically awful stuff. But we have also done some great things (long before Bono & Jolie ever stepped on to the scene). So why are we hated? Why are we ashamed sometimes of our international presence? Why when the countries in which we "affect" are better off then if left alone, do we get accused of imperalization?

Historically speaking, most of what is turbulent in the Middle East is Europe's fault. Whether it was the English drawing country lines without consideration of indigenous people & tribes, or German's forced exile of the Jews back to the Middle East, the problems we are trying to rectify were created by Europe. So it ends now. I've said all along Iraq will be a better place for Iraqis because of our involvement, and I won't feel guilty about that. Let's just hope the Iraqis are more like their Asian counterparts and less like Europe.


You can listen to similar thoughts I shared on our radio show this weekend by pushing the play button above. The entire show can be found at http://www.allenhuntshow.com/Listen/189/

I am three hours into a fourteen hour flight from Chicago to Tokyo. According to the personal TV screen I have in front of me, I am currently at 34,000 feet near Fort McMurray, Canada. Three minutes ago, on that same screen, I just got done watching the movie Blood Diamonds, and I think I have found yet another reason why I won’t be getting married.

Unlike other posts, this reason isn’t because of my observations of the opposite sex. No, I think this new reason, is because I am adding another trait to Andy Borgmann that I believe most women are going to decide is not very appealing. I don’t think I can ever buy a diamond.

If you haven’t seen the movie, you need to. The basic summary is it is about how the insatiable Western demand for diamonds (and capitalistic greed) is leading to civil war in many Middle-African countries. The best line in the movie (which I might be botching up) is when in response to being accused as part of the problem because she too probably dreams of a fairy tale wedding, a female reporter says, "Most girls wouldn’t want a diamond if they knew it cost someone else’s hand." I think that is an appropriate statement.

There was another great line in the movie. An African tribal man said, "Let’s hope they don’t find oil here, because then we will be in real trouble." Bam, another slap in my Western, Capitalistic face; especially since I know how much fuel this flight I am on is consuming. But what I think separates oil from diamonds is this: oil’s conflict is based on the fact oil is a commodity (heck it’s cheaper than bottled water). Diamonds conflict are based on the fact they are a luxury. Eventually, I think oil will bring stability to the region of the Middle East (I know, ya’ll think I am crazy). Diamonds will never do this. Diamonds are a luxury item, and the demand will always be priced that way, which means it will always be highly lucrative, and therefore, conflict stricken.

At the end of the movie it challenges everyone to buy "conflict-free" diamonds. But even conflict free diamonds benefit from the insatiable materialism that is associated with "conflict-ridden" diamonds. In the end, at Tiffany’s or Zales, they are all the same.

So as I sit in my premium economy seat aboard United #881, I am fighting back tears (after all, I don’t want the attractive girl next to me to think I am a Nancy boy). But then again, I guess it doesn’t matter because she would never be attracted to a guy who probably won’t buy her a diamond.

Recently, three very large instances of hypocrisy were brought to the attention of the citizens of America.

First you have Al Gore winning an Oscar for his movie about Global Warming, but then reports come out that say his pool house uses $500 in natural gas a month (which is more than I spend all year), and his main house uses more electricity in a year than most people do in a month. In addition to that, he flies around in a private jet, and since we all know I am an aviation expert, let me tell you that his private jet uses more fuel in one round trip than most people do all year in their cars (example: one-way from Washington D.C. to San Francisco would burn 3,260 gallons of fuel).

Then you have John Edwards crying, in LBJ fashion, "war on poverty." Yet, this guy lives in the biggest house in his entire county.

And thirdly, you have Ted Haggard. A Christian evangelical leader who on many occasions has spoken out on the immorality of sexual impurity, especially homosexuality, but then it was found out that he himself visited homosexual prostitutes.

Now here is what I am thankful for out of all this: we can finally have a discussion on the lack of value hypocrisy has in relation to an issue.

Lets start with global warming. Now my verdict is still out on global warming. But regarding my global warming doubts, I sort of take a Pascal's Wager approach to the issue (which I will discuss more another day). But here's the issue for today: regardless of Al Gore's personal hypocrisy, it doesn't change the issue at all. Global warming is either true or it isn't. Al Gore's hypocrisy might show a lack of virtue in his character, but it doesn't change the argument. The same is true for John Edwards. The war on poverty is either a good cause or it isn't (it is). But John Edwards living in the biggest house, all while crying we should help the poor, really doesn't change the argument. Same goes for Ted Haggard (and this is what is really going to set people off). Sexual sin is either wrong or it isn't (it is). Ted Haggard's actions show he isn't a man of integrity, but it shouldn't hurt the moral stance.

I often use a financial planner as an example when talking about hypocrisy. Now lets say I visit one and she tells me I need to stay out of debt (except for a mortgage), save 8% a year for retirement starting at age 22, and save another 4% a year in general savings. I later find out through the grapevine that she herself has $80,000 of consumer debt, and doesn't save for retirement. Now, I could react and say, what an idiot, I am not listening to anything she said. But the only person this would be hurting is me because while she is a hypocrite, her advice is still valid.

I fully admit I am a hypocrite. Just reading this blog will tell you that (particularly the porn blogs). But this doesn't mean that my moral stance on this issue is wrong, it just means that I lack integrity. And while I strive and try so freaking hard sometimes to live up to it, sometimes, I fall short.

What I am thankful for is God. He has established a moral law that is absolute. He (not us) has determined what is and isn't morally correct. And our actions do not change what is and is not true. But yet He tells those who believe in Him to strive to their very best to live up to this. But He, in His infinite love and wisdom, knows full well we aren't going to live up to it. So He chooses to forgive us when we ask Him to. This doesn't excuse our actions. And it sure as heck doesn't give us an excuse to be a hypocrite. But I am definitely grateful for that grace; and so should Gore, Edwards and Haggard.

(P.S. I am really not trying to rip on the democratic party with this post. As I have posted before, I definitely don't think being a Christian means you are by default a republican).