Bjcorbin's Blog

There once was a little girl named Angie, whose parents divorced when she was three. She lived with her mother most of the time, though on holidays and weekends, she’d bounce between her mother (Monica) and her father (Ted). Both parents made a place for her in their homes and all of her needs were cared for; but as Angie got older, she found that wasn’t really enough for her. Though both of her parents lived on a tight budget, she developed a taste for the finer things in life and somehow rationalized that she was entitled to them. Even at a young age, she recognized that the best way to get what she wanted was to turn one parent against the other and to stir up their insecurities, competitiveness, guilt, fear, pride… She found that when they got focused on each other, they’d tend to lose sight of her and her agenda.

*

Like the time when she was eight and her mom told her to turn off her favorite show because it was bedtime. She simply told her mom that her father had said that when she turned twelve, she could choose to live with him and that then she wouldn’t have such an early bedtime. This of course infuriated Monica, who immediately went into the bedroom to call Ted. Angie smiled as she heard her mother’s muffled yelling through the door, while she finished watching her show.

*

A couple of years later, when she was ten and wanted a cell-phone, both parents told her that she didn’t need a phone and that they really couldn’t afford it. So one day she told her father that Monica had said that he’d better not get her a cell-phone or that she would take it away. This stirred Ted’s anger; after all, who was Monica to tell him what he could and couldn’t do. That very night he took Angie to get a phone and he sneered as they got in the car saying, “I dare your mom to take this away from you!” Angie just sat quietly, beaming and nodding in agreement.

*

Then there was the time, when she was fourteen and money was missing from her mother’s dresser drawer. Monica knew it had to have been Angie, but when she confronted her, she said that her father had told her that his child support checks should be going directly to her and that she should just go get “her money” from her mother’s drawer. Again, Monica flew into a rage and called Ted immediately. Despite his vehement denials, she refused to believe anything he said. After hanging up on him, she cried on Angie’s shoulder, telling her how rotten Ted had always been to her. Angie spent the rest of the evening consoling her mother and no mention of the money was ever made again.

*

There are a thousand other examples I could give, but you get the idea. Chances are that you know a family like this; in fact, you may even be a family like this. But if you are a friend of Ted and/or Monica, you probably just want to shake them and say, “Don’t you see what Angie’s doing to you to – don’t let her distract you from what she’s doing.” If you can relate to that, then you can probably understand how it feels to watch my Republican/Conservative/Right Winged friends, neighbors and family, battling with my Democrat/Liberal/Left Winged friends, neighbors and family, over all things political. The polarization of the American public during the last three presidential election cycles has reached epic proportions, with a steady stream of anger and accusation raging through every conceivable forum (e.g. Facebook, the editorial page, the blogosphere…). As a person who’s never been willing to get into bed with either, I will say that these folks are like Ted and Monica in this story; and our elected officials have become like little Angie.

*

The reality is that our elected government officials have steadily leveraged their position over the last few decades so that it has become very lucrative to be in “public service” and sadly, their votes are too often reserved for the highest bidder. Those bidders are generally driven by wealthy lobbyist groups, whose voice seems to resonate much louder than that of the general public. As the state of the average family in America continues to steadily decline, our elected officials have become wonderfully insulated from the impact of their own decisions. They will not suffer the affects of bankrupting the Social Security system, or driving the Medicare program into the ground, or from the huge budget deficits that most states are now facing; nor will they have to worry about how the health care system weathers their efforts to reform it. They have become like a large company of high priced consultants, who produce little more than rhetorical gains; and yet if they were evaluated in the same way a private sector company is, we’d have to admit that this organization is highly inefficient, top heavy, over priced, unproductive, unreliable and severely over-budget. In many ways they are like a brokerage firm, who we’ve entrusted to invest our hard earned (tax) dollars; but given their performance would anyone seriously invest with such a company. Yet in spite of their blatant manipulation of the process and their obvious failure to produce worthwhile results, they seem immune from genuine accountability. Just like little Angie in the story, they’ve found that all they need to do is stir up some dialogue between the left and right; and in the ensuing chaos their indiscretions and inefficiencies are soon forgotten.

*

If we could see ourselves in this little analogy, we would also be able to see that Ted and Monica need to quit taking the bait. Its past time for them to stop blaming each other for what Angie is willfully initiating. If by some amazing stroke of foresight they could catch the wisdom of setting aside their differences long enough to deal with this child, she would have no choice but to change her tactic. If they’re not able to grasp that vision, it’s likely that they’ll one day be raising their grandkids, paying off Angie’s student loans and blaming each other for all their misery.

*

America has always been made up of a diverse mix of viewpoints, so the fact that we don’t all agree on what is best is nothing new. The problem comes when our system of government becomes disconnected from the people it is supposed to represent and is allowed to run without any real accountability. As near as I can tell, the checking and savings accounts are dry and little Angie has her parent’s credit cards at the mall. Ted and Monica can get on the phone (or Facebook, or on their blog…) and blame each other, or they can go after this spoiled child.  If they choose the former, they just need to remember that when the bills come, they won’t be addressed to Angie.

Read Full Post »

Preface – I have never felt sufficiently impressed or represented enough by either political party (i.e. Republican or Democratic) to affiliate with them.  Given what I’ve witnessed in the last several years, it seems doubtful that I ever will.

*

Yesterday’s (03/21/2010) “historic” vote on the Health Care reform bill was no doubt a pinnacle in what is fast becoming an unprecedented chapter in American politics. Never has such a sweeping change to the fundamental role of government, in deference to the people, been set in motion with so little forethought and with so little actual agreement among the people and the government officials who were purportedly elected to represent them. Regardless of where a person might stand on the issue of Health Care reform, the handling of this legislation ought to alarm every American.

*

Our government was constructed with a built-in system of checks and balances to ensure that no one branch of the government could get in a position to leverage the others, or more importantly, to leverage the people themselves. By all appearances, that system was successfully circumvented yesterday. This comes on the heels of a season of unabashed political pandering, as the Executive branch cajoled, coerced and flat out bribed members of the Legislative branch, until they had just enough votes to ram-rod this measure through, under provisions never intended for this type of legislation. For those who would argue that the ends somehow justify the means, I would suggest a quick study of world history. Power corrupts and a government that knows it can successfully leverage the people will struggle to resist that temptation.

*

If this Health Care reform bill is a genuine, well conceived piece of legislation, then why weren’t experts from the Health Care system more integrally involved in its construction; why couldn’t there have been more open debate and congressional hearings on its actual provisions (as opposed to the constant political rhetoric that never really touched on the substance of the bill); why did so much of this process have to happen behind closed doors; why was the bill never really solidified or opened to public scrutiny before it was rushed to a vote; why did so many members of the legislature have to get special provisions (i.e. be bribed) to vote for it and why was it necessary to pass it without a clear majority?

*

It’s not clear whether this bill will actually improve the quality of health care for those who are currently uninsured or how it will impact those who currently have insurance.  Those who would claim to know otherwise are at the very least deceiving themselves.  What is clear is that our government is about to get bigger and more involved in our day to day affairs. Anyone who deals with our government on a regular basis will likely shudder at that thought. We also know that we will pay more in taxes, because despite all of the political double talk, our government only has one real source for income. I believe that another conclusion we can draw from all of this is that we now have a government who feels justified in ignoring the voice of people to achieve their own political ends. As House Democrats sang, “Yes We Can!” and patted themselves on the back yesterday, I can say that it was truly “historic”.

Read Full Post »

I’ve tried hard to resist the urge to write one of these, as I’ve recently seen so many others share their opinions under this same title. Unfortunately, none of those articles really resonated with me and so here I go. Before I start, let me say that I possess absolutely no credentials that should cause anyone to accept my opinion above their own; I’m simply appealing to what I consider to be “common sense”, which assumes that there is such a thing. Instead of trying to weave together an epic speech (which would undoubtedly take more time than I have to spend on this), I’m just going to throw out some bullets, which are the literary equivalent of a sound bite.

• Finger pointing and rhetoric aren’t going to solve the issues that face our nation. While the politicians continue to offer simple solutions to complex problems, we as a country are wasting precious time and resources on programs that have no hope of improving things in the long term. If the problems were that easy to resolve, someone else would have already taken care of them. The issues are layered and interwoven; how you address one will affect the others. For instance, adopting tougher environmental standards in the US, will affect the ability of American companies to compete in a global marketplace (where other countries may have no such standards). That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it, but it does mean that we must undertake such changes with a clear understanding of the overall impact and a plan to handle the consequences Solving these problems will be much more like solving a “Rubik’s Cube” than winning a game of Tic-Tac-Toe.
• Health Care reform is not the most pressing issue facing our nation. The “Health Care Crisis” as it has been dubbed in political circles has been a highly effective tool used to distract the people from the most pressing issues of the day. The truth is that even uninsured people in America have some access to health care and while their situation does warrant attention, America’s economic crisis threatens to impact a far greater number of people. The collapse of the”Consumer Based Economy” constitutes much more than a simple cyclic downturn that will eventually work itself out. The government (& the media) seems to think that if they can just convince the American people that the economy is on the way back up, that we’ll somehow spend our way to economic recovery. This of course ignores the obvious, which is that people without jobs or homes, are in no position to borrow or spend money. Until America finds a way to legitimately improve its position in the global marketplace, our economy is going to struggle.
• Merely creating “jobs” isn’t going to fix the problem. Another word game that is played in political circles centers on the idea of creating jobs. First of all, it’s not merely jobs that people need. They need careers or vocations. Car loans are normally four to five years, mortgages are twenty to thirty years, paying for college can be even worse; so funding some highway project, that employees me to wave a flag for six months, doesn’t exactly meet my long term needs. History would indicate that the government isn’t the entity that is best suited for job creation; so maybe the “job creation” initiatives need to be more focused on getting American industry back on its feet and competitive in the world marketplace. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.
• Bi-partisanship is destroying our government process. At the end of the last administration, it was clear that the Republicans had failed to chart a course for this country that inspired confidence in the majority of Americans. After a year of the Democrat’s “super majority”, it’s clear that they have no such course either. I sense that most Americans are growing sick of both of these parties and that they are tired of choosing between the lesser of evils. I believe that the majority of Americans don’t agree with either the far left or the far right; and that they’re weary of being limited to those two options. If the mid-term elections go as predicted, we’re simply headed back to the same gridlock we’ve faced for almost two decades. Though a third party might help, three completely new parties would be even better.
• The members of Congress seem to have lost sight of the fact that they’re supposed to be representing the people and not working for the President. Nothing has demonstrated this more clearly than the health care reform debate. Despite the fact that the polls and the feedback from the “Town Hall Meetings” overwhelmingly suggest that the majority of Americans have some serious reservations about the proposed bills, Congress has doggedly pursued the passage of them in order to please the president. It now appears that the American people are poised to remind their government officials who they work for, when the next election cycle comes around.
• This isn’t the Health Care Reform the American people asked for. The problem is that too many American’s can’t afford the high price of Health Insurance and/or medical treatment. A solution that does nothing to regulate those skyrocketing costs, that takes away benefits from people who already have them, that places more financial burden on already struggling employers and that puts the government more in control of our day to day lives, is no solution at all. A real solution is going to take more time, cooperation and innovation than that.
• There is no place for a “Czar” in a democratic government. Our government was built upon a system of checks and balances, which were put in place to avoid any one person from circumventing the system. Slowly, but intently, we are now creating ways to bypass those checks and balances. History tells us that we will eventually rue the day that we allowed such a thing to happen.

I could go on, but I won’t. In the final analysis, I’m tired of politicians who seem eager to assign blame for our problems, but who don’t seem to have any innovative ideas about how to fix them; and who seem unwilling to work constructively with anyone of a differing point of view. Our government officials were supposed to be “public servants”, but over the last few decades they’ve managed to become more like trust fund babies, who we’ll be supporting for the rest of their lives. The “American Dream” began as a dream of having the opportunity to prosper; but over time it has eroded into some vague notion that we are somehow entitled to be prosperous, simply because we are American’s. I believe that unless something changes soon, we will once again be dreaming of the opportunity to prosper. (Bryan Corbin)

Read Full Post »

            People and nations are often perceived by how they respond in times of crisis.  Many times such a crisis is viewed as a “defining moment”; a time when one’s true character is revealed.  In the Western world, arguably no country is more synonymous with a lack of loyalty and fortitude in times of crisis than France.  On numerous occasions in the last century the French have failed to stand with or for their neighbors or allies in a time of crisis.  This perception has become so prevalent that it has extended beyond the nation of France, to the French people.  In many cases, dubious characteristics such as cowardice, self indulgence, infidelity and narcissism, have come to be closely identified with the French.  This was not always the case: during the mid to late 1700’s there seemed to be somewhat of a kindred spirit amongst the colonists in America and the people of France; as they both struggled to redefine their national destinies.  While their pre-revolutionary struggles were very similar, their post-revolutionary paths would become very different.

            Both the American and French Revolutions occurred late in the 1700’s and in both cases the people were revolting against what they felt was the oppressive rule of their King.  While the American Colonists didn’t necessarily seek to remove the King from the throne, they did seek to break away from his rule.  Both revolutions were bitter and costly; and in both cases the power of the oppressive monarchy was usurped.  Given these similarities it wouldn’t seem unreasonable to expect that the history that followed would share some marked parallels, but in fact these countries seemed to take almost completely divergent paths.  To understand the reasons for this, one must look into the ideologies that fueled the people who fought these revolutions.

            Many of the Colonists, who risked everything to settle in America, came because they wanted to be free from the religious persecution that they had faced in their homelands.  While there were diverse groups, who settled in various different regions of the country, they were largely unified by their decidedly “Christian” worldview.  Though these groups may not have agreed on the meaning of every biblical doctrine, few would have argued that “The Bible” was their authoritative guide.  Most of these colonists were willing to remain loyal to the king, so it cannot truly be said that it was religious persecution that fueled the revolution, but this commonality in the view of the colonists played a significant role in the republic that would later be formed.  Persecution in other forms, such as unfair taxation, proved to be the spark needed to ignite the revolution and to spur the birth of a new nation.

            The French also faced persecution from their monarchy, but their worldview was vastly different from that of the American Colonists.  Noted philosophers of the day, such as Voltaire and Rousseau were having a profound effect upon the thinking of the French people, with a philosophy that came to be known as “Enlightenment”.  This philosophy identified true freedom as being free of all constraint, including the constraint of religion, family and government.  It presumed that there was no “absolute truth” and that each person or group could define truth for themselves.  Because of the popularity of this form of thinking, the French Revolution was more of a cultural revolution, which sought not only to overthrow their oppressive government, but to redefine the mores of society.  Like the American Revolution, the ideologies of the people had a profound impact on the course of the post-war nation.

            It is not unusual during times of war that diverse groups can become united against a common enemy.  While the bond between such groups can remain strong during the battle, it rarely results in a lasting unity after that enemy is eliminated.  Such was the struggle of the French after they’d successfully over thrown the King.  Since “Enlightenment” said that every man could define truth for themselves, there was no unifying vision for the future.  Even after the King and his regime had been eliminated, the revolutionists continued to battle with each other for control, in what would come to be known as the “Reign of Terror”.  While that reign eventually ended, France has struggled since then to find an equitable and stable government.  While there was also some disagreement about the best course for the new republic amongst the American revolutionists, these disputes were handled in a much less violent manner and as the leaders of this new nation hammered out the framework of the constitution, their commonly held “Christian” beliefs became the foundation on which they all could agree.  Benjamin Franklin quoted the scripture, “Lest the Lord build the house, they labor in vain” to implore the leaders to set aside their personal agenda’s, to humble themselves in prayer and to seek God’s divine intervention as they developed the constitution.  History records that our founding fathers did just that and they went on to produce a constitution that is unprecedented throughout all of human history.  James Madison, said of these sessions, “Without the intervention of God there never would have been a constitution”.  John Quincy Adams observed that, “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one dissoluble bond the principles of civil government, with the principles of Christianity.  From the day of the Declaration, they were bound by the laws of God, which they all and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct”.  This makes the words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident” some of the most significant words in history, because as this nation was birthed there was an agreement as to the basis of truth and law and ultimately life itself.  That commonly held belief is what created the unity and that unity is what ultimately led this fledgling republic to become the most powerful country on earth.

            Interestingly, the dramatic difference in the post-revolution history of these two countries has resulted in the fact that some of Democracies greatest admirers would appear to be French.  The very symbol of liberty and freedom (i.e. the Statue of Liberty) was actually a gift from the French and was fashioned by the French artist, Frederic Bartholdi, with Gustave Effiel (the Engineer of the Effiel Tower) erecting the steel framework.  Years before this gift, French Sociologist Alexis de Tocqueville came to America to study what made democracy work.  He recorded his findings in a book called, “Democracy in America”.  After years of studying the various aspects of life in America he concluded, “Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power”.  He went on to conclude that, “America is great because America is good.  And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great”.  French historian Francois Guizot once asked James Russell Lowell, “How long will the American republic endure?”, to which Lowell replied, “As long as the ideas of the men who founded it continue to dominate”.

            While America has a storied history on the world stage, it has also gone through its share of internal turmoil.  After the struggles of war and depression that marked the first half of the twentieth century, the national consciousness seemed poised for a change.  Quietly at first, the post-war culture began to change in the early 1950’s and by the 1960’s a full scale cultural revolution was underway.  Like the French Revolution, this movement hasn’t been so much about reforming our way of government, as it has been about redefining the standards within our culture.  It has seemingly challenged every thread in the fabric of our society, including the most basic blocks of human relationship.  Another common trait that this revolution shares with its French counterpart is the secular humanist philosophy behind it.  Though this philosophy goes by many titles (e.g. enlightenment, secular humanism, post modernism…), they all hinge on the precept that the truth is relative (i.e. there is no such thing as absolute truth); which means that each individual has the ability to define truth for themselves.  While this way of thinking would seem to be very liberating on an individual basis, it is highly destructive to the concept of national unity.  John Adams observed that, “We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion”.  If we were to attempt to incorporate this philosophy into our constitution, we’d need to say something like, “we don’t hold any truth to be self-evident”.  While that may seem to be extreme, I believe that within this philosophical framework, it would be accurate.  This philosophy has subtly invaded our way of thinking to the point that polls (taken over the last twenty years) indicate that between two thirds and three quarters of Americans now believe that the truth is relative (e.g. what’s truth to you, may not necessarily be truth to me).  If these numbers are accurate, it is clear that many Americans have failed to understand the implications of this ideology. 

The concept of a law is that a society agrees to set a limit, boundary or constraint on what is acceptable within that society.  The agreement on where that limit should be set hinges on some common standard by which to measure acceptable behavior.  For our founding fathers, the Bible was used as that standard.  While not everyone in this country was Christian at that time, the principles of the Bible were accepted as the basis for law.  With that established standard, the U.S. Constitution was forged and has proven to be the model document for enduring freedom.  As our national philosophy has shifted, we have begun to challenge our constitution; often upon the basis that it limits an individuals personal liberty (i.e. constrains my personal ability to define what is truth for myself).  When such a challenge comes, one must go back to the foundational truth that formed the basis for the law in order to make a judgment; but in the absence of an “absolute truth” there is no way to refute the claim.  It is the nature of a law to limit a persons individual freedom and without an agreement on what is the basis of truth, every law is susceptible to be struck down in the same manner.  Little by little our constitution is being dismantled because it is viewed as being too limiting of individual freedom and quietly the unified vision of our country is disappearing.  If our goal is to elevate individual freedom to the point that every man can define truth for themselves, than there is no standard that could ever be enforced, which by definition would create a state of lawlessness.  If the goal is simply to eliminate the Bible as the standard for behavior, than what standard is to be used in its place.  As in the French revolution, this cultural philosophy always seems to find agreement in what it doesn’t want, but is unable to fuel any unified vision for the future.  Dismantling our constitution in this manner is similar to dismantling the house you live in before you begin construction on a new one.

            The sad irony of America’s ongoing Cultural Revolution is that we already have the model for what this ideology (i.e. secular humanism…)  will reap in our society.  It is doubtful that any American would be willing to trade France for their post-revolution history or for their current national identity; yet isn’t that what we’re doing with our future as we intentionally abandon the principles which made this country great, in favor of the philosophy that made France what it is today?

Read Full Post »

A good friend asked me what I thought the election results (i.e. 2008 Presidential) meant – I attached my response below.

I think your question is the same one that most of us have and there are probably a thousand answers I could give. Obviously the long term impact won’t be understood for a great while. I will say that I don’t think that we’ve gotten a very clear picture of who Barrack Obama really is and so it is difficult to project what his administration may look like. Though he promised all types of “change”, the president doesn’t really have the power to affect significant changes without the support of the congress, and though the Democrat’s have the clear majority, I don’t think that it is a given that they will necessarily support everything that Mr. Obama proposes. While the party didn’t want to break ranks during the election season, the primary’s (between Obama & Clinton) seemed to indicate that not everyone in the party was in agreement about the necessary direction, so it may not be as drastic as many fear. I do think that it is safe to assume that we will see advances in both the homosexual and pro-abortion agendas.

I do think that the two positive things that I can point to from this election are that we elected a man of color as our president and that a lot more people participated in the process. I do believe that breaking the color barrier is worthy of celebration; I think that many of us wanted to believe that we’d progressed in the area of racism, but until a barrier actually comes down, it’s hard to be sure. While I don’t have any illusions about the fact that racism still exists, I feel like this is a clear step of progress. I’ve also been appalled in the past by how many people didn’t vote, so I believe that seeing a good turnout is encouraging.

For me, the most troubling aspect of this election is the hearts of the American people and most especially those who count themselves as “Christians”. In a broad sense I’m discouraged by how little integrity there seems to be in our political process and how little people really seem to be after the truth. For example, the economy was cast as the primary issue in this election and both candidates vowed to fix the economy if they were elected; yet these men, the media and economists everywhere know fully well that the government (including the president) does not have direct control over the economy. To me it is fundamentally dishonest to pretend that it is otherwise. I think that the media has become particularly biased in their reporting of events, to the point of deception at times. I think that this is a very dangerous trend and could eventually become a significant threat to the freedom of the American people. I feel like the level of hostility and negativity associated with this election was outrageous and unnecessary. For a society that touts it’s “tolerance” of diversity, there seemed to be very little tolerance for diverse viewpoints. It seems that the last three elections have had this polarizing effect on the country as a whole. While I can chalk a lot of that up to human nature, I’m absolutely baffled by the group of people who call themselves “Christians” (a.k.a. Evangelicals, Catholics, Born-Again…). Increasingly, the word “Christian” is becoming absolutely meaningless in terms of understanding the worldview of the people who use it as a way of describing themselves. I can’t help but think that the rampant moral decay of our society can be directly linked to the double-mindedness of those who are presumably meant to be salt and light to the world. I have long doubted the concept of the “moral majority” (i.e. that there is some silent group of highly ethical people who comprise the majority of the population) and I believe that the results of this election present the clearest evidence that even if such a group ever did exist, that it is no longer the case.

The good news is that we’re exactly where God always knew that we would be and He stands ready to guide us through the coming days if we’ll “follow” Him. I believe that the overall lack of resistance has made the church in America weak and that though it won’t necessarily be pleasant; the increased resistance will make us stronger (& smaller). There is nothing in the scripture that pushes us toward fixing the government or trying to convince the society to think differently; in fact the biblical recipe is that we’d simply turn from our sin and cry out to God. I do think that it is important to recognize that we are living in a culture that is becoming openly hostile toward Biblical Christianity and that seems to want to take a proactive role in the indoctrination of our children. If we’re not living this stuff out in our homes, our marriages, in our relationships and friendships, our children will have no reason to believe it. Ultimately, we are not Christians by virtue of the fact that we were born in America, or that we were raised in Christian homes, or because we’re moral people or because we go to church or even by the fact that we believe the story of what Jesus did. We are Christians by virtue of the fact that we’ve taken up our cross and are following Him. If He is for us, who can be against us? God bless.

Read Full Post »