Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.

Seems pretty clear he is speaking about marriage as being between a man and a woman (the reference to making male and female is to the Adam and Eve story). You will note also that Jesus is significantly more restrictive on divorce than you would probably prefer.

I am neither a Catholic nor a Christian, but I respect Christian thought on the matter and consider the Pope a pretty good authority on Jesus. But I suppose the Gospel According to Simon is far more valid.

My memory of Jesus from that time is a guy who told us to forgive our enemy’s and love our neighbors, not someone who would deny people the right to consecrate their love, in whichever way they saw fit. Or a guy who would damn you to an eternity in hell fire for killing a blastocyst.

The Catholic church has held despicable positions throughout its history. I am sure many of today’s Catholics would find the Catholic church of 200 years ago despicable. It is a human institution and its interpretation of the Bible is colored by a lot of freaky repressed priests. They get better as time goes by, but for me they are still so-called Christians. A lot of Atheists I know live much more Christian lives in my understanding than they ever will.

But what Samuelson actually said on the matter was, “Granted, the initial response to the crisis (sharp cuts in interest rates, bank bailouts, stimulus spending) probably averted a depression.” Note the qualifier “probably,” and the three elements he mentions, of which stimulus spending was only one. Nor does he use the word “great” to modify the word “depression.”

I actually don’t think the stimulus spending did much good; I think it was more the other things that averted or postponed a possibly worse crisis, at least for the moment (particularly the bank bailout, which at least temporarily kept the dominoes from falling). I think things stand a very good chance of getting worse again. I think the most basic problems have not been fixed in a way that would inspire confidence.

And there is absolutely no way to tell whether the jobs situation is worse than it would have been without all this intervention, or better. I don’t think the stimulus had much effect on job creation either way—there just were too few jobs “created or saved.” Unfortunately, the other things Obama has done—particularly the tax increases he will impose on the “rich,” his demonization of business people, his favoring unions so strongly, his deals in the takeover of GM that gave unions precedence over the other bondholders who were supposed to come first according to the terms of contract law—all this and much much more has had a very chilling effect on the economy and jobs creation in particular. If he was trying to discourage the creation of jobs I do not think he could have done any better.

As for the rest of it—there is a search function on the right sidebar. I’ve written a great deal about cap and trade, global warming, and Sarah Palin (who has a whole category of posts, all by herself, under “Palin” under “categories”). If you do a search for those topics you will see, if you read the posts, that you and I are in almost total disagreement on every one of these matters.

As for Christians and gay marriage—you write that Palin’s stance on gay marriage “is a despicable position for any so called Christian to take.” I guess the Pope would beg to differ. Here is his position on gay marriage, “Pope Benedict XVI on Thursday called abortion and same-sex marriage some of the most ‘insidious and dangerous’ threats facing the world today.” Would you say he’s a “so-called” Christian, or despicable?

And what about Obama, who plays the game of sometimes sounding like he has one position on gay marriage and then taking the opposite side? Does he have any principles or convictions on the matter at all? I doubt it. Palin, at least, has the courage of her convictions, and takes the traditional straightforward Christian position that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman (same as the Pope does, although Palin is not a Catholic).

And unfortunately, Obama has already been a terrifying joke on the world stage, albeit a very unfunny one. Sarah Palin would be rough around the edges, but she would be tough and she would be clear. And with Palin, our friends would be treated like friends and our enemies like enemies. Sounds pretty good to me, compared to Obama.

You also state that you do not know what needs to be done, and that no one else does. This is the same situation Obama is struggling with, and as the US economy, the birthplace of the financial meltdown, is currently fairing better than Europe, what he has done cannot be all that bad.

I apologize, I don’t know your position on cap and trade, and I neither like that Obama flirted with it or that he then dropped it or that he may pick it back up again. I wish he would have some balls and go for a carbon tax. The idea of yet another system for speculators to game makes me sick to the stomach.

I do however believe that Obama would also like a carbon tax, he just knows that it is impossible in the current political climate, so he goes with the half-assed compromise position. He works within the system (Daniel in Brookline).

If we had a strong government that was able to make decisive policy, we could introduce a carbon tax overnight, and start to move ourselves off our addiction to foreign oil. We could scrap subsidies on corn and place them on proper food, so we aren’t the fattest country in the world. There are so many things that seem so simple to do, but are completely impossible because of the money tied up in the political system here. The sentiments you express Daniel are admirable, and I applaud everything you say in principle, but this stable system seems to be serving us very poorly at the moment. The moneyed interests and the strict partisanship make even the most sensible policies impossible.

Palin’s positions do not seem at all better to me. I find her passionate position on gun rights the stuff of nightmares. I am not totally against the right to bear arms, but at the very most it should be a regrettable necessity, not a point of pride. These are machines designed to murder our fellow human beings after all. Perhaps I am too much of a wuss on this point, but her gloating over guns sickens me.

Her position on abortion, which if at least rational, is too extreme. She is against gay marriage, which is a despicable position for any so called Christian to take. She denies anthropogenic global warming, which means she is out of touch with reality. She is a biblical literalist, which means she is delusional.

I am not someone who is able to see these things as personal beliefs separate from what she offers as a politician. For me they paint a picture of a spiteful ignoramus. Someone I would be ashamed to have represent me in any fashion. And while I would agree with you that Obama has not thus far been a great success on the world stage, I can only begin to imagine the terrifying joke this country would be if Sarah Palin were its envoy.

I’ve got news for you, Simon. You still sound rather naive.

The system of government in the United States is intended to make it difficult for the government to make sweeping changes. America’s founding fathers understood all too well that, when a leader wants to make sweeping changes, that just might be a good thing… but historically, one shouldn’t bet on it.

As such, they propounded a theory: that the purpose of government is to do the minimum necessary to enable ordinary people to earn a living and live their lives… and that otherwise, government should stay the heck out of the way. They’d had their fill of busybody leaders, thanks very much, and they knew their history well enough to know that this is the norm, not the exception.

They were determined to be the exception. And so they wrote a Constitution for this country that, for the most part, defines what the government can’t do, and gives as much power as possible to the people. They also set up a system of government intended to contain power, by pitting one branch of government against another.

And on the whole, it’s worked. The Constitution of the United States has been amended a few times, but for the most part it’s still the same document that it was in 1789.

Let me add: if you think President Obama has a hard time “getting anything done”, please remember that he’s got it easy. He has healthy majorities in the House and Senate; he can pass any legislation he wants badly enough. He has the press rooting for him; he can make mistakes, and just shrug them off, that would end another politician’s career. Harry Truman had none of that, and was able to accomplish a heck of a lot more than Obama has, or is likely to. So did Ronald Reagan; so did George W. Bush.

(Yes, I said George W. Bush. He was able to get an ultimatum for war passed, unanimously, by the UN Security Council. Can President Obama do that? Not likely; several members of the Security Council are now openly contemptuous of him.)

The idea is to work within the system, instead of trying to upend it, and use leadership to get things done. President Obama doesn’t know how to do that. Maybe he’ll learn on the job… but the odds are stacked heavily against him. Because in the end, all he’s ever really done well was to give speeches, and find excuses for not making hard decisions.

respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline

Yeah, what a relief that we dodged that Palin bullet!

Although funny thing, McCain remains hale and hearty. But she sure lacked experience, right? Too bad our current president not only lacks whatever executive experience Palin does have, but has made a series of terrible decisions on which Palin’s stated positions on the same subject are about a thousand times better.

Oh, and too bad Obama’s working against the interests of this country, especially the economic ones (cap and trade, anyone? no jobs, anyone?) and has made one foreign policy error after another, with no end in sight.

But at least Palin’s not VP.

Right.

Some of the things Obama has done have been disappointing, but this is always the case, whoever is in power. I was naive in that i knew very little about how hard it is to get anything done in the political system we have over here. I am quite jealous of my fellow Brits, whose leader is actually allowed to lead for the time he is in office. I have now become one of those people who is completely cynical when it comes to the broken political system in place in this country. Assuming there isn’t another Palin threat in 2012, I doubt I’ll vote.

I don’t get how they can still be Obama supporters, but they are. I am impressed at the author’s experience with his own parents, and wish I could say the same. Without trying to sound self serving, I will say that if I, of all people was able to vote conservative, there is indeed hope out there for the Republicans in 2012.

Rich

I’m sure you are gracious. Sooner or later, he’ll probably need you.

Thanks for the reply.