Sarah Palin, you're breaking my heart.

I love Sarah Palin. She's basically every mom of every friend I had growing up in the Midwest, only way hotter. She's the new face of the new feminism (I can't even remember who the old face of the new feminism was anymore). She's everything Bush Republicanism could hope for in a not-so-much-ugly-old-white-man package. She's funny, she charming, she's got great taste in eye wear. She can shoot a gun and bake cookies and manage an entire state while raising a family. In other words, I want to build a time machine and marry her in place of the that bozo, pretty-boy Todd McGoofyPants. Why should he be so lucky?

But I don't want Sarah Palin to be my vice-president.

Gov. Palin has been/will be the downfall of the McCain campaign. For all the people who love her for all the same reasons I do (but who also plan on voting for her), there are even more Americans who see this selection for what it is: a desperate attempt by the McCain camp to seem younger, less Beltway, and more family friendly.

It's no secret McCain is old. It's no secret McCain has been involved in Washington politics for almost 30 years. And it's no secret that McCain has leaned centrist in the past when it come social conservatism. Picking Sarah Palin was supposed to solve all that. And for the Republican base, it did. But for the rest of America, it pretty much scared the bejesus out of us. I love Sarah Palin with all my heart. But she cannot, under any circumstances, be our vice-president in 2009. And this is why:

1) According to FactCheck.org (and check out their sources for further reading), until Palin became a VP candidate, she had no problems with the types of congressional earmarks John McCain has spent a good part of his career opposing. (McCain is on record as criticising three specific earmarks that went to Mayor Palin's old Wasilla stomping grounds; earmarks secured by a Washington lobbyist hired by Palin during her tenure as mayor.) She also failed to come out against the "Bridge to Nowhere" until after it was dead in Congress. And she still accepted the earmarked, pork-barrel funds anyway, spending them on her state's general transportation budget. We need someone who understands this budget mess. And Sarah Palin is not that someone.

2) Palin (along with McCain) also seriously misunderstands Obama's tax plan. Palin is on record criticising it as "painful tax increases on working American families." This in spite hard data that shows Obama's plan will lower taxes for 81% of all households (and 95% of those households with children), while raising them for those at the top of America's income bracket (those families making over $250,000 a year). Yes, rich people work, too. But chances are Joe Sixpack is making much less than a cool quarter-mil a year. Obama's tax plan takes care of him. And it's time for McCain-Palin to kill this stupid misconception/lie.

3) She has absolutely no experience in either of the biggest problems we are mired in today: managing a messy war in Iraq while simultaneously governing over a sluggish 13.8 trillion dollar economy. At the very least, McCain, Obama and Biden have congressional experience in these matters. Palin has managed the 45th largest economy of the United States of America for 22 months. This gives me pause. And these things tell me she just isn't ready for this position.

Two and half weeks ago conservative columnist David Brooks was quoted as saying that Palin was in no way ready to be vice-president:

"The more I follow politicians, the more I think experience matters, the ability to have a template of things in your mind that you can refer to on the spot, because believe me, once in office there's no time to think or make decisions."

What Brooks is saying here resonates tremendously with me. Presidents need to have wisdom, experience and a worldview in place before they take office, because once you're there, there's little time to formulate these things. You can't be catching up on William Buckley, Russell Kirk and Richard Weaver in the middle of a heated presidential campaign.

Maybe once Palin is safely ensconced in her vice-presidential office, she would have time for such things. But with McCain's age being what it is, she could be called on to serve as president before she is actually ready to be president. And because of that, I can't in good conscience vote for her. We just elected (and re-elected) a president who wasn't ready for the job, and look where that got us. We need to learn from our mistakes and vote for folks with the experience to lead from Day 1. Even Obama, with his political career only 12 years old, is light years ahead of Palin in that regard.

As a country in the midst of a teetering economic crisis, drawn out wars in the Middle East and Asia, problems with a resurgent Russian state, run-away health care costs and record budget deficits, we deserve a presidential team that's up to the task. And unfortunately, with Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket, the Republicans have failed to provide us with one. It's time to look elsewhere for a president if this is the best that McCain and the Republican Party can do.

Obamaculator

Change we can all believe in, even if we vote for the other guy (unless you're a richie).

While we've been discussing how you shouldn't trust pollsters, and how voting for one of the Big Two is like voting for ranch dressing vs. thousand island*, here is a story that ignores both from the Nation.

According to a recent Gallop poll, half of Americans expect their tax burden to rise if Senator Obama is elected. Not so according to Tax Policy Center -- an independent, non-partisan off-shoot of the center-sometimes-center-left Brookings Institution -- whose latest study finds that 95% of American families would receive a tax cut under Obama's plan:

Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers. In contrast, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households.

To find out how you would benefit under Obama's plan, check out Obamataxcut.com, a neat-o tax-cut calculator based on three simple questions. And no, not those questions three.

*Which makes sense to me, because both taste terrible; you on the other hand might love ranch, or Republicans.

Dr. Evil Now Corporate CEO of Viacom, Daily Show Fights Back

And now for some funniness. I caught a web clip of comedian Demetri Martin on the Daily Show the other day, in which he attempts to explain the Viacom/Google row over the proliferation of Viacom's media content on Google-owned YouTube. In short, YouTube has a policy of removing copy-written material when asked. However, for Viacom, that's not enough. They want Google to head off Viacom's material before it's even posted. And now Viacom is suing Google for a billion dollars for failure to do that. That's right, one billion dollars.

Of course, this will probably never make it to court. Viacom knows that. But by upping the ante so quickly, they force Google into a defensive position should an out-of-court legal settlement take place. No doubt YouTube profits from the web traffic brought to its site due to Viacom-owned shows on Comedy Central, MTV and Nickelodeon. But Viacom profits, too, as it brings increased consumer awareness for its brands and products. However, Viacom wants a slice of the advertising pie that Google brings in via YouTube. Ergo, sue their pants off.

Now back to the funny. This last week on the Daily Show, Demetri Martin attempted to explain the Viacom/Google suit for Viacom's Daily Show customers. The video is below and it's pretty funny. At one point, Martin even addresses those viewers who are watching him on YouTube. What's even funnier, though, is that I first caught this video via TV Squad courtesy of YouTube. A day later, the video has been removed. The vid below is courtesy of Comedy Central, which is the way Viacom wants it.

Well, in addition to that one billion dollars.

Things I Would Do If I Were Rich, Part C

Reviving An Ooooooooooold Topic

After posting a couple weeks back about future film plans for James A. Owens' Here, There Be Dragons, I got to thinking of what directors I'd like to see attatched to all these upcoming fantasy pics. And foremost on my mind were the future Chronicles of Narnia installments, books which I fell in love with as a wee little fourth grader, and still enjoy reading today.

That being said, I was mostly disappointed by Andrew Adamson's big screen interpretation of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and wouldn't mind another version of it someday. There were some terrible moments, like when Aslan quotes Christ on the cross ("It is finished!") at the end of the big battle, a line which you will not find in the book (I laughed aloud in the theatre when Aslan spoke it). But overall, the film just reminded me too much of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, and failed to hit the right note of child-like wonder and other-worldly adventure found in the novel.

(Then there were children with swords and other weapons, which works in written form, but on the screen was just a little disturbing. It didn't help that the 20 minute final battle near the end of the movie took all of one paragraph in the book. Lewis knew readers weren't going to want to imagine Peter hacking animals with bloodied blade. Adamson overlooked that.)

So here's who I would wrangle, if I were an all-powerful being, to direct each installment of the Chronicles of Narnia. What fun!

Terry Gilliam: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - The first installment needs just the right touch to set the tone for the remaining six books. And Terry Gilliam would be perfect. Don't think The Brothers Grimm, think Brazil by way of Time Bandits. Like I said, perfect.

Jean-Pierre Jeunet: Prince Caspian - I remember Prince Caspian showing oodles more of the peaceful animals and dwarves and manimals (for lack of a better word) of Narnia, and what better director to do that than Jeunet? The director of Amelie would bring the ruins and hidey holes of "Old Narnia" to life in his own fantastical way. Prince Caspian reads like a fairy tale, and Jeunet would be the ideal director to bring it to life.

Alfonso Cuarón: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader - Dawn Treader is basically a road trip, only with boats. There are some genuinely spooky moments in this book, and it definitely suggests Lewis understood his readers were grower older. From his work on Y tu mamá también, it's obvious Cuarón understands those themes, and his rendition of Harry Potter will most likely stand as my favorite in the series. His panoramic eye is no doubt capable of creating a cinematic feast on the high seas. Dawn Treader would most likely be a breathless film.

Guillermo del Toro: The Silver Chair - I'm basing this pick mostly on Pan's Labyrinth, a film which I have yet to see. But from what little I have seen, The Silver Chair would be the perfect project for Del Toro. I remember getting to the fourth book as a kid, and completely freaking me out. It was so outlandish and fantastic, also, quite possibly the darkest book of the series. Looking back, it almost had a psychedelic bent to it (though Lewis wouldn't have had any of that, seeing as he wrote it in 50s). In a perfect world, perhaps Del Torro would forgo some of the CGI and explore some Jim Henson-ish territory in bringing some of this book to life. Regardless, I'd expect an intense kid-flick.

Tim Burton: The Horse and His Boy - The Horse and His Boy is another fairy tale, and another road trip story, but told in a backwards sort of way. It's the kind of film that horses would make if they ruled the world and made fantasy films with talking boys as side-kicks. Sort of. It's a completely stand alone story, that doesn't follow the chronology of the first four books, which would allow a director like Burton to basically tell this story in whichever way he pleased. Computer animation? Sure! Stop-motion? Yes, please! Bollywood! Why not! I'd just let him run with the thing and pick up the larger storyline in the next pic.

Darren Aronofsky: The Magician's Nephew - Nephew is the closest Lewis gets in this series to sci-fi, with the discovery of dependable way to travel between Earth and other worlds like Narnia. It takes place chronologically before all the other books, and tells the story of the creation of Narnia, yet is set only 100 years in our past. Unlike any of the other books, a good portion of The Magician's Nephew takes place in urban London, and I'd just be tickled pink to see Aronofsky's version of England on the verge of the 20th century. There are some incredibly surreal yet very dramatic moments in this book, and looking at his upcoming pic, The Fountain, Aronofsky looks like he might be the guy to pull them off.

Ang Lee: The Last Battle - The final installment of The Chronicles of Narnia is an epic conclusion that also manages to be incredibly wistful for all that's come before. It speaks of a grand history and the end of an age. In more mundane hands, it could turn into apocalyptic drivel -- stuff we've seen before a million times. It would take a very romantic director to turn The Last Battle into a film deserving its title, and Ang Lee is one of the few directors who could pull it off. There are a number of very sad moments punctuating a story with incredible amounts of movement and evolution. It's a hard book to describe without getting into theology*, and translating it to film would require no small amount of subtlety and humility. Under Lee, it would be the perfect sendoff to a series very near and dear to my heart.

*And speaking of theology, let's just add Susan to the film version, even if she doesn't appear in the book. I understand Lewis' intentions as an author for excluding her, but as part of a truncated version of the original book, I don't think it works. Some fans might cry foul, but if Lewis were alive today, I think he would understand.

The Gospel of Prosperity. Now With Twice the Wealth!

Round 11, Richies vs. Poories

This is the sort of piece I'd usually save for Midwest Mindset, but I'd rather not detract from the brewing Moody controversy (as I like to hype it), so it falls here instead. Face front, True Believers!

Time Magazine ran a really great cover story last week titled "Does God Want You To Be Rich?" There were interviews with Joel Osteen, Rick Warren and Ron Sider, and some non-pastor types as well. Instead of copying and pasting chunks of the article here, I thought I'd just throw out a few quotes from the piece to give you a general idea of what it contains.

******************

"I think God wants us to be prosperous. I think he wants us to be happy. I think he wants us to enjoy our lives. I don't think I'd say God wants us to be rich." -- Joel Osteen, megapastor and author of Your Best Life Now

"Prosperity Lite is everywhere in Christian culture. Go into any Christian bookstore, and see what they're offering." Rev. Chappell Temple, Methodist minister

"Who would want something where you're miserable, broke and ugly and you have to muddle through until you get to heaven? ....I believe God wants to give us nice things" -- Joyce Meyer, television preacher, author of too many books to mention

"They have neglected the texts about the danger of riches. Prosperity Gospel Lite is one of the most powerful forms of neglect of the poor." -- Ron Sider, professor Eastern University, author of Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger

"God wants you to own land. The entire Old Testament is all about land. Land represents that God is with you and God has blessed you." -- Kirbyjon Caldwell, minister of the largest United Methodist congregation in the U.S.

"The idea that God wants everyone to be wealthy? Baloney. It's creating a false idol. You don't measure your self-worth by your net-worth. I can show you millions of faithful followers of Christ who live in poverty. Why isn't everyone in the church a millionaire?" -- Rick Warren, megapastor and author of The Purpose Driven Life

"We need to renounce the false gospel of wealth and health--it is a disease of our American culture; it is not a solution or answer to life's problems." -- Ben Witherington, New Testament theologian, Asbury Seminary

"Jesus' words about money don't make us very comfortable, and people don't want to hear about it." -- Collin Hansen, editor Christianity Today

******************

The article is a doozy. But it's a topic that deserves the cover story treatment (and deserves to be read, too). It points out that many Prosperity churches are heavily involved in charity giving. And that's great. But God never commanded a potential disciple to give generously to charity and follow me. Furthermore, a telling statistic from the article is that 31% of Americans believe that if you give money to God, he will in turn bless you with even more money, as if God's greatest blessing this side of heaven is greater wealth.

However, it was that last quote from Collin Hansen that interested me most, because of how true it is. The article continues to quote a Princeton sociologist who says that "There has long been a taboo on talking candidly about money" in the U.S. church. I'm a testament to that. The only money talks I heard growing up were concerned with tithing. Give to God what's his, pre-taxes, and figure out the rest for yourself. For some reason, pastors are comfortable preaching about sexual mores and time management and even sometimes politics. But money? No way.

After half a century of over-emphasis on eternal destiny, at the cost of social inequality, evangelicals are finally wising up to the whole Gospel of salvation and liberation, both in the afterlife and here on earth. But what is it about finances and material wealth that make them such uncomfortable topics? Again, I'd go back to the Hansen quote: Jesus' words about money don't make us very comfortable.

And there's the rub. Its nice to think about saving babies and taking purity pledges and spending more time with our families. These are clear-cut issues of justice and responsibility and righteousness that evangelicals can all agree on. But no one agrees about money. And when we do agree, it's still an uncomfortable subject (unless, you're one of the so-called experts that's written a book or something, hence, the quotes). I don't like mentioning it, but when I spent a year with AmeriCorps in Montana, I was too stubborn to ask my parents for help every now and then, and ended racking up a hefty credit card bill to pay for groceries and travel money (I drove somewhere new in Montana just about every weekend, and while gas prices weren't so bad two years ago, Montana is a big state). It's embarrassing to admit, especially because of my general hatred of credit card companies these days (also due to a fantastic Frontline about the industry), but it's what I did, and I can't undo it. I can only pay it off.

But is that the only reason evangelicals don't like to talk about money? Because we're embarrassed by our past financial transgressions? Or because we disagree on how to handle our individual finances? Is it because Christ's sayings are hard? Or is it because they're sometimes confusing? Has it always been this way? Or is this a uniquely American taboo? If you're so inclined, what do you think?