It might take me a while to get to my main point, but please bear with me.  I think this is an important post.

If you could get inside my head, and could see the way my thoughts have gone over the past 6 months of presidential campaigning, it would look something like a tennis match - back and forth, back and forth, back and forth.  I think I share with many other people intense frustration at the fact that no one candidate shares my views on all subjects.  And having to prioritize the issues sometimes just seems impossible - what is most important?  The economy?  The environment?  The right to life?  Poverty?  Security? Seriously, I should not have to choose among these things!

For anyone reading this (anyone? anyone?) not familiar with my ideas, I pretty much fall into the "Crunchy Con" microtrend.  In other words, I hold an odd-mixture of views that include social conservativism by way of Christianity, a fierce committment to being pro-life, a slight (very slight) slant towards libertarianism by way of thinkers like Burke, Hayek and Chesterton, and a high level of concern for things typically associated with the left (the environment, poverty, sustainable communities, and other social issues).  So basically, my ideal candidate would be a mashup of McCain, Obama and Ron Paul.  What is a crunchy con to do???

Thus far in my young political life (this will be my third presidential election in which I am eligible to vote) I have voted with my conservative ideals; the more bleeding-heart aspects of my political philosophy have only developed in the last 3-4 years or so.  The thought of straying from voting Republican is not an easy thing to even THINK about, let alone actually do.  For most of the current presidential campaign my assumption has been, despite the occasional flare up of conflicted feelings, that I would be voting for McCain and any other Republicans who are on the ballot.  Despite the sweet sounding rhetoric of Democrats, my political ideology tells me that government is not the answer to our problems.

But a conversation I had last night at weekly prayer group has caused me to question these ideas again.

Margaret and Charlie (not their real names since I have no idea how comfortable they would be with me blogging about them) are an older couple in my church that my husband and I have grown to love.  They are role models to us of loving, caring, dedicated, humble Christian living.  Margaret and Charlie have a middle-aged adult daughter, Mary, that has serious developmental disabilities.  Our pastor for the last two weeks has been preaching on Christian attitudes and ideas regarding the disabled, so at prayer group last night, the topic came up.  Of course, Margaret and Charlie had more right to say something about this issue than anyone else.

In 50+ years of being not just church-going Christians, but missionaries and even time as a pastor and wife, not a single one of the churches or church ministries that Margaret and Charlie have been involved with has ever taken any sort of lead or even assisted in the care of their daughter Mary.

Let that sink in.  NOT ONE Christian church has ever helped them in any significant way.

Individual Christians have reached out to them, but usually not with much more than a word of encouragement.  There have been a rare few that have gone further, such as one lady in our church that has taught Mary Sunday school EVERY Sunday for years now.  But no one has ever been able or willing to actually give Mary the kind of care that is needed day in and day out.

On the contrary, it has been the government that has taken care of Mary, and Margaret and Charlie testify that the goverment has done a marvelous job.  Mary lives in her own home with another disabled woman, with needed 24-hour care, daytime activities, health care, etc - all through government support.  Without that government support, Margaret and Charlie have no idea how they would have survived.

Unfortunately, if Mary were 10-20 years younger, and they were just now trying to get her into a program like this, she would not be able to receive this care. There are no new admissions to such programs except for orphans, because all funding for disabled people in the state of Missouri has been slashed to the bone.  By our Republican governor and state congress.  Margaret not long ago spoke to the Republican representative that represents her, advocating for the disabled.  His response was that local charities and churches should be doing that sort of work, rather than the government.  Margaret's angry reply was, that sure would be nice BUT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN.  After listening to her for a while, all he could say was that he would have to think about it some more.

You see, as much as I think that things are ideally left better in the hands of private citizens, what are we to do when no one, not even the Church, is stepping up?  What is the more Christian thing to do - hope that people's hearts change, or vote in leaders who will take up the slack where the Church has failed?  Are there enough Christians willing to step up and meet all the needs of the poor and disabled in our country?  Or does it make more sense to commit our tax dollars to working with our non-Christian fellow citizens to meet the needs of the least and most vulnerable of our brothers and sisters?

Barack Obama has support for Americans with disabilities as a central point of his platform.  McCain doesn't even mention it on his website.

Being pro-life is about more than just being anti-abortion.  It has to involve action and good policy, not just the overturning of one court decision.

I have no idea how Margaret and Charlie are going to vote.  They are very pro-life, economically and socially conservative.  For all I know, they are going to vote for McCain, it really didn't come up.  All I know is, I am just not so sure anymore.

I will be participating in this year's Blog Action Day on October 15th.  Along with thousands of other bloggers worldwide, I will be posting about the topic of poverty.  The aim is to inform, discuss and inspire each other about this complex issue - and the more of us that participate, the more effective this conversation will be.  You may have a perspective on this issue that no one else has.  So I encourage you (yes, you!) to participate in changing the conversation about poverty.

Blog Action Day 2008 Poverty from Blog Action Day on Vimeo

I don't know if twitter is reinforcing my natural tendency to write laconically, or if my brain is just exhausted from all the political and religious and personal stuff that has been battered about in my mind lately.  Whatever it is, I cannot bring myself to string together a well thought-out post.  And yet, its been a few days since I have posted, and I need to keep myself writing.  So, for your reading pleasure annoyance tolerance whatever, here are some of my current disjointed thoughts.

Three things I am tired of:

• Hip celebrity videos like this one (disclaimer, includes the f*bomb)
• Politicians that say "nook-yoo-ler"
• People who are so partisan that they automatically take things said by members of their political opposition in the worst possible way instead of trying to understand, think critically or give people the benefit of the doubt. This is done widely on both sides, and it is starting to sicken me.

Three things I am excited about:

• My niece's wedding
• Autumn and all the Halloween activities coming up - pumpkin patches and costume parties and bonfires!!!
• This movie:
  

What are you tired of?  What are you excited about?

First, can I just make something very clear - subprime mortgage lending began under Bill Clinton. BILL CLINTON!  Yes, the Republican party has been the party of deregulation, so there is fault there, for sure!  But increasing homeownership opportunities to lower and lower income families has also been a standard of the Democratic Party platform.  They saw it as a moral issue, and while a laudable goal, they also turned as blind eye to the fact that many of these mortgages were not good, safe loans.  My point is, there is plenty of blame to go around to everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, not to mention greedy people, so calling this crisis the fault of the Bush economic policies is inaccurate.

Ok, so, I don't know if the bailout package was a good idea, as it was voted on.  I do know that the package as proposed by Paulson was terrifying, basically setting him up as a dictator!  And I also know that our congress men and women were given the task to work together to turn that proposal into something that would work for the American people.  And they failed.  They failed for a number of reasons, I am sure, not the least of which is uncertainty about whether or not the whole idea is even a good one to begin with.  Frankly, I think I am glad the bill failed to pass, I am not convinced it is the right way to go.  Like, how about shoring up the flood of foreclosures, and stop the problem at its source?  Iuhknow, it's just a thought. 

But Nancy Pelosi, WHAT THE HECK?!  Was this really the appropriate time to use your leadership to lash out against Bush and the Republicans?  Was that really supposed to inspire cooperation to get a bailout package passed?

Links:

A simple rundown of the financial crisis.

A speech from over a year ago by Ben Bernanke on the mortgage crisis.

News on the failed bailout.

Asia and Europe telling us to hurry the heck up!

I can has free bag?

You can too if you enter the contest at http://www.handbagplanet.com

</shameless plug>

Well, our economy is going to h-e-double-hockey-sticks and our political leaders are all puffing up and posturing and showing themselves to be unable to rise to the occasion.

Let's make cupcakes!!!

Ok, so this is one of my favorite, easiest cake recipes.  I just made this recipe as cupcakes over the weekend for our church picnic, and they were all eaten.  Ok, three of them were eaten by me, but who's counting?

Pumpkin Spice Cake

1 box yellow cake mix (the moister the better) (Is 'moister' a word?)

1 can pumpkin

2 eggs

2 tbsp oil (vegetable, canola, whatever you use to bake)

1 tsp ginger

1 1/2 tsp nutmeg

2 tsp cinnamon

(You may want to adjust spices to taste, that is my best guestimate since I tend to cook/bake by sight and experimentation.)

Add all ingredients to a large mixing bowl and blend with a hand mixer until thoroughly mixed.  Bake according to the box mix instructions, although the baking time may be increased due to the added pumpkin.  You want to insert a tooth-pick or knife into the cake and have it come out clean.

Optional toppings:

This cake is so moist and yummy, it makes a great cake or muffin all on its own.

For a little bit of sweetness, you can dust the cake with powdered sugar immediately after removing from the oven.  This will create a thin glaze.

If you have more of a sweet tooth, I recommend cream cheese frosting.

Chocolate chips, raisins or nuts also make good additions, either mixed in the batter or sprinkled on top.

I just heard a very interesting news report on NPR.  InBev, the huge mega-brewing company that is taking over St. Louis-based Anheuser-Busch, stated that the company will keep all twelve American Anheuser-Busch breweries open so long as their American taxes do not go up.

Did you catch that?  So long as their taxes do not go up.

Many people, including myself, would love to see the wealthiest companies and individuals carry more of the tax burden to get this country out of debt.  The problem is, we cannot rely on companies being patriotic or loyal to America. (Not to mention they already do carry most of the tax burden as it is.) 

If corporate taxes were to increase and InBev kept its word, twelve major breweries would close in America, causing thousands of Americans to lose their jobs and twelve cities to lose a gigantic source of revenue.  Do you think InBev is unique in this kind of thinking?  Do you think companies will stay out of the kindness of their hearts?

I don't have the all answers for fixing our economic woes or our national debt.  But I do think we had better think carefully about all the possible consequences as we choose the leaders who will decide whose taxes go down, and whose taxes go up.