After my election day ranting yesterday, the results are in. For the city council race, Jay Benanav took 80% of the vote, and Denise Gulner took 12%. Both will advance for a showdown in the November election, though it doesn’t look like it will be much of a contest. I can’t help pointing out that Samuel Farley and Mark Roosevelt both had crappy web sites, and they received 3% and 5% of the vote respectively. Notice that Gulner and her semi-crappy web site only took 12% of the vote. The best web site out there took 80% of the vote, and I’m not surprised. You can go ahead and chalk it up to Benanav’s incumbent status and the fact that he’s a major player in St. Paul politics, but I’m going to credit the web site.

I’d also like to point out the campaign of Honey Hervey, running for city council member in Ward 1. Endorsed by the DFL, the United Auto Workers, Teamsters DRIVE, Building and Construction Trades Council, and the AFL-CIO, Hervey took home a whopping 8 votes. All those endorsements and so few votes. You’ve got to wonder who Honey’s friends voted for.

In the school board race, the results are just as interesting. Of the 12 candidates, eight will advance to the general election. And the poor four who didn’t make it? None of them had web sites. When looking at the run down, the four candidates who invested in web sites took first, second, fourth, seventh place. Not too shabby. With four spots open on the school board, I’m pulling for a 75% web site presence among the winners. Sadly though, of all the election web sites I looked at, only one was updated this morning to reflect the election results. It’s good to know that some people are aware of the value of a web site in politics.

In my best Homestar voice: "Welcome to my web site."

Those were the words I saw while researching candidates today before the St. Paul primary election for the city council and school board. Is it wrong to dismiss a candidate based on poor web design?

Today was really a lesson in local politics. I spent 45 minutes trying to find out who was even running in today’s election. The Star Tribune’s lone article on the election (buried at the bottom of their homepage) didn’t give names and didn’t link to further resources (though I later found the Star Tribune’s voter’s guide, which they failed to link to or even feature prominently on an election day).

I went to other sites, I went to local government sites, I googled. The first place that told me who was running for city council in my ward? OutFront, a GLBT political group. Finally I stumbled across the Star Trib’s voter’s guide and was able to figure out who was who.

Sort of. All four candidates for the city council position had web sites. I happened to be the 104th visitor to one site, and it was downhill from there. Mark Roosevelt was all about the P.L.A.N.: Public safety, leadership, access to local government, and neighborhoods. That’s as specific as Roosevelt got.

Samuel Farley also had a web site. But I didn’t even need to visit themilitant.com (though I’m not sure what a socialist newsweekly for the working people has to do with Samuel Farley). His essay on the Star Tribune’s site encouraged solidarity with Cubans, Iranians, Iraqis, and North Koreans. Unfortunately, this is the St. Paul city council. Few Iraqis were voting in today’s primary.

The state of local politics isn’t looking good. But it gets better. Denise Gulner has the added bonus of an endorsement from St. Paul Mayor Randy Kelly. She’s also anti-crime, pro-youth, pro-affordable housing, and pro-transportation. So’s the rest of the planet. Apparently all these politicians are paying for their web sites by the word.

Finally, we come to incumbent Jay Benanav. Despite his lame design, Benanav either has the financial muscle to pay for a whole bunch of words on his site, or he’s smart enough to realize that the web is limitless, so tell us all you can. His site is loaded with positions, accomplishments, and facts that prove he knows what’s going on in the city.

You can guess who I voted for, and while I did take a look at the issues, the simple ability of each candidate to present themselves decided it. I’m not talking web savvy, I’m talking presentation.

When I explored the school board candidates, I found a much worse problem. Twelve candidates were vying for four positions, yet of those twelve candidates,
only four had web sites. In an election where the most coverage I could find was a buried voter’s guide that offers a one paragraph "essay," two-thirds of the candidates chose not to expand on their positions with a web site. Unbelievable.

You’ll be happy to know I didn’t just vote for the four with web sites, though I probably should have. I went with a mix of the sites I could find, endorsements, and those lame little paragraphs.

It wasn’t easy. Richard Broderick has a fairly nice looking web site, though as a Green Party candidate his web site didn’t help him. He’s more interested in encouraging teens to car pool and offering organic foods in the cafeteria than any of the real crises facing the St. Paul schools. Despite what I’ve said before, Broderick’s web site really hurt him, though only because his positions. In a sense, the system worked.

Kazoua Kong-Thao also had a web site, though she suffered a similar problem as Roosevelt and Gulner. Most people are in favor of safe schools, small class sizes, and academic excellence. Unfortunately, achieving those things is another manner. Fortunately for Kong-Thao, her site did manage to convince me that she’s motivated and hard working.

Eventually I was able to tally my votes and head over to the Hamline Highrise to cast my vote with all the elderly people. My exercise in democracy took way too long and taught me that local politics is pretty lame. I would expect any hopeful city council or school board candidate to actually research the job and know what they’re talking about, to confront the important issues. I would expect them to attend a few of those meetings and know what’s not working and what they could improve upon. Don’t tell me you want better education, tell me how you’re going to do it better than the other guy. If that’s all it takes, I could mount a better campaign than many of these people.

Excellent article in Christianity Today about the Ten Commandments debate. As you might expect, I don’t agree with their take on the Alabama issue, but the author makes a powerful point about the emphasis on external signs of faith. He basically says what I’ve been trying to say only much more eloquently. (He’s rather gutsy to make the comparison to the Nazis)

I’ve been debating with a friend about church and state, and it’s caused me to reflect a lot about the nature of Christianity. It’s not an easy faith. It involves sacrifice and humility, neither of which is something we enjoy doing. It’s not something you can just sit back and assume. It’s not about filling a pew or checking a certain box in a spirituality quiz.

Being a Christian in America is easy, and I wonder if that’s contrary to the nature of Christianity. A faith that is easy is never worth much, and consequently it doesn’t stand the trials of life. Christianity flourishes when it’s not so easy to believe. When the church faces persecution, the fringe believers quickly drop off. If you’re not committed to a faith, you’re not going to sacrifice anything for it. What’s left are the true believers, the ones truly ready to sacrifice their lives for their faith. Christianity shines in such downtrodden circumstances because that’s what it’s all about. It’s about sacrifice, humility, hard work, and grace and forgiveness for the little guy.

I’ve been debating all these intricacies of church and state, and I wonder if that’s so not the point. The Bible and Jesus himself were never very concerned with these matters. Obey your authorities and give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and God what is God’s. That’s about the extend of it, because nothing else matters. Our concern as the Church is to spread the Gospel, not govern nations (though I suppose some are called to that). If a nation supports us, fine – but we’ll keep our focus on spreading the Gospel and challenging believers to the hard life of faith, not allowing government approval to let us grow lax. And if a nation persecutes us, fine – but we’ll continue anyway, going underground to spread the Gospel and calling believers to the hard life of faith.

Sometimes I wish the U.S. wasn’t such a Christian friendly place. When it becomes so easy to believe, it becomes so easy to be lethargic.

Maybe I’m a flaming liberal. After all, I have expressed doubt about homosexuality, and I wasn’t on board with the one nation under God. Now I’m questioning the Ten Commandments. Something must be wrong with me. Growing up in a Baptist church (“every time a drum beats, a demon gets out of hell”) should produce less discerning citizens.

Alabama state officials moved the Ten Commandments monument yesterday, amid wails and prayers. But less obvious than the righteous grandstanding is the burning hypocrisy. Christians are making a wonderful show of support for a hunk of concrete. But despite their approval of commands to love God and obey your parents, they seem to have forgotten another command to love thy neighbor as thy self.

Melinda Maddox initiated the lawsuit against Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore over the 5,000-pound concrete monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments. As a result, she’s faced eye for an eye justice, in the form of threatening phone calls, pellet guns shooting out windows of her house, and a boycott of her law firm that forced her to leave town. Maddox has become an outcast at the hands of people who claim to love one another.

I can only hope it’s a minority of the intolerant that are making Maddox’s life a living hell, but those who hate their enemies are outshining those who love their enemies in Alabama. If we acknowledge God with the ten commandments, why aren’t we acknowledging God with our actions?

Speaking of troubling actions, the entire installation of this monument is sketchy. Under the cover of darkness Moore and his supporters lugged the concrete block into the state judicial building. They didn’t obtain the proper approvals or go through the required channels. They took matters into their own hands, and the next day bragged about their forced government acknowledgment of God in a press conference. It seems odd that the Bible continually speaks of living in the light and leaving behind deeds of darkness. Acting honestly and in the open is valued, yet Moore seems to have no problem installing his monument under cover of darkness. If his cause is so just, why didn’t he install it in view of the world?

Christians have made an idol of publicly acknowledging God. I’ve learned the hard way that a bumper sticker slogan about your faith means absolutely nothing if your actions don’t back it up. “In God We Trust” means nothing on our currency if it’s not backed up by a people who actually trust in God. But rather than be outraged by our nation serving money over God, we’re outraged at attempts to remove a hypocritical phrase. American Christians, and people in general, are so focused on the outward expression that we completely miss what’s really going on.

I’ve heard so many Christians that get fired up over the Ten Commandments debate, or the pledge of allegiance debate. It’s all building up to the ultimate question of how much religion the government can support. Christians freak out, reminding us that this nation was founded by Christians, therefore it’s OK to acknowledge those roots. But what they forget is that this nation was founded by religious refugees who hoped to escape the religious persecution back home. The goal was to establish a country of religious freedom. With today’s pluralism and diverse religious beliefs, you’d be hard pressed support any religion in any way without offending someone. In the process we lose a public acknowledgment of God, but we gain tolerance: a healthy love and respect for one another that allows us to live together.

What’s a better witness to your non-Christian neighbor? Rallying to keep a God your neighbor doesn’t serve on our currency, or respecting your neighbor enough to let “In God We Trust” go? One seems to open doors while another slams them. We’re like the Pharisees, obsessed with praying on the streets and tithing before others, while Jesus calls us white-washed tombs: we’ve focused on the exterior adornments of faith but neglected the heart. Sadly for those who need God, it’s an outpouring of the heart, not exterior adornments, that make Christianity contagious.

I’m not sure if I understand this whole snafu about a 10 Commandments monument in the Alabama state judicial building. A U.S. District judge ruled that it was an unconstitutional promotion of religion and ordered it removed. Now the suspended Alabama judge who had the monument installed in the first place is fighting to keep it. Protesters are gathering and threatening to physically keep the monument from being moved and calling for a nation-wide boycott of any company the government might hire to remove the monument.

I’m all for the ten commandments, but why all the fuss? The protesters are threatening violence and effectively killing the messenger by organizing boycotts. All for a hunk of stone? A graven image, if you will? The amens and hurrahs on the news seem like the gesticulations of an old man. If you care that much about acknowledging the foundations of law, then why not acknowledge them in front of your neighbor in ways that will matter so much more, rather than pounding your black leather bible over concrete.

If the monument listed laws from the Koran the protesters would be crying for a completely different means of justice.

(update: It seems Justice Roy Moore financed the ten commandments monument with private donations and installed it late one night when no one was around. The original source for this story wasn’t loading, so I’m a bit skeptical, but it still sounds rather fishy. Bungling around at night with mobs of people sounds more like the pharisees than the disciples.)

You know, I used to really like Michael Moore. His work on Roger & Me was astounding. I liked his TV shows. He had this over-the-top yet understated humor that was hilarious yet cut to the heart. It was great.

Moore claims on his web site that he makes documentaries, works of non-fiction, “so that all the little lies can be exposed and the public informed.” What a noble goal. But what a load of crap. Bowling for Columbine wasn’t exactly about exposing lies and informing the public. It was about twisting the truth to make a point, as a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece argues, and some random guy on the net has gone to great lengths to point out (label the random guy on the net a nut if you like, but he’s got his facts in order).

One of the most inaccurate scenes is when Moore opens a checking account in a Michigan bank and walks out an hour later with a free gun. Makes us look like a gun-totin’ society, doesn’t it? Too bad it took a month of negotiations between Moore’s studio and the bank to pull off that scene. Normally there’s a seven to ten day waiting period.

When confronted about inaccuracies in his lasted book, Stupid White Men, Moore replied that it was a book of political humor and that he didn’t respond to it. “Why should I?” he asked, “How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?”

Moore is all about exposing something, but it isn’t the truth. Maybe he should have called his book Stupid White Man.

I think what’s most upsetting to me is that Moore has to stoop to such levels. If you’re truly right about something, you shouldn’t have to stoop to deception to make your point. Give your opponent the benefit of the doubt and tackle their best possible position. Don’t pick away at stupid arguments with half truths and falsities. Is this world unfair? Yes it is. But adding to the lies doesn’t help anyone. Tell the truth, the actual truth, and it will set you free. Otherwise you’re just spewing rhetoric just like everyone you argue with.

So what’s the state of the union? Confused. You’ve got compassion and tax breaks on one hand, phony environmentalism and war mongering on the other. Looks like a mixed bag. I’m not big on politics. I don’t really like the whole mess. But I do like to stay up on things. I just don’t get why everything has to be so muddled.

Apparently giving the enormously wealthy tax breaks creates jobs and stimulates me to spend more money. I’m not quite sure how that works.

Apparently drilling for oil in a nature preserve is how you reduce your reliance on foreign oil. Funny he didn’t mention the details of that plan. Though the research money for hydrogen powered cars is a good step. It’d be nice to see the government help that technology get to consumers faster, though from what you hear from car companies the technology is already there.

And health care for all by some restructuring of Medicaid and stopping frivolous law suits. Granted I’m no health care professional, but I don’t see how that provides patient-selected health care for all.

AIDS in Africa. Now that was encouraging. It sounds Bush intends for America to lead the way and stop a continental holocaust. Rock the house.

And then we come to Iraq. Now I’m not big on war, but I bristle every time this issue comes up. I sympathize with the protesters, but I also see the danger of a rogue nation. It just seems like we’re treading on thin ice when we become the world’s cowboy, even if we are pursuing peace and justice. Unfortunately, the entire world isn’t looking for American peace and justice. Pissed off people fought back on Sept. 11th, and we’re going to create a lot more of those foes by storming into Iraq and kicking the crap out of a wounded animal. It seems like we should evaluate some of policies and make sure we’re a little more protected and understood in the eyes of potential terrorists. Don’t forget that we started Saddam Hussien on his little chemical weapons collection during the Iran/Iraq war in the ’80s. Just because we’re the biggest country in the world doesn’t mean we can do whatever we want.

That’s what I find so difficult. It’s probably necessary to go to war with Iraq eventually. I just wish we had all the right motives and the right justifications in doing so.

In the end, I find politics pretty lame. Right now just about every state is making essential cuts just to survive the fiscal year. Yet we don’t see anything addressing this budget catastrophe. I just get fed up sometimes.

Watching George W. Bush, I’m inspired by the display of world leadership this backwater governor from Texas has been able to muster. The guy has really done an impressive job. But then I look at some specifics and I’m not so sure. He’s trying to curtail abortion. That’s good. He’s killing the environment. That’s bad. He cares about AIDS in Africa. That’s good. He wants to give tax relief to billionaires. That’s bad. In the end, where do we stand? Do you go with the guy who agrees with you on as many issues as possible? Or do you go with the guy who isn’t going to look like a pansy on the world stage? And sometimes, you just can’t know.

Another thing that makes me a little uncomfortable, is the statement that freedom is a gift from God to humanity. Bush was referring to democratic freedom, but I can’t figure out where he gets that idea. American Christians love to hail democracy and freedom as God-given rights, but I just don’t see that in the Bible. God told us to pray for our leaders, to seek out peace, justice, and mercy, and to spread the kingdom of God throughout the world. Maybe that’s accomplished through democracy, but if that’s the case I don’t think democracy is the value you want to herald. I think it’s love, peace, mercy.

Random thoughts from a random American on the state of the State of the Union.

I like exercising democracy. There’s something powerful about it, and rightfully so. I’ve voted in every election since I turned 18 (yep, all three of ’em), but tonight was the first time I actually went to the polls and voted. In past years I’ve voted by absentee ballot. This was also my first time voting as a resident of Minnesota–it will probably be my last.

I like the energy of going to the polls, the energy of being with all these other folks who want to flex their democratic might. I may be one vote in a million, but I am one vote in a million. My biggest regret was that I didn’t get an “I Voted” sticker. When you vote by absentee ballot you don’t get a sticker (though you do get a thin, stubby pencil), but I was hoping to cash in tonight. Alas, they must have run out or something, because I didn’t get a sticker. That’s my wife’s sticker. She voted earlier in the day when they were still handing out stickers. It’s really a form of bribery: if you vote, you get a sticker. But you’re really only cool if you go early in the morning so you can gloat all day long with your sticker: “Look at me! Look at me! I’m a responsible American.” Which really is something worth gloating about.

My only regret about voting at the polls is the lack of readiness. I had to do all my research ahead of time and come prepared with a little cheat sheet. Then, standing at the little booth, I had to match up my scrawled offices with the long, official names printed on the ballot, then try to fill in the appropriate circle. There was no second guessing, no chance to run back to the Web site and make sure I’m voting for the right person, no time to research the County Soil and Water Commissioner, who I didn’t have a chance to research (as if anybody has any information on that guy–I just wrote in Bono). That’s probably the biggest advantage to absentee ballot voting: you can vote in your underwear at 2:00 a.m. while sitting in front of your computer reading each candidate’s views. I guess next time I need to be a little more prepared for the onslaught of no-name judges I have the privilege of voting for. They may be running unopposed, but who knows if I’m voting for Satan-incarnate and I’d be better off writing in my cube buddy at work.

I had a hard time deciding who to vote for this year. I was one of those “undecided’s,” who figured out who I was voting for during afternoon break. (Note to politicians: any candidate who doesn’t have a simple, clear Web site outlining where they stand on the major issues is a moron. You didn’t get my vote because you’re living in the past, man.) I didn’t know who to vote for because I don’t like taking the typical Christian stance. You’ve heard this rant before, and I’ve seen it more and more often from others. I don’t vote on party lines. God’s not a Republican, he’s not a Democrat, he’s not a Green, and he’s not an Independent. He might be a Libertarian, but I kind of doubt that.

Every time I compare candidates I see losers all around. I see a great stance by Joe Schmo on abortion, but then he seems to value the lives of the rich over the poor. Apparently he’s willing to protect an unborn child’s right to life, but he’s not willing to protect a hungry child’s right to eat. Then there’s the other guy, Bob Somebody, who wants to feed those hungry kids, but then doesn’t see the need to protect the unborn children. I refuse to cast my vote based on one issue, siding with the evil minions who happen to help old ladies cross the street in addition to all their mayhem, simply because helping old ladies cross the street is good. The other guy’s not much better, he does good deeds throughout the week, but then for kicks on Friday nights likes to run over old ladies as they cross the street. You’re damned if you do, you’re damned if you don’t.

Republican, Democrat, whatever. I’m just glad we can finally stop watching those irritating campaign commercials. I decided not to vote for one guy after he had his own daughter stumping for him in a commercial. How low is that?

So what did the politicians learn tonight? Have a good Web site and don’t put your children in your commercials. Thanks and good night.

PS – the new U2 came out today: The Best of 1990-2000. Mmm… U2.