Rick Warren’s Purpose

What I have seen on most conservative blogs, including ours, is the response from the left to President-Elect Obama’s invitation to Pastor Rick Warren to do the Inauguration Invocation.  What I am going to address is the response from the right; mainly the outcry from some pro-lifers in regards to Warren’s acceptance of that invitation.

First of all, let’s take a look at what  an invocation actually is.  An invocation is a prayer and/or a call on for aid or protection.  If there is one incoming president who is in need of a prayer or aid I would have to say Barack Obama wins hands down.  Who would these outspoken pro-lifers rather have do the honors?  Jeremiah Wright?  I know they are up in arms about Obama’s stance on abortion, but that is exactly why he needs the prayer.  I know it is also seen as a political move on Obama’s part, but if that is the case he needs that prayer even more.  The real question is how is Rick Warren going to handle the task he has accepted.

During the Saddleback Forum this summer with Obama and John McCain, Warren proved to be more of a moderator than a pastor of the Gospel.  I know most conservatives were critical of him for not going after Obama’s “above my pay grade” response when asked when life begins, but I believe that Warren lost his purpose when he did not hold our own side accountable on the same question.  John McCain answered forcefully, “at conception” when asked the same question, but  Rick Warren missed the chance hold that life issue up when McCain stated that he still supported embryonic stem cell research.

Now Rick Warren has another chance.  In his book The Purpose Driven Life he states, “You may choose your career, your spouse, your hobbies, and many other parts of your life, but you don’t get to choose your purpose.”  He chose to accept Obama’s invitation, but he doesn’t get to choose his purpose.  Remember, Jesus invited himself to the house of the tax collector, Zacchaeus, while the people stood in disbelief that he would be the guest of a “sinner” and look how that turned out.

Gov. Culver weighs in on change in drop out age

This morning I am listening to WHO radio and discussion on Jan Mickelson as to the topic of raising the age students can drop out of high school to age 18. There is much discussion going on via the radio and in the newspaper. Gov. Culver is speaking out on this potential change and is “for it all the way.”

I am sharing a newspaper article hoping that Iowa taxpayers will be heads up to the continued discussion on what Culver describes as an “easy step” to legislate a change in the drop out rate. Many Iowans will have personal experience with the topics of high school, teenagers, school systems, what is being taught and how teaching is being done, and more! This is surely an issue that Iowans will want to ponder and then communicate their opinions with their Representatives in the Iowa Legislature.

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2008/01/18/news/iowa/57f16f6ef65fd966862573d40009e286.txt

By Whitney Woodward Journal Des Moines Bureau | Posted: Friday, January 18, 2008

DES MOINES — Teens would be forbidden from dropping out of school before they’re 18 years old under a proposal in the Iowa House that Gov. Chet Culver backed Thursday.

“Our dropout rate is too high,” Culver said. “One reason kids drop out is because they’re allowed to under the current law.”

State law currently requires teens who are younger than 16 on Sept. 15 to complete that academic year before they can legally leave school. Many lawmakers say they’d like to require teens to stay in school until they become legal adults on their 18th birthdays.

“Does a 16-year-old kid know about what’s best for his future?” Rep. Deborah Berry, D-Waterloo, said. “At that age, you can’t make that kind of decision for yourself.”

There are roughly 1,100 dropouts between the ages of 16 and 18 in Iowa, Department of Education official Jeff Berger said.

If the compulsory attendance age was upped to 18, those considering dropping out would likely be high school seniors mere months away from graduation.

Supporters said that mandating students stay in school will keep them out of trouble and help them lead productive lives.

In November a special bipartisan committee addressed Iowa’s looming skilled worker shortage and concluded that increasing graduation rates would help strengthen the state’s labor force.

“We’re dealing in a knowledge economy, so it’s so important that these children be educated,” Rep. Doris Kelley, D-Waterloo, said. “With the job market right now, unless a student or a young person has a high school degree or graduated from a university, there aren’t very many opportunities for them.”

The governor, an official with the Department of Education and many Republican and Democratic lawmakers said they support the plan. To become law, the proposal would have to be approved by the Legislature and signed by Culver.

Although a similar plan stalled in the Statehouse last year, lawmakers said they’re optimistic this time around because officials have expressed an elevated interest in education issues.

“I think it does have renewed life,” said House Education Committee Chair Rep. Roger Wendt, D-Sioux City.

But lawmakers have yet to develop an enforcement mechanism to punish teens who leave school underage.

Under the eyes of the law, a student is considered truant if they drop out before they’re 16, but few county attorneys take formal action on the teens because they’re so young, Berger said. So, increasing the minimum dropout age without providing a punishment for breaking the law may have little effect on attendance.

“There isn’t a lot of recourse if a kid is intent on not being in school. It’s pretty hard to keep them there,” Berger said.

But Rep. Lisa Heddens, D-Ames, said the state must encourage students to be productive members of society, beginning with requiring them to go to school.

“We’re a state that puts a high emphasis on education,” Heddens said. “I think this (proposal) shows just how much we value education.”

 

Chet Culver: Ransoming the Future to Pay for the Present

I have a quick question for our readers. What do you do when the state that you govern carries approximately $500 million in debt? I would hazard a guess that a large majority of us would dramatically cut spending, but not so for our governor Chet Culver.

Last week during a taping of Iowa Press our lovely Governor Chet Culver made the following comment:

“If we want to modernize our infrastructure-our sewer treatment facilities, our water treatment facilities-I don’t know how bonding can stay off the table.”

That’s right, with over $500 million in debt Culver wants to send the state even further into the hole to fund his pet projects. Culver completely disregards the hard facts that most Iowans face on a daily basis. Instead of governing responsibly and acting with a little financial common sense Culver is betting the farm on what is beginning to appear to be a massive New Deal-esque public works project. His idea of economic stimulus is to spend massive amounts of taxpayer money to jumpstart Iowa’s economy. While I think that it may be a noble goal, I do believe that it would be an ultimate failure as long as the US economy is in its recession.

As for the notion that a massive project along these lines will work I think is wrong. Many people credit FDR’s New Deal for bringing the US back from the depression, but those same people fail to mention that the country was still mired in the depression when World War II erupted. A lot of the credit for the United States economic recovery from the depression can and should be credited to the war effort. Many US soldiers that went to war in Europe received monthly wages, but couldn’t use them at the front so their wages accrued. At the end of the war when the soldiers came home they had a very high amount of disposable income that they used. This was one of the major factors that brought about the end of the depression, not the public works programs instituted by FDR.

If Culver goes ahead with this plan to improve Iowa’s infrastructure system it will threaten to bankrupt our state. We are already in debt to the tune of $500 million; if this plan proceeds we could very easily reach one billion dollars in debt in very short order. Of course a lot of people wouldn’t really care if the state goes deeper into debt as it will be Iowa’s future paying for the present. For those of you with children look at them right now. Do you really want them to have hardships in their lives just so you could have a few more creature comforts now? If you are anything like me that answer would be no.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 694 other followers