Well Done, Mr. President (By Brian Mclaren)

In recent weeks, we've been watching Senator Obama and Senator Clinton try to disagree honestly without being too nasty in the process. This week, we saw Senator McCain come to the defense of Senator Obama when a warm-up speaker stooped to some low political rhetoric. Maybe the stale air of partisanship and "gotcha" politics can be replaced by some clean, fresh cooperative air ... for a while at least?

In that spirit, I think we all - Democrats, Republicans, and others - should stop what we're doing to honor President Bush for his ongoing commitment to Africa. I think Bono recently summed up what many of us feel regarding our president's concern for AIDS treatment, malaria prevention, education, and multifaceted economic development:

President Bush has every reason to be proud of what he and so many others have accomplished in Africa. From AIDS treatment once thought impossible, to millions of bednets to keep kids from dying of a mosquito bite, to new African jobs created with trade policy, to billions in old debts erased. And back in Washington, a political shift has taken place with Democrats and Republicans working shoulder to shoulder to partner with people of Africa as they work to lift their continent out of poverty, putting 29 million children in school in the last five years, with the help of debt cancellation.

Some will quickly say that more could and should be done. Yes - in fact, you'll hear from one of those voices today on the blog. But we should also acknowledge that much less could have been done. We should celebrate whenever good and beautiful things happen in this world, and President Bush has done some good and beautiful things for Africa. Kudos to him, and to all members of Congress of both parties - and to all Americans who can feel good that a portion of our taxes are being invested in this way.

Bono added,

These are accomplishments the next president must build on. ... I hope that the next president, whoever that is, will get to experience firsthand this beautiful and entrepreneurial continent that is rising to all of the challenges being sent its way.

Let's also pause a minute to pray that our next president and Congress will continue and expand what's being done. The pain and need in Africa are so great that it will take governments, businesses, churches, NGO's, individuals, and intergovernmental agencies, all doing their best - assisted by the powers of heaven - to make substantial and ongoing progress. Thanks be to God for the good that has begun to be done. God bless Africa.

My Predictions for the The Academy Awards 2008

Here are my predictions for the winners of the Oscars this weekend.

Best Supporting Actor

Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men

Best Actress

Julie Christy, Away from Her

Best Supporting Actress

Cate Blanchett, I'm Not There

Best Animated Film

Ratatouille
Best Director

the Coen Brothers, No Country for Old Men

Best Screenplay (Adapted)

the Coen Brothers, No Country for Old Men

Best Screenplay (Original)

Juno

Best Actor
Daniel-Day Lewis, There Will be Blood

Best Picture
There Will be Blood (they will possibly vote No Country for Old Men but I will go with There Will be Blood)

My favorite film of the year was There Will be Blood. It is brilliant in all respects. And while among my friend there is debate whether No Country for Old Men is a little bit better I disagree. When you are watching this film, or maybe after you watch it. Three things stand out. First, that every shot matters and there is no such thing as even a two dimensional character--all of them have three dimensions!

Second, the story is deep on so many levels. It is about oil, it is about greed, it is about selfishness--but it is also about family, and is a depressing commentary on the sacrifices people as individuals and we as a society make for success (more specifically, success and exploitation of people based on a thirst for oil that does not end). And the plot grows on you over time. I have thought of different angles and presented them to people and had them agree and say "I never thought of that." I have said to many people, who are confused about the movie and their expectations about violence, that my feeling was that "blood" in the title is a metaphor for oil--the blood of the earth. No one has fully agreed yet, but they do not fully disagree either. The fact that the story it was based on is entitled Oil! might help this argument.

Third, and most important. While you watch the movie you literally sit there and say to yourself: I am watching a historical performance right now. Daniel-Day Lewis as Daniel Plainview is possibly the most extraordinary acting I have ever seen in my life. People are saying that it is one of the greatest performances ever. Up there with Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird, Orson Welles in Citizen Kane and Marlon Brando in (while just about everything he did: On the Waterfront, Streetcar Named Desire, and Godfather). This is not about whether Day-Lewis deserves the Oscar for this performance...there is zero doubt that he deserves and will get that. The question is: is it deserving of something better than that? I don't even know what that means. But after Sunday when he has an Oscar, if you have seen the movie I think you will be saying...but that's it? That performance deserves something more.

I am interested to see hot I do out of 9.

Same-sex Marriage Dividing the Church

From the National Post, Friday February 15

The largest Anglican congregation in the country has voted overwhelmingly to leave the Canadian Church and put itself under the authority of a parallel conservative Anglican movement -- a move that may help accelerate a schism and open the way for a nasty legal battle over Church property.

St. John's, which has more than 2,000 members in the affluent Vancouver neighbourhood of Shaughnessy, has been at odds with the Diocese of New Westminster, which lets its churches perform same-sex blessings, since 2002.

The congregation has withheld financial support from the diocese for the past six years as a protest, but now has taken the radical step of breaking off all together.

"The mood at the meeting [on Wednesday night] was really something," said Lesley Bentley, a member of St. John's for 20 years. "It was a very sober atmosphere. No one was taking it lightly. There was no sense of exuberance. We did it because we believe the future of our Church depends on it."

Last week, Michael Ingham, the bishop of the diocese, said any church that voted to leave could face legal action.

"No parish or congregation ... has any legal existence except as part of the diocese, and any attempt by any person to remove a parish from the jurisdiction of the Bishop and Synod would be schismatic," Bishop Ingham wrote.

But David Short, the senior pastor at St. John's, said his congregation simply wants to practise an orthodox Anglican faith and that its members' views are more in line with the worldwide Anglican communion than the diocese or the Canadian Church.

"Within the diocese we are called the dissidents, but looking at global Communion, the diocese and the Anglican Church of Canada are the dissidents," he said.

Rev. Short said his parish asked to be put under the jurisdiction of a Canadian bishop who shared their orthodox views, but they were offered a compromise that was not satisfactory.

"One of the key disappointments for orthodox Anglicans right across the country has been the failure of the [national Church] to address this properly."

Paul Feheley, principal secretary to Archbishop Fred Hiltz, head of the Canadian Church, said Anglicanism has always contained wide areas of opinion and there is no reason for anyone to leave.

"We're not holding our noses and pretending this is not happening, but at some point we can't be all things to all people."

Archbishop Hiltz released a letter this week that said "in our Anglican tradition, individuals who choose to leave the Church over contentious issues cannot take property and other assets with them."

Three other churches in the Diocese of New Westminster and two churches in Ontario are also expected to vote on resolutions to leave the Canadian Church.

In November, two retired bishops were brought back to active duty, but under the authority of Gregory Venables, Archbishop of the Southern Cone, which encompasses parts of South America. The move coincided with the launch of a parallel national Anglican church, the Anglican Network In Canada, designed to represent the interests of conservative parishes.

Marilyn Jacobson, a spokeswoman for the network, said the vote at St. John's will give confidence to the other parishes to make the same move. She said the network has a legal fund of $1-million to help defend any churches from legal action or eviction.

The group eventually hopes that a new Anglican jurisdiction, or province, will be created to encompass American and Canadian orthodox churches.

In December, the entire Diocese of San Joaquin in California, 47 churches and 8,300 people, also put themselves under the authority of Archbishop Venables. As well, about 120 individual churches have broken with the main U.S. church and are reporting to conservative African church leaders.

Reverend Van McCalister, a spokesman for San Joaquin, said the issue for orthodox churches, whether in the United States or Canada, goes much deeper than same-sex blessings.

"We saw that the [Church] leadership was moving in a direction that was very different than classical Christianity. They are redefining who Christ is and what it means to be a Christian. And so we really thought it was important that we be aligned with the majority of the Anglican Communion that still had an orthodox view of Christ and Christianity.

"[The issue of same-sex blessings] was certainly the tipping point, something that exemplified how far off Biblical Christianity the leadership has gone. For some time now there have been a number of bishops and seminary professors who are denying the Virgin Birth, that Jesus is the son of God, denying the Resurrection, things that are essential to what Christianity is. This reinterpretation of scripture ... that really is the central issue. The same-sex issue really is a symptom of the deeper problem."

Do Global-Markets equal Global Responsibility?

If you ask most people about the conflict in Kenya right now their response will be: "What conflict?" The reason this is so, is because important global news is over-shadowed right now by the over-hyped, over "pop-culturized" US Presidential Elections, and other Western News. Important global events such as news about Darfur or the present month-long political conflict in Kenya that has caused the death of almost 1000 people, and displaced 300,000 others is not even talked about on the 24 hour "News" channels such as CNN or Fox News.

This shows a blatant disregard for the global realities we live within. We have to wake up to the fact that countries are no longer disconnected the way they were, even a generation ago. That is what globalization has done; it has shrunk the world, it has made it small and intimate. Does not this reality force upon us responsibility as well, to at least cover news that comes out of these places, let alone to force us to help?

Someone said recently:
"Distance can no longer decide who is our neighbor. We can't choose our neighbors anymore. We can't choose the benefits of globalization without some of the responsibilities. We should remind ourselves that "love your neighbor" is not advice: it is a command."

Think about Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10.30-37)
"And who is my neighbor?"30In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two silver coins^[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.' 36"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" 37The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."

What is our responsibility toward other countries in a connected, global world, run by a global-market? Is it just to have all the amenities of the Western world while children in other countries are dying of immunization's that cost 2 cents?

Do we, as a kingdom of priests have a responsibility to the poor ones? To pick them up off the ground, tend to their wounds and pay a hotel manager so they can have safe and warm living conditions?

and in Business News...

THE GUARDIAN
Microsoft Corp. has made an aggressive bid to buy struggling Internet behemoth Yahoo Inc. for $44.6 billion, in hopes that the combined forces would create a formidable competitor to industry leader Google Inc.

The surprising offer, announced today, leaves the decision in the hands of Yahoo's board, which responded that it would promptly evaluate the proposal "in the context of Yahoo's strategic plans and pursue the best course of action to maximize long-term value for shareholders."

If the acquisition is approved by Yahoo, it likely will be reviewed by federal regulators. Today, the U.S. Justice Department told the Associated Press it would be interested in scrutinizing the deal on antitrust grounds. That Google is so dominant in online advertising probably helps Microsoft, which already is under federal oversight in the wake of an anti-trust settlement six years ago.

Google declined to comment on the proposed merger.

In making the unsolicited acquisition offer, and then taking it public, Microsoft is hoping to force Yahoo's hand winning the support of investors as they bemoan a slumping share price. Financially adrift, Yahoo is undergoing a desperate reorganization, and its troubles are reflected in its stock, which was near a four-year low Thursday at $19.18.

Microsoft is offering $31 per share, a 62 percent premium, which Yahoo investors would be able to take in cash or in Microsoft shares.

-------------------------------------

OIL and GAS
Shell recorded the biggest annual profits in British corporate history yesterday at $27.6bn (£14bn) causing a storm of protest from trade union leaders and green groups who said the "obscene" profits came at the expense of motorists, pensioners and the environment and suggested it should be met with a windfall tax.

(Definition: A tax levied by governments against certain industries when economic conditions allow those industries to experience above-average profits. Windfall taxes are primarily levied on the companies in the targeted industry that have benefited the most from the economic windfall, most often commodity-based businesses.

As with all tax initiatives instituted by governments, there is always a divide between those who are for and those who are against the tax. The benefits of a windfall tax include proceeds being directly used by governments to bolster funding for social programs. However, those against windfall taxes claim that they reduce companies' initiatives to seek out profits. They also believe that profits should be reinvested to promote innovation that will in turn benefit society as a whole.

Windfall taxes will always be a contentious issue debated between the shareholders of profitable companies and the rest of society. This issue came to a head in 2005, when oil and gas companies, such as Exxon Mobil who reported profits of US$36 billion for the year, experienced unusually large profits due to rising energy prices).

Back to the story: The world's second largest quoted oil company (Shell) said it had no intention of cutting back on its operations, saying it needed to increase production to meet rising demand and unveiling controversial plans to start oil operations in Iraq (See here "Shell Plans in Iraq")

In American Profits history however it was not Shell that recorded record profit. (Oh good I thought I was going to get all negative toward Oil companies; Who was it? Microsoft? Wal-Mart? Ebay?) It was the oil giant Exxon Mobil, with a dismal 40.6 Billion dollar profit year. See story here.

The fact that I pay 110 at the pump per litre is fine though -- as long as the CEO's are eating 3 square meals a day.

What is the argument here again for why they charge so much (I know its cheap here compared to other countries, but other countries aren't built with as much as a necessity for travel like our urban/suburban realities) but make so much actual profit. Is the profit above costs to run the oil wells and stuff? Please if you know more about this, chime in. (Josh--any thoughts if you are reading?)