Andy's Blog

I, single handedly, have figured out how to end world hunger. I wish I could say this revelation came while in deep prayer, but alas, it did not. It came when analyzing Obama's recently released taxes from 2000-2006. The answer to world poverty: everybody should run for President...

When a President releases his taxes, most of us are just curious what the leader of the free world makes. Not I. I go straight for the "Schedule A" and see how much they gave to charity. Seeing Obama's "Schedule A" intrigued me, so I went looking for as many of the presidential income tax returns as possible.

More than 20 years of Presidential Income Tax Returns + a conceited sense of superiority + Microsoft Excel = one fun afternoon for Andy Borgmann. You can view the result here.

The conclusion: George HW Bush and Bill Clinton were by far the most generous, each of them averaged giving over 30% of their income to charity. Ronald Reagan and would be President Barack Obama would be the least generous, averaging under 5%.

But before I judge Barack Obama too much, he at least made his taxes public when he didn't have to.¹ And lets be honest. Do we really think George HW Bush and Bill Clinton were that generous before their taxes were public?

In 2002, Barack Obama made $259,394. Andy Borgmann made $6,863. In 2002, Barack Obama gave $1,050. Andy Borgmann gave $822.67. In 2002, Barack Obama gave .4% of his income. Andy Borgmann gave 11.99%.

Amazingly, Barack upped his giving to $77,315 by 2005.²

Now I could take this many different ways. But I'll leave the critique of the hyprocsiy of a man who claims to want change the world for the oppressed but has such a piss poor record on giving to Allen Hunt this weekend.

My two favorite biblical narratives about giving are Matthew 6:3 and Luke 2:1-4.

Matt 6:3
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing

Luke 2:1-4
As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 3"I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.

While most within the church (including Pastors and "Giving Conferences") need to re-read Matthew 6:3 a bit more, thanks to the IRS, they don't really make that possible for the Presidential Candidates.

But giving isn't about the amount. It is about the percentage. Dropping $50 bucks in the offering plate or to Salvation Army might be incredibly generous according to Jesus. But if you dropped $5000 on QVC purchases in the same week...well...you are materialistic.

Likewise, you can give $500,000 and appear more generous than just about anyone, but if you make $10 million, you are in fact less generous than millions of Americans.

We are all blessed to different degrees. God's challenge for us is to give in accordance to what has been given to us. And those who have been given much, much more is expected.³ Now if only all of us would be given the most powerful job in the world, and consequently our taxes be made public, we would collectively give enough to make a difference.

I would like to thank the American Family Association for reminding me why, as a Bible-believing, Evangelical Christian, I hate Christian political organizations. Why? It only took one look at their 2008 Official Voter Guide. I seriously laughed when I saw it.

First off. It should be stated a 501(c)3 organization is not allowed to endorse a political candidate. The way around it is to release a voter guide about the "issues" and assume that those who align with your organization will align with the person with the most yes-es. You know the people at AFA wish Huckabee's name started with an "F" just so they could have put him in front of Guiliani (although then they probably wouldn't support him because his name would be a swear word and we all know the Bible talks A LOT about swearing {sarcasm} ).

So what did I do? The only responsible Christian thing to do: I created my own version of an official AFA (only this time AFA = "Andy's Faith Awareness") 2008 Voter Guide to make fun of them. I included a Jesus column (as well as a column for me and the AFA as well). I added eight "faith based" issues the AFA should have mentioned. And I also assigned a numerical value to the AFA, Jesus, and Andy column on a scale of 1 to 10 on how important that would be to each "candidate". Take a look.

Click for a larger version (Or Download the PDF to print out and give to friends ;) )

Now admittedly, I do not get to speak for Jesus. I will acknowledge this. I wish the AFA would. But given my extensive reading of scripture, the above 1-10 scale resembles how I interpret a modern-day Jesus would rank the political issues. Please also note, that I do not always "agree" with Jesus. Why? It isn't because I am right and Jesus is wrong; but because I at least have the integrity to recognize that what I think about our current American socio/political culture is potentially wrong.

What I would rather point out is the difference between AFA and Jesus. I hate to break it to you, but Jesus could careless about gun laws and taxes. Remember his answer about paying taxes to Caesar? The ambivalence was astonishing. Don't get me wrong, I want small government. I want low taxes. But to say that low taxes is a "faith" issue is irresponsible at best.

But now lets look at what Jesus did talk about more than just about any other topic: taking care of the poor? Ohh but wait, it isn't on the list. Ohh so gun laws and taxes make the list, but taking care of the poor somehow is not a family value?

Let's talk about pro-life. Sure we all know Jesus is against abortions, but what about the death penalty? What about health care? I hate to break it to you, but being pro-life is more than being anti-abortion.

But then I get the predictable response from my friend when I object and she states:

Are you going to mention in your blog that it is the church’s responsibility to take care of the poor (not the government)?

Now I don't blame her for this comment. Why? Because it is quite the popular assumption within the faith community. But I have to call BS. That mindset is fine, but you don't get your cake and eat it too. If you are going to scream at the top of your lungs for traditional marriage and abortion, then you have stated that your intentions are to yield the "churches" role, at least in part, to the government. If you want to lobby the government for pro-life laws, then you better be willing to lobby the government for poverty laws as well.

So why does this matter? Well you will notice that I put "?" marks under the candidates column for the issues I created. When I originally went to do this I was going to include where I thought the candidates stood on these issue. But then I realized that was the wrong approach. The AFA (and other's like it) have a lot of authority in a very powerful constituency. Millions of people look to them for political guidance. But if they turn non-faith issues into faith issues (i.e. gun laws), and forget to mention issues that are faith issues (i.e. poverty laws), then they are doing a huge disservice to the American political arena, and more importantly the body of Christ.

As a Christian political group, we must recognize that we are following Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove and Fox News closer than we are following Jesus - and that is a horrendous offense. As Barack Obama said at a recent Sojourners event in Atlanta, GA, "before we get carried away, let's read our Bibles now. Folks haven't been reading their Bibles."

I will close with this. Before I get labeled a helpless liberal, I want to state sincerely I have not decided who I am voting for. The way I look at it, I am either voting for Huckabee or Obama. The point is, I would vote for each of them because of what my faith tells me is important. Neither Huckabee or Obama or Guiliani or Edwards are Jesus Christ. Neither one of them is right on every issue. The AFA can continue to follow Coulter and Hannity and Limbaugh and Rove, but for me, I will follow Christ.

I haven't been writing very frequently this month and I apologize. It has been a hard, but GREAT month. I have been working 60-hour weeks trying to get our studio ready for our national syndication (some real exciting stuff), but I have also been spending the weekends at Hilton Head Island - which has been a blast. Last weekend I was down there with just friends, this past weekend I went down and met up with family, this upcoming weekend I am going down with Molly.

Last weekend was really a great time. On the first night we went to this amazing restaurant, that had these beautiful, huge windows that overlooked a cove on the island. I had some great shrimp and scallops, and enjoyed some good time with some family.

About 20 minutes into the dinner, a huge storm rolled through out of the blue - and when I say huge, it was huge. For someone who loves storms, it was awesome! But the first thing that came to my mind was, "crap, did I close my sunroof." This got me thinking about materialism.

I was sitting at the end of the table with my Uncle and I vocalized, "you know what is strange, I add this 'luxury' item to my life (yes, a sunroof is a luxury item to me), and look how it adds complication and becomes something that 'owns' me."

Back when I didn't have a sunroof, I never worried when it rained. I just enjoyed the thunderstorm and the company of those I was with. But now, it "ruined" the moment - because I couldn't get it out of my head.

Now obviously I don't think having a sunroof is wrong (or other luxuries) but it does make you realize that Jesus was right when he says that, "it is easier for a rich man to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven." Why? Because the only thing that is suppose to "own" us is God.

We want the beach house, but then would worry about hurricanes. We want the nice car, but then would worry about it getting dented. We want the huge house, but then we got to hire people to tend to it and everything is more expensive to fix. And then we realize life is unnecessarily complicated. Now don't get me wrong, I am still going to enjoy the luxuries of life. But I think the idea is to recognize that if we aren't careful, that which we strive to own in life, eventually owns us.

It has now been two weeks since the Virginia Tech shooting (I refuse to call it a massacre like the sensationalized press). I, like every other blogger on the web, of course was tempted to blog about this the second after this happened. But I, unlike every other blogger on the web, decided to wait two weeks. Why? Because what I am about to say was probably too emotionally charged to say the minute after it happened, but now seems a little more realistic (although still probably somewhat extreme). The Virginia Tech shooting is a non-event.

WOAH! You have got to be kidding me. You are nuts. You are so insensitive. You are ridiculous! Are those pretty much your thoughts? Well, give me a second and maybe I will make some sense. If I don't, you are welcome to think I am ridiculous.

Before I go further, I do not want to minimize the pain of those that were personally affected by this event. The families, direct friends, and students deserve our prayers and our sympathy. But the sensationalism the media, and if we are honest, ourselves, had/have turned that event into is almost just as much of a tragedy because it lacks perspective. And why do we lack perspective? Because we are self-centered and we all either are going to college, are in college, went to college, or have kids going to college.

Let's take a look at perspective for a second.

• In 2000 there were 850,293 abortions in the US. That's 2,329 deaths each day, or 77x as many deaths per day as the VTech shootings. Ok, so now you think I am a crazy right-wing nut job. Well hold on.
• In 2006, 2.9 million people died of AIDS, which is 7,900 per day (or 264x that of VTech). 1,041 of those 7,900 deaths per day are innocent children.
• Every year 15 million children die of hunger, or 41,095 per day - that's 1370x that of VTech.
• So just out of those three statistics, we see that 51,324 people die per day that are reasonably treatable and I consider a "tragic death."

Now some of you are probably on the same page with me; others still think I am a nut job. One more thing. I think the American culture proves that VTech is a non-event. Why? Because just two weeks later we have pretty much forgotten about this. It no longer graces the front pages of MSNBC.com, FoxNews.com and CNN.com. In addition to that, how many of us remember the Amish School shooting back in November. Or better yet, that there have been 36 school shootings since 1996. In a month, this will be completely a non-event.

So why is this a non-event? Because we are self-centered. We only care about what we think will happen to us or our family. This is why we don't really care about the alarming statistics of unnecessary death around the world. It is also why at first we appear to care about things like VTech more than anything else, but in the end, we retreat back to our realization that we are really quite safe, our college students are safe, and we've got life pretty good. So since our Darwinian instinct of survival is back in tact, we put these memories into our past as tragic, but essentially incurious.

I am three hours into a fourteen hour flight from Chicago to Tokyo. According to the personal TV screen I have in front of me, I am currently at 34,000 feet near Fort McMurray, Canada. Three minutes ago, on that same screen, I just got done watching the movie Blood Diamonds, and I think I have found yet another reason why I won’t be getting married.

Unlike other posts, this reason isn’t because of my observations of the opposite sex. No, I think this new reason, is because I am adding another trait to Andy Borgmann that I believe most women are going to decide is not very appealing. I don’t think I can ever buy a diamond.

If you haven’t seen the movie, you need to. The basic summary is it is about how the insatiable Western demand for diamonds (and capitalistic greed) is leading to civil war in many Middle-African countries. The best line in the movie (which I might be botching up) is when in response to being accused as part of the problem because she too probably dreams of a fairy tale wedding, a female reporter says, "Most girls wouldn’t want a diamond if they knew it cost someone else’s hand." I think that is an appropriate statement.

There was another great line in the movie. An African tribal man said, "Let’s hope they don’t find oil here, because then we will be in real trouble." Bam, another slap in my Western, Capitalistic face; especially since I know how much fuel this flight I am on is consuming. But what I think separates oil from diamonds is this: oil’s conflict is based on the fact oil is a commodity (heck it’s cheaper than bottled water). Diamonds conflict are based on the fact they are a luxury. Eventually, I think oil will bring stability to the region of the Middle East (I know, ya’ll think I am crazy). Diamonds will never do this. Diamonds are a luxury item, and the demand will always be priced that way, which means it will always be highly lucrative, and therefore, conflict stricken.

At the end of the movie it challenges everyone to buy "conflict-free" diamonds. But even conflict free diamonds benefit from the insatiable materialism that is associated with "conflict-ridden" diamonds. In the end, at Tiffany’s or Zales, they are all the same.

So as I sit in my premium economy seat aboard United #881, I am fighting back tears (after all, I don’t want the attractive girl next to me to think I am a Nancy boy). But then again, I guess it doesn’t matter because she would never be attracted to a guy who probably won’t buy her a diamond.

I came across the most profound sketch on Saturday Night Live the other day. The context: Tina Fey is interviewing Donovan McNabb's Mother (Charline) about the upcoming SuperBowl game between her son's Philadelphia Eagles and the favorite-to-win New England Patriots.

Tina Fey: W- wait, you- you’re betting on the Patriots?

Charline McNabb: That’s right! I like my son, but I love my money.

This post is not meant to advocate (or not-advocate) gambling. I take a neutral stance on gambling because honestly, I can't really figure out what Jesus says about gambling. But I digress.

The more I come in contact with American Christians, the more I realize that a modified version of this statement rings all too true. While I think when asked, most Christians would proclaim that their faith is more important than money, but their actions would proclaim something far different. Their actions would essentially say, "That's right! I like my Jesus, but I love my money."

This is why Jesus spoke more about money than any other topic (yes including sex, which is way down the list). Jesus knew the heart of people was their money and it is why He said it is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get in the kingdom of heaven. This isn't because money is wrong, but because money is so alluring. It isn't obvious that often times our faith and our money conflict with each other. It's far more subtle than that.

I don't honestly know if I am "safe" on this one. I have to live by faith and ultimatley trust God. I'd like to say that I love my Jesus more than I love my money, but I don't know. By American standards I am hardly wealthy (although I do alright). However, in a world where making more than $25,400 puts you in the richest 10%, I have to say I am quite rich. And that is what scares me. I make sure I tithe, I give beyond tithing to other charities and needs, and I have devoted all that I know how to do to serving Jesus Christ. But all this doesn't make me any less a slave to money (in fact, it may make me more of a slave). In the end, I hope I can say, "That's right! I like my money, but I love my Jesus" (as cheasey as that may sound).

In 2004, Angelina Jolie was named the sexiest woman alive by Esquire magazine. At the time, I thought, “that's an odd pick.” Don't get me wrong. Angelina is attractive and hot and all, but honestly, the sexiest. I can think of others who in my opinion are sexier. However, I have to say, after watching her interview on Anderson Cooper 360° last night, the picture to the left has to be the sexiest picture of her I have ever seen, and quite possibly the sexiest picture of anyone I have ever seen.

Now I should state that I am a sucker for simplicity. Take college for example. The sexiest part of college, in my mind, were all the girls roaming around in their pajamas. This is not to say that I don't appreciate well dressed occasions, however, I usually find "cute" sexier than "hot" and "simplicity" sexier than "done-up." So this statement about Angelina isn’t just a “noble” relation of good works equaling sexiness (I am not that good of a Christian). I actually do find this picture above to be sexy. But I digress.

To see someone so attractive and wealthy, with literally endless possibilities in ways to spend that money and fame, choose to make poverty an issues closest to her heart is inspiring. When all of her other celebrity cohorts are spending their money on Botox and plastic surgery so they can be the scoop of Esquire's pointless designations or E!'s countless "sexiest people countdowns," Angelina has taken her sexiness and turned it into one of the most noble works on the planet: taking care of the poor, especially children.

I have to say the coolest thing about Angelina is that she both talks the talk and walks the walk - which is rare in Hollywood (and the world). She is as loud as anyone out there about poverty. But she also gives up 1/3 of her income, adopted two children, and travels to countless countries all in the name of poverty. Having both of those elements makes me respect Angelina more than just about any celebrity or well-known political figure in the entire world.

So Esquire, you got it wrong this year by naming Jessica Biel the new sexiest woman alive. That title still goes to Angelina, and this picture is the proof.

Given that I talk a lot about politics and government, I figured it was about time for me to define what I believe the role of the government in America should be. Ultimately, I consider myself a moderate because their are some views I am liberal on and some views I am conservative on. However, in our current political structure, I usually define myself as a Republican. This is because I believe government should be as small as possible, and unlike most people who say that, I mean it.

The government has two jobs: 1) protect us from others and 2) do only what no other entity can do. The first one is self explanatory. Whether it is the neighbor boy breaking in to steal DVDs or terrorists threatening thousands of American lives, the government should see itself ultimately as an enabler of public order. On a side note, this function is not the same as protecting us from ourselves (which is why I am against the seatbelt law), but I digress.

The second role is the one that most people have a hard time with. Because this means free-market and unregulated business - which conservatives like. This also means allowing for morally unacceptable things that don't "necessarily" hurt anybody directly (i.e. homosexuality & pornography) - which liberals like. This allows for things like Medicare, social security and welfare as an auxiliary method of care taking. However, it shouldn't be the crutch it has turned into. it also means forging ahead in large scale research as well as diplomacy abroad. It means defending the helpless anywhere in the world from evil dictators, but not imperializing the planet (we can leave that up to businesses if the market allows for it, right?). Taxes shouldn't necessarily be low, but rather, at an acceptable level that allows for a balanced budget for a smaller Government.

Anything beyond these two points, in my belief, is beyond the role of a modern government.

So where does charity come into all this. For too long Americans have depended on the US Government to take care of the poor and disenfranchised. Yet this brings about no real change - it just stabilizes the necessities. Change happens when we choose on a personal level to invest ourselves in the lives of others (and I am not just talking about money). This should be the definition of all of our roles in society.

As I sit on my computer right now, I am staring at my AOL Buddy List and an ad for ONE.ORG begins to play. Basically what we have here is a bunch of celebrities snapping their fingers in order to show us how simple it can be to end poverty if we all just speak up!

Now this brings me back to the glorious summer of '05 and the Live 8 concert. Do you remember? For a week it seemed like we had every celebrity in the world, telling the 8 leaders from the 8 "great countries" that the world wants them to end poverty.

Before I get into what I feel about this, I should add the disclaimer that I am sure there are some truly amazing celebrities deeply concerned with the poverty issue. One case in point is Angelina Jolie. She has moved her family. Adopted her kids. And given tons of money and time in order to fight poverty all around the world, and for that I congratulate her. There are probably others (Bono, George Clooney maybe?).

However, here's my problem with this. If anybody in this world has the ability to do something about poverty it is celebrities. They have the money, and more importantly, the time to really do something about this issue if they wanted to. But instead, they settle for a concert once every 20 years (Live Aid = 1985, Live 8 = 2005), and very little in their own life changes. They are still pulling in millions of dollars and wasting it on their own greed and selfishness. Then they have the audacity to produce commercial telling us not even to help ourselves, but rather, just sign a petition so that others (i.e. governments) will step it up and help the situations in Africa. This is ridiculous.

I have spent my life trying to make the lives of others better. There are families in Mexico that have houses in part due to my effort. There is an orphanage in Honduras that has a gym do to work I have done. There are gardens in South Africa I have helped get started. Now I am not saying all this because I am prideful and want the glory. Far from it. What I want is for America and Celebrities in particular to recognize that poverty is not going to end just by snapping our fingers and signing a petition. Nor will it even end by wealthy countries canceling the debt of poorer countries (does that work on a personal level - does a poor person become rich because a bank cancel their mortgage?) Poverty will end when rich countries' citizens make sacrifices to share the wealth, and aid in the empowering of poor countries' citizens to empower themselves. Until we as a culture put away the idea that Hollywood sells us everyday that materialism brings us happiness, we will never make any grounds in helping impoverished countries. So celebrities out there, I will see you in about 20 years when you decide to throw another concert telling the world that you care, yet ignoring the fact that for the past 20 years you & poverty are at polar extremes of each other.