Monogamy: Unrealistic Expectation?

Note for my family: This is not an appropriate topic of conversation when guests are around. EG, it s/b off limits from 24 Dec until 3 Jan. 

Now, let’s see how much trouble I can get myself in.

According to Barna Research, Christians have a nominally higher divorce rate than non-Christians. Worse, from some preliminary research I’ve done, divorce of those who meet at Christian universities appears to be about 22% higher than that. You stand a better chance of a successful marriage if you meet in Bullwinkle’s Bar than at Bethel University.

Purely from a lot of anecdotal evidence I’ll go out on a limb and state that divorce is very harmful to everyone involved and in particular to children. Even adult children are negatively impacted by their parents divorce.

Why do we get divorced so often? From conversations with a number of pastors the core cause of divorce among Christians centers around high expectations that go unmet. Number one unmet expectation: sexual monogamy. Religious incompatibility and financial issues come in tied for second, but way down the list. Interestingly, an unmet expectation of him becoming a pastor or missionary is a measurable reason given for Christian divorces.

The Tiger scandal is just the latest in a very long list of ‘men behaving badly’. In our society we expect that when men get married that they will be sexually monogamous. No sex with anyone else. Till death, or more likely, divorce, do they part. Going one step further, Catholic folk expect that their priests will remain sexually celibate for life. Realistic expectations?

Numerous studies have indicated that somewhere around 80% of men have sex outside of their marriage and this isn’t unique to the U.S., but holds true for pretty much every nation in the world.

Of all the marriages in the Bible only about 28% could possibly have been monogamous, because we know that at least 72% were not. Those we know who were not monogamous include such heralded folk as Abraham, David, Judah, and Moses. As one Biblical historian and anthropologist mentioned to me, it’s unlikely that any more than a very small minority of men in the Bible were monogamous as sexual monogamy, for men, was simply not a moral concept that existed until several hundred years after Jesus ministry.

Even Catholic priests were apparently not required to be monogamous in marriage until about 800 and celibacy was not required until around 1050. Such figures as St. Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther argued against both the celibacy requirement for priests and monogamy for anyone as not Biblical and not realistic.

Whatever your beliefs, reality is that when a couple gets married, when they’re walking down the aisle, there is about an 80% likelihood that he will, at some point during their marriage, have sex with someone else. And in all probability, many someone else’s. It is a little better for Christians, about 28% of evangelical Christian men appear to remain monogamous (though over 90% admit to regularly viewing porn which has been the basis for a number of divorces). Even for evangelical Christians it is very unlikely that he will be any more monogamous than Abraham, David, Judah, or Moses (and my hats off to those very few who are more monogamous than Abraham, David, Judah, Moses, and all the rest!)

This isn’t saying that it’s OK for him to have sex with someone other than his wife or that viewing porn is OK, just stating a statistical reality. And historically this appears to have been the case since Adam and Eve.

Is there any point then in an expectation of monogamy?

If you know that there is greater than an 80% risk of failure, why make the vow? Why take the risk? Why get married and more importantly, why have children, if the likelihood of foisting the pain and agony of divorce on everyone is so great?

Statistic: Over 40% of children in the U.S. live with other than their biological or adoptive parents. Many more than that will by the time they graduate from high school.

Imagine for a minute that you are a pastor counseling a young couple who is getting married. You know that there is greater than a 70% likelihood that he will have sex outside of their marriage and that there is a high probability of divorce if she finds out. What do you tell them? What responsibility do you have in effectively assisting in planning for a large number of children becoming the victims of their parent’s divorce?

We know fairly unequivocally what God thinks about divorce. He doesn’t like it. At all. He told us very clearly that the ONL, even mildly acceptable reason for divorce is the unfaithfulness of a wife. Even in this case he makes it clear that he’d still prefer that we not get divorced. Otherwise God’s commandment is to remain married.

Not too surprisingly, in our 2003 survey of approximately 1200 professing born-again Christians, over 50% of women said that if they found out their husband had any kind of sexual relationship with someone else, she would divorce him immediately. So right from the start about 60% of Christian marriages begin with a probability and expectation of divorce.

We can certainly say that men just shouldn’t visit escorts or look at porn and that priests should just remain celibate. Good luck.

Knowing all of this, is monogamy an unrealistic expectation? Should we keep expecting it and then just keep divorcing when it goes unmet? Or goes unmet a second time? Or a third? Or?

Nobel Prize - Talk about audacity of hope !

At one time a Nobel Prize meant something. No more. If President Obama HAD achieved some level of peace in the Middle East or HAD dealt a deathblow to fascism and communism or HAD accomplished almost anything relatively significant in making for a more peaceful world I would be proud of an American getting the award. The Nobel committee has shown their irrelevance by giving this award to him and he has shown his lack of character by accepting it.

Sunday Sermons: Godly or Manly?

Sermon. Doesn’t that word just conjure up warmth and excitement? Wish you could hear one every day instead of just once per week?

A bit of unvarnished honesty from me… In 33 years of being a Christian I’ve listened to approximately 1600 sermons. Overall I’d say that about 5% were interesting or valuable, 5% were OK, and about 90% have been boring and of little or no value whatsoever. But every week I go to church and endure another. Why?

Permit me, if you will, to think out loud for a bit…

In my years of being a Christian I’ve come to greatly value Christian fellowship. I think that routinely (like at least a few times per week) getting together with other Christians is vitally important. I think that coming together and worshipping God, in song and prayer, is important. I also think that studying God’s word and learning about God is important. Most sermons meet about zero of these.

From what I can tell, there is nothing in God’s Word about weekly sermons. The weekly sermon is purely man-made tradition. We passively endure them for the sake of tradition, not because of anything God has instructed us.

Extremely few people are capable of either writing a good sermon or of delivering one. People become pastors and the weekly sermon is a traditional expectation of the job so regardless of qualification or ability these pastors spend valuable pastoral time every week writing and then practicing their weekly sermon. It is the center of most of their universe. How much better if these pastors instead spent time being a shepherd to their flock? Spent this time helping people in the congregation? Or to go further, do we even need paid full-time pastors?

I most often get far more out of discussions with other Christians than from any sermon. This is not only more valuable to my growth as a Christian but is also far more interesting and enjoyable.

Perhaps our churches are backwards. I wonder if smaller home groups shouldn’t be the core of the church. Instead of going to church every Sunday morning (or Sat night or whenever) maybe we should instead focus on going to a home group every week. And then maybe once a month on a Sunday night all of our home groups get together for a corporate worship time and MAYBE for a brief and relevant sermon.

These are very incomplete thoughts. More later…

FLDS: Raymond Jessop Trial

Week two of the State of Texas vs Raymond Jessop is rolling along. He is accused of rape of a minor – his 16 year old wife (married in church, but no license from the state). If he did, in any way, force this girl to have sex against her will then he is indeed guilty and should be punished. In my opinion, very harshly. But what if she was a willing bride? What if marrying this 33-year-old man and becoming a mother to his children was her earnest desire?

All of those Bible believing folk on the jury need to consider their very own Bible as they consider judgment. Let’s assume for a moment that this girl did desire to be his wife and the mother of his children. In that case convicting him would be tantamount to convicting Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And Solomon, Joseph (father of Jesus), and Gideon. Are we so much better than these six men whom God loved and adored and held out to us as examples? To the best of my knowledge none of these six men were ever criticized or punished by God or anyone for having more than one wife or for their brides being under the age of 18 (most of their brides were actually about 13 or 14 year old).

As I mentioned the week of the raid, if Jesus came back today he might very well consider the lifestyle of all those polygynists at the El Dorado ranch to be far more Godly than that of the average Baptist, Evangelical, or Catholic. What with our divorce rates greater than non-Christians, hypocrisy and judgmentalism rampant, over 70% of our teen girls losing their virginity well before marriage (most often while at Christian colleges), and piousness blowing out the roof.

Jessop is being tried for having sex with someone under the age of 18, why bring polygyny into the discussion? Does anyone really think that any of the jurors will not be thinking about his having multiple wives? About that whole horrible community down the road with all of those perverted men with multiple wives?

Surely the prosecution won’t slip in a few extra ‘influencers’ like pictures of Jessop with his wives and children, and comments about his ‘other wives’.

Will Jessop get a fair trial? We’ll see. Of course this is Texas we’re talking about. A state with one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy and single-parent families in the nation. A state that does less about these problems than just about any other. But let those polygynists with their conservative dress, happy intelligent responsible children, and near zero divorce, move in and something must be done!

If she was a willing bride then in my not very humble opinion every Bible believing juror who votes to convict him needs to go home and rip Song of Solomon out of every one of their Bibles and should probably also leave any church that doesn’t do the same. Either you believe in God’s Word or you don’t. It’s not difficult. Maybe they should just get rid of all of their Bibles.

Bill, Gretchen, and Margaret oh my...

Interesting discussion between Bill, Margaret Hoover, and Gretchen Carlson about legalizing drugs on Bill O’Reilly last night. Interestingly Bill seems to be softening his typical hardline approach. Me thinks maybe he and John Stossel have been talking backstage…

Margaret Hoover said something like “If you legalize it then crime will move in. Crime controls vice the world over. Just look at what’s happened in Amsterdam and The Netherlands.”

If we had lower crime rates than Amsterdam and The Netherlands I might agree with that part of her argument, but… Per capita we in the U.S. have 2 times as many auto thefts, 12 times as many drug offenses, 5 times as many murders (we have 3.5 times as many if you eliminate those in the U.S. committed with a gun), 4 times as many assaults, 3 times as many rapes, and 1.5 times as many robberies. The only crime that they have more of is petty theft.

By most measures we have 2 to 3 times the per capita drug users as The Netherlands. As just one example, twice as many of our teens smoke pot as theirs. And who controls this much larger drug industry in the U.S.? Organized crime. In The Netherlands approximately 50% of the industry is through the semi-legal coffeeshops. We not only have a much larger industry but more of ours is controlled by criminal organizations as theirs.

OK, so much for Margaret Hoover.

Gretchen Carlson said “what do we tell our kids? Telling them that drugs are illegal is the best thing we have to hang our hats on. If it’s legal then what do we tell them?”

Here is an even bigger argument for ending our war on drugs. Telling our kids to not do drugs just because they are illegal is the absolute worst reason. The average teen in the U.S. is already so accustomed to breaking laws (mostly by drinking alcohol) that this is meaningless to them. “So what” they think.

What Gretchen needs to tell her kids is that doing drugs is stupid! There is nothing better to hang our hats on than that.

Dissapointment in John Stossel

It was great to see John Stossel on Bill O’Reilly tonight. I’m not sure if John was completely unprepared or if he was intentionally deferring a bit to Bill in his first appearance on his new network… In any case, he was weak. And even admitted it.

In their discussion on legalizing drugs O’Reilly used as his primary argument the harm that drugs do and several times used as an argument that people buy pot legally in California medicinal clinics and sell it to school kids in order to buy their own hard drugs. And THAT is why we need to continue our war on drugs.

Let’s consider… With our current 40 to 50 year old war on drugs we have a worse drug problem than any country in Europe. Our war is doing absolutely nothing to stem to flow of drugs in to the U.S. nor to reduce the abuse of drugs. Our war though is leading to hundreds of innocent deaths every year such as the recent killing of Jonathan Ayers. By most estimates over 90% of corruption in our law enforcement community is related to vice prohibition laws (drugs, prostitution, gambling, and underage alcohol). Generals in Afghanistan and Iraq have estimated that over 60% of funding for the Taliban and al Qaeda has come from illicit drug sales, mostly to the U.S.

Perhaps more damning is that it’s easier for high school folk in the U.S. to obtain drugs than it is for them in countries such as The Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland who are taking a much different approach. About twice as many of our high school students smoke pot as do those in Amsterdam!

I’m looking forward to seeing this debate again with a much better prepared Stossel.

We're from the Government... And we're here to help !!!

There are so many stories like this of government meddling in people's lives doing more harm than good. Whatever happened to simple common sense?

http://www.startribune.com/local/64672702.html

Unintended Clunkerquences

Unintended consequences can be fascinating. Let’s look at Cash for Clunkers.

A key selling point is that it will reduce carbon emissions. Well it will, by about one one-hundredth of one percent. Or put another way by 1/9,260th of our current carbon emissions. That’s a start, just not much of one for the cost.

On the flip side, environmentalists have raised 3 concerns that they say may actually make it a negative rather than a positive for the environment:

- Cars traded in must be immediately rendered useless and un-repairable. The preferred method of doing this is to run chemicals such as liquid glass through the engine until it dies. This process can create potentially dangerous air pollution. They have also raised concerns about the long-term impact of these chemicals left in the engines in dumps though I think this is unlikely.

- Energy used and pollution created in scraping the cars once rendered ‘useless’.

- Many of the vehicles being traded in would still be good for tens of thousands of more miles. The additional energy used by these cars over a more fuel efficient car in this period is potentially much less than that consumed in the manufacture of the new more efficient replacement vehicle. The same goes for pollution. Overall we’d use less energy and create less pollution by driving many of these cars a few more years and then replacing them with a more fuel efficient vehicle.

In other words, we may actually increase our carbon emissions by more than the one one-hundredth of one percent that the program will save. AND, the bigger we make the program, the more our unintended created emissions will be over the reductions.

Just the act of removing these cars is having unintended consequences. The vast majority are perfectly good cars, most still in very good shape according to dealers.

- Many would be excellent cars for the working poor and not so poor who can’t afford a more expensive car. In some cases the lack of affordable transportation is preventing these folks from being able to get or keep a job. This sure is benefiting a lot of people.

- Repair-A-Wreck charities who repair cars to give to those in need are beginning to report a decline in the number of vehicles being donated as people instead trade them in to be euthanized.

- Auto repair shops are also beginning to see a decline in business as people trade cars in to the clunkers program instead of repairing them. Shops are beginning to lay off workers. The cost of even more workers on welfare will come out of taxpayer pockets as well.

Abuse of the Cash for Clunkers system is yet another unintended consequence. Some auto dealers have reported that families with perhaps one low mileage SUV and one higher mileage car are trading in the SUV for a new higher mileage car to get the $4500 taxpayer incentive and then trading in their current higher mileage car for a new lower mileage SUV. In many of these cases the families overall carbon emissions and fuel mileage don’t change or at best is only increased by one or two miles per gallon.

A couple of dealers have said that they’ve seen friends and neighbors come together to do something similar.

How about government efficiency?

This program was sold to us as $1 billion to generate 250,000 additional sales of more fuel efficient vehicles. Reality is something quite different.

First comes administrative costs. Many have estimated this at 25% of the $1 billion. The numbers put out by the Obama administration put this cost at 18%, which, as admin goes isn’t terrible. Instead of 250,000 new vehicle sales though this leaves enough for 205,000. The average incentive of $4,000 thus costs taxpayers $4,878.

How many are actually newly incented sales though? According to the auto dealers association there are about 70,000 new vehicle sales on trade-ins each month that meet the criteria. EG, trade-ins that would have happened anyway, without Cash for Clunkers. So, for the first month of this program this reduces the newly incented sales to 135,000 vehicles. Now each $4,000 incentive that generated a new sale is costing us $7,407.

Edmunds.com estimates that over 100,000 people delayed purchases they had planned to make earlier in the summer until the Cash for Clunkers program was implemented. I’ll generously assume that half of these will, as a result of the incentive, choose a more fuel efficient vehicle than they had originally planned which leaves us with 50,000 people who would have made a trade that met the program criteria anyway. This reduces incented sales to 85,000 vehicles, each costing taxpayers $11,764.

What about future sales that simply got moved forward? EG, someone who’d begun thinking about trading in their low mileage vehicle for a more fuel efficient one, would have done it sometime in the coming months, and with this program was spurred to do it a few months earlier. The trade-in would have happened without the incentive, our program just got them to do it a month, two, or four earlier. We won’t really have a good idea about this number for several months, until after we see sales numbers before, during, and after the program period. My guess is that once the program has ended we’ll see a significant decline in these sales for several months. Not just a decline from high program levels to what sales would normally have been, but a decline to below normal levels. EG, people who would have traded in their car for a new more fuel efficient car in November did it in August instead.

Though I think the number is likely much higher, let’s assume that 30,000 moved planned purchases up a few months to take advantage of the taxpayer funded program. This leaves us with 55,000 newly incented sales. So…

Each $4,000 incentive that actually incented a new trade-in for a more fuel efficient vehicle will cost taxpayers $18,182.


By the time I get this posted I’m guessing that the program will have increased to 3 billion of our dollars. This will increase the administrative efficiency from about 18% of funding to perhaps 16%. Over the now 2 months the program will run we would have had 140,000 normal sales which spread out through $3 billion is better than 70,000 spread out over $1 billion. Previous sales delayed to take advantage of the program will not be effected. Future sales brought forward to take advantage of this taxpayer funded incentive will increase slightly as some who would have done a similar trade in early 2010 now do it in 2009. Accounting for these changes the $3 billion program will likely generate 180,000 new trade-ins that would not have otherwise happened and will cost us about $16,666 for each $4,000 average incentive payment. That certainly is better isn’t it.

Now that we know that the original 250,000 vehicle estimate was off, let’s revisit the environmental impact. At best, that the original $1 billion program would have incented 50,000 and the extended program will incent 180,000 trade-ins. An estimated 10,000 of these will be ‘family neutral’ as we discussed earlier which leaves us with 170,000 incented trade-ins. The environmental gains then are actually 32% less with our spending $3 billion than the promises were for our originally spending $1 billion.

Another supposed benefit of the program was to help US Autoworkers by spurring new sales of US made vehicles. The latest figures on trade-ins through the program indicate that 55% of trade-ins are for foreign autos with Toyota and Honda leading and 45% are for US autos (GM, Ford, and Chrysler.) Of the 55% foreign sales an estimated 40% of those are actually final assembled in the US with approximately 30% of the underlying parts coming from US suppliers. So at best 51% of the program benefits US workers and 49% benefits foreign autoworkers, mostly Japan.

I have not had time to figure out how many of the US vehicles are actually assembled outside the US but assuming this is any more than 4% (and I’d guess closer to 35%) that puts less than 50% of the program benefiting US workers.

I don’t have anything against helping Japan other than that I don’t think we can afford over $1.5 billion in US taxpayer money going to help Japanese and other autoworkers when we need that money in our own economy.

A final interesting consequence of this program is that it’s resulting in more foreign cars on our roads. Less than 10% of the cars being traded in and destroyed are foreign (over 90% are thus far GM, Ford, and Chrysler) but 55% of the new vehicles purchased with our tax dollars are foreign. Overall Cash for Clunkers will result in a net increase of 598,000 more foreign cars on our roads than US cars.

And we’re spending $3 billion for this?

Well, not exactly. We don’t have any of that $3 billion. We’re borrowing it. From Asia. Primarily China. And there’s interest on top of that $3 billion. This has got to make Asia smile. We’re borrowing $3 billion from Asia, paying them interest on it, and then using about half of it to incent people to buy Asian made vehicles.

Henry Lewis Gates: Service or Disservice to the Black community?

Perhaps not as easy a determination as some might think. At least it’s not for me.

Officer Crowley, in uniform and responding to a report of a burglary at Gates house, asked Gates for ID. Rather than provide ID Gates screamed “NO I WILL NOT”, “THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO BLACK MEN IN AMERICA.” At this point the cop has no proof of any sort that Gates is the homeowner and not the reported burglar and Gates screaming certainly isn’t helping any. (Note, when I accidentally set off the alarm at our home and the cops come to check on things the first thing they always do is ask for my ID to prove that I’m the homeowner and not a burglar. It’s not a big deal.)

Gates continued with insults against the officer and comments about the officers mother. Gates stepped outside and began screaming “THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO BLACK MEN IN AMERICA” to passerby who were beginning to congregate. From all available evidence, including from all witnesses both black and white, this was not even in the realm of racial profiling. It was either immature over-reaction on the part of Henry Lewis Gates Jr. or intentional actions on Gates part to provoke a racial response from the officer.

Service or disservice?

Service: Some Blacks are quick, just like Gates and Obama, to claim the race/victim card. It has become a convenient excuse for anything and everything. Obama thought this was the case to show how Blacks are mistreated and victimized by police. Instead it is showing just the opposite - how some Blacks over-react and claim to have been racially profiled or victimized when nothing of the sort happened.

Disservice: Unwarranted racial profiling is real, though fortunately declining. Abuse of power by police is real, and unfortunately increasing. Now racial profiling will be treated more like the boy who cried wolf. Even real instances of it will be met with skepticism. Rather than someone being viewed as unfairly victimized they’re just over-reacting as Henry Lewis Gates Jr. and President Obama did.

We might not know which for months or years. Lets look at three other recent events for some more perspective.

First is of a white state trooper, Daniel Martin, in Oklahoma pulling over black ambulance driver Maurice White as White was taking an elderly woman to the hospital.

I won’t rehash everything, but this clearly appears to be a case of abusive behavior by the trooper. This cop should be fired and never hired in a position of authority again - he was instead given a 5-day suspension. I have no idea if race played any part in this incident and there is no proof or indication that it did. I suspect it may have though, but that’s just my opinion. Racially motivated or not State Trooper Daniel Martin is not someone any of us should trust.

Second is an incident last week in MN. A white undercover cop, Le Sueur County Sheriff's investigator Todd Waldron, followed a pickup truck driven by a 24-year-old man suspected of robbery. When the pickup pulled in to a parking space at the man’s apartment the cop pulled in behind and ordered the two men out of the truck. Witnesses said that at no point did he identify himself as a cop. According to witnesses the two men got out of the pickup, both wearing nothing but bathing suits, a scuffle ensued between the driver and the undercover cop, when the driver noticed the cops badge on his belt he jumped up with his hands in the air. The cop pulled his gun and shot the unarmed driver 3 or 4 times, killing him.

Both men in the pickup truck were white. I can assure you that if the driver had been black this would have made national news as racially motivated - true or not. In partial defense of the cop the driver had a history of 19 arrests, 3 for felony assault. This cop, in my opinion, should be tried for murder. I’d think the exact same thing if the driver had been black.

Third is the recent decision by the US Supreme Court that caused the promotion of several White and Hispanic firefighters and explicitly did not promote Black firefighters.

Many successful Blacks in the US are in a continuous war to prove that they deserve the position they’re in. They’re constantly fighting the perception that they are where they are only because of Affirmative Action and the color of their skin and that if they didn’t get their way they’d scream that they were victims of racism.

Affirmative Action programs have indeed given Blacks and other minorities a sometimes preferential leg up, and this was needed. For a time. It helped numerous Blacks get in to high schools, universities, careers, and career positions that they otherwise might not have; because of racial and gender discrimination or a family who did not believe in the benefits of education.

Note: We all need the assistance of others. I cannot list the number of people who have helped me in my life. People who overlooked a mistake and gave me a second chance. People who have stood by me through struggles and who have given of their own time and resources. People who have given me a promotion when I’m not sure I was ready or deserving of it.

One result of Affirmative Action though is that it casts a pale over nearly every successful Black. If a University was admitting 100 students to a program and there were only 2 Blacks in the top 100 they’d go down the list to find others. Companies would do the same in hiring and promotions. In trying to achieve a certain mix of minorities they’d sometimes, or often, promote less qualified candidates who met minority criteria.

And to a limited extent this is OK. Universities creating a class with diversity of backgrounds or companies doing the same isn’t a bad idea. At least as long as the minority candidates still fully meet the criteria.

Problem number one though is when every Black in a university is suspected of being there, not on their own merit, but because they are Black. Had they really earned the right to be there? And worse, they are suspected of having taken the place of someone who had earned the right to be there by their own merit and hard work rather than via minority preferences. This carried over in to the business world where many Blacks and Women were, and sometimes still are today, viewed as having attained their position not by their own merit and hard work but by gender or the color of their skin, true or not.

Many Blacks who’ve achieved a lot are truly deserving. They have the ability and have worked hard to get where they are. Yet they’re still unfairly saddled with a perception of being there only through racial preferences.

Others? Well, here’s where we encounter problem number two. When someone is promoted in to a position for which they do not possess the proper ability they often don’t do very well. When this happens to a lot of people in a very identifiable group, Blacks for instance, it makes it appear that Blacks in general are less capable. They’re not. It’s just that, to meet quotas, so many were promoted in to positions beyond their ability that it sometimes appears that way.

And this has been wholly unfair to Blacks, both as a community and individually. For far more important than actual position or power or income is the respect of others – how well someone is regarded by those around them and how well they regard themselves.

A person who is highly successful as an individual contributor is much more highly regarded than someone who is unsuccessful as a manager or executive.

Let’s look at a flip side of this. During the tech boom many people from India came to the US to work. When I was reviewing resumes, someone with an Indian name nearly always made the cut, almost by default. My experience, and that of others, was that folks from India were extremely bright (and of good character, integrity, work ethic, etc). I became an expert in the H1B visa process. In the late 90’s reality started arriving. It wasn’t that people from India in general were so bright, but that we’d been seeing only the very best and brightest, the top 1%. During the 90’s we worked our way through the best and brightest and started seeing the above average and then started seeing the mediocre and then occasionally the below average. But extremely few were ever in positions beyond their ability. Most were in positions below their ability and they shined. The result is that folks from India are today still viewed as being well above average.

Likely, all of these instances will eventually work out to the benefit of the Black community in the US.

With the SCOTUS decision we may eventually begin to know that a Black person in a lecture hall at Harvard or Alabama or Whittier Community College earned the right to be there. They aren’t there because of the color of their skin but because they deserve to be there. And they’ll be regarded by others as deserving of being there. And perhaps most important, they’ll regard themselves as deserving of being there. They’ll know that they truly earned the right, equally, with everyone else.

Thanks to Oklahoma State Trooper Daniel Martin and Le Sueur County Sheriff's investigator Todd Waldron in MN maybe we can put law enforcement on further notice that unfair treatment really will not be tolerated. That Driving While Black or Terrell While Black are not crimes. And maybe we can start to realize that cops grossly abuse their power with Whites and Blacks (and Hispanics, and Asians, and …) somewhat equally. That just because a cop is white and the victim of their abuse is black doesn’t mean that there was any racial motivation.

And, thanks to Henry Lewis Gates Jr. and Barack Obama (and Jeremiah Wright, and…), and their combined over-the-top over-reaction, the race card and victim card can die. Blacks won’t play the card, successfully anyway, and eventually they’ll loose the boy-who-cried-wolf element and when someone does claim to have been the victim of racism they’ll be taken seriously instead of shoved to the side as just another Gates/Obama over-reaction.

And this will filter in to the workplace over the coming decades. If a Black is promoted to commander or chief in a fire department everyone will know that they truly deserve the position and have the abilities necessary to do well. They didn’t need a preferential leg up because of their ethnicity. They didn’t utilize a preferential leg up to get where they are. They didn’t claim racism when there was none. They earned their position. They’ll have the respect of those around them and those they’re commanding. Eventually Blacks will no longer have to fight a war of everyone wondering if they’re in a position purely because they’re Black.

And better yet, this will filter down to succeeding generations. Someone who is highly regarded by those in the community and who respects themselves for what they themselves have accomplished will pass this down to their kids and grandkids and nieces and nephews and others in the community. In the end this will do far more to strengthen the Black community and add to it’s success than any preferences or screaming racial bias ever will.

It HURTS to Pay Extra!!!

Well, sort of. So I've been doing some research for my next project. Part of this involves finding out what other similar books are already out there, how well are they selling, etc. This morning I stopped in one of my favorite little indy bookshops and inquired about books on my topic and they recommended a great one that I hadn't seen online or in any of the chain bookstores. BUT, they wanted $70 when I can get it from Amazon for $52 w/ free shipping. Little bookstore will have it to me by next Thu (today is Fri), Amazon will have it to me by Mon (for $18 less!).

Well, without my favorite little bookshop I wouldn't have even known this book existed (that is until a publisher asked me why I hadn't included it in my query). As I have numerous times in the past I swallowed and paid extra for the knowledge I'd been the benefactor of from my favorite little bookstore.

Unsung Appreciation

Last year we got a new ski boat. We keep it moored in a marina not far from our home. One time last summer I found the cover sunk down in one corner and filled with water but otherwise it seemed to do a really good job of keeping rain out of the boat. This year we’ve had less rain and no real downpours but I’ve found I have to go by the Marina after every rain to bail water out of the cover.

What happened between last year and this year?

Josh.

Josh managed the marina last year and I just realized and confirmed with another boat owner that he went around every day and checked on everyone’s boats. All 200 of them. He made sure they were moored OK and that all looked well. And he went around after every rain and bailed water out of all the covers that had water pooled in them.

I had a couple of occasions last year to buy he and his friends a beer; for assistance with a dead battery and help swapping the prop after I’d discovered some rocks. I wished I’d known how much else he did and could tell him how much it is appreciated. Even more, I wish I could tell him how encouraging it is to have known him, someone who cares about others, takes initiative, and goes above and beyond the call of duty. All just because he thought it the right thing to do. Josh took far better care of the Marina’s customers than the owner who is trying to manage it himself this year along with his new restaurant.

And it’s not as if Josh didn’t have anything else to do. He was in his late 20’s or early 30’s, had a wife and baby whom he truly adored, and had a number of friends he loved to party with.

Josh, if you ever happen to read this – you were greatly appreciated and are greatly missed by all the boat owners.

Happy Memorial Day!

Choosing an Airline - By Credit Card Offers...

For about 3 decades Northwest Airlines has been my airline of choice. Last year they agreed to be acquired by Delta. OK. 3 weeks ago I received a letter in the mail from US Bank stating that they were immediately ending their Visa Signature Card alliance with Northwest. Now things are impacting me. In reality Delta kind of ended it for them by choosing to partner exclusively with American Express, but they weren't going to end the contract until August. US Bank choose to pitch a hissy fit and ended things earlier. Well, until Northwest filed suit and forced US Bank to continue the program for a bit longer.

In any case, it's interesting to me that my own choice of preferred airline going forward, whether I continue with Delta/Northwest or switch to someone else, isn't really a choice between the airlines themselves, but which credit card partner of theirs I prefer. In choosing between Delta, United, Continental, and American I'm actually deciding based on American Express (Delta), Chase (United), Citi (American) or Chase (Continental). What's most interesting is that the airlines themselves are driving me to do this. Rather than each airline selling frequent flyer and elite qualifying miles to several credit card companies and letting them duke it out, they're placing their future in the hands of a single card issuer.

In this particular case Delta may very well loose my (and others?) business because of Amex. 'And they don't take American Express' is more than just a commercial, it's true. I can't charge nearly as much on an Amex card, and thus receive as much frequent flyer benefit, as on the Visa or Mastercard offerings of other airlines. For many people Amex is a good card, for my spending habits it doesn't appear that it would be. Stories are also swirling on discussion forums that Amex is severely limiting credit lines of former Northwest flyers switching over from the Visa Signature to an Amex.

This isn't a rant against any airline or card issuer, just something that I found rather fascinating. I wonder how many others choose an airline primarily based on their preferred card issuer rather than on how well the airline provides their own service?

StarTribune: We didn't see men throwing rocks at those women. Honest.

Headline: 300 Afghan women find their voice. If you read this story it sounds like a fairly peaceful protest march. No mention of bearded men lining the streets and pelting the women with rocks. Interesting...

A taxpayer voting for Obama is like...

On vacation but had to post this from a sign at a teaparty.

A Taxpayer Voting for Obama is like a Chicken Voting for Colonel Sanders.

Joe Biden's Daughter & Cocaine

Reports are circulating about a video supposedly showing Vice President Joe Biden's daughter doing a line of coke. This IS and SHOULD BE a non issue. The people her age who do coke is vast. It's extremely stupid to do it, but then there are a lot of stupid people in this world. This is not a partisan issue. This happens to the kids of Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Greens. This happens to the kids of prominent Christians, Jews, and Atheists. It is extremely tough being a parent and raising good kids. It's that much tougher when they do stupid stuff like this. To then have it garner widespread media attention doesn't help.

Joe Biden repulses me in many many ways. I disagree with him on virtually every position he takes (assuming it's possible to know what his real position is at any given time.) That he is a heartbeat away from being president gives me indigestion. Nevertheless, this issue with his daughter and cocaine needs to be dropped from national attention.

Obama's new tax on charitable contributions

The Obama administration is planning, for the first time ever, to reduce the tax deduction for charitable contributions. Today those contributions are fully deductible. I don't pay any tax on money that I give to charities. Under Obama's new plan I will have to pay anywhere from 7% to 16% on contributions to charity. That's a chunk of change and will negatively impact how much we give. We budget how much we give each year and will have to lower our contributions to cover the tax. In some cases we may choose to simply not give to several organizations that have been borderline for us in the past. I want to give them a $, not give them 80 cents and the government 20 cents.

One thing I question is why Obama is doing this? Why hurt charities in this way? Could it be that he really doesn't care about the impact to charities? That he'd prefer if the charities didn't get the money at all so the government will have an excuse to step in and do things it's way instead of the way charities do things? Um...

Electric Vehicles Update

Today we have Tesla (250th roadster delivered, building 20-30/week, $49k S Model Sedan coming in 2011) with Fisker, Miles, and EV Innovations on the near (or semi near?) horizon. We should also see the Smart ED (smarte or smarty?) 100% electric very soon and now Think have announced plans for bringing their City to the US and are looking at a US based factory to follow soon thereafter. Rumors from VW and BMW continue to swirl. Toyota's all electric IQ is rumored for 2011 and an all electric 'Celica' for 2012. Rumors are also eminating from Mitsubishi and Subaru.

Mike Huckabee: Truthfulness and Accuracy?

Tonight on his Foxnews show Mike Huckabee told a wonderful story about Sir Winston Churchill and Sir Alexander Fleming (discoverer of Penicillin). And that's just what it is, a story. But Huckabee told it as if it were as true as the sun coming up in the morning.

Now this isn't that major of a deal. I don't think this story had any bearing on anything, just a fun story. At most is just indicates that Huckabee is rather sloppy in his pursuit of truthfulness and accuracy.

Several weeks ago he devoted a fair amount of his program to a discussion of 'a church in Ocean Grove, NJ that had been ordered by a NJ Court to allow a gay couple to use it's pavilion to marry.' This was, best case, a huge stretch of the truth and a big load of hyperbole. Most reasonable people would deem it simply misleading and lying. The pavilion in question was actually a public facility, not privately owned and maintained by the church. This was NOT a case of government interference with a private church as Huckabee led his audience to believe.

Huckabee claims to be a Christian. As Christians it is absolutely critical that we strive to be completely truthful and accurate in everything that we say - especially when we're saying it to an audience the size of Huckabee's. It's one thing when we spout off without thinking to a few friends, something I've been guilty of far too often, it's another when we do it in a planned way to mislead people as Huckabee did.

Need to get in touch with your inner dude?

Too many frustrations from cell phone drivers? Next time you're near Kassel, Germany stop in at Männerspielplatz, a 'playground for men'. And we're not talking naked women here. This place is full of horsepower from ATV's to D12 Bulldozers. They even have a tank. Thanks to Chuck Shepherd for the tip on this one.

Frustrated with people driving on cell phones?

Are Union Members Just Dumb Idiots?

What’s wrong with allowing employees to choose with secret ballots if they want to unionize or not?

According to a number of folks fighting for Card-Check legislation (otherwise known by the misnomer of the Employee Free Choice Act or EFCA) it’s not the secret ballot that’s the biggest problem, but that when an employer calls for a secret ballot they also get a chance to tell employees their side of things. Supporters of Card-Check don’t want their union members to hear the employers side. And we thought this kind of thing only happened in Cuba or Venezuela.

So union bosses and their supporters are saying one of two things;

- Union members are not intelligent enough to make decisions for themselves and to decide if they are better off with or without a union representing them. Or,

- Union members are intelligent and if they hear both sides they will vote against unions.

This doesn’t make sense no matter how you look at it. Are union members too dumb to decide for themselves? Union bosses and legislators must think so because they're treating them like immature little children. The average 15-year-old has the intelligence to make a decision like this, are union members dumber than average 15-year-olds?

Some, maybe so. Any union member who supports this legislation, who is supporting union bosses taking away his own free choice to vote, truly is an idiot. Why would anyone do that?

If you believe that union members are immature little children who can’t decide for themselves what is best for their own employment – by all means vote for the EFCA. But if you do, have the maturity yourself to openly state that you are doing so because you do not believe union members have the intelligence to decide for themselves.

Elsewhere: We Need Unions (and $50 billion to bail them out)

Abstinence Ignorance in North Carolina

In this article on Foxnews about states moving away from abstinence-only sex education to more comprehensive education John Rustin, director of government relations for the North Carolina Family Policy Council, had this to say:

But Rustin said teaching contraception and disease prevention is similar to teaching kids how to be safe when they engage in other risky behaviors like smoking, drinking and taking drugs.

"North Carolina public schools have a no-tolerance policy when it comes to tobacco, alcohol and drug use. Our question is, why in the world would we take a different position when it comes to sex?"

The first question I would have for Rustin is how many problems do they have with alcohol among teens in North Carolina vs teens in Italy where parents DO teach their children responsible behavior with regard to alcohol?

My second question is how he expects to achieve zero tolerance with regard to sex? Will he require that every girl over 12 wear a chastity belt locked on by the school district? Will the North Carolina Family Policy Council lock chastity belts on every guy over 14?

I’m a proponent of waiting on sex until marriage, but I’m also a realist that knows that some folks do not believe this and that even of those who do many do not poses the self-discipline to make it until marriage.

Obesity, drugs, and self-control

Companies such as Entero-Medics and Leptos Biomedical are striving to develop devices that will curb people's appetites so they'll eat less. Eat less, fewer calories, and your weight goes down. It's really rather simple. What ever happened to basic self-control? With products like these all we're doing is reinforcing a belief that we don't need self-control. This is a dangerous thing to teach. We do need self-control and controlling our gastronomical system is a great way to develop self-control that will then benefit us in other areas. And we wonder why we're so quickly falling behind other countries.

Next question: How long will it be before, thanks to a government program, we're paying for these devices for those poor obese souls who lack the self control to eat normally?

Government Intrusion

You own a commercial building. The city 'suggests' that you add some off-street parking. You purchase an abandoned house next door in a area that is appropriately zoned for razing the house and using the land for the off-street parking. Oops, the city decides, after your purchase, that the house is of historic significance so you can't raze it. It's crumbling and falling apart and will cost you far more to repair than it will ever be worth. You can't sell it because nobody wants it. City: "Tough."

More here.

I have a thing for historic architecture. I wish we had a lot more of it. I wish we hadn't destroyed the thousands of historic buildings we did in the 60's and 70's (and many of the buildings that replaced them have now be destroyed as ugly and poorly designed and built mistakes). BUT, this burden cannot be put on individuals. If we want to preserve a building then we (or those who want to preserve it) need to purchase it for a fair price.

The biggest unreported event at CPAC

The line, often 3 people wide, snaked down the hallway, around a corner, dodged a glass table, and mooned the hotel lobby. Groups here and there made up of the 8,000 attendees of CPAC saw some of their cohorts in this thing and wondered what they were missing. By the time they found out, it was too late. There were already over 700 people in line for an event that expected 200 and was only able to fit the first 500 in the room. According to many at the end of the line or who never even got in line, they turned away more than had originally even been expected.

CPAC had the opportunity to host this as an official event. They turned it down. Too controversial I suppose. It ended up in a far off side room a ways from the main event. Not announced or advertised. Not Rush Limbaugh. Not Glenn Beck or Shaun Hannity. But a Dutch politician with a dangerous weapon - a mirror. Geert Wilders holds the mirror up and people don't like what they see. But then, he's the offender holding it up.

More at Atlas Shrugs.

Update: Thus far Fox News has not mentioned one peep about Geert Wilders visit to the US last week. On the other hand, during the month of February they featured 5 articles about his difficulties entering the UK.

The Problem with Electric Boats

As I've noted in several posts on this blog, the day of the all electric recreational boat is coming. It's actually a more technically and economically feasible deal than electric cars. The drawback? As electric boats become readily available we'll start to see pressure for lakes and sections of rivers to be classified as electric only. No gas engines allowed. No more air and noise pollution. And this won't wait until all or even most of the current users of the waterway have electric boats, it will happen very early in the electric boat epoch. Those who own gas powered boats will start to find fewer and fewer places to use them and with fewer places to use them comes huge devaluation of gas powered boats making it difficult for these folks to afford to purchase a new electric boat (or get their gas guzzler converted?)

How much you want to bet we'll see a government program to help people cover the difference in their devalued gas boat and a new electric boat? It can be modeled on the similar government program to help people who had devalued horses purchase new gas powered cars. (Is this the government program that was a model for the government program that gave everyone $40 to help buy a new digital TV tuner?)

Brits confuse me.

They bar Dutch MP Geert Wilders from entering the country because he's too controversial and now, just a few days later, they say this is OK. Confused? I am.

Tesla S Model Saloon

Thanks to the folks at WIRED magazine for coming up with this pic of what the new Tesla S Model may look like.

In other Tesla news. I was very disappointed to hear a rumored reason for Darryl Siry's departure was his having angst over Tesla taking $40k deposits on the S Model before they even have a factory to build them in. Does the guy simply have a conscious?

Drug War: Innocent Victims

I don't know how accurate this site is, but from quick checking it's fairly solid. Some of the stories of innocent people killed by police and DEA agents in pursuit of people doing drugs is heart-wrenching.

In true government parlance I guess they're just necessary collateral damage.

Do you want to pay your neighbors mortgage?

Rick Santelli:

RIA: Critical Thinking

In talking with kids and adults today it becomes apparent that we are no longer teaching critical thinking. It’s a foreign concept. Kids in school are indoctrinated with a variety of things and are never given the other side, told to research the other side, or asked to evaluate all of the potential negative consequences of a decision. They’re now growing in to adults who choose who they like and want to listen to and then swallow everything that person or group says. To the blind and often ignorant exclusion of others. No questions asked.

We are ALL, whether Democrat or Republican, Black, White, Red, or Grey, becoming simpletons. We’re nothing but lemmings. We follow without question, even if that’s right over a cliff. We make decisions with little to no thought about the consequences – for us, those around us, and society. Most of us have no idea why we believe what we believe, even on a very rudimentary level.

It would do us some good to task ourselves with writing a paper arguing for the position opposed to our own and evaluating all consequences.

In school our kids should routinely be tasked with doing this so that they learn to evaluate the pros and cons of decisions. Perhaps first argue for their own position along with the negative consequences of the opposing view, then some time later argue for the opposing position with all of the negative consequences our their own view, then some time after that present a solid pros and cons evaluation.

RIA? Rest In Anquish. Critical thinking won’t rest in peace.

DAYCARES TAKE A HIT

This was the headline for at least one major newspaper late last week. Many parents who’ve lost their jobs or have had their hours cut back are apparently keeping their kids at home instead of bringing them in to daycare. Interesting impact of our new economy.

Would this have been a headline anytime in history prior to perhaps 1990?

Buyer Beware

I was looking for a Blu-Ray player and came across this on a Sony BDP-S550

http://www.techcyberstore.com/sobdbl.html

$239 is a pretty good deal. Too good to be true when most others are selling this player for $275 - $300?

Their address as listed on their website is
TECH CYBER STORE, INC.
10400 Southwest 98th Street
Suite 400
Miami FL 33176

Click Here to see their 'office' on Streetview, It's the one on the right.

If you order from them let me know how it goes.

Tesla: Racing improves the breed?

Some would think that the last thing people in the oil funded Middle East would want is to do anything that would benefit electric cars. Well, some folks in the United Arab Emirates want to put some of that money they've earned from all of our gas engines in to a racing series for Tesla electrics. More here.

Whatever You Do, Just Don’t Get Married.

I was really struck by this article on Fox News. Before Continuing, read the article.

Now, think for a bit about Hugh Hefner’s numerous relationships, often multiple at a time. Think about the environment his children are growing up in. Of course he’s only legally married to one of these woman, Kimberly Conrad.

Now, think about FLDS families for a minute. They’re certainly far from perfect.

Which environment do you believe is healthier? For the women? The children? Society?

It’s rather fascinating to me how differently our government, society, and the news media treat these two. Sometime, compare how Fox News treats Hugh Hefner and Playboy versus the FLDS. What do you think?

It's 46 degrees warmer, but still cold!

This morning when I went out to get the paper and restock firewood it was 46 degrees warmer than yesterday morning. But today's 19º F was still pretty cold.

Cold is also how I feel about bailouts. Chrysler is getting another $1.5b from our Treasury Dept (IE, you and me) to be used, according to Chrysler and with the Treasury Dept's blessing, specifically to provide 0 interest loans to people with poor credit to purchase Chrysler cars. Wasn't providing credit to people with poor credit one of the things that got us in to this mess?