"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic"
- Benjamin Franklin*.
Yesterday we took our biggest step yet towards socialism in the U.S. and also witnessed perhaps the most tyrannical action in 200 years. We haven’t witnessed the end of the republic, but we have witnessed the potential beginning of the end.
Our great country hasn’t come to an apocalyptic end with the passage of Social Security or Medicare nor by the incremental creep of increasing taxpayer funded welfare programs. It won’t from ObamaCare either.
Sadly, if ObamaCare is implemented it will be the middle-class who suffers the most.
Today we ALL share the same great healthcare system. The approximate 87% who have insurance all see the same doctors in the same clinics and hospitals and receive the same high level of care. The waiting room in my doctors office is always representative of a cross-section of our country. Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, young, old, rich and poor. I’ve seen well-known wealthy waiting the same as union laborers waiting the same as people on government assistance. Even the 13% uninsured have access to the exact same hospitals and emergency rooms.
The future will likely include a split healthcare system similar to Canada and the U.K.. A private one for the top 15-20% of wage earners, the wealthy and upper middle class, and a public one for everyone else. The private system will be largely identical to what we all share today. We’ve actually started to see this already. Many doctors and clinics will not see Medicare patients because they can’t afford to provide care for what the government pays. In New York and other heavily regulated states an increasing number of doctors no longer even accept insurance and only see those who can pay out of pocket.
The system for the other 80%? It will still have some great and caring doctors, nurses, and other caregivers. But it will not be able to provide today’s level of care to all comers. It will not be able to afford it nor will enough people choose to work in this lower pay system. Waits for care will increase just as in Canada and the U.K. With scarce resources we’ll begin to see prioritization, likely along the lines of future contributions to society (EG, younger workers will receive priority over those who can’t or don’t work – the older, etc.).
But all is not so gloomy.
The Good
There could be some good from this.
Foremost, we might finally see some practical limits placed on the commerce clause of our U.S. Constitution along with some re-assertion of the state’s rights that our founders intended. More on this later.
Second, we may see an awakening of a populace who have become complacent about our creep towards socialism.
Yesterday was a sad day for our country. But I’m still optimistic.
* Widely attributed to Benjamin Franklin though not absolutely confirmed.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Tiger Arrested for Prostitution
Interestingly, that is the one headline about Tiger Woods we haven’t seen in the past several months. Tiger, nor any of the women he paid so well to service him, have been arrested or charged with prostitution.
I’m assuming it’s not an issue of celebrity because Hugh Grant, Charlie Sheen, Sen , and thousands of other famous folk have been arrested for prostitution.
It’s apparently not that only transactions below a certain dollar amount count as prostitution because Tiger appears to have paid less than Elliot Spitzer on at least a couple of occasions.
The form of payment maybe? If payment is of goods and services rather than greenbacks it is no longer considered prostitution? This would seem to make the most sense since it is also the measure applied to the most ubiquitous form of prostitution – guys buying dinners and gifts for girls to get them in bed. If so then I predict a huge increase in purchases of jewelry from Target (of approximately $250 value) along with a corresponding increase in returns of these gifts. “Prostitution officer? I didn’t pay her, I just gave her a gift!”
Such a fuzzy line we’ve created…
I’m assuming it’s not an issue of celebrity because Hugh Grant, Charlie Sheen, Sen , and thousands of other famous folk have been arrested for prostitution.
It’s apparently not that only transactions below a certain dollar amount count as prostitution because Tiger appears to have paid less than Elliot Spitzer on at least a couple of occasions.
The form of payment maybe? If payment is of goods and services rather than greenbacks it is no longer considered prostitution? This would seem to make the most sense since it is also the measure applied to the most ubiquitous form of prostitution – guys buying dinners and gifts for girls to get them in bed. If so then I predict a huge increase in purchases of jewelry from Target (of approximately $250 value) along with a corresponding increase in returns of these gifts. “Prostitution officer? I didn’t pay her, I just gave her a gift!”
Such a fuzzy line we’ve created…
Friday, March 12, 2010
Theory, Practice, Smoke, and Mirrors
Note: I’m just beginning to look in to this. The following may be way way way off base. More to come when/if I have more time. Stop by if you find anything supporting or contradicting (though I won’t be around this week)…
It’s fascinating to read the opinions and testimony of various economists regarding Obama’s healthcare plan. A long and distinguished list have weighed in on numerous aspects, in particular, the money saving features.
A big chunk of the ‘savings’, as much as 3/4’s, is described thus.
Under the plan companies will, according to economists, do one of 3 things:
1 – Larger companies, those with more than about 250 employees, will hold the value of ‘Cadillac plans’ (the health plans provided to nearly all employees, including union employees in large companies qualify as ‘Cadillac plans’) to just below the level that triggers the proposed excise tax. In other words they will reduce coverage. Initially this tax will be triggered on any amount spent on healthcare and insurance in excess of $10,200*. The difference, approximately $4,200 per employee will be paid in additional salary to the employees.
2 – Many smaller companies will cease providing health insurance, encourage employees to purchase insurance through the government marketplace, and elect to pay the proposed $2,000 fine. The difference between what they are currently spending (approx $7,000) and the $2,000 fine will be paid to employees as additional salary.
3 – Some smaller companies will make no change and will continue with their current health plan.
Nice theory, won’t happen in practice. And I’d think they know it.
Competition, locally and globally, is fierce. Few employees will see any increase in salary as the economists predict. That is simply not reality. This theory though does seem to do a good job of hiding the true costs of Obama’s plan.
Despite theory being wrong, all is perhaps not so bad. One way large employers will reduce the costs of their plans (to keep them under the $10,200 excise tax limit) will be to place employees with risky, and thus more expensive, health behaviors in a separate plan with severely limited coverage. This will include employees who are overweight, smoke, drink heavily or are a drug abuser. If you get a speeding ticket or are otherwise documented as a high health risk you could find yourself in this pool as well. This will allow low risk and healthier employees to have better coverage for the $10,200 companies will be allowed to spend. Theoretically, this will encourage employees to make healthier choices so that they can join the healthy plan that offers better coverage.
* Note that on average these companies spend about $14,400 per employee per year on heathcare and, with few exceptions, every full-time employee from bottom to top receives the same plan (many companies also offer these plans to part-time employees at a pro-rated cost). Glenn Beck and a couple of others have said that government employee healthcare costs are considerably more, perhaps as much as twice. Employee benefits industry reports that I have studied have not supported this.
It’s fascinating to read the opinions and testimony of various economists regarding Obama’s healthcare plan. A long and distinguished list have weighed in on numerous aspects, in particular, the money saving features.
A big chunk of the ‘savings’, as much as 3/4’s, is described thus.
Under the plan companies will, according to economists, do one of 3 things:
1 – Larger companies, those with more than about 250 employees, will hold the value of ‘Cadillac plans’ (the health plans provided to nearly all employees, including union employees in large companies qualify as ‘Cadillac plans’) to just below the level that triggers the proposed excise tax. In other words they will reduce coverage. Initially this tax will be triggered on any amount spent on healthcare and insurance in excess of $10,200*. The difference, approximately $4,200 per employee will be paid in additional salary to the employees.
2 – Many smaller companies will cease providing health insurance, encourage employees to purchase insurance through the government marketplace, and elect to pay the proposed $2,000 fine. The difference between what they are currently spending (approx $7,000) and the $2,000 fine will be paid to employees as additional salary.
3 – Some smaller companies will make no change and will continue with their current health plan.
Nice theory, won’t happen in practice. And I’d think they know it.
Competition, locally and globally, is fierce. Few employees will see any increase in salary as the economists predict. That is simply not reality. This theory though does seem to do a good job of hiding the true costs of Obama’s plan.
Despite theory being wrong, all is perhaps not so bad. One way large employers will reduce the costs of their plans (to keep them under the $10,200 excise tax limit) will be to place employees with risky, and thus more expensive, health behaviors in a separate plan with severely limited coverage. This will include employees who are overweight, smoke, drink heavily or are a drug abuser. If you get a speeding ticket or are otherwise documented as a high health risk you could find yourself in this pool as well. This will allow low risk and healthier employees to have better coverage for the $10,200 companies will be allowed to spend. Theoretically, this will encourage employees to make healthier choices so that they can join the healthy plan that offers better coverage.
* Note that on average these companies spend about $14,400 per employee per year on heathcare and, with few exceptions, every full-time employee from bottom to top receives the same plan (many companies also offer these plans to part-time employees at a pro-rated cost). Glenn Beck and a couple of others have said that government employee healthcare costs are considerably more, perhaps as much as twice. Employee benefits industry reports that I have studied have not supported this.
Monday, March 8, 2010
TSA and what we can look forward to with healthcare
Yesterday I flew in to Chicago O’Hare to connect with a flight to Amsterdam. I had an hour and thirty minute connection which shouldn’t have been a problem…
Well, TSA in terminal 5, the international terminal, was a cluster to behold. I was greeted at the security checkpoint by a mass of about 150 and an estimated 50 minute wait. This just for the passport / boarding card check. Even with a flight that had started boarding and a departure in less than an hour I was told, twice, that I had to stand in the line. After 15 minutes in line and listening to a woman walk up and down the line quietly asking for anyone on SAS flight number something or other I asked about my KLM flight. She looked horrified. Apparently I should have been directed to the rush line earlier. She took me there.
Movie Theatre’s have large LCD displays over the ticket taker indicating what movies are currently seating. Why TSA can’t do the same for flights currently boarding and that thus have priority screening, I don’t know.
Once cleared through the passport check I was to choose among 5 lines for x-ray. About 7 people in each line, shouldn’t be a problem. I made my choice and waited some more. All was OK for a few minutes and then my line ground to a halt. I noticed that every time there was suspected contraband the screener checked the bag, stopping our line dead in its tracks until the screener resolved the problem. I really lucked out, there were 5 people in a row whose carry-on’s required hand searching and re-screening. An average of 4 minutes each.
In 18 of the 20 minutes it took our line to process 5 people, the line next to us got 27 people through. All of them, by the way, folks who had come through the passport check behind me.
I now had less than 10 minutes until my flight was scheduled to depart. I mentioned this to one TSA gal and asked if there was anything she could do. “No, we’re getting everyone through as quickly as possible.” I offered that it might be best if, when they encountered a bag with contraband in it, that it be pulled aside, someone other than the screener deal with it, and allow the screener to continue with those in line (most of whom did not have contraband).
“We don’t need your lip.” Was her reply. “We’re getting everyone through as quickly as possible.”
There was nothing I could do. I had no options. I was stuck.
Is this what we can expect with government run healthcare?
We have what is unquestionably the best healthcare system in the world. World leaders and the rich and famous come to the U.S. for the exact same healthcare as our union workers, CEO’s, bus drivers, unemployed, and even bloggers. Why would we want to turn our health over to the government?
Well, TSA in terminal 5, the international terminal, was a cluster to behold. I was greeted at the security checkpoint by a mass of about 150 and an estimated 50 minute wait. This just for the passport / boarding card check. Even with a flight that had started boarding and a departure in less than an hour I was told, twice, that I had to stand in the line. After 15 minutes in line and listening to a woman walk up and down the line quietly asking for anyone on SAS flight number something or other I asked about my KLM flight. She looked horrified. Apparently I should have been directed to the rush line earlier. She took me there.
Movie Theatre’s have large LCD displays over the ticket taker indicating what movies are currently seating. Why TSA can’t do the same for flights currently boarding and that thus have priority screening, I don’t know.
Once cleared through the passport check I was to choose among 5 lines for x-ray. About 7 people in each line, shouldn’t be a problem. I made my choice and waited some more. All was OK for a few minutes and then my line ground to a halt. I noticed that every time there was suspected contraband the screener checked the bag, stopping our line dead in its tracks until the screener resolved the problem. I really lucked out, there were 5 people in a row whose carry-on’s required hand searching and re-screening. An average of 4 minutes each.
In 18 of the 20 minutes it took our line to process 5 people, the line next to us got 27 people through. All of them, by the way, folks who had come through the passport check behind me.
I now had less than 10 minutes until my flight was scheduled to depart. I mentioned this to one TSA gal and asked if there was anything she could do. “No, we’re getting everyone through as quickly as possible.” I offered that it might be best if, when they encountered a bag with contraband in it, that it be pulled aside, someone other than the screener deal with it, and allow the screener to continue with those in line (most of whom did not have contraband).
“We don’t need your lip.” Was her reply. “We’re getting everyone through as quickly as possible.”
There was nothing I could do. I had no options. I was stuck.
Is this what we can expect with government run healthcare?
We have what is unquestionably the best healthcare system in the world. World leaders and the rich and famous come to the U.S. for the exact same healthcare as our union workers, CEO’s, bus drivers, unemployed, and even bloggers. Why would we want to turn our health over to the government?
Friday, March 5, 2010
Voting against welfare and healthcare is un-Christian
“Those voting against healthcare are leaving their Christianity in the closet.”
“It’s the Christian thing to do.” – referring to the need to support increased government welfare programs.
“Anyone who votes against government helping the poor and defenseless cannot call themselves a Christian.”
These and similar quotes are heard often from various supporters of increased government social programs.
But, where in the Bible does it tell anyone to take money from someone else (rich or poor) and give it to others (rich or poor)?
As Christians we are indeed called to help the poor. "There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." Deuteronomy 15:11
There should be no doubt about this and every Christian should help the poor to the extent that they are able. "If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." 1 John 3:17-18
However, we are called to do so as relatives, individuals, or churches. Never as governments. It scares me to make assumptions about scriptures and what the writer or God might have meant. But, every time I hear politicians and others talking about how the government needs to do more for the poor, how the government needs to take more from the wealthy in taxes and give more to the poor, I think of this verse:
"They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely." Mark 12:40
Perhaps more important, God makes it clear that rather than handouts, we are to provide opportunities for the poor and less fortunate to help themselves.
Among many similar verses, Leviticus 19:10 says "Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God."
This is very wise advice.
Someone who is simply given a handout develops no real appreciation for it. They don’t value it. And the more often they receive something for nothing, the less they value what they’ve received. Besides the intrinsic in this is that people who don’t value something can be more wasteful – of food, healthcare choices. Why be a conscientious consumer if it doesn’t cost you anything?
Someone who is given a handout begins to expect more handouts. The more someone receives from others, the more they expect. It’s human nature. Instead of appreciating what they’ve received from others, they begin to complain when they don’t receive it or if they receive less or if what they’re receiving doesn’t increase. Soon that expectation turns into a right – people have filed lawsuits when the handouts stopped or were reduced!
Someone who receives their livelihood with little or none of their own effort develops low self-esteem.
Someone who receives handouts from a far-off faceless government has no appreciation for what they’ve received and for the fact that behind their handout are people who’ve given something up in their own lives to provide the handout.
Those who receive welfare, be it foodstamps, welfare checks, or free healthcare, have little incentive to improve themselves. They have little or no appreciation for what they are receiving, and do not feel that they are a part of the rest of society.
There are shining exceptions, but unfortunately few and far between.
And on the other side is the animosity that these handouts generate. When people who work hard for their money see a significant chunk of it going towards taxes they become irritated. When they see a lot of these taxes then going to help poor people who do not seem appreciative it, who do not seem to be working towards getting off of welfare or helping themselves, who use foodstamps to buy junkfood while listening to their $300 ipod, who have among the highest obesity rates in the population, …this animosity turns to anger. And then when they hear more and more calls for more and more money to be poured in to social welfare programs…
On the other hand, following what the Bible teaches produces a far different result.
Someone who receives support and assistance from an individual or even their church has a much greater appreciation for what they’ve received. They value it more. They know the person or people who they received it from and they know that these people made sacrifices in their own lives to help others. Besides valuing and appreciating what they have received, they have a sense of being loved and cared for by these people.
Someone who works for what they’ve received may have an even greater appreciation. Aside from appreciation and value though, they’ve put their own effort into it. Their self-esteem is improved because they have earned their livelihood themselves. They feel more a part of normal society.
Receiving assistance from those closer to us, relatives, individuals, and our church, also has the benefit of providing a lot more than just material assistance. Closer support often comes with assistance in better managing our lives and support for making better decisions.
And that animosity people feel toward the unappreciative poor? Here it is replaced by enthusiasm. People, even many grinchy kinds of people, enjoy helping those who are genuinely appreciative and who are working and doing their best to help themselves.
The upshot is that instead of people angry on one side that they’re not getting enough handouts and people angry on the other that they’re being taken advantage of, we have appreciation and enthusiasm. We have people working together.
Now, which sounds better?
"Jesus answered, If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" Matthew 19:21
“It’s the Christian thing to do.” – referring to the need to support increased government welfare programs.
“Anyone who votes against government helping the poor and defenseless cannot call themselves a Christian.”
These and similar quotes are heard often from various supporters of increased government social programs.
But, where in the Bible does it tell anyone to take money from someone else (rich or poor) and give it to others (rich or poor)?
As Christians we are indeed called to help the poor. "There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." Deuteronomy 15:11
There should be no doubt about this and every Christian should help the poor to the extent that they are able. "If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." 1 John 3:17-18
However, we are called to do so as relatives, individuals, or churches. Never as governments. It scares me to make assumptions about scriptures and what the writer or God might have meant. But, every time I hear politicians and others talking about how the government needs to do more for the poor, how the government needs to take more from the wealthy in taxes and give more to the poor, I think of this verse:
"They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely." Mark 12:40
Perhaps more important, God makes it clear that rather than handouts, we are to provide opportunities for the poor and less fortunate to help themselves.
Among many similar verses, Leviticus 19:10 says "Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God."
This is very wise advice.
Someone who is simply given a handout develops no real appreciation for it. They don’t value it. And the more often they receive something for nothing, the less they value what they’ve received. Besides the intrinsic in this is that people who don’t value something can be more wasteful – of food, healthcare choices. Why be a conscientious consumer if it doesn’t cost you anything?
Someone who is given a handout begins to expect more handouts. The more someone receives from others, the more they expect. It’s human nature. Instead of appreciating what they’ve received from others, they begin to complain when they don’t receive it or if they receive less or if what they’re receiving doesn’t increase. Soon that expectation turns into a right – people have filed lawsuits when the handouts stopped or were reduced!
Someone who receives their livelihood with little or none of their own effort develops low self-esteem.
Someone who receives handouts from a far-off faceless government has no appreciation for what they’ve received and for the fact that behind their handout are people who’ve given something up in their own lives to provide the handout.
Those who receive welfare, be it foodstamps, welfare checks, or free healthcare, have little incentive to improve themselves. They have little or no appreciation for what they are receiving, and do not feel that they are a part of the rest of society.
There are shining exceptions, but unfortunately few and far between.
And on the other side is the animosity that these handouts generate. When people who work hard for their money see a significant chunk of it going towards taxes they become irritated. When they see a lot of these taxes then going to help poor people who do not seem appreciative it, who do not seem to be working towards getting off of welfare or helping themselves, who use foodstamps to buy junkfood while listening to their $300 ipod, who have among the highest obesity rates in the population, …this animosity turns to anger. And then when they hear more and more calls for more and more money to be poured in to social welfare programs…
On the other hand, following what the Bible teaches produces a far different result.
Someone who receives support and assistance from an individual or even their church has a much greater appreciation for what they’ve received. They value it more. They know the person or people who they received it from and they know that these people made sacrifices in their own lives to help others. Besides valuing and appreciating what they have received, they have a sense of being loved and cared for by these people.
Someone who works for what they’ve received may have an even greater appreciation. Aside from appreciation and value though, they’ve put their own effort into it. Their self-esteem is improved because they have earned their livelihood themselves. They feel more a part of normal society.
Receiving assistance from those closer to us, relatives, individuals, and our church, also has the benefit of providing a lot more than just material assistance. Closer support often comes with assistance in better managing our lives and support for making better decisions.
And that animosity people feel toward the unappreciative poor? Here it is replaced by enthusiasm. People, even many grinchy kinds of people, enjoy helping those who are genuinely appreciative and who are working and doing their best to help themselves.
The upshot is that instead of people angry on one side that they’re not getting enough handouts and people angry on the other that they’re being taken advantage of, we have appreciation and enthusiasm. We have people working together.
Now, which sounds better?
"Jesus answered, If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" Matthew 19:21
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Rick Perry Win - Nothing to cheer about.
Rick Perry very handily won the Texas Republican Primary yesterday and did so against Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is often believed to be the most popular politician in Texas. Apparently not.
Hutchison is not a fiscal conservative. On that point, I’m glad she was voted down. From what I know of him Perry is at least somewhat fiscally conservative and says the right things about state’s rights and federalism.
On the other hand, his comments about, and treatment of, the FLDS Mormons at Yearning for Zion Ranch is completely and utterly repulsive. To support, in any way, the removal of 500 children from their parents ONLY because you disagree with their polygynous lifestyle is reprehensible. As became evident in the follow-on court cases, there was no evidence whatsoever to justify the government raiding the ranch and taking the children. I strongly disagree with many elements of Mormon theology and some elements of their lifestyle, but unless they are harming others, there is no cause for action against them.
Knowing all of this I get ill every time I see Rick Perry speak.
Hutchison is not a fiscal conservative. On that point, I’m glad she was voted down. From what I know of him Perry is at least somewhat fiscally conservative and says the right things about state’s rights and federalism.
On the other hand, his comments about, and treatment of, the FLDS Mormons at Yearning for Zion Ranch is completely and utterly repulsive. To support, in any way, the removal of 500 children from their parents ONLY because you disagree with their polygynous lifestyle is reprehensible. As became evident in the follow-on court cases, there was no evidence whatsoever to justify the government raiding the ranch and taking the children. I strongly disagree with many elements of Mormon theology and some elements of their lifestyle, but unless they are harming others, there is no cause for action against them.
Knowing all of this I get ill every time I see Rick Perry speak.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Boorish Behavior
Note: I wrote this earlier and forgot to post…
This morning I was in my favorite café writing the previous post about Harry Reid and rationing healthcare. When I sat at my table I noticed a college-aged girl sitting at a table by herself not too far away from me. About an hour later she was joined by a friend. They talked and laughed, kind of loudly. Maybe 30 minutes later a 3rd friend joined them and their collective loudness increased. It wasn’t just their talking, which was quite louder than it needed to be for all of them to hear, but every few minutes they would erupt into raucous laughing cackles.
Their loud talking was distracting, but I was fairly successful in tuning it out. The cackles were another thing entirely, completely interrupting my train of thought with each outburst.
After some time I finally leaned over and asked if they could “use their inside voices”.
They weren’t amused. One of them was quite offended. But they did quiet down. And I quit bugging them. (that last sentence added just so I could use quite, quiet, and quit in one paragraph ). Two guys sitting on the other side of their table from me mouthed their thanks for my saying something.
About 15 minutes later they announced, somewhat loudly, “Let’s get out of here.”. And off they went. Of course, unlike most patrons of this wonderful café, they didn’t bother to remove their dirty cups so the table would be clean for the next person.
As I was getting ready to leave a woman walked over and thanked me for saying something. I appreciated that.
Where do we draw the line? What behavior is acceptable and what behavior is not. At what point is it proper to correct someone else’s behavior?
If I’m in a drinking pub in Scotland I’d never say anything to someone about being too loud or obnoxious. It’s acceptable and rather expected. There are nuances though. For one, a pub is not a pub is not a pub. Loud and obnoxious isn’t as acceptable in a pub that sells as much food as drink. Loud and obnoxious is more acceptable later than earlier.
In cafés around Europe loud and obnoxious behavior is quite unacceptable and it’s not unusual for staff or others to say something to loud folk (who are often American). Same goes for trains and other public places. In many European countries there’s a pretty strong belief that you should do what you can to avoid interfering with or irritating others. They talk just loud enough for their friends to hear.
In the U.S.?
This morning I was in my favorite café writing the previous post about Harry Reid and rationing healthcare. When I sat at my table I noticed a college-aged girl sitting at a table by herself not too far away from me. About an hour later she was joined by a friend. They talked and laughed, kind of loudly. Maybe 30 minutes later a 3rd friend joined them and their collective loudness increased. It wasn’t just their talking, which was quite louder than it needed to be for all of them to hear, but every few minutes they would erupt into raucous laughing cackles.
Their loud talking was distracting, but I was fairly successful in tuning it out. The cackles were another thing entirely, completely interrupting my train of thought with each outburst.
After some time I finally leaned over and asked if they could “use their inside voices”.
They weren’t amused. One of them was quite offended. But they did quiet down. And I quit bugging them. (that last sentence added just so I could use quite, quiet, and quit in one paragraph ). Two guys sitting on the other side of their table from me mouthed their thanks for my saying something.
About 15 minutes later they announced, somewhat loudly, “Let’s get out of here.”. And off they went. Of course, unlike most patrons of this wonderful café, they didn’t bother to remove their dirty cups so the table would be clean for the next person.
As I was getting ready to leave a woman walked over and thanked me for saying something. I appreciated that.
Where do we draw the line? What behavior is acceptable and what behavior is not. At what point is it proper to correct someone else’s behavior?
If I’m in a drinking pub in Scotland I’d never say anything to someone about being too loud or obnoxious. It’s acceptable and rather expected. There are nuances though. For one, a pub is not a pub is not a pub. Loud and obnoxious isn’t as acceptable in a pub that sells as much food as drink. Loud and obnoxious is more acceptable later than earlier.
In cafés around Europe loud and obnoxious behavior is quite unacceptable and it’s not unusual for staff or others to say something to loud folk (who are often American). Same goes for trains and other public places. In many European countries there’s a pretty strong belief that you should do what you can to avoid interfering with or irritating others. They talk just loud enough for their friends to hear.
In the U.S.?
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Bad option or no option at all?
Sen. Harry Reid commented this morning that the U.S. is the only nation where people must file for bankruptcy because of healthcare costs. This may or may not be true. What he declined to mention is that in other nations most of these people would not have received the healthcare in the first place.
Healthcare is expensive. There are some areas where we can certainly cut healthcare costs but the reality is that if someone needs major surgery it is going to cost at least thousands and likely tens of thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars. The costs of the people involved, the equipment, drugs, and hospital facilities are what they are.
No nation can afford to provide full, complete, and unrationed healthcare to all of its citizens. The costs to do so, with today’s technology, would exceed the GDP of any nation.
Some form of rationing is required. There will not be enough to go around. Most countries with socialized medicine use Queuing as their primary method of rationing. You simply wait your turn until whatever you need becomes available. Many surgical procedures, such as a hip replacement, that we consider critical in the U.S. and that are often provided within hours, may involve several month waits in Canada, The UK, and other countries.
Limiting what procedures are available comes next. Many newer or more expensive procedures fairly widely available in the U.S. are not available at all in countries with socialized medicine. Worse, the vast majority of these are developed in the U.S., if we adopt government run healthcare system who will invent even better options?
The final form of rationing is probably best termed Justification. Does this person’s life justify spending limited resources on them? Is it worth spending $20k on a hip replacement to a 90-year-old? How about $40k in chemo therapy for someone with severe mental and physical disabilities?
So yes Harry, some people in the U.S. may go in to debt or even bankruptcy to get medical care . But under the system you want to give us they wouldn’t even have that option.
Healthcare is expensive. There are some areas where we can certainly cut healthcare costs but the reality is that if someone needs major surgery it is going to cost at least thousands and likely tens of thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars. The costs of the people involved, the equipment, drugs, and hospital facilities are what they are.
No nation can afford to provide full, complete, and unrationed healthcare to all of its citizens. The costs to do so, with today’s technology, would exceed the GDP of any nation.
Some form of rationing is required. There will not be enough to go around. Most countries with socialized medicine use Queuing as their primary method of rationing. You simply wait your turn until whatever you need becomes available. Many surgical procedures, such as a hip replacement, that we consider critical in the U.S. and that are often provided within hours, may involve several month waits in Canada, The UK, and other countries.
Limiting what procedures are available comes next. Many newer or more expensive procedures fairly widely available in the U.S. are not available at all in countries with socialized medicine. Worse, the vast majority of these are developed in the U.S., if we adopt government run healthcare system who will invent even better options?
The final form of rationing is probably best termed Justification. Does this person’s life justify spending limited resources on them? Is it worth spending $20k on a hip replacement to a 90-year-old? How about $40k in chemo therapy for someone with severe mental and physical disabilities?
So yes Harry, some people in the U.S. may go in to debt or even bankruptcy to get medical care . But under the system you want to give us they wouldn’t even have that option.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Gays @ CPAC: Separation of Church and Politics
Among the numerous commotions at last week’s CPAC in Washington was the official inclusion and recognition of Gay Republicans.
For some people this is a screaming huge oxymoron. How can someone who is gay, and more to the point, someone who supports being gay, be any part of the conservative (or Republican) establishment?
My question: Why can’t they be?
If I understand the purpose of CPAC it is to fight for political issues, not religious issues. If I’m correct, and I admit, I may not be, then our primary goals are:
National Security – We want (and need) our government to coordinate our national defenses. To help us protect ourselves from those countries, ideologies, and individuals who might want to harm us and take away our liberties.
Domestic Security – We need government to coordinate the laws and law enforcement necessary for peaceful and orderly daily life. We need laws and law enforcement to protect us from criminals who would do us harm such as murderers, rapists, thieves, and drunk drivers and we need laws for coordinating common and fair behavior such as rules of the road and financial accounting.
Functional Infrastructure – We need government to help coordinate the building and maintaining of roadways, flight control, telecommunications, and similar infrastructure for the public good.
Restraint – We want a more fiscally responsible, smaller, and less intrusive government. We don’t want government meddling in or taking over private enterprise or private lives. We don’t want socialist redistribution. We don’t want heavy regulations telling us what we can and cannot do if it doesn’t impact other people.
So far, I’d guess many gays fit in extremely well. I know a number of gays who support all of the above 100%.
So where’s the problem?
At the core is that, for many Christians, myself included, homosexuality is a sin. Well, if we kick out everyone in the conservative movement who sins, or even just the ones who sin regularly, we’ll have a pretty small group. The bigger issue though is that this isn’t a church. Do the Baptists want to kick out everyone who’s not Baptist? The Catholics kick out all the non-Catholics? What about the Episcopalians, Atheists, Presbyterians, Agnostics, and Jews? What religious groups ideology and theology do we plan to use as a litmus test for who to include and who not to?
This is a political group, not a church. Its purpose is to promote and organize a government that makes the U.S. a safe and equitable place for each and all of us to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Someone being gay does not intrude on my life, liberty or happiness.
How about gay marriage? Well, I’m not for it. In fact, in light of recent events with Catholic Charities being forced out of their adoption business, I’m pretty strongly opposed to it. But then, a number of gays I know aren’t for it either. Gay marriage also isn’t one of the core fundamentals above. And if we’re planning to use support of gay marriage as a litmus test then we have a lot of non-gays to deal with first, starting with our newest Republican, Sen. Scott Brown. We can welcome someone who supports the core concepts of liberty and fiscal responsibility and agree to disagree on gay marriage while we continue to discuss it, its implications, and options, in a rational way.
Gays in the military? No problem (though I don’t support Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as it effectively commands someone to lie, not a good precedent). The valid concern is one of housing and this can be solved similarly to how it was with women.
The gay agenda? First we have to define what ‘the gay agenda’ is, and that would take much longer than the time we have here. There are elements of it that I strongly oppose. Interestingly, I know gays who oppose these elements as well.
What about the estimated 17% of Republicans who visited prostitutes during the GOP convention in Minneapolis? Do we give them all the boot? Many politically active conservative Christians believe that drinking alcohol is a sin, are they working to kick everyone out of the conservative movement who drinks? We can welcome those who drink alcohol and at the same time support tougher drunk driving penalties. We can welcome gays and at the same time support separate housing for gays in the military.
For some people this is a screaming huge oxymoron. How can someone who is gay, and more to the point, someone who supports being gay, be any part of the conservative (or Republican) establishment?
My question: Why can’t they be?
If I understand the purpose of CPAC it is to fight for political issues, not religious issues. If I’m correct, and I admit, I may not be, then our primary goals are:
National Security – We want (and need) our government to coordinate our national defenses. To help us protect ourselves from those countries, ideologies, and individuals who might want to harm us and take away our liberties.
Domestic Security – We need government to coordinate the laws and law enforcement necessary for peaceful and orderly daily life. We need laws and law enforcement to protect us from criminals who would do us harm such as murderers, rapists, thieves, and drunk drivers and we need laws for coordinating common and fair behavior such as rules of the road and financial accounting.
Functional Infrastructure – We need government to help coordinate the building and maintaining of roadways, flight control, telecommunications, and similar infrastructure for the public good.
Restraint – We want a more fiscally responsible, smaller, and less intrusive government. We don’t want government meddling in or taking over private enterprise or private lives. We don’t want socialist redistribution. We don’t want heavy regulations telling us what we can and cannot do if it doesn’t impact other people.
So far, I’d guess many gays fit in extremely well. I know a number of gays who support all of the above 100%.
So where’s the problem?
At the core is that, for many Christians, myself included, homosexuality is a sin. Well, if we kick out everyone in the conservative movement who sins, or even just the ones who sin regularly, we’ll have a pretty small group. The bigger issue though is that this isn’t a church. Do the Baptists want to kick out everyone who’s not Baptist? The Catholics kick out all the non-Catholics? What about the Episcopalians, Atheists, Presbyterians, Agnostics, and Jews? What religious groups ideology and theology do we plan to use as a litmus test for who to include and who not to?
This is a political group, not a church. Its purpose is to promote and organize a government that makes the U.S. a safe and equitable place for each and all of us to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Someone being gay does not intrude on my life, liberty or happiness.
How about gay marriage? Well, I’m not for it. In fact, in light of recent events with Catholic Charities being forced out of their adoption business, I’m pretty strongly opposed to it. But then, a number of gays I know aren’t for it either. Gay marriage also isn’t one of the core fundamentals above. And if we’re planning to use support of gay marriage as a litmus test then we have a lot of non-gays to deal with first, starting with our newest Republican, Sen. Scott Brown. We can welcome someone who supports the core concepts of liberty and fiscal responsibility and agree to disagree on gay marriage while we continue to discuss it, its implications, and options, in a rational way.
Gays in the military? No problem (though I don’t support Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as it effectively commands someone to lie, not a good precedent). The valid concern is one of housing and this can be solved similarly to how it was with women.
The gay agenda? First we have to define what ‘the gay agenda’ is, and that would take much longer than the time we have here. There are elements of it that I strongly oppose. Interestingly, I know gays who oppose these elements as well.
What about the estimated 17% of Republicans who visited prostitutes during the GOP convention in Minneapolis? Do we give them all the boot? Many politically active conservative Christians believe that drinking alcohol is a sin, are they working to kick everyone out of the conservative movement who drinks? We can welcome those who drink alcohol and at the same time support tougher drunk driving penalties. We can welcome gays and at the same time support separate housing for gays in the military.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Tiger - Just Average
Tiger Woods gave a brief 15 minute statement this morning. The first we’ve seen or heard from him since the public revelations of his sex life late last year. The amount of coverage devoted to Tiger and his sexual trysts over the past couple of months has been truly amazing. Perhaps more interesting is the amount of time over the past 48 hours given over to speculation on what he would say this morning. He even surpassed the profit motives of wall-street as trading came to a near standstill for the 15 minutes he spoke. And on the disgusting side is the coverage and stalking of his wife, children, and friends the past months.
And all of this because he’s, well, just like everyone else.
He’s like Elliot Spitzer, Hugh Grant, Ryan Philippe, Charlie Sheen, Jude Law, Peter Cook, Ethan Hawke, David Boreanaz, Jessie Ventura, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Kobe Bryant, David Vitter, Dick Morris, Larry Craig, Barney Frank, Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston, Geraldo Rivera, Newt Gingrich, Bill Randall, Bob Barr, Wayne Pace, Newt Gingrich, John Edwards, Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, David Letterman,
…and over 80% of all men.
OK, maybe he’s not totally like David Boreanaz who was married to Rachel Uchitel when he had a mistress (or three?) unlike Tiger for whom Rachel was a mistress. Got it?
Statistically, over 80% of the male journalists, pundits, and others talking about Tiger are no different than he is. And over 80% of the men watching the news coverage or reading the plethora of articles about him are just like him. And over 80% of the women have husbands just like him. Just about every study on this topic indicates that fewer than 20% of married men are monogamous (and then only if you don’t include porn).
And Tiger being average is news? This would be like news bulletins that Tiger believes Elvis is dead. Actually, there are probably more guys who believe that Elvis is alive than are monogamous so Tiger believing Elvis is dead would be more newsworthy.
Who are we to be critical of Tiger? Why is his sex life even remotely any of our business anyway?
I’m not saying that what Tiger did is OK or that it’s OK for anyone. But our collective national hypocrisy (to quote Joseph McNamara) is rather deafening.
We need to get over ourselves.
And all of this because he’s, well, just like everyone else.
He’s like Elliot Spitzer, Hugh Grant, Ryan Philippe, Charlie Sheen, Jude Law, Peter Cook, Ethan Hawke, David Boreanaz, Jessie Ventura, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Kobe Bryant, David Vitter, Dick Morris, Larry Craig, Barney Frank, Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston, Geraldo Rivera, Newt Gingrich, Bill Randall, Bob Barr, Wayne Pace, Newt Gingrich, John Edwards, Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, David Letterman,
…and over 80% of all men.
OK, maybe he’s not totally like David Boreanaz who was married to Rachel Uchitel when he had a mistress (or three?) unlike Tiger for whom Rachel was a mistress. Got it?
Statistically, over 80% of the male journalists, pundits, and others talking about Tiger are no different than he is. And over 80% of the men watching the news coverage or reading the plethora of articles about him are just like him. And over 80% of the women have husbands just like him. Just about every study on this topic indicates that fewer than 20% of married men are monogamous (and then only if you don’t include porn).
And Tiger being average is news? This would be like news bulletins that Tiger believes Elvis is dead. Actually, there are probably more guys who believe that Elvis is alive than are monogamous so Tiger believing Elvis is dead would be more newsworthy.
Who are we to be critical of Tiger? Why is his sex life even remotely any of our business anyway?
I’m not saying that what Tiger did is OK or that it’s OK for anyone. But our collective national hypocrisy (to quote Joseph McNamara) is rather deafening.
We need to get over ourselves.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
What Do Women Pray For ?
29 Hours in a Day
Male Menopause
A Truly Universal Remote
Free Chocolate
Male Periods
Clone to wash, cook, clean bathrooms, please him...
Three-Day Weekends
Bounce Free Workouts
Male Pregnancy
Urinals (just like the boys have)
Did I mention guys getting a visit from Aunt Flo? Every month!
Male Menopause
A Truly Universal Remote
Free Chocolate
Male Periods
Clone to wash, cook, clean bathrooms, please him...
Three-Day Weekends
Bounce Free Workouts
Male Pregnancy
Urinals (just like the boys have)
Did I mention guys getting a visit from Aunt Flo? Every month!
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Simple Public Decorum
Are people less considerate of others than they used to be? Are people in the U.S. less considerate of others than people in Europe? Or Asia?
Yesterday I was working in one of my favorite cafes. There is a line of about 10 small rectangular tables lined up along one wall that are prime spots for people with laptops. The table next to me was empty and a woman who’s a professor at a local university put her bag on it and began to get her laptop out when she noticed a friend sitting nearby. She stopped to talk to him briefly and as their conversation continued she sat in the chair to rest her legs (she walks with a cane, not sure why).
About 10 minutes later a guy who was sitting in one of the sofa’s came over, grabbed her bag and then shouted at me “Is this yours?”
“No.” I replied as I reached to keep her laptop from falling out of her bag.
The professor shouted over that it was hers and her friend came over and grabbed her bag from the ofe who was still holding it.
I said no more until about 30 minutes later as I was putting my laptop away to leave. I mentioned to the guy that he really shouldn’t grab other people’s stuff without asking. He was quite offended by my saying this.
Yesterday I was working in one of my favorite cafes. There is a line of about 10 small rectangular tables lined up along one wall that are prime spots for people with laptops. The table next to me was empty and a woman who’s a professor at a local university put her bag on it and began to get her laptop out when she noticed a friend sitting nearby. She stopped to talk to him briefly and as their conversation continued she sat in the chair to rest her legs (she walks with a cane, not sure why).
About 10 minutes later a guy who was sitting in one of the sofa’s came over, grabbed her bag and then shouted at me “Is this yours?”
“No.” I replied as I reached to keep her laptop from falling out of her bag.
The professor shouted over that it was hers and her friend came over and grabbed her bag from the ofe who was still holding it.
I said no more until about 30 minutes later as I was putting my laptop away to leave. I mentioned to the guy that he really shouldn’t grab other people’s stuff without asking. He was quite offended by my saying this.
Monday, February 15, 2010
In Defense of Pot Heads ?
Before delving in to this let me make one thing clear. SMOKING POT IS STUPID! It is not harmless. It messes with peoples mental ability.
But then, we all do stupid things occasionally don’t we?
I recently met a guy named Marcus. Marcus is African American, 37-years-old, dropped out of school in 11th grade, has 4 kids (that he knows of), and lives with the mother of the two youngest along with his second child. He doesn’t know where his first child, Sarah is. Sarah’s mother moved away with her soon after she was born. Marcus has a couple of arrests on his record for drug possession, once for cocaine, once for pot. Thanks to prison over-crowding he was given probation both times instead of a jail sentence. He no longer does cocaine, but still gets together with friends once or twice a week to smoke a joint in the garage behind his house.
I drove by his house one day. This is not a neighborhood I felt very comfortable in and I’ve spent some time in some pretty unappealing and rough neighborhoods. I didn’t even slow down when I drove by. His house is a 1940’s 500 square foot pseudo Cap Cod in need of a lot of work. I also saw the 1 car parallelogram shaped garage in back where he and his friends smoke their pot.
So, what do you think about Marcus? Sound like a problem? Not someone you’d want living next door to you? Someone with a lot of things in his life to fix? Should he be arrested and convicted for dealing and smoking pot? Think his children should be taken away from him?
I met Marcus through a mutual acquaintance, one of the people Marcus smokes a joint with occasionally. Our mutual acquaintance just so happens to also be his
former probation officer. Marcus has been off probation for 14 years but they’ve stayed in touch because his probation officer has become a mentor to Marcus for these many years. It was his probation officer who, a year after his probation ended, helped him decide to quite doing cocaine, to marry the mother of his child, and to become a father rather than just a baby maker.
Marcus works at an industrial laundry. He doesn’t make much money but it’s a job and has provided 7 years of steady income. He knows the street and the local gangs and works to keep his kids free from them. Though he cut his own education short he’s intent on all of his children at least finishing high school. He doesn’t know much about college or ‘professional’ careers but he does know that he wants them to get jobs and be “decent”.
What good would it do to arrest Marcus? To throw him in prison? He may not be an ideal father, but he is a father. Will his kids do better if they’re visiting him in prison instead of having him at home?
And what about a pot smoking probation officer? I met him at a Christmas dinner for the board of directors for our state’s second largest charitable foundation. My wife is on the board with his wife (who is BTW, a VP of Engineering for a Fortune 100 corporation). Their oldest child goes to NYU and plans to be a neurologist. Should he be arrested for his pot smoking? What good would that do?
Both of these guys will tell you that they know that they’ve been permanently harmed by their pot smoking. I don’t disagree, particularly with Marcus, who exhibits typical pot-head slowness. My probation officer friend said that he has cut back to just once or twice a month though. Neither of them believes that any future harm from their occasional use is worth giving it up.
On this last point I strongly disagree. I think that their current and future use, even just once or twice per month, will harm them. I also think that their actions are harming their families.
On the other hand, they are both, from everything I’ve been able to tell, decent husbands and pretty good fathers.
Is it possible that a pot head can also be a good spouse, father, and citizen? Probable even?
Our society’s solution is to arrest Marcus. Is that the right thing to do?
But then, we all do stupid things occasionally don’t we?
I recently met a guy named Marcus. Marcus is African American, 37-years-old, dropped out of school in 11th grade, has 4 kids (that he knows of), and lives with the mother of the two youngest along with his second child. He doesn’t know where his first child, Sarah is. Sarah’s mother moved away with her soon after she was born. Marcus has a couple of arrests on his record for drug possession, once for cocaine, once for pot. Thanks to prison over-crowding he was given probation both times instead of a jail sentence. He no longer does cocaine, but still gets together with friends once or twice a week to smoke a joint in the garage behind his house.
I drove by his house one day. This is not a neighborhood I felt very comfortable in and I’ve spent some time in some pretty unappealing and rough neighborhoods. I didn’t even slow down when I drove by. His house is a 1940’s 500 square foot pseudo Cap Cod in need of a lot of work. I also saw the 1 car parallelogram shaped garage in back where he and his friends smoke their pot.
So, what do you think about Marcus? Sound like a problem? Not someone you’d want living next door to you? Someone with a lot of things in his life to fix? Should he be arrested and convicted for dealing and smoking pot? Think his children should be taken away from him?
I met Marcus through a mutual acquaintance, one of the people Marcus smokes a joint with occasionally. Our mutual acquaintance just so happens to also be his
former probation officer. Marcus has been off probation for 14 years but they’ve stayed in touch because his probation officer has become a mentor to Marcus for these many years. It was his probation officer who, a year after his probation ended, helped him decide to quite doing cocaine, to marry the mother of his child, and to become a father rather than just a baby maker.
Marcus works at an industrial laundry. He doesn’t make much money but it’s a job and has provided 7 years of steady income. He knows the street and the local gangs and works to keep his kids free from them. Though he cut his own education short he’s intent on all of his children at least finishing high school. He doesn’t know much about college or ‘professional’ careers but he does know that he wants them to get jobs and be “decent”.
What good would it do to arrest Marcus? To throw him in prison? He may not be an ideal father, but he is a father. Will his kids do better if they’re visiting him in prison instead of having him at home?
And what about a pot smoking probation officer? I met him at a Christmas dinner for the board of directors for our state’s second largest charitable foundation. My wife is on the board with his wife (who is BTW, a VP of Engineering for a Fortune 100 corporation). Their oldest child goes to NYU and plans to be a neurologist. Should he be arrested for his pot smoking? What good would that do?
Both of these guys will tell you that they know that they’ve been permanently harmed by their pot smoking. I don’t disagree, particularly with Marcus, who exhibits typical pot-head slowness. My probation officer friend said that he has cut back to just once or twice a month though. Neither of them believes that any future harm from their occasional use is worth giving it up.
On this last point I strongly disagree. I think that their current and future use, even just once or twice per month, will harm them. I also think that their actions are harming their families.
On the other hand, they are both, from everything I’ve been able to tell, decent husbands and pretty good fathers.
Is it possible that a pot head can also be a good spouse, father, and citizen? Probable even?
Our society’s solution is to arrest Marcus. Is that the right thing to do?
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Christians divorce more than heathens ?
There is a well-known study by Barna Group regarding a higher divorce rate among Christians than among non-Christians. I've also mentioned my own initial study indicating that the divorce rate among those who meet at Christian colleges appears even higher than this.
The February 2010 issue of Christianity Today magazine includes an article entitled Why Gayle Haggard Stayed. The clear insinuation that it would be expected by Christianity Today's readers that she would have left her husband Ted Haggard.
Throughout the Biblical period and likely up through the first 1800 or so years of Christianity no such headline would ever have appeared. Until just very recently, perhaps the past 80 or so years, a woman in Gayle's position wouldn't have even considered divorcing her husband. Why? First because doing so would go against God's commands regarding marriage and divorce, second would be her love for her children and the knowledge of the impact of divorce on them, and perhaps a distant third would be her concern for how she would support herself and her children as a single-mother.
Some reading this will quickly disagree with my first point. Certainly it would be OK and maybe even preferable for Gayle to divorce Ted in this situation. Biblically though, that's not so. The only reason given for divorce in the Bible is adultery, which throughout history and until just very recently involved a married woman having sex with someone other than her husband. Ted having sex with someone other than his wife was not adultery and from a Biblical standpoint was not grounds for divorce.
I'm not excusing Ted Haggard's actions. From my reading of the Bible, he was clearly involved in sexual sin. But when we wonder why we get divorced so much more now than ever before and more often than non-Christians, well...
The February 2010 issue of Christianity Today magazine includes an article entitled Why Gayle Haggard Stayed. The clear insinuation that it would be expected by Christianity Today's readers that she would have left her husband Ted Haggard.
Throughout the Biblical period and likely up through the first 1800 or so years of Christianity no such headline would ever have appeared. Until just very recently, perhaps the past 80 or so years, a woman in Gayle's position wouldn't have even considered divorcing her husband. Why? First because doing so would go against God's commands regarding marriage and divorce, second would be her love for her children and the knowledge of the impact of divorce on them, and perhaps a distant third would be her concern for how she would support herself and her children as a single-mother.
Some reading this will quickly disagree with my first point. Certainly it would be OK and maybe even preferable for Gayle to divorce Ted in this situation. Biblically though, that's not so. The only reason given for divorce in the Bible is adultery, which throughout history and until just very recently involved a married woman having sex with someone other than her husband. Ted having sex with someone other than his wife was not adultery and from a Biblical standpoint was not grounds for divorce.
I'm not excusing Ted Haggard's actions. From my reading of the Bible, he was clearly involved in sexual sin. But when we wonder why we get divorced so much more now than ever before and more often than non-Christians, well...
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Pre-Teen Sex
I received a few comments castigating me for supporting pre-teen sex with my post about the 11-year-old girl giving birth.
There was nothing in that post, as I read it anyway, supporting pre-teen sex. I never said that. The gist of that post was the interesting dichotomy of something that Jesus would have considered quite normal, we consider abnormal and even criminal. And yes, I was also poking fun at our (and Fox News) apparent love of hysteria and finding things we can get all worked up over. We do love to get worked up over things…
Mother’s Age & Birth Defects
Also, just an hour after I posted, a study was made public discussing the higher incidences of autism in children born to older mothers. While the study listed data for a continuum of mother’s ages, it focused on those over 35 who have the greatest risk of a child with autism (about 1 in 300 at age 35, about 1 in 200 at age 40). Looking at the data though it is clear that the risks of autism begin to significantly increase with mother’s over about 24.
Further, the probability of a variety of chromosomal issues, such as Down’s Syndrome, increase with mother’s age over 20. Below 20 the risk is about 1 in 3,000. By 25 it’s about 1 in 500. By 40 it’s 1 in 60.
There have also been a number of studies regarding the danger of birth defects and other health problems for young mothers, under about 14. A very quick perusal of these reveals that the primary cause is not actually the age of the mother, but the poor healthcare that many of these young mothers receive.
I’m not recommending that we start encouraging teens to have babies (or sex). But this does seem to raise an interesting issue. Throughout Biblical Israel and the first 1500 years of Christianity girls married at about 13 and produced children from about 13 to perhaps 25 or 30. This also seems to coincide with the age their bodies were designed by God to normally and safely produce children. Let’s not forget that God can do miracles though – Sarah was 90 when she gave birth to Isaac.
There was nothing in that post, as I read it anyway, supporting pre-teen sex. I never said that. The gist of that post was the interesting dichotomy of something that Jesus would have considered quite normal, we consider abnormal and even criminal. And yes, I was also poking fun at our (and Fox News) apparent love of hysteria and finding things we can get all worked up over. We do love to get worked up over things…
Mother’s Age & Birth Defects
Also, just an hour after I posted, a study was made public discussing the higher incidences of autism in children born to older mothers. While the study listed data for a continuum of mother’s ages, it focused on those over 35 who have the greatest risk of a child with autism (about 1 in 300 at age 35, about 1 in 200 at age 40). Looking at the data though it is clear that the risks of autism begin to significantly increase with mother’s over about 24.
Further, the probability of a variety of chromosomal issues, such as Down’s Syndrome, increase with mother’s age over 20. Below 20 the risk is about 1 in 3,000. By 25 it’s about 1 in 500. By 40 it’s 1 in 60.
There have also been a number of studies regarding the danger of birth defects and other health problems for young mothers, under about 14. A very quick perusal of these reveals that the primary cause is not actually the age of the mother, but the poor healthcare that many of these young mothers receive.
I’m not recommending that we start encouraging teens to have babies (or sex). But this does seem to raise an interesting issue. Throughout Biblical Israel and the first 1500 years of Christianity girls married at about 13 and produced children from about 13 to perhaps 25 or 30. This also seems to coincide with the age their bodies were designed by God to normally and safely produce children. Let’s not forget that God can do miracles though – Sarah was 90 when she gave birth to Isaac.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Jobs: Just Do Something ?
There is a lot of gnashing of teeth over jobs and the need for ‘the government to do something’.
Let’s consider what happens when the government does something as opposed to the citizenry doing something.
If I earn $100 I will pay $40 in taxes and take home $60. Of this $60 I’ll save $10, invest $10 and spend the other $40 on housing, food, clothes, transportation, and entertainment.
If the government ‘does something’ they’ll take an extra $10 from me in taxes so that they’ll have money to ‘do something’. Of this $10 about $2 will go to the government bureaucracy to run the ‘do something’ programs. Another $2 will go to the government of China to pay interest on the money we’re borrowing from them. Of the remaining $6 that actually goes towards ‘do something’ jobs programs maybe half, $3, will be used to actually employ someone – if we’re lucky.
So that’s good, we’ve employed someone. The program is working.
Oops, there’s a hitch. How many people lose their jobs because of the higher taxes? Since I now have $10 less of what I’ve earned I won’t eat out as much so some restaurants will close, others will just lay off staff. I’ll have less to spend on clothes and I’ll postpone buying a new Ford.
The worst part of the monetary equation though is that I will have less to invest. I’ll cut that $10 to maybe $3. So, U.S. manufacturers will have more difficulty raising capital for new ventures that over future years would have become self-sustaining enterprises that employ people, bring capital into the U.S. from other countries, and prop up the value of the U.S. dollar.
OK, so the monetary side doesn’t look so good…
What about people? Our nation was built on the ingenuity and work-ethic of its citizens. Interestingly, the Democratic party was founded on the principle of freeing citizens from government. The Democratic party’s goals during the 1800’s was as little government as possible. They fought to give every person the freedom to pursue their dreams - Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Their mantra for decades was ‘We’re Americans, we can accomplish a lot if government will just get out of our way. We don’t need government interference.”
Fortunately, the Democrats won, with perhaps the biggest break coming in the Supreme Court’s decision in Gibbons v. Ogden that limited government meddling and opened up business to unfettered competition. Every person was free to pursue their dreams. Someone who valued life and leisure over wealth could choose to work less for less income. Someone who valued wealth could choose to work harder to obtain the luxuries they desired.
People were responsible for themselves. If someone wanted something they had to work for it. During the 1800’s and into the 1900’s we had the hardest working, most productive, and most inventive and creative citizenry in the world. Because of this we’ve enjoyed the highest standard of living of any nation in history. And this highest in the world standard is not the wealthy, but the average laboring citizen.
Compare all of this to what happens when government gets involved. A government program doesn’t encourage me to work hard or be inventive. Why should I work hard if the government will provide me with what I need? If I work hard and start earning money to support myself the government will just reduce how much it’s giving me and give it to others. If I work even harder and take some risks to invent something or start a company, the government will just tax me more.
Suddenly it seems really stupid for me to work hard or invent anything. What benefit will there be? The only inventiveness that will benefit me is the inventiveness in how best to take advantage of government programs.
But wait, what if the government is just providing job training or education assistance? Certainly that’s OK? How can that hurt?
Well, the same principles apply. If someone else is paying why should I be careful in what training I choose, how well I do in it, or how hard I work to learn? If I’m having to pay for it myself I’ll make sure I get MY money’s worth. I’ll choose a program that I think will have a very high likelihood of providing me with gainful employment in the future. I’ll make sure that the training provided is ‘up to snuff’. I’ll work really really hard to learn so that when I’m done I can earn as much money as possible.
The problem with government programs is that they simply kill individual initiative. I’m a pretty ambitious person (pause of laughter…), but if there is no benefit to me in doing something I’m not likely going to do it. Why waste my time and energy?
There are individual stories of people who have taken advantage of government programs to make a better life for themselves. The problem is that for every one of these there are 9 others who wasted the effort. If these same 10 people were having to pay for it themselves, my guess is that 7 or 8 of them would have chosen not to pursue it, but that the 2 or 3 who did would have each been more successful than the 1 person who succeeded in the government program.
And from a cost perspective, since we wasted money on 9 people, we spent 10 times as much to educate 1 person as that person would have otherwise spent. What a waste! What a waste of our money. What a waste of the resources of the instructors. What a waste of the time of the 9 people who just took up space in the training.
Let’s consider what happens when the government does something as opposed to the citizenry doing something.
If I earn $100 I will pay $40 in taxes and take home $60. Of this $60 I’ll save $10, invest $10 and spend the other $40 on housing, food, clothes, transportation, and entertainment.
If the government ‘does something’ they’ll take an extra $10 from me in taxes so that they’ll have money to ‘do something’. Of this $10 about $2 will go to the government bureaucracy to run the ‘do something’ programs. Another $2 will go to the government of China to pay interest on the money we’re borrowing from them. Of the remaining $6 that actually goes towards ‘do something’ jobs programs maybe half, $3, will be used to actually employ someone – if we’re lucky.
So that’s good, we’ve employed someone. The program is working.
Oops, there’s a hitch. How many people lose their jobs because of the higher taxes? Since I now have $10 less of what I’ve earned I won’t eat out as much so some restaurants will close, others will just lay off staff. I’ll have less to spend on clothes and I’ll postpone buying a new Ford.
The worst part of the monetary equation though is that I will have less to invest. I’ll cut that $10 to maybe $3. So, U.S. manufacturers will have more difficulty raising capital for new ventures that over future years would have become self-sustaining enterprises that employ people, bring capital into the U.S. from other countries, and prop up the value of the U.S. dollar.
OK, so the monetary side doesn’t look so good…
What about people? Our nation was built on the ingenuity and work-ethic of its citizens. Interestingly, the Democratic party was founded on the principle of freeing citizens from government. The Democratic party’s goals during the 1800’s was as little government as possible. They fought to give every person the freedom to pursue their dreams - Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Their mantra for decades was ‘We’re Americans, we can accomplish a lot if government will just get out of our way. We don’t need government interference.”
Fortunately, the Democrats won, with perhaps the biggest break coming in the Supreme Court’s decision in Gibbons v. Ogden that limited government meddling and opened up business to unfettered competition. Every person was free to pursue their dreams. Someone who valued life and leisure over wealth could choose to work less for less income. Someone who valued wealth could choose to work harder to obtain the luxuries they desired.
People were responsible for themselves. If someone wanted something they had to work for it. During the 1800’s and into the 1900’s we had the hardest working, most productive, and most inventive and creative citizenry in the world. Because of this we’ve enjoyed the highest standard of living of any nation in history. And this highest in the world standard is not the wealthy, but the average laboring citizen.
Compare all of this to what happens when government gets involved. A government program doesn’t encourage me to work hard or be inventive. Why should I work hard if the government will provide me with what I need? If I work hard and start earning money to support myself the government will just reduce how much it’s giving me and give it to others. If I work even harder and take some risks to invent something or start a company, the government will just tax me more.
Suddenly it seems really stupid for me to work hard or invent anything. What benefit will there be? The only inventiveness that will benefit me is the inventiveness in how best to take advantage of government programs.
But wait, what if the government is just providing job training or education assistance? Certainly that’s OK? How can that hurt?
Well, the same principles apply. If someone else is paying why should I be careful in what training I choose, how well I do in it, or how hard I work to learn? If I’m having to pay for it myself I’ll make sure I get MY money’s worth. I’ll choose a program that I think will have a very high likelihood of providing me with gainful employment in the future. I’ll make sure that the training provided is ‘up to snuff’. I’ll work really really hard to learn so that when I’m done I can earn as much money as possible.
The problem with government programs is that they simply kill individual initiative. I’m a pretty ambitious person (pause of laughter…), but if there is no benefit to me in doing something I’m not likely going to do it. Why waste my time and energy?
There are individual stories of people who have taken advantage of government programs to make a better life for themselves. The problem is that for every one of these there are 9 others who wasted the effort. If these same 10 people were having to pay for it themselves, my guess is that 7 or 8 of them would have chosen not to pursue it, but that the 2 or 3 who did would have each been more successful than the 1 person who succeeded in the government program.
And from a cost perspective, since we wasted money on 9 people, we spent 10 times as much to educate 1 person as that person would have otherwise spent. What a waste! What a waste of our money. What a waste of the resources of the instructors. What a waste of the time of the 9 people who just took up space in the training.
Monday, February 8, 2010
11-year-old gives birth
A couple of days ago FoxNEWS’ Martha MacCallum was apoplectic over the news that an 11-year-old girl had given birth. She had guests Dr. Manny Alvarez and psychologist Dr Keith Ablow on to comment. Both discussed how awful this was and listed a plethora of physical and emotional trauma that can come with an 11-year-old giving birth.
And I guess to some extent this is somewhat sensational in our day and age.
Historically though, this would not have been unusual.
Jesus mother is widely believed to have been about 13 when she gave birth to him. So did God impregnate a 12 or 13-year-old? What kind of physical and emotional trauma did God inflict on her?
We include in our Bibles a rather erotic sonnet written by a 45-year-old man to his 13-year-old bride. Imagine if a 45-year-old in your church wrote something even mildly like Song of Solomon to a 13-year-old girl in your church’s youth group. Why do we include such a horrible thing in our Bible?
Well, despite all of the hand wringing the 11-year-old girl is apparently both physically and emotionally OK and the 5 lb baby is reported to be very healthy. We will likely inflict far greater trauma on his girl by making a big deal out of it than she would otherwise experience. We are a pious lot aren’t we?
And I guess to some extent this is somewhat sensational in our day and age.
Historically though, this would not have been unusual.
Jesus mother is widely believed to have been about 13 when she gave birth to him. So did God impregnate a 12 or 13-year-old? What kind of physical and emotional trauma did God inflict on her?
We include in our Bibles a rather erotic sonnet written by a 45-year-old man to his 13-year-old bride. Imagine if a 45-year-old in your church wrote something even mildly like Song of Solomon to a 13-year-old girl in your church’s youth group. Why do we include such a horrible thing in our Bible?
Well, despite all of the hand wringing the 11-year-old girl is apparently both physically and emotionally OK and the 5 lb baby is reported to be very healthy. We will likely inflict far greater trauma on his girl by making a big deal out of it than she would otherwise experience. We are a pious lot aren’t we?
Thursday, January 14, 2010
"When's The Last Time A Poor Person Signed Your Paycheck?"
Quote from Tom Russell, Democrat. On why we need smaller government and fewer taxes.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Full Body Scanners? IR Scanners? Effective?
One of the loudest responses to the Christmas Day Muslim crotch bomber has been the call for full-body scanners in airports. One side touts how this will detect these types of bombs and another side screams about privacy concerns.
There’s a much bigger issue – they won’t work.
Yes, they would, with experienced, well-trained, and alert monitors, likely have helped to detect the bag of powder in Abdul's crotch. But what if that powder were spread out? Evenly distributed in the lining of his jacket? Distributed in 4 or 5 pens or pencils in his carry-on?
Realistically neither full-body scanners nor IR scanners will provide much improved security. Islamic terrorists are plentiful, well funded, and well organized. They will figure out easy ways around these scanners and their plots will surely branch out well beyond their current fascination with planes.
President Obama made the right move with increased security for those coming from or through known terroristic countries. That is only one tiny step though (assuming he can get other countries to abide by it).
If we don’t want terrorists blowing up innocent people in our planes, trains, and café’s we need to deal with the people carrying out these spineless acts. We need to eliminate their funding, their ability to organize and recruit so easily, and we need to eliminate them. Otherwise we will live increasingly in the grip of fear of the next attack and always being one step behind.
There’s a much bigger issue – they won’t work.
Yes, they would, with experienced, well-trained, and alert monitors, likely have helped to detect the bag of powder in Abdul's crotch. But what if that powder were spread out? Evenly distributed in the lining of his jacket? Distributed in 4 or 5 pens or pencils in his carry-on?
Realistically neither full-body scanners nor IR scanners will provide much improved security. Islamic terrorists are plentiful, well funded, and well organized. They will figure out easy ways around these scanners and their plots will surely branch out well beyond their current fascination with planes.
President Obama made the right move with increased security for those coming from or through known terroristic countries. That is only one tiny step though (assuming he can get other countries to abide by it).
If we don’t want terrorists blowing up innocent people in our planes, trains, and café’s we need to deal with the people carrying out these spineless acts. We need to eliminate their funding, their ability to organize and recruit so easily, and we need to eliminate them. Otherwise we will live increasingly in the grip of fear of the next attack and always being one step behind.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
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?
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?
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?
Thursday, December 10, 2009
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.
Monday, November 9, 2009
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…
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…
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, October 23, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, October 19, 2009
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
http://www.startribune.com/local/64672702.html
Friday, August 7, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
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.
Friday, June 26, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)