At the middle of last century AT&T, colloquially known as Ma Bell, controlled all phone service to homes and businesses. If you wanted phone service they were your only choice. You had no options with AT&T. You got what they decided they wanted to offer and that was that. They were regulated by the government but that didn’t seem to be doing much to improve service or lower costs.
Enter Bill McGowan. He decided it was time to undo Ma Bell’s monopoly and give them some competition. They didn’t like the idea. He started a phone company to compete with Ma Bell and then filed a lawsuit to end their monopoly. During this tumultuous time his company, Microwave Communications Inc., later known as MCI, was fondly referred to as a law firm with a microwave dish on it’s roof (it employed more lawyers than telephone people.)
Well, Ma Bell didn’t like competition. They said that they had a legal and regulated monopoly and all was fine, thank you very much. Bill said all wasn’t fine, that they were extremely slow in introducing newer technologies and that their rates were much higher than they needed to be. Ma Bell said that undoing their carefully structured monopoly would put the entire phone system at risk, that there would be tremendous problems and that people wouldn’t be able to make phone calls if Bill won.
Fortunately for all of us, Bill won. MCI began implementing newer technologies and offering services at a fraction of what AT&T had been charging. To their credit, AT&T became a much more efficient, competitive, and technologically advanced company within just a few years instead of the 10 or more many expected.
Today’s cable companies are not much different than AT&T of yesteryear. We are living in an ancient world held down by a paradigm largely developed decades before Al Gore decided he invented the Internet*.
We can only get the channels that our monopoly cable carrier or satellite service decides to offer. I’d like Universal Sports Channel, but my cable company doesn’t offer it so I’m out of luck. And even for channels they do offer we often have to purchase those we don’t want in order to get one we do, just because of the way the cable carriers decide to bundle channels.
My PC isn’t handcuffed like my antiquated cable service. I’m not prevented from viewing tripadvisor.com because Comcast hasn’t negotiated a contract with them. Can you imagine if your internet service provider told you that you could only access the websites they choose to offer?
Likewise we’re limited in options for Al’s internet service. Many people have no alternative for internet but their monopoly cable company. A few have a low-speed DSL option from their local phone company (likely a descendent of Ma Bell), but if they want higher speed, cable is it. Some have no reasonable option at all.
Well, there’s sunshine on the horizon and it won’t even require lawsuits.
Part I of sunshine is that we are beginning to see the unbundling of cable channels from carrier service. Many ‘channels’ are now streaming their programming on their websites. So, while Comcast doesn’t offer Universal Sports, I can just go to Universal Sports website and watch their stream of the Milan – San Remo bike race. I’m no longer locked in to only what Comcast chooses to offer and only at the price Comcast chooses.
In time we’ll see more and more of this and ultimately it will no longer be necessary to subscribe to any ‘channels’ through our cable or satellite company. All we’ll need is internet service and then we’ll ‘tune in’ to whatever ‘channels’ we want to watch via their websites.
One slight cloud though. Just as traditional land-line phone companies are seeing a precipitous decline in customers as more and more of us forego a traditional phone for a cell phone, cable companies will see a decline in people purchasing traditional cable service as we choose to get the channels we want directly via the internet. The cable carriers will want to raise their internet rates to make up for the lost revenue from cable TV subscriptions, but they’ll find a problem. Competition.
Part II of sunshine is 4G. Today you may get the internet at your home through your cable company, DSL from the phone company, or maybe WiFi from your municipality **. Tomorrow you may very well get the internet in your home from your cell phone company. We think of cell service as ‘mobile’, but if it can do mobile cost effectively, it can certainly do stationary even more cost effectively. 4G promises data performance comparable to what cable provides today or greater. DSL has provided little real competition to the cable companies, but 4G and similar wireless technologies will. Just replace your current cable modem with a 4G modem and you’ll be set.
Verizon is leading the charge with a faster rollout (30 cities in Q3 of 2010) and greater speed promises of 5 – 12 Mbps. Sprint is just behind though they say that they will only offer 6 mbps initially. And even our old friend AT&T is there with rollouts (12 mbps rumor) planned for 2011. The 4G spec though includes up to 1 gigabit per second (gbps) for stationary applications.
Today I pay $148/mo for cable and another $62/mo for internet so a total of $208 to Comcast. I pay another $67/mo to my cell company for voice+data. My guess is that the new 4G will come in around $99 for voice+data so for another $32 I can drop my $62/mo cable internet and soon the $148 cable altogether.
The one remaining piece of the puzzle will be for TV’s to include web browsers and media players similar to those we have on our PC’s. LCD and Plasma displays are really just computers built into very large computer displays. Today they have proprietary media players for Netflix and Youtube, tomorrow we’ll see open applications like we have on our PC’s including web browsers and good media players.
* Note: The Internet was actually invented by a guy name Vinton Cerf. I worked for Vint. At MCI.
** 4G data service from cell providers has been a known technology for some time. Despite this, several municipalities around the country have moved forward with installation of WiFi (and low power WiMax) networks, often paid for with tax dollars. It remains to be seen if these will be able to compete with 4G (which includes a higher power version of WiMax). My guess is that these, along with 'wifi hotspots', won't be long for this world either.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Politically Incorrect to help those enslaved ?
I'm on vacation (and thus this is unedited), but had this article forwarded to me and wanted to make a comparison. Human Trafficking is a serious problem throughout much of the world, in particular Asia and the Middle-East. Stories of people, mostly women, enslaved to work in garment factories, rice fields, brick factories, brothels, and homes are excruciating to read. They are most often not allowed to leave the premise. They are told that if they are disobedient in any way that they will be punished or their family will be. In many countries, such as Thailand, the police and other authorities are of little or no help as they are paid bribes to assist the slave masters and indeed, in some areas this type of slavery is considered socially acceptable.
When International Justice Mission (IJM) is prevented from putting up advertisements with a message to people who might be enslaved that they can contact IJM for help, Americans rightly go ballistic. The Brad Pitt's and Angelina Jolie's of Hollywood, the elected folk in Washington, and others scream about the lack of freedom of speech and how horrible these people are who do not want to help those enslaved.
Yet here in the U.S. this happens and what do we do? If someone plastered bus ads all over telling people that if they were enslaved in a Christian organization and couldn't leave for fear of harm that here was someone who could help, I'd not be offended in the least. So, why are these SIOA bus ads offensive? We know from a number of cases in the U.S. in just the past year that some number Muslims are held hostage, eg, enslaved, under threats of death. Why does Miami-Dade Transit not want to help these people escape?
If I wanted to put up an identical ad, though trying to reach women enslaved and forced to work as prostitutes in Miami, would that be deemed offensive to pimps who enslave these women and thus not allowed on Miami-Dade buses? If it said:
Threat over your head? Leaving Prostitution? RefugeFromProstitution.com
What third world is Miami-Dade becoming?
When International Justice Mission (IJM) is prevented from putting up advertisements with a message to people who might be enslaved that they can contact IJM for help, Americans rightly go ballistic. The Brad Pitt's and Angelina Jolie's of Hollywood, the elected folk in Washington, and others scream about the lack of freedom of speech and how horrible these people are who do not want to help those enslaved.
Yet here in the U.S. this happens and what do we do? If someone plastered bus ads all over telling people that if they were enslaved in a Christian organization and couldn't leave for fear of harm that here was someone who could help, I'd not be offended in the least. So, why are these SIOA bus ads offensive? We know from a number of cases in the U.S. in just the past year that some number Muslims are held hostage, eg, enslaved, under threats of death. Why does Miami-Dade Transit not want to help these people escape?
If I wanted to put up an identical ad, though trying to reach women enslaved and forced to work as prostitutes in Miami, would that be deemed offensive to pimps who enslave these women and thus not allowed on Miami-Dade buses? If it said:
Threat over your head? Leaving Prostitution? RefugeFromProstitution.com
What third world is Miami-Dade becoming?
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
The Pope needs a Wife !
What we’ve witnessed from the Catholic church over the past few years with its pedophile priests scandal has been, at the least, very concerning.
What we’ve witnessed from the Vatican in the past week has been absolutely nauseating.
The Pope and others in Catholic leadership need wives.
Not because this will give them a more appropriate outlet for their sexual appetite than the children they’ve been using. Though it will. And not because this will attract more non-pedophiles into the priesthood instead of it being overloaded with those with homosexual pedophilic tendencies. Though it will. But because these men are in dire need of normalcy, balance, and a woman’s opinion in their lives.
There have been dozens of cases (and likely hundreds or thousands) throughout the Catholic church, worldwide, of those in authority protecting priests who rape and molest children rather than taking actions to protect the children from further abuse by Catholic priests. Among other horrific actions, they’ve routinely moved priests accused of molesting and raping children instead of removing them. How many hundreds of men in authority throughout the Catholic church have done this? How many hundreds have made the decision to move one of these rapists and allow them to continue to rape little children? How many thousands have known about these decisions but did nothing?
As this scandal continues to grow it has become obvious that this is pervasive throughout the Catholic church. It is pervasive around the entire globe and it is pervasive at every level including the very top. And it goes back as far as anyone alive today can attest so we can only wonder how long it’s been going on.
Is anyone involved in leadership in any way in the Catholic church, from parish priest to pope, innocent of allowing these children to be molested? As pervasive as these actions appear to be I find it difficult to believe that anyone who has been in leadership for more than a year or two was not aware of what was going on.
We know that there have been thousands of complaints of priests molesting children over the past few decades. How many times, prior to the scandal becoming public, did the Catholic leadership who received these complaints contact any authorities?
What were they thinking when they allowed these things to happen? Were they in sympathy with these men? Were they thinking that they could understand the sexual frustration these men experienced and they could, on some level, sympathize with their molesting and raping children. And because of their sympathizing and empathizing so well with these rapists they deemed their actions justified in moving a molester from one job to another instead of removing him from ministry or doing what any normal person would – turn them over to the police.
How many of the people (I’m finding it difficult to continue calling them men) involved in any way in these decisions empathized because they too had molested children?
What was the Pope thinking when, as cardinal of Germany, he allowed a known child molester to continue working with children? What was the Pope thinking when, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he allowed a priest in the U.S., who had been accused many times of molesting children, to continue working with children for several years before taking action?
Can any, even remotely normal person, who finds out that someone who works for them is molesting children continue to allow them to work with children? I find it difficult to imagine what kind of person would do such a thing. Yet the leadership of the Catholic church has done so over and over again.
Can the men running the Catholic church then, in any way, be considered normal?
Yesterday morning a Vatican official commented that he simply can’t imagine the Pope being called to account for his actions. “It’s just not acceptable.” After all, the official said, he is the head of the church. He is ‘Christ’s head’ on earth.
Bullshit! The Pope is no different than any other man. And as we’re seeing, this Pope is far less than most other men.
The leadership of the Catholic church is one of the most insular and dangerous mutual admiration societies in history.
Wives
So, now we get to the topic of wives for these men. If those in authority in the Catholic church had wives and children would they have made different and much better decisions? What man with a child would ever condone the molesting of children as those running the Catholic church have been doing for so long? How often might these people have had a more normal outlook if they had a wife to discuss things with on a routine basis?
Over the past week we’ve seen an outpouring of support for the pope from all levels of Catholic leadership. What we haven’t seen (and what you’d normally expect to see in these circumstances) is a groundswell of those in leadership calling for an investigation of the pope and his actions.
Imagine if there was evidence, even much less than that against the Pope, that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had known that another Senator had been molesting children and that Reid helped to cover it up to protect the party. I assume that even most Democrats would call for an investigation of Reid. Now imagine if celibacy was a requirement to be a Senator and so the senate was an insular group of celibate men. Might things be different?
Celibacy
I’m not at all against celibacy. I’ve known a handful of men and women who have chosen to live a celibate life. One in particular was a pastor of a church I worked for. I had a great deal of respect for him. There are two key differences; 1) he had chosen celibacy for himself, and 2) he was in leadership with a number of men who were married and had children of their own. He wasn’t in an insular environment of nothing but celibate men.
God never called for celibacy of pastors, elders, priests, or anyone in leadership. Jesus never said that celibacy was good or a requirement in any way. In fact, Peter, appointed by Christ as a church leader, was married. Do the leadership of the Catholic church know better than Christ?
For the first 1,000 years of the Catholic church there was no celibacy requirement. Celibacy was an invention of man for man’s purpose, not God’s.
The disgusting actions of Catholic leaders that have been uncovered in the past few years shows the result of relying on man instead of God and his Word.
What we’ve witnessed from the Vatican in the past week has been absolutely nauseating.
The Pope and others in Catholic leadership need wives.
Not because this will give them a more appropriate outlet for their sexual appetite than the children they’ve been using. Though it will. And not because this will attract more non-pedophiles into the priesthood instead of it being overloaded with those with homosexual pedophilic tendencies. Though it will. But because these men are in dire need of normalcy, balance, and a woman’s opinion in their lives.
There have been dozens of cases (and likely hundreds or thousands) throughout the Catholic church, worldwide, of those in authority protecting priests who rape and molest children rather than taking actions to protect the children from further abuse by Catholic priests. Among other horrific actions, they’ve routinely moved priests accused of molesting and raping children instead of removing them. How many hundreds of men in authority throughout the Catholic church have done this? How many hundreds have made the decision to move one of these rapists and allow them to continue to rape little children? How many thousands have known about these decisions but did nothing?
As this scandal continues to grow it has become obvious that this is pervasive throughout the Catholic church. It is pervasive around the entire globe and it is pervasive at every level including the very top. And it goes back as far as anyone alive today can attest so we can only wonder how long it’s been going on.
Is anyone involved in leadership in any way in the Catholic church, from parish priest to pope, innocent of allowing these children to be molested? As pervasive as these actions appear to be I find it difficult to believe that anyone who has been in leadership for more than a year or two was not aware of what was going on.
We know that there have been thousands of complaints of priests molesting children over the past few decades. How many times, prior to the scandal becoming public, did the Catholic leadership who received these complaints contact any authorities?
What were they thinking when they allowed these things to happen? Were they in sympathy with these men? Were they thinking that they could understand the sexual frustration these men experienced and they could, on some level, sympathize with their molesting and raping children. And because of their sympathizing and empathizing so well with these rapists they deemed their actions justified in moving a molester from one job to another instead of removing him from ministry or doing what any normal person would – turn them over to the police.
How many of the people (I’m finding it difficult to continue calling them men) involved in any way in these decisions empathized because they too had molested children?
What was the Pope thinking when, as cardinal of Germany, he allowed a known child molester to continue working with children? What was the Pope thinking when, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he allowed a priest in the U.S., who had been accused many times of molesting children, to continue working with children for several years before taking action?
Can any, even remotely normal person, who finds out that someone who works for them is molesting children continue to allow them to work with children? I find it difficult to imagine what kind of person would do such a thing. Yet the leadership of the Catholic church has done so over and over again.
Can the men running the Catholic church then, in any way, be considered normal?
Yesterday morning a Vatican official commented that he simply can’t imagine the Pope being called to account for his actions. “It’s just not acceptable.” After all, the official said, he is the head of the church. He is ‘Christ’s head’ on earth.
Bullshit! The Pope is no different than any other man. And as we’re seeing, this Pope is far less than most other men.
The leadership of the Catholic church is one of the most insular and dangerous mutual admiration societies in history.
Wives
So, now we get to the topic of wives for these men. If those in authority in the Catholic church had wives and children would they have made different and much better decisions? What man with a child would ever condone the molesting of children as those running the Catholic church have been doing for so long? How often might these people have had a more normal outlook if they had a wife to discuss things with on a routine basis?
Over the past week we’ve seen an outpouring of support for the pope from all levels of Catholic leadership. What we haven’t seen (and what you’d normally expect to see in these circumstances) is a groundswell of those in leadership calling for an investigation of the pope and his actions.
Imagine if there was evidence, even much less than that against the Pope, that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had known that another Senator had been molesting children and that Reid helped to cover it up to protect the party. I assume that even most Democrats would call for an investigation of Reid. Now imagine if celibacy was a requirement to be a Senator and so the senate was an insular group of celibate men. Might things be different?
Celibacy
I’m not at all against celibacy. I’ve known a handful of men and women who have chosen to live a celibate life. One in particular was a pastor of a church I worked for. I had a great deal of respect for him. There are two key differences; 1) he had chosen celibacy for himself, and 2) he was in leadership with a number of men who were married and had children of their own. He wasn’t in an insular environment of nothing but celibate men.
God never called for celibacy of pastors, elders, priests, or anyone in leadership. Jesus never said that celibacy was good or a requirement in any way. In fact, Peter, appointed by Christ as a church leader, was married. Do the leadership of the Catholic church know better than Christ?
For the first 1,000 years of the Catholic church there was no celibacy requirement. Celibacy was an invention of man for man’s purpose, not God’s.
The disgusting actions of Catholic leaders that have been uncovered in the past few years shows the result of relying on man instead of God and his Word.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Impact of ObamaCare
A friend of mine runs a local company and made some comments yesterday regarding ObamaCare that I thought interesting.
They are taking an immediate write-off of about $90 million due to the loss of deductibility of retiree health benefits. This comes right off their bottom line and will impact their ability to hire new employees and increase the costs of their products.
They estimate that if they continue with their current level of health benefits that their annual costs will increase by a minimum of 11% or $25 million per year. One really big unknown, and that is not included in the $25 million, is how the elimination of lifetime limits will impact them. Genomics and other massively expensive new procedures and tests could bankrupt them without some form of cap on lifetime expenditures. A cap that under ObamaCare will now be illegal. According to ObamaCare, if you provide health benefits to your employees, it’s all or nothing. A completely open-ended, unlimited expense is impossible for any company.
Within the next year they will need to make a decision about any continued health benefits. Though he didn’t say it, the implied message is that it would be financially irresponsible to continue providing any health benefits after ObamaCare is implemented. Doing so would put the company itself at risk of bankruptcy. Their only choice will be to discontinue all healthcare benefits and have employees obtain healthcare from the government.
Government Healthcare – British Style
He grew up in Britain and provided some insight on the British system that the Democrats want to convert us to. Britain had no real medical system prior to the late 1940’s. Before then extremely few people in Britain, likely less than 5%, EVER saw or talked to a doctor or any other medical person. Without the free enterprise system that the U.S. has Britons tended to wait on the government to do something rather than do it themselves. For Brits the introduction of a government healthcare system in 1948 was a huge improvement over what they didn’t have prior and, without knowing a comparative system, still consider pretty good.
Contrast this with our current healthcare system in the U.S. that is the envy of the entire world. Many Brits come to the U.S. every year for healthcare. I don’t hear of any U.S. folk going to Britain for their better healthcare.
British doctors are paid £60,000 per year (about $100,000) by the NHS (National Health Service). This, they have found, is not enough to encourage people to go through medical school. Due to a shortage of medical students Britain has been importing doctors from India, Morocco, and other countries. The NHS is under serious financial strain and cannot afford to increase pay to doctors so the government are considering other options such as a much shortened medical school regimen that will produce something akin to a jr. doctor who would receive pay of about £50,000 per year.
For most Britons, if they want to see a doctor, they must call their local NHS first thing in the morning and hope to get an appointment that day. If they can’t get one that day then they wait and call again the next morning.
They are taking an immediate write-off of about $90 million due to the loss of deductibility of retiree health benefits. This comes right off their bottom line and will impact their ability to hire new employees and increase the costs of their products.
They estimate that if they continue with their current level of health benefits that their annual costs will increase by a minimum of 11% or $25 million per year. One really big unknown, and that is not included in the $25 million, is how the elimination of lifetime limits will impact them. Genomics and other massively expensive new procedures and tests could bankrupt them without some form of cap on lifetime expenditures. A cap that under ObamaCare will now be illegal. According to ObamaCare, if you provide health benefits to your employees, it’s all or nothing. A completely open-ended, unlimited expense is impossible for any company.
Within the next year they will need to make a decision about any continued health benefits. Though he didn’t say it, the implied message is that it would be financially irresponsible to continue providing any health benefits after ObamaCare is implemented. Doing so would put the company itself at risk of bankruptcy. Their only choice will be to discontinue all healthcare benefits and have employees obtain healthcare from the government.
Government Healthcare – British Style
He grew up in Britain and provided some insight on the British system that the Democrats want to convert us to. Britain had no real medical system prior to the late 1940’s. Before then extremely few people in Britain, likely less than 5%, EVER saw or talked to a doctor or any other medical person. Without the free enterprise system that the U.S. has Britons tended to wait on the government to do something rather than do it themselves. For Brits the introduction of a government healthcare system in 1948 was a huge improvement over what they didn’t have prior and, without knowing a comparative system, still consider pretty good.
Contrast this with our current healthcare system in the U.S. that is the envy of the entire world. Many Brits come to the U.S. every year for healthcare. I don’t hear of any U.S. folk going to Britain for their better healthcare.
British doctors are paid £60,000 per year (about $100,000) by the NHS (National Health Service). This, they have found, is not enough to encourage people to go through medical school. Due to a shortage of medical students Britain has been importing doctors from India, Morocco, and other countries. The NHS is under serious financial strain and cannot afford to increase pay to doctors so the government are considering other options such as a much shortened medical school regimen that will produce something akin to a jr. doctor who would receive pay of about £50,000 per year.
For most Britons, if they want to see a doctor, they must call their local NHS first thing in the morning and hope to get an appointment that day. If they can’t get one that day then they wait and call again the next morning.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Obama: Anti-Semitic? Stupid? Immature?
Barack Obama’s actions towards Israel since becoming POTUS have been quite amazing. What I’m not sure about is if they come from his being Anti-Semitic, Immature, or just plain Stupid. It doesn’t take too much research of the Israeli-Palestinian-Muslim conflict to see that Israel is not the aggressor, that Israel’s actions are defensive in nature.
Is Obama really so stupid as to not understand the nature and history of this conflict? I don’t think so. It is impossible for any one person to have a very good understanding of the many conflicts and issues around the world. And that is why our presidents have advisors and the U.S. State Department. Rationality is extremely in Israel’s favor, Obama has numerous intelligent advisors, it’s his job to understand issues before taking any action, he’s not that stupid.
Immature? Maybe. His administration was embarrassed by Israel’s announcement of building more apartments in East Jerusalem during Biden’s visit to Israel. Obama’s administration over-reacted which caused further embarrassment. Perhaps an argument can be made that Obama’s walking out on and cutting short a meeting, and then a planned dinner, with Israel’s head of State was a momentary spat of immaturity. Obama has shown before that he can be very thin-skinned. But he’s also always overcome it and persevered through. At least when he wants to. His recent actions towards Israel were pre-meditated and he’d thought through them. These were not simply spats of immaturity.
Could Obama believe that treating Israel like dirt and sideling up to Islamic states will lead to peace in the Middle-East? Possibly. Peace could also have been achieved prior to WWII by giving Hitler everything he wanted as well. We could have ignored his transgressions and the world he would have created and sought peace at any cost.
Well before Biden’s embarrassing trip we’d seen tips of Obama’s hat. Statements here and there, delaying of signing off on selling planes to Israel, something that until now was routine for any POTUS. Israel has been too good of a friend to the U.S. for too long to attribute Obama’s actions to anything other than Stupidity, Immaturity, or Anti-Semitism. If we’ve ruled out the first two, what’s left?
Is Obama really so stupid as to not understand the nature and history of this conflict? I don’t think so. It is impossible for any one person to have a very good understanding of the many conflicts and issues around the world. And that is why our presidents have advisors and the U.S. State Department. Rationality is extremely in Israel’s favor, Obama has numerous intelligent advisors, it’s his job to understand issues before taking any action, he’s not that stupid.
Immature? Maybe. His administration was embarrassed by Israel’s announcement of building more apartments in East Jerusalem during Biden’s visit to Israel. Obama’s administration over-reacted which caused further embarrassment. Perhaps an argument can be made that Obama’s walking out on and cutting short a meeting, and then a planned dinner, with Israel’s head of State was a momentary spat of immaturity. Obama has shown before that he can be very thin-skinned. But he’s also always overcome it and persevered through. At least when he wants to. His recent actions towards Israel were pre-meditated and he’d thought through them. These were not simply spats of immaturity.
Could Obama believe that treating Israel like dirt and sideling up to Islamic states will lead to peace in the Middle-East? Possibly. Peace could also have been achieved prior to WWII by giving Hitler everything he wanted as well. We could have ignored his transgressions and the world he would have created and sought peace at any cost.
Well before Biden’s embarrassing trip we’d seen tips of Obama’s hat. Statements here and there, delaying of signing off on selling planes to Israel, something that until now was routine for any POTUS. Israel has been too good of a friend to the U.S. for too long to attribute Obama’s actions to anything other than Stupidity, Immaturity, or Anti-Semitism. If we’ve ruled out the first two, what’s left?
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Waxman: Reality conflicts with what I expected…
Since ObamaCare was signed in to law a number of companies have begun doing exactly what they said they would be forced to do and what I mentioned, almost 3 weeks ago, they would do (in Theory, Practice, Smoke, and Mirrors). They’re announcing hits on earnings, delaying the hiring of new employees, laying off employees, and reducing benefits.But, according to Obama’s economists, ObamaCare was supposed to make things better not worse. Why are these companies doing this?
Businesses are getting hit with a number of things, complements of ObamaCare. First up is that providing prescription drug benefits to retirees is no longer tax deductible. This will cost the average Fortune 500 company that chooses to continue this benefit about $112 million per year in extra taxes. This may be chump change to economists playing with numbers in a spreadsheet or Congressfolk spending other people’s money, but it is very real to people running real businesses that need this money to pay employees.
It’s real money that has to come from somewhere. Real businesses can’t simply raise taxes to cover it or change a number in a spreadsheet. They either need to increase the cost of their products (which lowers sales so doesn’t help) or they need to reduce costs which is often best accomplished through reductions in the number of employees or the costs per employee (eg, reduce pay and benefits). Unfortunately other cost savings options either don’t exist or take several years to begin offering any savings.
And Henry Waxman is acting all confused over this. According to Byron York, writing for the Washington Examiner, Waxman sent a letter to CEO’s of several of the companies who have said that ObamaCare will cost them hundreds of millions of dollars and result in reductions in benefits, layoffs, etc. He wants them to come before Congress on April 21st to defend their actions. York wrote:
Waxman's letter suggests he does not accept the company's decision. "The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern," Waxman wrote to Stephenson, in addition to letters to Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, Caterpillar CEO James Owens, and Deere & Company CEO Samuel Allen. The companies' decisions, Waxman wrote, "appear to conflict with independent analyses."
Well, no surprise here that they conflict. And just who did these ‘independent analyses’? Business people who run real businesses that employ people and contribute to our economy?
Government is good and we need government, but let’s remember that government doesn’t make anything (OK, except I suppose it now makes unprofitable GM cars). It doesn’t contribute to the economy. Every single government employee, every dollar paid out by the government for healthcare, is paid for by people and businesses who do make things. It’s the people who grow our food, build our houses, and make our clothes who contribute to the economy and whose efforts pay for every cent spent by the government.
Does Waxman understand this? Is he or Obamaosi really surprised by the actions these businesses are being forced to take? Interestingly, I don’t think they’re surprised. I fear that what we are seeing was their intention. If businesses can no longer afford to provide healthcare benefits to their employees, where will their employees turn? Why, the government of course. We’re not all socialists now, but just wait a few years.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
A solution for the pre-existing conditions problem?
When challenged about the unprecedented, and very likely un-Constitutional, federal mandate that every person in the U.S. purchase health insurance, Democrats common retort is that without the mandate we cannot address the problem of insurance companies turning people down for pre-existing conditions. Not.
Their rationale is that without the mandate, but with a requirement that insurance companies not discriminate based on pre-existing conditions, people will just wait to purchase insurance until they have a need for it. If true this would indeed violate the very essence of insurance which is to spread out the risk of unpredictable expenses.
There is perhaps another option. Insurance companies can be required to not discriminate on pre-existing conditions when someone is transferring from one insurer to another. In other words, nobody is required to purchase health insurance. There is no un-Constitutional federal mandate. If you already have insurance though and simply need to transfer from one insurance company to another then the company you are transferring to must accept you, pre-existing medical conditions and all.
If you choose not to purchase insurance then you will be on your own for most medical expenses. But once you are in the insurance pool, and as long as you stay in it, then you’ll have no problems transferring. This eliminates the pre-existing conditions problem, protects the integrity of the insurance companies, and doesn’t violate our Constitution.
Their rationale is that without the mandate, but with a requirement that insurance companies not discriminate based on pre-existing conditions, people will just wait to purchase insurance until they have a need for it. If true this would indeed violate the very essence of insurance which is to spread out the risk of unpredictable expenses.
There is perhaps another option. Insurance companies can be required to not discriminate on pre-existing conditions when someone is transferring from one insurer to another. In other words, nobody is required to purchase health insurance. There is no un-Constitutional federal mandate. If you already have insurance though and simply need to transfer from one insurance company to another then the company you are transferring to must accept you, pre-existing medical conditions and all.
If you choose not to purchase insurance then you will be on your own for most medical expenses. But once you are in the insurance pool, and as long as you stay in it, then you’ll have no problems transferring. This eliminates the pre-existing conditions problem, protects the integrity of the insurance companies, and doesn’t violate our Constitution.
Monday, March 22, 2010
The End ?
"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.
- 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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)