I enjoy eating out but I often find myself annoyed. I figured that it might be therapeutic to share by annoyances.
I find drive-thru windows to be very convenient but I often find myself behind someone who cannot determine what they want or have to specially revise everything on the menu. So I sit and wait as they deliberate and then change their mind 1001 times. I keep thinking that they need to have two lines at the drive-thru. One for the clueless people and one for everyone else. Then I'd get in line for the clueless people because they'd be too clueless to determine that line was for them.
I love going to a restaurant and asking the server what the 'soup of the day' is, and they respond, "I don't know, would you like me to check?"
The "I don't know" is either the fault of a poor server or a poor training process with a bad manager. How a place as a 'soup of the day' and not inform the servers and the servers not find out boggles my mind. One would think that if you have a 'soup of the day' someone might order it and they might like to know what they are getting before ordering it. If one is feeling especially flatulent one day, bean soup might not be a great option. Or, if the chef is very inventive, I might not be interested in learning what fish head and brussel sprouts chowder tastes like.
The other part of the response is a classic. "Would you like me to check?" As a point of reference, generally someone who asks a question would like to know the answer. Amazing.
Another pet peeve is around the issue of soft drinks. Usually the only not sugared items are, besides water, iced tea and Diet Coke/Pepsi, all of which have caffeine. I wish something was available without caffeine and sugar.
Other pet peeves:
Steak. Why is it that it is a rare occasion that I get my steak cooked as I asked?
Pasta. Overcooked pasta is, frankly, detestable. I am always amazed how many places overcook pasta----and this is especially unforgiveable when the place specializes in Italian food.
Servers that tell me that I'll really like the scallops. I won't. I do not like scallops and, no, they do not taste like chicken.
McDonalds. Bad food, their way. At least at some other chains I can get bad food my way.
Undetermined fish. I enjoy some fish but I've had the experience of asking what kind of fish was on the 'fish special' tonight and being told, "fish, just fish." When I point out that they have varied meat options, they look at my like I have two heads. One server finally said, "You know, the square kind of fish." I think I had chicken that night.
Margarine served with bread instead of butter. Or margarine for your pancakes. I guess anyplace that thinks that margarine takes the place of butter.
Places that offer "New York style" and don't. New York style pizza is advertised a great deal but most of the advertising is false advertising. There are remarkably few places that offer anything close to a New York style pizza. Just because the pizza is found and the crust is hand tossed does not make it New York style.
I have been in delis that said they were New York style. When you see a corned beef or pastrami sandwich with lettuce, tomato, and mayo, it is not New York style. It's also a tell tale sign to not order their corned beef or pastrami.
Stale burger buns. What were they thinking?
Patrons who think that servers do not deserve a decent tip. A good server should receive at least a 20-25% gratuity. If you go less than 15%, shame on you---unless your service was exceptionally bad----and even then it might not have been your server's fault.
I am actually not all that choosey and most of the places I frequent I enjoy and most of the servers who wait on tables work hard and do a great job. But now that I have shared my annoyances, I feel so much better!
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Friday, April 03, 2009
The Cutler Trade
Jay Cutler got is wish and was traded away from the Broncos. Now he is a Bear.
He is moving from a team that has a legendarily effective offense with great receivers, a great line, and solid running. The quarterback of the Broncos usually has plenty of time to throw, a chance to establish a running game, and receivers who can get to the ball and make plays after they make the catch----and they usually always do make the catch.
Kyle Orton will now inherit all of this.
Cutler is moving to a team with a porous offensive line, decent running, and, to be kind, a suspect receiving core. Devin Hester is seen as their best receiver----and he's a defensive back. Hester is fast and elusive and runs well after he catches the ball. The problem is that he has suspect hands and he is a poor route runner.
Cutler will spend time running for his life and throwing to receivers who are probably not going to be where he is expecting them.
The Bears love defense and their money and their resources have gone into their defense.
The Broncos love their offense and their resources have gone into their offense.
The Bears received a talented quarterback who whines a lot. Now that he has plenty to whine about, we'll see. In fairness, he is a really talented guy who is an upgrade from what they had.
The Broncos received a decent quarterback who will be in an awesome system. They also will benefit from great draft picks.
I will not be surprised if Orton has a really good season next year and Cutler whines a lot.
He is moving from a team that has a legendarily effective offense with great receivers, a great line, and solid running. The quarterback of the Broncos usually has plenty of time to throw, a chance to establish a running game, and receivers who can get to the ball and make plays after they make the catch----and they usually always do make the catch.
Kyle Orton will now inherit all of this.
Cutler is moving to a team with a porous offensive line, decent running, and, to be kind, a suspect receiving core. Devin Hester is seen as their best receiver----and he's a defensive back. Hester is fast and elusive and runs well after he catches the ball. The problem is that he has suspect hands and he is a poor route runner.
Cutler will spend time running for his life and throwing to receivers who are probably not going to be where he is expecting them.
The Bears love defense and their money and their resources have gone into their defense.
The Broncos love their offense and their resources have gone into their offense.
The Bears received a talented quarterback who whines a lot. Now that he has plenty to whine about, we'll see. In fairness, he is a really talented guy who is an upgrade from what they had.
The Broncos received a decent quarterback who will be in an awesome system. They also will benefit from great draft picks.
I will not be surprised if Orton has a really good season next year and Cutler whines a lot.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Some Salary Value Issues
The Commonwealth of Kentucky is in major financial trouble. Cities are having to cut staff and services. The educational system is underfunded and the state universities are having to cut programs and raise tuition and fees to remain afloat.
The University of Kentucky just hired John Calipari as their basketball coach and he arrives with the most lucrative contract in the college game – an eight-year deal totaling $31.65 million which works out to 3.95 million a year.
To put some things into perspective, the average Medical School salaries in a 2008 report done by the AAMC said this.
The average salary for Medical School department chairs was $230,000.00.
The average salary for professors was $146,700.00
Associate professors was $96,500.00
Assistant professors, $76,300.00
Instructors, $51,400.00
These are for full time salaries and I do not have any data on any of these people and if they receive extra compensation for private practice beyond their teaching. These are average salaries. Professors in private institutions tend to be paid a little higher than those in public institutions.
Medical school professors do get paid, on average, more than other professors. The average salary of most university professors is a bit under $75,000.00 per year. There are, again, lots of variables in this depending on private and public schools, length of service, and the subjects taught. Medical school faculty seem, however, on average, to be paid more than most of the professors and considering that many of them need to receive significantly more years of training in specific expertise, this does not sound unreasonable.
I have been thinking about this a great deal. Every time we visit our doctors we are putting our lives into their hands. We seek their guidance, their wisdom, and their care. Our physicians earn our respect and admiration by their caring, by their wisdom, and by their ability to treat us when we are sick and keep us as healthy as we allow them to keep us. When things go horribly wrong, as they eventually do for every one of us, they care for and comfort us. I have, in my life, been blessed by having wonderful physicians who I have both liked and respected and who, I always felt, cared for my well being.
They are educated and trained by people who, on average, are going to make 27 times LESS than the new basketball coach at the University of Kentucky. If we put our money not only where are mouths are, but where our priorities are than this would seem to mean that we value watching basketball over not only our own health and well being, but that of our loved ones.
John Calipari might be a great guy and a great coach, but this story seems to be a reminder that as a society our priorities seem to be very bizarre indeed.
The University of Kentucky just hired John Calipari as their basketball coach and he arrives with the most lucrative contract in the college game – an eight-year deal totaling $31.65 million which works out to 3.95 million a year.
To put some things into perspective, the average Medical School salaries in a 2008 report done by the AAMC said this.
The average salary for Medical School department chairs was $230,000.00.
The average salary for professors was $146,700.00
Associate professors was $96,500.00
Assistant professors, $76,300.00
Instructors, $51,400.00
These are for full time salaries and I do not have any data on any of these people and if they receive extra compensation for private practice beyond their teaching. These are average salaries. Professors in private institutions tend to be paid a little higher than those in public institutions.
Medical school professors do get paid, on average, more than other professors. The average salary of most university professors is a bit under $75,000.00 per year. There are, again, lots of variables in this depending on private and public schools, length of service, and the subjects taught. Medical school faculty seem, however, on average, to be paid more than most of the professors and considering that many of them need to receive significantly more years of training in specific expertise, this does not sound unreasonable.
I have been thinking about this a great deal. Every time we visit our doctors we are putting our lives into their hands. We seek their guidance, their wisdom, and their care. Our physicians earn our respect and admiration by their caring, by their wisdom, and by their ability to treat us when we are sick and keep us as healthy as we allow them to keep us. When things go horribly wrong, as they eventually do for every one of us, they care for and comfort us. I have, in my life, been blessed by having wonderful physicians who I have both liked and respected and who, I always felt, cared for my well being.
They are educated and trained by people who, on average, are going to make 27 times LESS than the new basketball coach at the University of Kentucky. If we put our money not only where are mouths are, but where our priorities are than this would seem to mean that we value watching basketball over not only our own health and well being, but that of our loved ones.
John Calipari might be a great guy and a great coach, but this story seems to be a reminder that as a society our priorities seem to be very bizarre indeed.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
The Rise of Unbelief
I found this essay on the website ‘Serious Times’ written by James Emery White, the Senior Pastor of Mecklenburg Community Church in Charlotte, North Carolina. The column is entitled ‘A Land of Swedes’ and reflects on the fact that a growing number of people in the United States are unbelievers. His column attempts to reflect on why this is:
http://serioustimes.com/blog.asp?id=86
White has some interesting things to say and there is, quite obviously, a great amount of thought that he has placed in this column. I also take issue with them.
He asks three questions.
The first is ‘What is happening?’
His reflection is that the problem of disbelief is not something being inflicted on the Christian Church but something that is actually self-inflicted. It reflects what Christianity is doing to itself. He may be right about that, but I would take issue with the core problem.
His argument is that Christianity has tried too hard to adapt itself to the modern world and has tried to adapt religious beliefs to socioeconomic changes, to new moral standards, and issues with science. He seems to argue that Christianity is selling God short and not standing up for the traditional foundations of the faith.
The problem with his thesis, from my perspective, is that the most public face and voice of Christianity does no such thing. Frankly, the public face and voice of Christianity is quite the opposite.
Think about this one for a moment. Recently Pope Benedict made a journey to Africa and proclaimed that condom usage was not really helpful in the fight against AIDS. AIDS, in Africa, is an epidemic that has swept through and devastated large portions of the continent. Cultural issues, poverty, lack of employment, and such, has factored into some of the issues facing sexual behavior and the spread of AIDS. Condoms have been given to large segments of the population to, hopefully, stop the spread of the HIV virus.
The Pope’s premise was based on abstinence outside of marriage and complete monogamy. It was also based on a long held Roman Catholic discipline of the disallowance of contraception. Under this guidance, if a couple gets married and does not have intercourse before marriage, but the husband has the HIV virus from a previous relationship, he cannot use a condom to project this wife. It is intrinsically evil to use any form of contraception according to Roman Catholic discipline.
Sorry if this offends you, but this is ludicrous as has been this Roman Catholic discipline. When Humanae Vitae was released in 1968 it was seen as archaic and it used Medieval theology science to make its arguments. The arguments were poor in 1968 and have grown worse with the passage of time. Considering that much of the world has a crisis of over population, this discipline becomes not only bad theology but morally irresponsible. Pope Benedict, however, is a public face for much of Christianity.
But it goes further than this. If one reads anything coming out of Christianity these days the topic of conversation is usually about sexual mores. One would get the impression that Jesus spent most of his ministry teaching and preaching about sex. He didn’t. He spoke against adultery and this pretty much covers it. Most of what St. Paul had to say has been taken so out of context that it has made this brilliant writer seem petty and trivial----which is certainly not the case. Christianity is obsessed with sex.
Issues of science and faith also make the news and it constantly appears that much of Christianity rejects much of science. Perhaps, however, it is best stated, that what people see as the public face of Christianity rejects much of science. Much of Christianity has no real issue with science and has synched theology and science together very nicely on many issues. This, however, is rarely the public face.
White’s perception on what is happening, I think, is that he sees a rejection of Christianity because Christianity has been too lax, whereas I see the rejection of faith because Christianity has had a public face of holding fast to things that delve more into superstition that classic Christian doctrine.
What does this mean?
It means that unbelief is on the rise and we are seeing more and more literature coming out pointing out what people see to be absurdities of faith. Bill Maher made a movie "Religulous" in which he mocks religious faith. Maher, of course, uses ‘person on the street’ interviews to ‘prove’ his point. Like most people trying to make a point in one direction, he uses people who prove’ his’ point rather than trying to have a broad view of the opinions of many religious people.
Christopher Hitchens has written a great deal of unbeliever type things and much of what he uses is difficult to argue with. Again, however, he uses what is often what most of the public sees as the ‘face’ of Christianity. Christians are seen as superstitious, anti-intellectual, and often hateful and mean.
What it all means is quite simple. If what most people see as the face of Christianity, remains the face of Christianity, unbelief will grow. For people who equate faith as being superstitious, anti-intellectual, and often hateful and mean, there appears to be little choice unless they see other options.
What can be done?
White does something here that is most disturbing. Most of us ‘preacher types’ will tell you that there are standard stories that have been told by countless preachers over the decades. There is the flood story with the man who resists help, there is the turkey cut in half story told at Thanksgiving, there is the preacher delivering the pork chops story, and there is the guy on the plus sign story. The usage of this as a ‘real’ illustration in this article is dishonest.
But there is a cogent point in all of this. He observes that the United States is a large mission field. Of that, he is correct.
To me the challenge is becoming more and more personal. There is a ‘public’ face that claims to speak for Christianity. I am seeing a need, more and more, for people to stand up and say that there is another point of view on this with Christianity.
Sadly, I understand why unbelief is growing in the United States. Much of what is presented as Christianity is little more than superstition, anti-intellectualism, and mean-spirited. If people see that kind of faith as their only option, they will choose believing in nothing first.
We have to be willing to present a different face and more effective at it.
http://serioustimes.com/blog.asp?id=86
White has some interesting things to say and there is, quite obviously, a great amount of thought that he has placed in this column. I also take issue with them.
He asks three questions.
The first is ‘What is happening?’
His reflection is that the problem of disbelief is not something being inflicted on the Christian Church but something that is actually self-inflicted. It reflects what Christianity is doing to itself. He may be right about that, but I would take issue with the core problem.
His argument is that Christianity has tried too hard to adapt itself to the modern world and has tried to adapt religious beliefs to socioeconomic changes, to new moral standards, and issues with science. He seems to argue that Christianity is selling God short and not standing up for the traditional foundations of the faith.
The problem with his thesis, from my perspective, is that the most public face and voice of Christianity does no such thing. Frankly, the public face and voice of Christianity is quite the opposite.
Think about this one for a moment. Recently Pope Benedict made a journey to Africa and proclaimed that condom usage was not really helpful in the fight against AIDS. AIDS, in Africa, is an epidemic that has swept through and devastated large portions of the continent. Cultural issues, poverty, lack of employment, and such, has factored into some of the issues facing sexual behavior and the spread of AIDS. Condoms have been given to large segments of the population to, hopefully, stop the spread of the HIV virus.
The Pope’s premise was based on abstinence outside of marriage and complete monogamy. It was also based on a long held Roman Catholic discipline of the disallowance of contraception. Under this guidance, if a couple gets married and does not have intercourse before marriage, but the husband has the HIV virus from a previous relationship, he cannot use a condom to project this wife. It is intrinsically evil to use any form of contraception according to Roman Catholic discipline.
Sorry if this offends you, but this is ludicrous as has been this Roman Catholic discipline. When Humanae Vitae was released in 1968 it was seen as archaic and it used Medieval theology science to make its arguments. The arguments were poor in 1968 and have grown worse with the passage of time. Considering that much of the world has a crisis of over population, this discipline becomes not only bad theology but morally irresponsible. Pope Benedict, however, is a public face for much of Christianity.
But it goes further than this. If one reads anything coming out of Christianity these days the topic of conversation is usually about sexual mores. One would get the impression that Jesus spent most of his ministry teaching and preaching about sex. He didn’t. He spoke against adultery and this pretty much covers it. Most of what St. Paul had to say has been taken so out of context that it has made this brilliant writer seem petty and trivial----which is certainly not the case. Christianity is obsessed with sex.
Issues of science and faith also make the news and it constantly appears that much of Christianity rejects much of science. Perhaps, however, it is best stated, that what people see as the public face of Christianity rejects much of science. Much of Christianity has no real issue with science and has synched theology and science together very nicely on many issues. This, however, is rarely the public face.
White’s perception on what is happening, I think, is that he sees a rejection of Christianity because Christianity has been too lax, whereas I see the rejection of faith because Christianity has had a public face of holding fast to things that delve more into superstition that classic Christian doctrine.
What does this mean?
It means that unbelief is on the rise and we are seeing more and more literature coming out pointing out what people see to be absurdities of faith. Bill Maher made a movie "Religulous" in which he mocks religious faith. Maher, of course, uses ‘person on the street’ interviews to ‘prove’ his point. Like most people trying to make a point in one direction, he uses people who prove’ his’ point rather than trying to have a broad view of the opinions of many religious people.
Christopher Hitchens has written a great deal of unbeliever type things and much of what he uses is difficult to argue with. Again, however, he uses what is often what most of the public sees as the ‘face’ of Christianity. Christians are seen as superstitious, anti-intellectual, and often hateful and mean.
What it all means is quite simple. If what most people see as the face of Christianity, remains the face of Christianity, unbelief will grow. For people who equate faith as being superstitious, anti-intellectual, and often hateful and mean, there appears to be little choice unless they see other options.
What can be done?
White does something here that is most disturbing. Most of us ‘preacher types’ will tell you that there are standard stories that have been told by countless preachers over the decades. There is the flood story with the man who resists help, there is the turkey cut in half story told at Thanksgiving, there is the preacher delivering the pork chops story, and there is the guy on the plus sign story. The usage of this as a ‘real’ illustration in this article is dishonest.
But there is a cogent point in all of this. He observes that the United States is a large mission field. Of that, he is correct.
To me the challenge is becoming more and more personal. There is a ‘public’ face that claims to speak for Christianity. I am seeing a need, more and more, for people to stand up and say that there is another point of view on this with Christianity.
Sadly, I understand why unbelief is growing in the United States. Much of what is presented as Christianity is little more than superstition, anti-intellectualism, and mean-spirited. If people see that kind of faith as their only option, they will choose believing in nothing first.
We have to be willing to present a different face and more effective at it.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Monday Musings
I am not really a college basketball fan but I did watch the Cardinals. I felt that their play was pretty lackluster at best and that they were in big trouble after trouncing Arizona. Sienna gave the Cards all they could handle but Arizona was such a pushover that I had this sick feeling that they would play Michigan State with an attitude that their opponent would ‘disappear’ on them. Alas, Michigan State played a full game and the Cards did not. Ugh.
I do not know how I feel about the President’s hard line with GM and Chrysler. These companies have obviously done a pretty pitiful job on many levels and deserve to go belly up, but doing so would devastate the economy. Interesting, perspective, however, is that one observer said that GM is a health care provider who makes cars to provide health care. I guess their point is that health care reform might also be necessary for the economy to recover.
In the Old Testament there were times of Jubilee when all debts were forgiven. I wonder what would happen with the American economy if they declared a time of Jubilee and forgave all debts and everyone started over? I am not an economist and I suspect that something really big and bad would happen, but it is fun to think about.
John McCain, the news says, is not endorsing Sarah Palin right off to be the next Republican Presidential nominee. Does not one think it is a bit early to even begin asking such a question? I mean, really, what is the man going to say? People often love to talk about the ideological slant of the news media when they seem to overlook the most obvious----there is a lot of lazy journalism. The same people are asked the same questions over and over again.
Except Sarah Palin who is still trying to figure out an answer a question. Ugh. I’m wondering if she will even be re-elected in Alaska. She now has leaders from both parties incensed at her over her refusal to take a third of the bail out money. Considering that Alaska lacks from major resources (because of climate), Alaska has always required a significant amount of Federal aid. Her recent things are stunts and the people of her state will suffer. Hopefully the legislators of both parties actually have scruples and will probably over-rule her.
I was reading an article about the Manson Family murders and their parole hearings in California. Charles Manson, Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, Leslie Van Houten, and Patricia Krenwinkel remain in prison and have been repeatedly been denied parole, despite the fact that all of them, except Manson, have all taken responsibility for their crimes and have denounced Manson. Manson remains, well, Manson.
Susan Atkins was most recently denied ‘compassionate parole’ because she is terminally ill with brain cancer and mostly paralyzed.
Should they be released? I have thought about this a great deal and I actually do feel compassion for the women involved because I genuinely believe them now, and I do not see them as a further threat to society. They might even have a positive contribution to give to society if released. But having said that, I’d say that they shouldn’t be released.
As an opponent of the death penalty there has to be an alternative sentence that offers and end of life as a person knows it. That alternative punishment is life without parole.
The murders committed by the Manson family were amongst the most dramatic, sadistic, and brutal murders in American history. If one questions this, one needs to read the book Helter Skelter. The brutality of the crime was beyond measure.
The death penalty was the sentence and when the law was repealed the sentence went to life.
Life without parole is a tough sentence. It is a sentence that tells a person that they will live in a prison cell for every day for the rest of their lives. They know where they will have every meal and they know where they will die. Each and every minute of every day spent in prison is a reminder of the crime they committed. In so many ways it is a harsher sentence than death. Timothy McVeigh is wherever he is at the moment and perhaps does not confront what he did. That’s a theological debate for some other time.
Imagine, young man that he was, that he was still alive, having to confront what he did. One would hope that the weight of time would weigh on him greatly so that he would truly be confronted by what he did.
I do not know how I feel about the President’s hard line with GM and Chrysler. These companies have obviously done a pretty pitiful job on many levels and deserve to go belly up, but doing so would devastate the economy. Interesting, perspective, however, is that one observer said that GM is a health care provider who makes cars to provide health care. I guess their point is that health care reform might also be necessary for the economy to recover.
In the Old Testament there were times of Jubilee when all debts were forgiven. I wonder what would happen with the American economy if they declared a time of Jubilee and forgave all debts and everyone started over? I am not an economist and I suspect that something really big and bad would happen, but it is fun to think about.
John McCain, the news says, is not endorsing Sarah Palin right off to be the next Republican Presidential nominee. Does not one think it is a bit early to even begin asking such a question? I mean, really, what is the man going to say? People often love to talk about the ideological slant of the news media when they seem to overlook the most obvious----there is a lot of lazy journalism. The same people are asked the same questions over and over again.
Except Sarah Palin who is still trying to figure out an answer a question. Ugh. I’m wondering if she will even be re-elected in Alaska. She now has leaders from both parties incensed at her over her refusal to take a third of the bail out money. Considering that Alaska lacks from major resources (because of climate), Alaska has always required a significant amount of Federal aid. Her recent things are stunts and the people of her state will suffer. Hopefully the legislators of both parties actually have scruples and will probably over-rule her.
I was reading an article about the Manson Family murders and their parole hearings in California. Charles Manson, Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, Leslie Van Houten, and Patricia Krenwinkel remain in prison and have been repeatedly been denied parole, despite the fact that all of them, except Manson, have all taken responsibility for their crimes and have denounced Manson. Manson remains, well, Manson.
Susan Atkins was most recently denied ‘compassionate parole’ because she is terminally ill with brain cancer and mostly paralyzed.
Should they be released? I have thought about this a great deal and I actually do feel compassion for the women involved because I genuinely believe them now, and I do not see them as a further threat to society. They might even have a positive contribution to give to society if released. But having said that, I’d say that they shouldn’t be released.
As an opponent of the death penalty there has to be an alternative sentence that offers and end of life as a person knows it. That alternative punishment is life without parole.
The murders committed by the Manson family were amongst the most dramatic, sadistic, and brutal murders in American history. If one questions this, one needs to read the book Helter Skelter. The brutality of the crime was beyond measure.
The death penalty was the sentence and when the law was repealed the sentence went to life.
Life without parole is a tough sentence. It is a sentence that tells a person that they will live in a prison cell for every day for the rest of their lives. They know where they will have every meal and they know where they will die. Each and every minute of every day spent in prison is a reminder of the crime they committed. In so many ways it is a harsher sentence than death. Timothy McVeigh is wherever he is at the moment and perhaps does not confront what he did. That’s a theological debate for some other time.
Imagine, young man that he was, that he was still alive, having to confront what he did. One would hope that the weight of time would weigh on him greatly so that he would truly be confronted by what he did.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Rainy Day Ramblings
Wow. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told Congress that rules need to be changed and enforced because there were flaws in the system?
You think?
Things change. When Jimmy Carter was the President things were regulated so majorly that any chance of breathing without permission was almost illegal. Ronald Reagan began the process of deregulation and this was carried on through Bush, Clinton, and finally George W. Bush really let things loose and did not provide agencies that had any remaining oversight with the adequate or even capable staff to do what little oversight there was left to do. Bam. Now the process will start over again. If history does repeat itself, we will begin a process of oversight that will build up for many years and begin the cycle again.
We will, of course, have people foaming at the mouth saying all of this is a form of (insert meaningless cliche or label here) and that all of this is typical of people who ascribe to (insert meaningless cliche or label here). The more I observe of this kind of label making the more convinced I am that we becoming a nation of cliche driven, label making fools who can no longer talk about complexities. Very sad.
I do have a long term fear. I have been distressed for a very long time that we are a two party nation. I know that there are ‘other’ parties, but they have not yet had much of an impact on our governmental process. Having only two parties, I believe, is part of the peril we are in right now. Worse, at the moment, is that we are evolving into a one party system. Karl Rove’s effort to make it a one party system failed miserably for his party, and place their opponents in a very powerful position. Not having a viable second party is not a good thing. Not having a loyal opposition that offers viable options, is not helpful to the overall health of the country.
The Republican Party was once a party of big ideas. The party of Goldwater, of Buckley, Lincoln, and of George Will, was a party that promoted intellectualism and big ideas. They were the party of the intellectuals and the and people they now call the intellectual elite. They seem to have evolved into a party of anti-intellectualism, and of just saying that everyone who has a different perspective from them is a (insert meaningless cliche or label here). And, they will fight to the death to be able to use those meaningless cliches and labels and whatever else.
People like this still exist within the Republican Party. I know people who are like this and who I respect a great deal. They are incredible good people, intelligent people, who can talk with ease about complexities and policies. Sadly, much of the party has been taken over by people who are unwilling to think ‘big’ and who are unwilling to discuss complex things in a complex way. Why learn when you can just call someone a (insert meaningless cliche or label here). I hope things do change.
Every day there is a new story about the ‘octomom.’ Today the big news was that she spent one day as a topless dancer. I keep wondering why it is that we keep reading about her in the news and watching her interviewed on television. I really have no need to hear or learn anything more about this woman.
Shawn Johnson and Lawrence Taylor are not dance partners on Dancing with the Stars, but both contestants. Johnson is a tiny young woman whose background is in gymnastics and Taylor was the most feared defensive player of all time. Johnson is light on her feet and tiny. Taylor dances like a guy who has played a very bruising game in a very bruising manner, and is quite large. Actually, they are both pretty amazing, just an incredible study in contrasts. One thing hasn’t changed, however, with Taylor on the scene. The injured list of his opponents is growing----something Taylor was amazing good at doing. Ironically, he was not the cause of the injuries on the show. Maybe the injuries are self-inflicted because they are worrying about Taylor’s tacking ability.
I have had to deal with the issue of spam more and more. To operate a computer now you have to have so much protection on it that it can make you absolutely crazy. Between spam, malware, viruses, etc., it is positively infuriating. I can’t help but wonder who does this kind of stuff?
And the company that sends me about 25 e-mails a day offering me big deals on Viagra, here is the news. I will never do business with you so you can stop sending me the e-mails.
I was watching the news the other night and the situation in Mexico sounds really bad. REALLY bad. When they discuss the rise in ‘beheadings’ and not just murder, it is downright chilling. I recognize that a murder is a murder and the end result is the same, but being beheaded just sounds a little worse. It’s very dreadful what is taking place just south of our nation’s border. I hope that people realize that this is not just ‘their’ problem but that we are involved as well.
On the economic front, I have listened to more economists than I ever knew existed. The question before us is a constant: Are we doing the right thing to get us out of this mess? President Obama certainly thinks so and lots of economists think so as well. Others, however, say that he is plunging us into a depression. As I have listened to the arguments of the economists I really don’t know what the right answer is. Obviously if the leading economic minds are disagreeing with each other than not knowing the answer is probably a fairly reasonable spot to be in. Of course, the only ones who do KNOW the right answers are going around saying that every possible solution is either (insert meaningless cliche or label here) or (insert meaningless cliche or label here).
You think?
Things change. When Jimmy Carter was the President things were regulated so majorly that any chance of breathing without permission was almost illegal. Ronald Reagan began the process of deregulation and this was carried on through Bush, Clinton, and finally George W. Bush really let things loose and did not provide agencies that had any remaining oversight with the adequate or even capable staff to do what little oversight there was left to do. Bam. Now the process will start over again. If history does repeat itself, we will begin a process of oversight that will build up for many years and begin the cycle again.
We will, of course, have people foaming at the mouth saying all of this is a form of (insert meaningless cliche or label here) and that all of this is typical of people who ascribe to (insert meaningless cliche or label here). The more I observe of this kind of label making the more convinced I am that we becoming a nation of cliche driven, label making fools who can no longer talk about complexities. Very sad.
I do have a long term fear. I have been distressed for a very long time that we are a two party nation. I know that there are ‘other’ parties, but they have not yet had much of an impact on our governmental process. Having only two parties, I believe, is part of the peril we are in right now. Worse, at the moment, is that we are evolving into a one party system. Karl Rove’s effort to make it a one party system failed miserably for his party, and place their opponents in a very powerful position. Not having a viable second party is not a good thing. Not having a loyal opposition that offers viable options, is not helpful to the overall health of the country.
The Republican Party was once a party of big ideas. The party of Goldwater, of Buckley, Lincoln, and of George Will, was a party that promoted intellectualism and big ideas. They were the party of the intellectuals and the and people they now call the intellectual elite. They seem to have evolved into a party of anti-intellectualism, and of just saying that everyone who has a different perspective from them is a (insert meaningless cliche or label here). And, they will fight to the death to be able to use those meaningless cliches and labels and whatever else.
People like this still exist within the Republican Party. I know people who are like this and who I respect a great deal. They are incredible good people, intelligent people, who can talk with ease about complexities and policies. Sadly, much of the party has been taken over by people who are unwilling to think ‘big’ and who are unwilling to discuss complex things in a complex way. Why learn when you can just call someone a (insert meaningless cliche or label here). I hope things do change.
Every day there is a new story about the ‘octomom.’ Today the big news was that she spent one day as a topless dancer. I keep wondering why it is that we keep reading about her in the news and watching her interviewed on television. I really have no need to hear or learn anything more about this woman.
Shawn Johnson and Lawrence Taylor are not dance partners on Dancing with the Stars, but both contestants. Johnson is a tiny young woman whose background is in gymnastics and Taylor was the most feared defensive player of all time. Johnson is light on her feet and tiny. Taylor dances like a guy who has played a very bruising game in a very bruising manner, and is quite large. Actually, they are both pretty amazing, just an incredible study in contrasts. One thing hasn’t changed, however, with Taylor on the scene. The injured list of his opponents is growing----something Taylor was amazing good at doing. Ironically, he was not the cause of the injuries on the show. Maybe the injuries are self-inflicted because they are worrying about Taylor’s tacking ability.
I have had to deal with the issue of spam more and more. To operate a computer now you have to have so much protection on it that it can make you absolutely crazy. Between spam, malware, viruses, etc., it is positively infuriating. I can’t help but wonder who does this kind of stuff?
And the company that sends me about 25 e-mails a day offering me big deals on Viagra, here is the news. I will never do business with you so you can stop sending me the e-mails.
I was watching the news the other night and the situation in Mexico sounds really bad. REALLY bad. When they discuss the rise in ‘beheadings’ and not just murder, it is downright chilling. I recognize that a murder is a murder and the end result is the same, but being beheaded just sounds a little worse. It’s very dreadful what is taking place just south of our nation’s border. I hope that people realize that this is not just ‘their’ problem but that we are involved as well.
On the economic front, I have listened to more economists than I ever knew existed. The question before us is a constant: Are we doing the right thing to get us out of this mess? President Obama certainly thinks so and lots of economists think so as well. Others, however, say that he is plunging us into a depression. As I have listened to the arguments of the economists I really don’t know what the right answer is. Obviously if the leading economic minds are disagreeing with each other than not knowing the answer is probably a fairly reasonable spot to be in. Of course, the only ones who do KNOW the right answers are going around saying that every possible solution is either (insert meaningless cliche or label here) or (insert meaningless cliche or label here).
Monday, March 23, 2009
Responsibility
I am always struck by the constant discussion of responsibility and that it seems that most people are only willing to go part way in the discussion.
If you read people from the right they make arguments about personal responsibility. There is a sense that if people did what they were supposed to do and took care of themselves and their own, things would work out. When discussions get raised, however, about corporate responsibility, they grow squishy.
If you read people from the right they make arguments about corporate responsibility. There is a sense that we are all responsible for the well being of one another and if we take care of each other things will work out. When discussions get raised, however, about personal responsibility, they grow squishy.
It strikes me that people want responsibility on their own terms. It comes down to it is EITHER personal responsibility or corporate responsibility.
There is this little problem. The word responsibility is not a word, which by design, is meant to be narrowed. It is not a word that presents itself as a beacon of ideological thought. It is a word that stands by itself and demands accountability by itself.
Personal responsibility is vital. The world revolves because people do take personal responsibility. Law enforcement spends less time chasing down criminals if the vast majority of people take the personal responsibility to obey the law. When people do all the things society needs them to do, society does work well.
However, corporate responsibility is equally vital. Things do not always go well and often circumstances change for people and they are no longer able to care for themselves. It is often fashionable to blame the poor on being poor but most often this was not a personal choice. Life has a tendency to crash and burn for too many people to ignore.
From a faith perspective, both are vital. There is a seminal question early in the Bible after Cain kills his brother Abel. God asks Cain the location of Abel and Cain responds, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
God’s question was two-fold. First, God knew where Abel was and what had happened to Abel. It was a call of accountability to Cain. On the other hand, the response of Cain, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is a question that is answered throughout the rest of the Bible, and the answer is ‘yes.’
If you read people from the right they make arguments about personal responsibility. There is a sense that if people did what they were supposed to do and took care of themselves and their own, things would work out. When discussions get raised, however, about corporate responsibility, they grow squishy.
If you read people from the right they make arguments about corporate responsibility. There is a sense that we are all responsible for the well being of one another and if we take care of each other things will work out. When discussions get raised, however, about personal responsibility, they grow squishy.
It strikes me that people want responsibility on their own terms. It comes down to it is EITHER personal responsibility or corporate responsibility.
There is this little problem. The word responsibility is not a word, which by design, is meant to be narrowed. It is not a word that presents itself as a beacon of ideological thought. It is a word that stands by itself and demands accountability by itself.
Personal responsibility is vital. The world revolves because people do take personal responsibility. Law enforcement spends less time chasing down criminals if the vast majority of people take the personal responsibility to obey the law. When people do all the things society needs them to do, society does work well.
However, corporate responsibility is equally vital. Things do not always go well and often circumstances change for people and they are no longer able to care for themselves. It is often fashionable to blame the poor on being poor but most often this was not a personal choice. Life has a tendency to crash and burn for too many people to ignore.
From a faith perspective, both are vital. There is a seminal question early in the Bible after Cain kills his brother Abel. God asks Cain the location of Abel and Cain responds, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
God’s question was two-fold. First, God knew where Abel was and what had happened to Abel. It was a call of accountability to Cain. On the other hand, the response of Cain, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is a question that is answered throughout the rest of the Bible, and the answer is ‘yes.’
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Learning about Consequences
There have been several stories in the news lately about the practice of ‘sexting.’ Sexting is sending racy or nude pictures or videos of yourself to your boyfriend or girlfriend. This practice has become somewhat rampant among high school students and this kind of practice, most especially in that realm, does not usually have very good consequences.
One thing that often happens in high school romances is that they do come to an end. Now many of them come to an end with the boy and or the girl, having nude pictures of their ‘ex’ on their cell phone. As you can probably imagine, the pictures are usually her the girl. So, we have a guy with nude pictures of his ex-girlfriend on his cell phone. Pictures are easily sent out from cell phone to cell phone.
Common decency would indicate that people ought to delete the pictures. Common indecency would mean that you send the pictures out to a lot of people in an effort to humiliate the ‘ex.’ As can be imagined, this is what often ends up taking place.
A Cincinnati teenager, Jesse Logan broke up with her boyfriend and he hounded her. Her pictures soon ended up on cell phone after cell phone and she was harassed to the point that she committed suicide. She was a victim of her own poor choices, her ex-boyfriend’s cruelty, and the relentless humiliation she received at the hand of her classmates. It was, needless to say, a very sad and tragic end to her life.
A new issue has come forward out of this. Many of these pictures are of students under the age of 18 and so those in possession of them are being arrested and charged with child pornography and they are labeled as sex offenders and many are facing time in prison. One young rocket scientist was irate, sitting in his prison garb, complaining that one small mistake on his part led to unfair consequences.
The reason I referred to this guy as a ‘rocket scientist’ is this. He hasn’t figured something out. There was nothing small in his mistake. One can debate whether he is a sexual predator or not or how harshly he should be charged. There was, however, nothing even remotely amusing, nothing trivial, and nothing small about him sending out pictures of his girlfriend, taken out of love for him, to his friends in order to humiliate her. One can argue that she showed poor judgment in posing for the pictures. One can argue for her judgment in dating such a moron. But what happened to her was and is undeserved. My pity level for this guy is low because it is painfully obvious that he does not have a clue as to what he did----and I’m not taking about child pornography.
A lesson that often seems to be unlearned in our society is the lesson of consequences.
I recently saw the movie ‘Watchmen,’ and there is a scene of chaos and someone asked the question, “Whatever became of the American dream?” The answer was this. “This IS the American dream. The problem is it came true.”
I’ve often thought about that during our economic meltdown. The greed, the lack of regulations and oversight, the greed, the mindless lust for more has led to dire consequences not only for the United States but the entire world. During the recent CPAC gathering the controversy was all about a speech about a radio talk show host. Perhaps the most outrageous comment was ‘Our bad,’ said by Michael Steele in reference to the economy. It was like saying that one small mistake led to....
Except it wasn’t one small mistake. And the mistake was not just the mistake of Michael Steele, George W. Bush, and the Republicans. The Democrats jumped off that cliff as well as many others. And, like these guys who texted pictures of their girlfriends, the consequences of this will be long.
Which brings me back to these people who engaged in the sexting.
When a camera is available, even one on a cell phone, one ought to take note that a camera can make a permanent record of what you look like at that moment and what you are wearing or not wearing. Some years ago Dr. Laura Schlessinger lectured the world on good behavior and was mortified to find pictures of herself on the Internet----taken by an old-flame who decided to cash in on her fame. Schlessinger, like so many young women, found herself compromised by a bad decision and a callous man. Some things are not supposed to be saved for posterity. People must learn that exposing one’s self in such a way to a camera can have a life long consequences.
But my greatest wrath has to be a statement on common decency. What kind of lowness does one need to sink to in order to send out or publish such pictures? It makes me wonder if there is no common decency any longer. As I watched two young men, in prison garb, interviewed and outraged that they are in prison, I had no pity on them. I do not know if this is the correct punishment for them, but, if for no other reason, I hope that their time in prison gives them an opportunity as to learning about consequences.
One thing that often happens in high school romances is that they do come to an end. Now many of them come to an end with the boy and or the girl, having nude pictures of their ‘ex’ on their cell phone. As you can probably imagine, the pictures are usually her the girl. So, we have a guy with nude pictures of his ex-girlfriend on his cell phone. Pictures are easily sent out from cell phone to cell phone.
Common decency would indicate that people ought to delete the pictures. Common indecency would mean that you send the pictures out to a lot of people in an effort to humiliate the ‘ex.’ As can be imagined, this is what often ends up taking place.
A Cincinnati teenager, Jesse Logan broke up with her boyfriend and he hounded her. Her pictures soon ended up on cell phone after cell phone and she was harassed to the point that she committed suicide. She was a victim of her own poor choices, her ex-boyfriend’s cruelty, and the relentless humiliation she received at the hand of her classmates. It was, needless to say, a very sad and tragic end to her life.
A new issue has come forward out of this. Many of these pictures are of students under the age of 18 and so those in possession of them are being arrested and charged with child pornography and they are labeled as sex offenders and many are facing time in prison. One young rocket scientist was irate, sitting in his prison garb, complaining that one small mistake on his part led to unfair consequences.
The reason I referred to this guy as a ‘rocket scientist’ is this. He hasn’t figured something out. There was nothing small in his mistake. One can debate whether he is a sexual predator or not or how harshly he should be charged. There was, however, nothing even remotely amusing, nothing trivial, and nothing small about him sending out pictures of his girlfriend, taken out of love for him, to his friends in order to humiliate her. One can argue that she showed poor judgment in posing for the pictures. One can argue for her judgment in dating such a moron. But what happened to her was and is undeserved. My pity level for this guy is low because it is painfully obvious that he does not have a clue as to what he did----and I’m not taking about child pornography.
A lesson that often seems to be unlearned in our society is the lesson of consequences.
I recently saw the movie ‘Watchmen,’ and there is a scene of chaos and someone asked the question, “Whatever became of the American dream?” The answer was this. “This IS the American dream. The problem is it came true.”
I’ve often thought about that during our economic meltdown. The greed, the lack of regulations and oversight, the greed, the mindless lust for more has led to dire consequences not only for the United States but the entire world. During the recent CPAC gathering the controversy was all about a speech about a radio talk show host. Perhaps the most outrageous comment was ‘Our bad,’ said by Michael Steele in reference to the economy. It was like saying that one small mistake led to....
Except it wasn’t one small mistake. And the mistake was not just the mistake of Michael Steele, George W. Bush, and the Republicans. The Democrats jumped off that cliff as well as many others. And, like these guys who texted pictures of their girlfriends, the consequences of this will be long.
Which brings me back to these people who engaged in the sexting.
When a camera is available, even one on a cell phone, one ought to take note that a camera can make a permanent record of what you look like at that moment and what you are wearing or not wearing. Some years ago Dr. Laura Schlessinger lectured the world on good behavior and was mortified to find pictures of herself on the Internet----taken by an old-flame who decided to cash in on her fame. Schlessinger, like so many young women, found herself compromised by a bad decision and a callous man. Some things are not supposed to be saved for posterity. People must learn that exposing one’s self in such a way to a camera can have a life long consequences.
But my greatest wrath has to be a statement on common decency. What kind of lowness does one need to sink to in order to send out or publish such pictures? It makes me wonder if there is no common decency any longer. As I watched two young men, in prison garb, interviewed and outraged that they are in prison, I had no pity on them. I do not know if this is the correct punishment for them, but, if for no other reason, I hope that their time in prison gives them an opportunity as to learning about consequences.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Healthcare and Faith
I am going to start this by stating my own personal opinion on something. One of the great ministries of Jesus was the ministry of healing. The Gospels are full of healing narratives with Jesus healing people of various ailments. As result, the concept of healing is something Christians, at least from my perspective, ought to think of as important to our faith. As a result of this, from a faith and justice perspective, I believe that health care is a right of all people. As we live in a nation filled with people of faith, and as we are an incredibly prosperous nation, I believe that we have a moral obligation to provide health care to everyone. But, in saying this, I do not have the answers on how to accomplish this. I do know, however, that we are not doing a very good job.
In the latest research, the United States ranks 45th in the world in life expectancy. In a world where we possess the largest amount of wealth, 44 nations, many of which we impugn as having health care systems far worse than our’s, out live us.
There are some major factors in this, the first of which I am totally guilty. Our life styles are life styles that tend to be less active and we have poor diets. Our culture of fast food in huge portions has made us the most obese population in human history. Much of what we consume has low notational value, is highly processed, and our bodies do not really have a clue as to how to cope with the garbage we consume. As I write this, I write as one who has consumed a large amount of this stuff as well-----ask my knees how that has gone.
Our health care system tend to be really good at treating illness, but not as good at preventive medicine. Many high quality insurance programs are great at providing care to treat illness, but are not good at paying for tests and services given while we are healthy to prevent those illnesses. Some companies are beginning to change, but the change has been slow in coming and it is still inadequate.
But, as we criticize Canada, a nation with a comparable life style and a country with a nationalized health care system, we criticize a nation that is filled with people with a higher life expectancy. France, a nation of smokers who eat high fat foods, and a nation with a nationalized health care system, is a nation where people live longer than we do. Plus they have great bread and wonderful wine, but I do digress.
I write this, however, unsure that their health care system is the one we truly want.
The American health care system is broken down into several components.
The first is that we have a nationalized health care system for people over the age of 65 called Medicare. It is not an option. When we pay our employment insurance we are paying for Social Security benefits and Medicare benefits. Politicians like to refer to this as a ‘trust fund’ but it is not and never has been a trust fund. It is a tax and that tax is used to pay benefits for people over the age of 65. Lots of people like to clamor that it is a bad investment but it is what it is. It provides a support system for the aged. Many elderly people have additional health insurance, pensions, and savings that enable them to be self-supporting in their retirement years.
Needless to say, Medicare is hit hard because people over the age of 65 tend to use these benefits at a higher rate and in the last month of life most people spend the highest proportion of their benefits during an entire life time. This is a logical outcome of our system as people need more medical attention at the end of their lives.
Much of our system is based on health insurance. For many/most people, that health insurance comes as a benefit if employment. Some people have all of their health insurance paid for, and some people pay a portion of it. Health insurance rates have sky-rocketed in the last decade and so this is becoming a more and more critical issue.
People make a presumption about their health insurance providers that is not very true. The average person, if asked what their health insurance’s job is, they would say to provide payment for health services. That is the wrong answer. The primary job of health insurance companies is to make a profit and reward those who have invested in their company.
Now, before you take my head off, this is not stated in a negative fashion. This is an elementary aspect of the market.
The primary job of Dell Computers is not to make computers, it is to make a profit for investors. Dell, however, needs the ability to raise capital and make a profit, so they have to provide something of worth to consumers. As a result, they build computers in a way that enables them to have the highest possible profit margin. And, because they want recurring business, it is in their best interest to make the best possible equipment and provide follow up assistance so that they have happy customers who will keep spending money at Dell.
The primary job of McDonald’s is not to make burgers, it is to make a profit for investors. If people were willing to go to the drive-thru window and just deposit money, it would be great. However, as the average person will not do this, they must provide a product that will keep people coming back. As a result, burgers and fries, etc., become a part of the equation.
Health insurance companies are like this as well. They must provide a product for people to hand over money. It is, however, in the best interest of a health insurance to not pay for benefits. The more they spend out, the lower their profits tend to be. As a result, the health insurance industry often dictates what procedures are covered and under what the circumstances are. In recent years hospital stays have decreased in time. Some of this is indicative of better medicine and better medical procedures. Some. Much of it is dictated on the health insurance stating what they will and will not pay for and the hospital having to abide by this. If the profit is a non-profit organization, they need to avoid losing money or they will collapse and if it is a for profit hospital, like everyone else, they exist to make money for those who have invested in it.
Service providers, physicians, clinics, hospitals, labs, etc., all are looking to survive, thrive, make a living, etc. They provide services for rates and are compensated, usually for part of what they will charge, by insurance companies that state what is ‘usual and customary.’ As it is in the best interest of the insurance companies to thrive, they will squeeze down on service providers and the service providers will often tend to raise what they need to charge to get what they need.
When uninsured people are treated they get to pay the entire fee which was inflated for insurance or they pay nothing and ultimately the government has to step in. Many hospitals receive subsidies and grants from the Federal Government for a variety of things with the stipulation that they treat the poor. Many impoverished people used hospital emergencies rooms as their primary care providers making this the most expensive health care provided. All of this comes at tax payer expense, thus nationalizing another aspect of health care.
BUT, and this is a big BUT:
There is another huge factor in all of this. One of the staggering fees that service providers pay is for malpractice insurance. When we read of class action lawsuits against some drug or some treatment, we will find that not only pharmaceutical companies are involved, but physicians, hospitals, etc., are all a part of those being sued.
There are instances of real malpractice. The medical community, like every other community, has great people and not so great people practicing medicine. I have been fortunate in my life to have had highly skilled, caring physicians who do and have done a wonderful job. Unfortunately, there are others I have seen who are not nearly as good. Some people get very bad healthcare treatment and some so bad to the point that a lawsuit is the only good answer.
Many lawsuits, however, are not. As a result many doctors practice defensive medicine; they will order tests that might not really be needed, but they do so to protect themselves from litigation. They might even write prescriptions that they do not believe are even remotely necessary, but will give in to the pressure from their patients to protect themselves from a future lawsuit. In a day and age when prescription drugs are hawked on television many doctors find themselves being ‘forced’ to write prescriptions for people who are enchanted by the marketing they watched.
Who wouldn’t want a drug that gives them the strength to carry two bath tubs into the back yard for mutual bathing?
Many lawsuits are frivolous. Many service providers have chosen out of court settlements to avoid long, costly trials. They do so at the urging of their own insurance companies which protect them and find it in their best interest to pay out small sums instead of large sums because they too are looking to make a profit. As a result, a non-compliant patient may have gotten good medical care, the proper diagnosis, but their failure to approve of a test or a treatment led to a graver illness----and so they sue the doctor.
As a result, malpractice insurance, for most doctors and service providers is a staggering expense that is passed on to consumers, health insurances companies, and the government.
What has to happen?
We need better preventative care. We need to have an continue to have great service providers. We need to have be able to have legal services to protect patients, but abuse the system. We need a very different system than we have now. Alas, I don’t know what exactly that will look like.
But this I know. My faith teaches me that health care and healing is a God given right to all people. We have to find a way to accomplish this.
In the latest research, the United States ranks 45th in the world in life expectancy. In a world where we possess the largest amount of wealth, 44 nations, many of which we impugn as having health care systems far worse than our’s, out live us.
There are some major factors in this, the first of which I am totally guilty. Our life styles are life styles that tend to be less active and we have poor diets. Our culture of fast food in huge portions has made us the most obese population in human history. Much of what we consume has low notational value, is highly processed, and our bodies do not really have a clue as to how to cope with the garbage we consume. As I write this, I write as one who has consumed a large amount of this stuff as well-----ask my knees how that has gone.
Our health care system tend to be really good at treating illness, but not as good at preventive medicine. Many high quality insurance programs are great at providing care to treat illness, but are not good at paying for tests and services given while we are healthy to prevent those illnesses. Some companies are beginning to change, but the change has been slow in coming and it is still inadequate.
But, as we criticize Canada, a nation with a comparable life style and a country with a nationalized health care system, we criticize a nation that is filled with people with a higher life expectancy. France, a nation of smokers who eat high fat foods, and a nation with a nationalized health care system, is a nation where people live longer than we do. Plus they have great bread and wonderful wine, but I do digress.
I write this, however, unsure that their health care system is the one we truly want.
The American health care system is broken down into several components.
The first is that we have a nationalized health care system for people over the age of 65 called Medicare. It is not an option. When we pay our employment insurance we are paying for Social Security benefits and Medicare benefits. Politicians like to refer to this as a ‘trust fund’ but it is not and never has been a trust fund. It is a tax and that tax is used to pay benefits for people over the age of 65. Lots of people like to clamor that it is a bad investment but it is what it is. It provides a support system for the aged. Many elderly people have additional health insurance, pensions, and savings that enable them to be self-supporting in their retirement years.
Needless to say, Medicare is hit hard because people over the age of 65 tend to use these benefits at a higher rate and in the last month of life most people spend the highest proportion of their benefits during an entire life time. This is a logical outcome of our system as people need more medical attention at the end of their lives.
Much of our system is based on health insurance. For many/most people, that health insurance comes as a benefit if employment. Some people have all of their health insurance paid for, and some people pay a portion of it. Health insurance rates have sky-rocketed in the last decade and so this is becoming a more and more critical issue.
People make a presumption about their health insurance providers that is not very true. The average person, if asked what their health insurance’s job is, they would say to provide payment for health services. That is the wrong answer. The primary job of health insurance companies is to make a profit and reward those who have invested in their company.
Now, before you take my head off, this is not stated in a negative fashion. This is an elementary aspect of the market.
The primary job of Dell Computers is not to make computers, it is to make a profit for investors. Dell, however, needs the ability to raise capital and make a profit, so they have to provide something of worth to consumers. As a result, they build computers in a way that enables them to have the highest possible profit margin. And, because they want recurring business, it is in their best interest to make the best possible equipment and provide follow up assistance so that they have happy customers who will keep spending money at Dell.
The primary job of McDonald’s is not to make burgers, it is to make a profit for investors. If people were willing to go to the drive-thru window and just deposit money, it would be great. However, as the average person will not do this, they must provide a product that will keep people coming back. As a result, burgers and fries, etc., become a part of the equation.
Health insurance companies are like this as well. They must provide a product for people to hand over money. It is, however, in the best interest of a health insurance to not pay for benefits. The more they spend out, the lower their profits tend to be. As a result, the health insurance industry often dictates what procedures are covered and under what the circumstances are. In recent years hospital stays have decreased in time. Some of this is indicative of better medicine and better medical procedures. Some. Much of it is dictated on the health insurance stating what they will and will not pay for and the hospital having to abide by this. If the profit is a non-profit organization, they need to avoid losing money or they will collapse and if it is a for profit hospital, like everyone else, they exist to make money for those who have invested in it.
Service providers, physicians, clinics, hospitals, labs, etc., all are looking to survive, thrive, make a living, etc. They provide services for rates and are compensated, usually for part of what they will charge, by insurance companies that state what is ‘usual and customary.’ As it is in the best interest of the insurance companies to thrive, they will squeeze down on service providers and the service providers will often tend to raise what they need to charge to get what they need.
When uninsured people are treated they get to pay the entire fee which was inflated for insurance or they pay nothing and ultimately the government has to step in. Many hospitals receive subsidies and grants from the Federal Government for a variety of things with the stipulation that they treat the poor. Many impoverished people used hospital emergencies rooms as their primary care providers making this the most expensive health care provided. All of this comes at tax payer expense, thus nationalizing another aspect of health care.
BUT, and this is a big BUT:
There is another huge factor in all of this. One of the staggering fees that service providers pay is for malpractice insurance. When we read of class action lawsuits against some drug or some treatment, we will find that not only pharmaceutical companies are involved, but physicians, hospitals, etc., are all a part of those being sued.
There are instances of real malpractice. The medical community, like every other community, has great people and not so great people practicing medicine. I have been fortunate in my life to have had highly skilled, caring physicians who do and have done a wonderful job. Unfortunately, there are others I have seen who are not nearly as good. Some people get very bad healthcare treatment and some so bad to the point that a lawsuit is the only good answer.
Many lawsuits, however, are not. As a result many doctors practice defensive medicine; they will order tests that might not really be needed, but they do so to protect themselves from litigation. They might even write prescriptions that they do not believe are even remotely necessary, but will give in to the pressure from their patients to protect themselves from a future lawsuit. In a day and age when prescription drugs are hawked on television many doctors find themselves being ‘forced’ to write prescriptions for people who are enchanted by the marketing they watched.
Who wouldn’t want a drug that gives them the strength to carry two bath tubs into the back yard for mutual bathing?
Many lawsuits are frivolous. Many service providers have chosen out of court settlements to avoid long, costly trials. They do so at the urging of their own insurance companies which protect them and find it in their best interest to pay out small sums instead of large sums because they too are looking to make a profit. As a result, a non-compliant patient may have gotten good medical care, the proper diagnosis, but their failure to approve of a test or a treatment led to a graver illness----and so they sue the doctor.
As a result, malpractice insurance, for most doctors and service providers is a staggering expense that is passed on to consumers, health insurances companies, and the government.
What has to happen?
We need better preventative care. We need to have an continue to have great service providers. We need to have be able to have legal services to protect patients, but abuse the system. We need a very different system than we have now. Alas, I don’t know what exactly that will look like.
But this I know. My faith teaches me that health care and healing is a God given right to all people. We have to find a way to accomplish this.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Adding by Subtracting
Today the Dallas Cowboys did something really smart. They cut Terrell Owens. Owens has been one of the NFL’s most prolific receivers and has been jettisoned by the San Francisco 49'ers, the Philadelphia Eagles, and now the Dallas Cowboys despite the fact that he plays well in games.
In the weeks up to their amazing Super Bowl run people were amazed how much better Eli Manning had gotten. What happened was this. His tight end, Jeremy Shockey was injured and off the field. Every time Manning went to the huddle Shockey would glare at him and say, “I was open.” Tony Romo had the same problem in Dallas. Whenever he’d drop back to pass he almost had to look for T.O. first or he was going to hear about it in the huddle and on the bench.
Today Sports Illustrated has a poll on their website. “Do you want Terrell Owens on your favorite team?” An amazing 86% of respondents have said a resounding, “NO.”
All of this despite the fact that Owens has been one of the most prolific and dangerous receivers in the NFL. The dilemma with him is simple. Owens is a guy who is about Owens first. If his team loses the game 35-28 but Owens caught 4 touchdown passes, he’s happy.
The Cowboys did something smart. They learned that they were adding by subtracting a person who is a major problem to them. The bad news (for a Giants’ fan) is that they will be a lot better this year without him.
In the weeks up to their amazing Super Bowl run people were amazed how much better Eli Manning had gotten. What happened was this. His tight end, Jeremy Shockey was injured and off the field. Every time Manning went to the huddle Shockey would glare at him and say, “I was open.” Tony Romo had the same problem in Dallas. Whenever he’d drop back to pass he almost had to look for T.O. first or he was going to hear about it in the huddle and on the bench.
Today Sports Illustrated has a poll on their website. “Do you want Terrell Owens on your favorite team?” An amazing 86% of respondents have said a resounding, “NO.”
All of this despite the fact that Owens has been one of the most prolific and dangerous receivers in the NFL. The dilemma with him is simple. Owens is a guy who is about Owens first. If his team loses the game 35-28 but Owens caught 4 touchdown passes, he’s happy.
The Cowboys did something smart. They learned that they were adding by subtracting a person who is a major problem to them. The bad news (for a Giants’ fan) is that they will be a lot better this year without him.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Need and Goodness
It has taken me a bit of time to process my thoughts so pardon my delay on this.
Last Saturday St. Marks United Church of Christ in New Albany held a Health Fair. Our Mission Committee worked incredibly hard to get the word out to the community and the communities around us, and recruited volunteers from the congregation as well as others in the area.
Lunch was made and served in our Saturday Soup Kitchen and clothing was distributed from our Clothes Closet. Women were given assistance in learning about their health, blood sugars were taken, eyes were examined and people received free glasses, free massages were given as well as free haircuts. The people who came were greeted and welcomed and led around by ‘shepherds’ who assured that people got what they needed and, above all, were treated with dignity and respect.
We estimated that over 300 people were served last Saturday. A little boy walked around showing off his freshly cut head of hair; one woman shrieked with joy that she could actually read the Bible that was given to her. It was an amazing day.
It was an amazing day for people who came in to receive aid. They were treated with dignity and respect from start to finish. They went by their names and not their numbers. They were not herded like cattle, but they were treated as brothers and sisters by people who cared for them. If folks proved to be difficult everyone just tried harder with them. People came with needs and many needs were met and the guests were blessed.
But even more blessed were those who worked that day. A shriek of joy from a woman who can see again is the finest hymn ever sung. A child’s smile because he has a fresh haircut is the most beautiful picture ever created.
It was a day where need and goodness came into contact with each other and for a few hours, in one small place in the universe, life was a bit better.
Last Saturday St. Marks United Church of Christ in New Albany held a Health Fair. Our Mission Committee worked incredibly hard to get the word out to the community and the communities around us, and recruited volunteers from the congregation as well as others in the area.
Lunch was made and served in our Saturday Soup Kitchen and clothing was distributed from our Clothes Closet. Women were given assistance in learning about their health, blood sugars were taken, eyes were examined and people received free glasses, free massages were given as well as free haircuts. The people who came were greeted and welcomed and led around by ‘shepherds’ who assured that people got what they needed and, above all, were treated with dignity and respect.
We estimated that over 300 people were served last Saturday. A little boy walked around showing off his freshly cut head of hair; one woman shrieked with joy that she could actually read the Bible that was given to her. It was an amazing day.
It was an amazing day for people who came in to receive aid. They were treated with dignity and respect from start to finish. They went by their names and not their numbers. They were not herded like cattle, but they were treated as brothers and sisters by people who cared for them. If folks proved to be difficult everyone just tried harder with them. People came with needs and many needs were met and the guests were blessed.
But even more blessed were those who worked that day. A shriek of joy from a woman who can see again is the finest hymn ever sung. A child’s smile because he has a fresh haircut is the most beautiful picture ever created.
It was a day where need and goodness came into contact with each other and for a few hours, in one small place in the universe, life was a bit better.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Random Monday Musings
The best hitter in Major League Baseball right now is Manny Ramirez. The man is a menace when he attempts to field the ball and behaves in a positively childish fashion most of the time and is unsigned. He turned down $45,000,000.00 from the Los Angeles Dodgers for two years as ‘not enough.’ Need I say more?
Ray Lewis spoke badly about the Ravens and looked to move on and make big money in free-agency. The only team that expressed any significant interest in him was his own team, the Ravens. Methinks he spoke too much...
Bobby Jindal’s best piece of luck this week was that Saturday Night Live was a repeat. He is, I suspect, hoping and praying someone else does something soon to get him off the first five minutes of the show. His speech was pretty awful both in delivery and content. Then he wasn’t even being honest with his little story about the boats. And referencing Katrina, a George W. Bush debacle, was not a particularly astute thing to do. Please recall, however, the nominating speech for Michael Dukakis was one of the all time worst speeches ever at that Democratic Convention. It was given by a ‘promising young Governor’ who was a ‘rising star’ for the Democrats. It was endless and incoherent. Four years later, the speaker, Bill Clinton, was elected President. Jindal is being lumped in there with Sarah Palin which is a huge mistake. Palin gives a great speech but is busily blaming everyone except herself for her own cluelessness; Jindal is a bright guy who we will be hearing more from in the future. He appears to be a very effective Governor in Louisiana and that will prove to be more important than one speech.
Lots can be said and has been said by Rush Limbaugh’s speech at CPAC. There is only one thing to note. He wants President Obama to fail. It is a bad time right now, and very few people are arguing that. A failed Presidency, right now, hurts us badly, very badly. Rush wants Obama to fail because to Limbaugh, ideology is more important than country. If Obama is successful than Limbaugh’s ideology, at the moment, is, at very least, put in the back burner. Limbaugh values ideological purity over good of country. People who put party or ideology over country, no matter what party or ideology they have, are people who have NOTHING of value to say. And that is all that needs to be said about Rush Limbaugh at the moment. He has nothing of value to add to our national conversation.
Roland Burris is still holding on to his Illinois Senate seat. He is avoiding meetings where President Obama is as Burris feels it would be ‘awkward’ to be with the President at this time. You think?
In watching about and reading about the current economic crisis, the word ‘meltdown’ actually does seem to be an accurate word. There literally is a financial meltdown in our banking/investment system, our real estate market, the automobile industry, as well as in other arenas. I have heard ‘experts’ speak about the stimulus money as being everything from too much and wasteful, to not nearly enough. It is difficult to fathom that this crisis is anywhere close to over and close to being resolved. It is frightening indeed.
Lastly, New York Giants Hall of Fame Linebacker, Lawrence Taylor is going to be on “Dancing with the Stars.” LT once hit Joe Theisman, the then QB of the Redskins with such devastating force that as the two of them got tangled up, literally snapped Theisman’s leg, ending his career. One can only hope LT remembers to dance and not tackle his partner...
Ray Lewis spoke badly about the Ravens and looked to move on and make big money in free-agency. The only team that expressed any significant interest in him was his own team, the Ravens. Methinks he spoke too much...
Bobby Jindal’s best piece of luck this week was that Saturday Night Live was a repeat. He is, I suspect, hoping and praying someone else does something soon to get him off the first five minutes of the show. His speech was pretty awful both in delivery and content. Then he wasn’t even being honest with his little story about the boats. And referencing Katrina, a George W. Bush debacle, was not a particularly astute thing to do. Please recall, however, the nominating speech for Michael Dukakis was one of the all time worst speeches ever at that Democratic Convention. It was given by a ‘promising young Governor’ who was a ‘rising star’ for the Democrats. It was endless and incoherent. Four years later, the speaker, Bill Clinton, was elected President. Jindal is being lumped in there with Sarah Palin which is a huge mistake. Palin gives a great speech but is busily blaming everyone except herself for her own cluelessness; Jindal is a bright guy who we will be hearing more from in the future. He appears to be a very effective Governor in Louisiana and that will prove to be more important than one speech.
Lots can be said and has been said by Rush Limbaugh’s speech at CPAC. There is only one thing to note. He wants President Obama to fail. It is a bad time right now, and very few people are arguing that. A failed Presidency, right now, hurts us badly, very badly. Rush wants Obama to fail because to Limbaugh, ideology is more important than country. If Obama is successful than Limbaugh’s ideology, at the moment, is, at very least, put in the back burner. Limbaugh values ideological purity over good of country. People who put party or ideology over country, no matter what party or ideology they have, are people who have NOTHING of value to say. And that is all that needs to be said about Rush Limbaugh at the moment. He has nothing of value to add to our national conversation.
Roland Burris is still holding on to his Illinois Senate seat. He is avoiding meetings where President Obama is as Burris feels it would be ‘awkward’ to be with the President at this time. You think?
In watching about and reading about the current economic crisis, the word ‘meltdown’ actually does seem to be an accurate word. There literally is a financial meltdown in our banking/investment system, our real estate market, the automobile industry, as well as in other arenas. I have heard ‘experts’ speak about the stimulus money as being everything from too much and wasteful, to not nearly enough. It is difficult to fathom that this crisis is anywhere close to over and close to being resolved. It is frightening indeed.
Lastly, New York Giants Hall of Fame Linebacker, Lawrence Taylor is going to be on “Dancing with the Stars.” LT once hit Joe Theisman, the then QB of the Redskins with such devastating force that as the two of them got tangled up, literally snapped Theisman’s leg, ending his career. One can only hope LT remembers to dance and not tackle his partner...
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The Economic Crisis is a Spiritual Crisis Part II
Part II
The 10 Commandments begin with the mandate that we have no other gods before God. This is a Commandment that most preachers pretty much blow off because we don’t have too many worries about Zeus or Apollo these days. The First Commandment, leading into the Second Commandment, is a declaration of not having false gods and not creating pagan images. Part of the economic crisis we are experiencing as a nation, however, is because we have done just that. We have dueling pagan images of Socialism and Capitalism in battle with each other----and both worshiped.
Both Socialism and Capitalism have, at their core, and at their highest octane, people who are their spiritual, and I use the word spiritual very, very loosely, parents.
People are well aware of Karl Marx. It was his writings that created the foundation for Communism in Russia, Eastern Europe, and ultimately China, North Korea, and Vietnam, to name a few. But Marx’s influence went further than that. Much of what he theorized was that as some in a society grew wealthier and wealthier, and the gap between rich and poor grew, the bottom would overthrow the top. His solution, of course, was to share equally amongst everyone. No one would get rich and no one would be poor. Everyone would be the same.
For people at the bottom of the economic ladder, Marx’s words were wonderful. They found great hope in his system and embraced it.
Portions of Christianity embraced much of what Karl Marx had to say as well. Through the 1960's and 1970's many within Mainline Protestantism and within Roman Catholicism were determined to blend the teachings of Karl Marx and Jesus Christ. People embraced Luke’s words in Acts of the Apostles of the people in the early church sharing everything in common as a portent that God wanted people to live in a communal environment and embraced Socialism as a way to do this. In Latin America this was played out with Liberation Theology and seen very clearly when a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest was one of the leaders in the Sandinista movement in Nicaragua.
There were and are three huge problems with all of this.
First, Marx was not a person of faith. He was not only an atheist but he was almost an evangelical atheist in the fact that he preached diligently against religious faith, calling it the opium of the masses. Marx’s faith was strictly in people and his system. Beyond that, there was no other being.
Secondly, Marx embraced the idea that an armed revolution was not only acceptable, but a good idea. He felt that the only way the lower class could overcome the higher class was through violent revolt.
Thirdly, Marx’s system was based on the premise that everyone was going to be equal. The problem is, however, that some people end up being more equal than others. People do tend to gravitate to groups and classes and Communism was completely totalitarian and there existed brutal leaders and people who were forced into submission. Stalin and Mao, for example, did not consider themselves anyone’s equal and to question them meant death.
Marx does not blend well with Christianity. People attempt to justify violence in God’s name all the time but the fact that they attempt to justify it does not mean that they are successful at it.
Marxism has more problems however.
First, it does, by its very nature, have a great ability to cut off human motivation. Working hard to get ahead, getting a higher education to achieve something greater, is lost in Socialism. If a person works eight hours a day and is highly productive, and a person works two hours a day and goofs off most of that time, fairness seems to dictate that they both ought to receive benefits in light of their contributions instead of receiving the same. Why should a person work harder if there is ultimately no benefit?
Secondly, within Christianity, the idea of communal living exists in some segments, but not many. Roman Catholic religious orders live communally, but they do so very much by choice. They take a vow of poverty and all live very much in the same manner. They also take vows to each other and to God and they seek to excel on behalf of God and one another. Through the centuries different groups in Christianity have done likewise and this has been fine. Christianity, however, does not particularly espouse everyone having everything in common. It does espouse caring for the less fortunate----it actually demands it. The rich have a responsibility to the poor within Christianity; helping those in need is a tenet of faith, not a mandate of society.
Thirdly, Socialism as, at is core, anti-faith. Marx would have seen himself very much as a humanist. It is impossible to embrace Socialism in a pure manner and be a person of faith.
On the converse of this, however, is the pagan of Capitalism. Capitalism has been birthed and nurtured by many, but the most recent ‘mother’ of the current way Capitalism is practiced is Ayn Rand. Rand, who was Russian, saw the truly dark side of Communism and reacted in a totally opposite manner.
Rand’s philosophical concept, which she called Objectivism, which she defined as this in Atlas Shrugged.
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
Her philosophical perspective was completely Libertarian and absolute laissez-faire capitalism. People are free to do whatever they want with whomever they want, and as long as there is total consent, no one, especially no government, has any right to exercise control over them.
The same is true of business. To her, the government had no role whatsoever with business. It was the moral right, even purpose, of business, to make as much money as they can with no outside constraints. Taxation, from Rand’s perspective, was pretty much a moral evil. Her mind set was simple. Leave people alone.
If people are poor, from Rand’s point of view, that is their own problem and that is their own moral failing. Society has no obligation to help them. In fact, society is actually committing a moral ill in aiding impoverished people. People, according to Rand, are responsible and accountable only to themselves and no others. If they fail, they fail and society has no obligation toward them. It us truly the survival of the fittest.
For people of means Rand sounds good. Little or no taxes. Make as much money as you want as you have no responsibility for others. Your personal achievement is a moral good. Those who are impoverished are victims of themselves and since everyone has their own personal responsibility, living up to this is up to a person.
Randian philosophy is very present in our modern day culture. I knew a man in a church I served in New Jersey in the early 1980's who espoused and wrote extensively on supply side economics. He based his economic theories on the philosophy of Ayn Rand. While he was devoutly Christian, he embraced her teachings on economics almost absolutely. He went on and was an advisor to President Ronald Reagan, and Congressman Jack Kemp who also embraced this economic theory.
People who listen to Rush Limbaugh are listening to a great deal of Randian philosophy. Rush doesn’t mention this, but his philosophical mind set is very clear.
Rand offers theological problems as well.
First, like Marx, Ayn Rand was a militant, evangelical atheist. Like Marx, she did not have a live and let live attitude toward religion. She found it to be almost diabolical because of its constant teaching of altruism which she felt to be downright sinful. Religious faith was contrary to what she was about and what she believed.
Secondly, from the perspective of Christianity, her teaching is appalling. There are two clear moral teachings in the Gospels; namely to embrace the unembraceable and to care for the less fortunate. This is an irreconcilable difference.
Ironically, like Marx, Rand has found a voice within Christianity. It is incredibly interesting to listen to some in the Religious Right (I’m being careful to use the word ‘some’ because it truly is only ‘some,’ like it was only ‘some’ in the Mainline who embraced Marx.) who talk like Jesus being pro-business, pro-low taxes, pro-limited government.
I have listened (and read) things from people who call themselves ‘conservative Christians’ who speak economically like Ayn Rand and are Libertarians on things that they want to be Libertarians on. On Tuesday they will march to protect gun rights because the government has no right to seize their guns; on Thursday they will march against gay rights because God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because God is against homosexuality. (To say that Sodom and Gomorrah is about God being against homosexuality is comparable to saying “Saving Private Ryan” is a beach story, but this is for another day.)
But enough on this.
My premise continues that our current economic crisis is, at its core, a spiritual crisis. I spoke of individualism and greed as part of the problem and today our focus on Socialism and Capitalism as gods is part of the problem.
Economic theories are not, by their very nature, sacred. They are theories and if history has told us anything it is this. All governments one day collapse. We talk about the ‘youth’ of the United States but the reality is that our system of government, and our existing structure, is one of the oldest in the world right now. While there are nations far older than us, our current structure is one of the oldest in existence. It has survived because society has kept adapting itself.
But now we are in a crisis of competing ideologies that have become so ingrained that they almost appear to be sacred. They are not. We will have great difficulties in solving much of anything if we give Marx or Rand more power than they deserve. Much of the debate we are having right now is actually a pagan debate of ideologies disguising itself as religious. It is not, and until we recognize this, we will continue to be at a loss.
The 10 Commandments begin with the mandate that we have no other gods before God. This is a Commandment that most preachers pretty much blow off because we don’t have too many worries about Zeus or Apollo these days. The First Commandment, leading into the Second Commandment, is a declaration of not having false gods and not creating pagan images. Part of the economic crisis we are experiencing as a nation, however, is because we have done just that. We have dueling pagan images of Socialism and Capitalism in battle with each other----and both worshiped.
Both Socialism and Capitalism have, at their core, and at their highest octane, people who are their spiritual, and I use the word spiritual very, very loosely, parents.
People are well aware of Karl Marx. It was his writings that created the foundation for Communism in Russia, Eastern Europe, and ultimately China, North Korea, and Vietnam, to name a few. But Marx’s influence went further than that. Much of what he theorized was that as some in a society grew wealthier and wealthier, and the gap between rich and poor grew, the bottom would overthrow the top. His solution, of course, was to share equally amongst everyone. No one would get rich and no one would be poor. Everyone would be the same.
For people at the bottom of the economic ladder, Marx’s words were wonderful. They found great hope in his system and embraced it.
Portions of Christianity embraced much of what Karl Marx had to say as well. Through the 1960's and 1970's many within Mainline Protestantism and within Roman Catholicism were determined to blend the teachings of Karl Marx and Jesus Christ. People embraced Luke’s words in Acts of the Apostles of the people in the early church sharing everything in common as a portent that God wanted people to live in a communal environment and embraced Socialism as a way to do this. In Latin America this was played out with Liberation Theology and seen very clearly when a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest was one of the leaders in the Sandinista movement in Nicaragua.
There were and are three huge problems with all of this.
First, Marx was not a person of faith. He was not only an atheist but he was almost an evangelical atheist in the fact that he preached diligently against religious faith, calling it the opium of the masses. Marx’s faith was strictly in people and his system. Beyond that, there was no other being.
Secondly, Marx embraced the idea that an armed revolution was not only acceptable, but a good idea. He felt that the only way the lower class could overcome the higher class was through violent revolt.
Thirdly, Marx’s system was based on the premise that everyone was going to be equal. The problem is, however, that some people end up being more equal than others. People do tend to gravitate to groups and classes and Communism was completely totalitarian and there existed brutal leaders and people who were forced into submission. Stalin and Mao, for example, did not consider themselves anyone’s equal and to question them meant death.
Marx does not blend well with Christianity. People attempt to justify violence in God’s name all the time but the fact that they attempt to justify it does not mean that they are successful at it.
Marxism has more problems however.
First, it does, by its very nature, have a great ability to cut off human motivation. Working hard to get ahead, getting a higher education to achieve something greater, is lost in Socialism. If a person works eight hours a day and is highly productive, and a person works two hours a day and goofs off most of that time, fairness seems to dictate that they both ought to receive benefits in light of their contributions instead of receiving the same. Why should a person work harder if there is ultimately no benefit?
Secondly, within Christianity, the idea of communal living exists in some segments, but not many. Roman Catholic religious orders live communally, but they do so very much by choice. They take a vow of poverty and all live very much in the same manner. They also take vows to each other and to God and they seek to excel on behalf of God and one another. Through the centuries different groups in Christianity have done likewise and this has been fine. Christianity, however, does not particularly espouse everyone having everything in common. It does espouse caring for the less fortunate----it actually demands it. The rich have a responsibility to the poor within Christianity; helping those in need is a tenet of faith, not a mandate of society.
Thirdly, Socialism as, at is core, anti-faith. Marx would have seen himself very much as a humanist. It is impossible to embrace Socialism in a pure manner and be a person of faith.
On the converse of this, however, is the pagan of Capitalism. Capitalism has been birthed and nurtured by many, but the most recent ‘mother’ of the current way Capitalism is practiced is Ayn Rand. Rand, who was Russian, saw the truly dark side of Communism and reacted in a totally opposite manner.
Rand’s philosophical concept, which she called Objectivism, which she defined as this in Atlas Shrugged.
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
Her philosophical perspective was completely Libertarian and absolute laissez-faire capitalism. People are free to do whatever they want with whomever they want, and as long as there is total consent, no one, especially no government, has any right to exercise control over them.
The same is true of business. To her, the government had no role whatsoever with business. It was the moral right, even purpose, of business, to make as much money as they can with no outside constraints. Taxation, from Rand’s perspective, was pretty much a moral evil. Her mind set was simple. Leave people alone.
If people are poor, from Rand’s point of view, that is their own problem and that is their own moral failing. Society has no obligation to help them. In fact, society is actually committing a moral ill in aiding impoverished people. People, according to Rand, are responsible and accountable only to themselves and no others. If they fail, they fail and society has no obligation toward them. It us truly the survival of the fittest.
For people of means Rand sounds good. Little or no taxes. Make as much money as you want as you have no responsibility for others. Your personal achievement is a moral good. Those who are impoverished are victims of themselves and since everyone has their own personal responsibility, living up to this is up to a person.
Randian philosophy is very present in our modern day culture. I knew a man in a church I served in New Jersey in the early 1980's who espoused and wrote extensively on supply side economics. He based his economic theories on the philosophy of Ayn Rand. While he was devoutly Christian, he embraced her teachings on economics almost absolutely. He went on and was an advisor to President Ronald Reagan, and Congressman Jack Kemp who also embraced this economic theory.
People who listen to Rush Limbaugh are listening to a great deal of Randian philosophy. Rush doesn’t mention this, but his philosophical mind set is very clear.
Rand offers theological problems as well.
First, like Marx, Ayn Rand was a militant, evangelical atheist. Like Marx, she did not have a live and let live attitude toward religion. She found it to be almost diabolical because of its constant teaching of altruism which she felt to be downright sinful. Religious faith was contrary to what she was about and what she believed.
Secondly, from the perspective of Christianity, her teaching is appalling. There are two clear moral teachings in the Gospels; namely to embrace the unembraceable and to care for the less fortunate. This is an irreconcilable difference.
Ironically, like Marx, Rand has found a voice within Christianity. It is incredibly interesting to listen to some in the Religious Right (I’m being careful to use the word ‘some’ because it truly is only ‘some,’ like it was only ‘some’ in the Mainline who embraced Marx.) who talk like Jesus being pro-business, pro-low taxes, pro-limited government.
I have listened (and read) things from people who call themselves ‘conservative Christians’ who speak economically like Ayn Rand and are Libertarians on things that they want to be Libertarians on. On Tuesday they will march to protect gun rights because the government has no right to seize their guns; on Thursday they will march against gay rights because God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because God is against homosexuality. (To say that Sodom and Gomorrah is about God being against homosexuality is comparable to saying “Saving Private Ryan” is a beach story, but this is for another day.)
But enough on this.
My premise continues that our current economic crisis is, at its core, a spiritual crisis. I spoke of individualism and greed as part of the problem and today our focus on Socialism and Capitalism as gods is part of the problem.
Economic theories are not, by their very nature, sacred. They are theories and if history has told us anything it is this. All governments one day collapse. We talk about the ‘youth’ of the United States but the reality is that our system of government, and our existing structure, is one of the oldest in the world right now. While there are nations far older than us, our current structure is one of the oldest in existence. It has survived because society has kept adapting itself.
But now we are in a crisis of competing ideologies that have become so ingrained that they almost appear to be sacred. They are not. We will have great difficulties in solving much of anything if we give Marx or Rand more power than they deserve. Much of the debate we are having right now is actually a pagan debate of ideologies disguising itself as religious. It is not, and until we recognize this, we will continue to be at a loss.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
The Economic Crisis is a Spiritual Crisis Part I
Something largely unspoken about the current economic crisis that is taking place in our nation is this. It is, at its very core, a spiritual crisis more than anything else. On one level it is about derivatives, interest rates, taxes, mortgages, retail sales, and stock prices, but on the other hand it is actually a deeply spiritual crisis. It speaks, on so many levels, about a people who have gotten lost.
The problem is not a simple problem and is has several components.
The first is the problem of individualism.
I often here Christians talk about having a ‘personal relationship with Jesus.’ When queried I am told that this is in the Bible. There is a funny thing about this, however. The word ‘personal’ is not in the New Testament. For that matter, the word ‘relationship’ is not in the New Testament either. Neither is the word ‘individual.’ While there is significant information in talking to and about individuals within the New Testament, the main thrust of the New Testament is not about individualism and individuals in response to God, but about the community, namely the Christian Church.
Within the Old Testament, Judaism is clearly, and fundamentally a communal religion. As Christianity evolves from Judaism there are significant theological changes, but the foundation is one of community. Judaism has widely maintained that strong sense of community; a sense that Christianity has been significantly looser about.
The Bible begins with Genesis and there is a seminal question in Genesis. After Cain slew his brother Abel, God queries Can about the whereabouts of Abel. Cain responds with a question: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The rest of the Bible answers that question in the affirmative. We are keepers of our sisters and brothers.
The other morning CNBC’s Rick Santelli sort of led what many people are calling the Chicago Tea Party when he ragingly asked the traders on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange if they wanted to pay for their neighbor’s bad mortgages. They all booed. I took that as a ‘no.’ (It was, on a side note, rather ironic, that he didn’t ask them if they were willing to accept bail out money for their companies that had blundered in the market, aiding and abetting the current crisis.)
He also failed to ask them how they were going to deal with their defaulting neighbors who were defaulting on their mortgages and vacating houses in neighborhoods, driving the cost of homes way, way down. The reality is that I don’t want to pay tax dollars to bail people out but I also don’t want to lose the investment in my home as people default. The short answer is that we are all in this together and people are all going to pay the bill one way or another. But I digress.
Santelli’s rage was real as was the rage of the people on the floor. It is a rage many people do share. The question however is this. Are we the keeper of our brothers and our sisters? Are we responsible for each other? From the perspective of 2000 years of Christian teaching, and from the Bible itself, the answer is that we very much are responsible for each other. We can debate how we live out that responsibility towards one another politically, but if we espouse Christianity, are ARE responsible for each other.
A second spiritual issue is the issue of greed. That great line in the movie “Wall Street,” is simple: “Greed is good.”
I do understand this. There is much about greed that drives an economy. When we want that bigger, nicer house, or car, or computer, or article of clothing, part of what drives our desire is a certain amount of greed. The fast food industry is a magnificent example of this. When I was growing up and you want to one of the burger places, a hamburger was a 1-2 ounce piece of meat with condiments. Now you can purchase half a steer topped with a quarter of a pig and two pails of milk (turned into cheese) with condiments, on a bun. And, of course, to go with this, there is a pound of fries with a liter of soft drink to wash it all down. Ever since the fast food industry understood greed they grew in leaps and bounds. People desire more.
Several years ago there was a huge rage over what was called the Prayer of Jabez. In 1 Chronicles 4:10 it says:
Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying, "Oh that you would bless me and enlarge my border (or territory), and that your hand might be with me, and that you would keep me from hurt and harm!" And God granted what he asked.
The prayer was used at business meetings (and preached from pulpits) as a statement of God’s desire for people to have great prosperity. “Enlarge my border/territory,” was interpreted as increasing one’s sales or geographic territory for sales or even purchasing a larger house on a bigger lot. The prayer of Jabez was actually a prayer by Jabez asking God to widen his heart to be more generous and the prayer was corrupted into being about greed.
There is much spoken about the so-called Prosperity Gospel. Here is the painful reality of the Prosperity Gospel. There isn’t one. It is a mutation of the real Gospel and as valid as a $3.00 bill. Jesus did not preach a Gospel, even remotely, of economic prosperity. Jesus demonstrated an amazing indifference to taxes, “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render unto God what is God’s,” and his advice to the rich young man was to take “ALL he had and give it to the poor.” If a person ever tells you that he or she takes every word of the Bible totally literally, ask them about that passage and watch them wiggle and finesse.
More later.
The problem is not a simple problem and is has several components.
The first is the problem of individualism.
I often here Christians talk about having a ‘personal relationship with Jesus.’ When queried I am told that this is in the Bible. There is a funny thing about this, however. The word ‘personal’ is not in the New Testament. For that matter, the word ‘relationship’ is not in the New Testament either. Neither is the word ‘individual.’ While there is significant information in talking to and about individuals within the New Testament, the main thrust of the New Testament is not about individualism and individuals in response to God, but about the community, namely the Christian Church.
Within the Old Testament, Judaism is clearly, and fundamentally a communal religion. As Christianity evolves from Judaism there are significant theological changes, but the foundation is one of community. Judaism has widely maintained that strong sense of community; a sense that Christianity has been significantly looser about.
The Bible begins with Genesis and there is a seminal question in Genesis. After Cain slew his brother Abel, God queries Can about the whereabouts of Abel. Cain responds with a question: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The rest of the Bible answers that question in the affirmative. We are keepers of our sisters and brothers.
The other morning CNBC’s Rick Santelli sort of led what many people are calling the Chicago Tea Party when he ragingly asked the traders on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange if they wanted to pay for their neighbor’s bad mortgages. They all booed. I took that as a ‘no.’ (It was, on a side note, rather ironic, that he didn’t ask them if they were willing to accept bail out money for their companies that had blundered in the market, aiding and abetting the current crisis.)
He also failed to ask them how they were going to deal with their defaulting neighbors who were defaulting on their mortgages and vacating houses in neighborhoods, driving the cost of homes way, way down. The reality is that I don’t want to pay tax dollars to bail people out but I also don’t want to lose the investment in my home as people default. The short answer is that we are all in this together and people are all going to pay the bill one way or another. But I digress.
Santelli’s rage was real as was the rage of the people on the floor. It is a rage many people do share. The question however is this. Are we the keeper of our brothers and our sisters? Are we responsible for each other? From the perspective of 2000 years of Christian teaching, and from the Bible itself, the answer is that we very much are responsible for each other. We can debate how we live out that responsibility towards one another politically, but if we espouse Christianity, are ARE responsible for each other.
A second spiritual issue is the issue of greed. That great line in the movie “Wall Street,” is simple: “Greed is good.”
I do understand this. There is much about greed that drives an economy. When we want that bigger, nicer house, or car, or computer, or article of clothing, part of what drives our desire is a certain amount of greed. The fast food industry is a magnificent example of this. When I was growing up and you want to one of the burger places, a hamburger was a 1-2 ounce piece of meat with condiments. Now you can purchase half a steer topped with a quarter of a pig and two pails of milk (turned into cheese) with condiments, on a bun. And, of course, to go with this, there is a pound of fries with a liter of soft drink to wash it all down. Ever since the fast food industry understood greed they grew in leaps and bounds. People desire more.
Several years ago there was a huge rage over what was called the Prayer of Jabez. In 1 Chronicles 4:10 it says:
Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying, "Oh that you would bless me and enlarge my border (or territory), and that your hand might be with me, and that you would keep me from hurt and harm!" And God granted what he asked.
The prayer was used at business meetings (and preached from pulpits) as a statement of God’s desire for people to have great prosperity. “Enlarge my border/territory,” was interpreted as increasing one’s sales or geographic territory for sales or even purchasing a larger house on a bigger lot. The prayer of Jabez was actually a prayer by Jabez asking God to widen his heart to be more generous and the prayer was corrupted into being about greed.
There is much spoken about the so-called Prosperity Gospel. Here is the painful reality of the Prosperity Gospel. There isn’t one. It is a mutation of the real Gospel and as valid as a $3.00 bill. Jesus did not preach a Gospel, even remotely, of economic prosperity. Jesus demonstrated an amazing indifference to taxes, “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render unto God what is God’s,” and his advice to the rich young man was to take “ALL he had and give it to the poor.” If a person ever tells you that he or she takes every word of the Bible totally literally, ask them about that passage and watch them wiggle and finesse.
More later.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Children at Play
In reading about the process of the creation and passing of the stimulus bill I cannot help but come to a sense that we are poorly served by many people in our Congress. It seems that they ought to post a sign outside the House Chamber that reads:
I do not know of this bill is a good one. I have listened to enough experts disagree that I cannot determine if it is a good thing or a bad thing; even if it is too large or too small. There seem to be very few answers.
There is not a great deal to trust on the political front. From the Democratic perspective, this bill has to work because it is contrary to everything that the Republicans have been telling us. This kind of bill, this kind of spending, we have been told, is a bad way to attempt to stimulate the economy. For the Democrats, this bill HAS to work for them to not look foolish.
From the Republican perspective, of course, it’s quite the opposite. This bill is contrary to everything they have been telling us and everything that have to believe. If this bill does work it makes them look bad. For them, this stimulus HAS to fall for them not to look like fools.
What disturbs me more than anything else, however, was and is the conduct of the two major leaders in the House of Representatives, namely Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner. Pelosi is from San Francisco and Boehner represents the region right next to where I used to live in Ohio so he’s someone I am well familiar with.
From my perspective both Pelosi and Boehner have several things in common.
The first is that they are both totally partisan. I do not get a sense that either of them particularly worry about the rightness or wrongness of something or the virtues and the vices of any plan in particular other than how it plays out politically. They both seek first to have themselves and their party to look good, secondly, to make their opposition look bad, and then about the issues themselves. Keep in mind, these are leaders....
The second thing they both have in common is an incredible lack of maturity. Pelosi, from all reports, lost it with Harry Reid over Senate compromises on the stimulus package. When the compromises between the two branches of Congress were announced, noticeably missing from the scene was Nancy Pelosi.
And John Boehner showed was just breathtakingly petulant on the House floor when he took the bill, whined about it being over 1000 pages, and dropped it on the floor with an incredibly and obviously specious outrage. I am trying to determine what this kind of moronic display is supposed to prove.
There are many things that I do not know. The experts cannot tell us for sure if the stimulus bill is good or bad. Many people have written commentaries or appeared on television or the radio and informed the world of why it will work and/or why it won’t work. Some are probably right and some are probably wrong----the reality is that we do not know for sure. There are some things we do know, however.
The first is that the economy is in woeful shape and things are not looking up. The stock market has been down and seems to be heading down further. The unemployment rate is rising and every day we read about lay offs or businesses closing. The automobile companies in looking to restructure are using the words, cut, cut, and cut over and over again.
The second thing we know is that what we were doing before did not work. Cutting the interest rates and taxes has placed the interest rates close to 0 and our taxes have been cut to the point that tax breaks are not having much of an impact on people. From what I have read the stimulus package has a tax cut for me and that I will be receiving a little less than $50.00 more in my pay each month. This is not going to stimulate a whole lot for our family.
The third thing is this. It is going to be very difficult to trust much of what comes by way of Congress. The children are calling the shots in a day when adults are badly needed. It used to be that when people were elected to Congress, most especially the Senate, they wanted to stay there. Obama wanted out. McCain wanted out. Clinton wanted out. Biden wanted out...
The list goes on. It makes me think that Hallmark should design a card for us to send to those who represent us in the United States Congress with two words on it:
Children at Play
I do not know of this bill is a good one. I have listened to enough experts disagree that I cannot determine if it is a good thing or a bad thing; even if it is too large or too small. There seem to be very few answers.
There is not a great deal to trust on the political front. From the Democratic perspective, this bill has to work because it is contrary to everything that the Republicans have been telling us. This kind of bill, this kind of spending, we have been told, is a bad way to attempt to stimulate the economy. For the Democrats, this bill HAS to work for them to not look foolish.
From the Republican perspective, of course, it’s quite the opposite. This bill is contrary to everything they have been telling us and everything that have to believe. If this bill does work it makes them look bad. For them, this stimulus HAS to fall for them not to look like fools.
What disturbs me more than anything else, however, was and is the conduct of the two major leaders in the House of Representatives, namely Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner. Pelosi is from San Francisco and Boehner represents the region right next to where I used to live in Ohio so he’s someone I am well familiar with.
From my perspective both Pelosi and Boehner have several things in common.
The first is that they are both totally partisan. I do not get a sense that either of them particularly worry about the rightness or wrongness of something or the virtues and the vices of any plan in particular other than how it plays out politically. They both seek first to have themselves and their party to look good, secondly, to make their opposition look bad, and then about the issues themselves. Keep in mind, these are leaders....
The second thing they both have in common is an incredible lack of maturity. Pelosi, from all reports, lost it with Harry Reid over Senate compromises on the stimulus package. When the compromises between the two branches of Congress were announced, noticeably missing from the scene was Nancy Pelosi.
And John Boehner showed was just breathtakingly petulant on the House floor when he took the bill, whined about it being over 1000 pages, and dropped it on the floor with an incredibly and obviously specious outrage. I am trying to determine what this kind of moronic display is supposed to prove.
There are many things that I do not know. The experts cannot tell us for sure if the stimulus bill is good or bad. Many people have written commentaries or appeared on television or the radio and informed the world of why it will work and/or why it won’t work. Some are probably right and some are probably wrong----the reality is that we do not know for sure. There are some things we do know, however.
The first is that the economy is in woeful shape and things are not looking up. The stock market has been down and seems to be heading down further. The unemployment rate is rising and every day we read about lay offs or businesses closing. The automobile companies in looking to restructure are using the words, cut, cut, and cut over and over again.
The second thing we know is that what we were doing before did not work. Cutting the interest rates and taxes has placed the interest rates close to 0 and our taxes have been cut to the point that tax breaks are not having much of an impact on people. From what I have read the stimulus package has a tax cut for me and that I will be receiving a little less than $50.00 more in my pay each month. This is not going to stimulate a whole lot for our family.
The third thing is this. It is going to be very difficult to trust much of what comes by way of Congress. The children are calling the shots in a day when adults are badly needed. It used to be that when people were elected to Congress, most especially the Senate, they wanted to stay there. Obama wanted out. McCain wanted out. Clinton wanted out. Biden wanted out...
The list goes on. It makes me think that Hallmark should design a card for us to send to those who represent us in the United States Congress with two words on it:
Grow up!
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Truly Disgusting
I enjoy Sloppy Joe sandwiches and I enjoy Krispy Kreme doughnuts. In terms of enjoying these two items, I plead guilty.
However, I recently ran into a nightmare combination.
They combined peanut butter with jelly and it was a hit.
Doughnuts are great with coffee.
But a Sloppy Joe on a Krispy Kreme? This is truly disgusting.
Monday, February 09, 2009
With Apologies to Katie Couric
I have to apologize to Katie Couric.
Some time back Katie did an interview with Alex Rodriquez and I felt like she had done a poor job. Her questions struck me as trite and obvious and I found very little to like about her interview with her.
I have to further apologize to Katie. Of the three major network anchors my favorite is Charlie Gibson and my least favorite has been Katie. To be quite honest and blunt, I felt Katie lacked the gravitas for the position. I had actually grown weary of her on "Today" and I felt that the step to the CBS Evening News was a bad step----for CBS.
But, my apologies to Katie, she has proven me to be wrong and proven that she does have the gravitas for this.
When Katie interviewed Sarah Palin Katie demonstrated that there were two women in the room; one with gravitas and one who thought gravitas was gravy in a French Restaurant. Couric turned Palin into something of a fricassee and Palin's candidacy became little more than fodder for "Saturday Night Live."
But, in the process of making a short story long, where Katie really has demonstrated something was her interview with A-Rod in 2007. To put it bluntly, she nailed is sorry behind to the wall:
For the record, have you ever used steroids, human growth hormone or any other performance-enhancing substance?" Couric asked.
"No," Rodriguez replied.
Asked if he had ever been tempted to use any of those things, Rodriguez told Couric, "No."
"You never felt like, 'This guy's doing it, maybe I should look into this, too? He's getting better numbers, playing better ball,'" Couric asked.
"I've never felt overmatched on the baseball field. I've always been a very strong, dominant position. And I felt that if I did my work as I've done since I was, you know, a rookie back in Seattle, I didn't have a problem competing at any level. So, no," he replied.
Now it turns out that A-Rod not only was tempted, but he did use steroids in 2003. Katie nailed him.So, Katie, accept this apology from me! I still like Charlie Gibson the best, but you are certainly playing in the right league.
Cheaters Never Profit?
Anyone who knows me well knows that I enjoy professional sports. My favorite sport in the world is NFL football. My second favorite sport is Major League Baseball. I am a life long fan of the New York Mets and I have always enjoyed watching baseball. I actually watched baseball long before I was interested in football. It is easy to say, now, of course, that I enjoy football more than baseball, but I still do enjoy both.
Within the NFL there are problems. We hear and read of players being arrested all the time. Michael Vick is currently in prison and Plaxico Burress might soon be. Football is a violent game played by violent men and the results are often predictable. The NFL is actually very diligent in its enforcement of conduct by its players and Roger Goodell has made his presence well known as the commissioner.
One thing that is not tolerated in the NFL, and is ruthlessly hunted down is cheating.
The problem with baseball is that rampant cheating has been taking place.
Home Run records lasted a long time. Suddenly they began to fall, rapidly. We have found out that Sammy Sosa cheated drug wise and by juicing his bats with cork. Mark McGwire cheated and won a home run record. Barry Bonds cheated and won every home run record shortly afterwards. The most dominant pitcher was Roger Clemens and he cheated. Now, of course, the news is coming out that A-Rod cheated. Well, theoretically, I guess, he didn’t because there wasn’t a specific ‘rule’ at that point----but he juiced himself up to hit the ball better.
And then we come to a part of the problem. Records are being broken in baseball by people who cheated. Baseball Commissioner Bug Selig is not Roger Goodell. Whereas Goodell has made himself respected, even feared, within the NFL, Selig is little more than a puppet for the owners. Heck, he was an owner before becoming the commissioner. He is, by design, powerless.
And the great American game is going down the tubes and Selig is fiddling while baseball burns.
How do you fix it? Remove the records from the cheaters. They are ill-gotten gains. If a student was found to have cheated on an exam or plagiarized a paper, they would have their credit retroactively removed. Remove the records.
The next step is to remove the players from the league. Let A-Rod work at a place that requires the question, “Would you like fries with that?,” instead of letting him play each day.
And, finally, for those who lied under oath, they can join Michael Vick.
This cheating culture permeates American society. We are seeing it in sports, we see it in politics, we see it in business, we see it in Wall Street.
When I was growing up one of the ‘rules of the neighborhood’ was that ‘cheaters never profit.’ Sadly, they do and as long as they do, people will cheat. It would be nice if someone or some group, and baseball is a great place to start, would step in and assure that cheaters really do never profit.
Within the NFL there are problems. We hear and read of players being arrested all the time. Michael Vick is currently in prison and Plaxico Burress might soon be. Football is a violent game played by violent men and the results are often predictable. The NFL is actually very diligent in its enforcement of conduct by its players and Roger Goodell has made his presence well known as the commissioner.
One thing that is not tolerated in the NFL, and is ruthlessly hunted down is cheating.
The problem with baseball is that rampant cheating has been taking place.
Home Run records lasted a long time. Suddenly they began to fall, rapidly. We have found out that Sammy Sosa cheated drug wise and by juicing his bats with cork. Mark McGwire cheated and won a home run record. Barry Bonds cheated and won every home run record shortly afterwards. The most dominant pitcher was Roger Clemens and he cheated. Now, of course, the news is coming out that A-Rod cheated. Well, theoretically, I guess, he didn’t because there wasn’t a specific ‘rule’ at that point----but he juiced himself up to hit the ball better.
And then we come to a part of the problem. Records are being broken in baseball by people who cheated. Baseball Commissioner Bug Selig is not Roger Goodell. Whereas Goodell has made himself respected, even feared, within the NFL, Selig is little more than a puppet for the owners. Heck, he was an owner before becoming the commissioner. He is, by design, powerless.
And the great American game is going down the tubes and Selig is fiddling while baseball burns.
How do you fix it? Remove the records from the cheaters. They are ill-gotten gains. If a student was found to have cheated on an exam or plagiarized a paper, they would have their credit retroactively removed. Remove the records.
The next step is to remove the players from the league. Let A-Rod work at a place that requires the question, “Would you like fries with that?,” instead of letting him play each day.
And, finally, for those who lied under oath, they can join Michael Vick.
This cheating culture permeates American society. We are seeing it in sports, we see it in politics, we see it in business, we see it in Wall Street.
When I was growing up one of the ‘rules of the neighborhood’ was that ‘cheaters never profit.’ Sadly, they do and as long as they do, people will cheat. It would be nice if someone or some group, and baseball is a great place to start, would step in and assure that cheaters really do never profit.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Random Musings
Ah, time for moments of great randomness.
The best moment of the whole "Blago" tale took place on Letterman when the former Governor of Illinois said that he had wanted to be on Letterman's show in the worst way. Letterman than informed Blago that he WAS on the show in the worst way. Classic moment.
Major controversy in Philadelphia when McNabb said that the Eagles' defense lost the game for them. Of course, lost in all the controversy are two facts. First is that the defense is what got them to the game; and the second is that the defense actually did lose the game for them.
I am sure that the NFL officiating booth did look at the final play in the Super Bowl but it really should have had an official review. I mean, really, it was the Super Bowl. It was also a very good game. To say it was a better game than last year....please, let's get real.
A major study was done at Indiana University that concluded that women are a great deal more complicated than men. Let us stand, for a moment, in awe of this surprising conclusion. I bet the next study might be on men to find out of men really are generally more shallow than women...
Carly Fiorina made the observation that John McCain could not have run HP as the CEO. She made sure to say that Barack Obama couldn't have run HP as CEO either. But, as she was working for the McCain campaign, and she observed that her boss couldn't run a company she had been the CEO of, and he was running for the Presidency, she was shown the door. Quickly. If one reads about the 'success' of Fiorina at HP, however, one concludes that she couldn't run the company either and was noted for her excess----with her being the recipient of most of that excess. Now she is advising that CEO salaries shouldn't have a cap on them as is ordered for companies receiving bailout money. Following Fiorina's advice would be like a general reading "Great Italian Military Strategies During World War II," in trying to conduce a war.
Joe Torre's new book on the Yankees seems to indicate that life with the Yankees was often a bit bizarre. Now there is a great deal of controversy because Torre is stating the obvious.
Ashley Judd and Sarah Palin are doing battle with each other. I am sure that there is a joke in here someplace, but I simply can't find it.
Tom Daschle and the tax laws are so interesting. He was a lawmaker and either the tax law eluded him or he eluded paying the tax. Either way, he needed to step aside. I will say that I was heartened to hear Obama say, "I screwed up," in relation to this. I'm still waiting to hear someone else say it.
Nadya Suleman gave birth to octuplets (already having six children) and this is a major news story. I am still, for the life of me, trying to figure out how this is any of my business.
Pictures of Michael Phelps puffing on a bong, presumeably smoking marijuana has hit the Internet and the evening news. This might explain the large meals he was eating----the man had a major case of the munchies. The whole thing is shocking, a young man of his age smoking pot. It is just something that college aged students have never even remotely thought of.
To be serious, and not to justify it it any way, but leave the kid alone.
I wonder if Minnesota will ever have a Senator? Franken does not have the support of a certain talk show host. Franken, the author of "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot," has been criticized by Limbaugh of late. I'm thinking that Franken might have offended Limbaugh in some way. One would gather that Limbaugh, usually the epitome of class would have found Franken's tone a bit sarcastic. Considering my dislike of saracasm...
Actually, seriously, that kind of tone is dreadful and Franken, in writing that book became as offensive as his subject. That kind of tone accomplishes nothing very worthwhile or good.
The best moment of the whole "Blago" tale took place on Letterman when the former Governor of Illinois said that he had wanted to be on Letterman's show in the worst way. Letterman than informed Blago that he WAS on the show in the worst way. Classic moment.
Major controversy in Philadelphia when McNabb said that the Eagles' defense lost the game for them. Of course, lost in all the controversy are two facts. First is that the defense is what got them to the game; and the second is that the defense actually did lose the game for them.
I am sure that the NFL officiating booth did look at the final play in the Super Bowl but it really should have had an official review. I mean, really, it was the Super Bowl. It was also a very good game. To say it was a better game than last year....please, let's get real.
A major study was done at Indiana University that concluded that women are a great deal more complicated than men. Let us stand, for a moment, in awe of this surprising conclusion. I bet the next study might be on men to find out of men really are generally more shallow than women...
Carly Fiorina made the observation that John McCain could not have run HP as the CEO. She made sure to say that Barack Obama couldn't have run HP as CEO either. But, as she was working for the McCain campaign, and she observed that her boss couldn't run a company she had been the CEO of, and he was running for the Presidency, she was shown the door. Quickly. If one reads about the 'success' of Fiorina at HP, however, one concludes that she couldn't run the company either and was noted for her excess----with her being the recipient of most of that excess. Now she is advising that CEO salaries shouldn't have a cap on them as is ordered for companies receiving bailout money. Following Fiorina's advice would be like a general reading "Great Italian Military Strategies During World War II," in trying to conduce a war.
Joe Torre's new book on the Yankees seems to indicate that life with the Yankees was often a bit bizarre. Now there is a great deal of controversy because Torre is stating the obvious.
Ashley Judd and Sarah Palin are doing battle with each other. I am sure that there is a joke in here someplace, but I simply can't find it.
Tom Daschle and the tax laws are so interesting. He was a lawmaker and either the tax law eluded him or he eluded paying the tax. Either way, he needed to step aside. I will say that I was heartened to hear Obama say, "I screwed up," in relation to this. I'm still waiting to hear someone else say it.
Nadya Suleman gave birth to octuplets (already having six children) and this is a major news story. I am still, for the life of me, trying to figure out how this is any of my business.
Pictures of Michael Phelps puffing on a bong, presumeably smoking marijuana has hit the Internet and the evening news. This might explain the large meals he was eating----the man had a major case of the munchies. The whole thing is shocking, a young man of his age smoking pot. It is just something that college aged students have never even remotely thought of.
To be serious, and not to justify it it any way, but leave the kid alone.
I wonder if Minnesota will ever have a Senator? Franken does not have the support of a certain talk show host. Franken, the author of "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot," has been criticized by Limbaugh of late. I'm thinking that Franken might have offended Limbaugh in some way. One would gather that Limbaugh, usually the epitome of class would have found Franken's tone a bit sarcastic. Considering my dislike of saracasm...
Actually, seriously, that kind of tone is dreadful and Franken, in writing that book became as offensive as his subject. That kind of tone accomplishes nothing very worthwhile or good.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
From the Catholic News Service
Evidently the Vatican making a strong statement now, which is excellent:
Vatican: Bishop's Holocaust statements 'strongly rejected' by pope
By John Thavis
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Vatican said a traditionalist bishop who has minimized the full extent of the Holocaust must disavow his positions before he will be accepted into full communion with the church.
A Vatican statement Feb. 4 said Pope Benedict XVI did not know about the controversial statements by British-born Bishop Richard Williamson when he lifted the excommunication of him and three other traditionalist bishops ordained illicitly in 1988.
"The positions of Bishop Williamson on the Holocaust are absolutely unacceptable and are strongly rejected by the Holy Father," the statement said.
In order to function as a bishop, Bishop Williamson must distance himself from his previous statements in "an absolutely unequivocal and public manner," the Vatican said.
In a statement meant to deflect the increasing public outcry over the papal decree lifting the excommunication, the Vatican said the decree did not change the juridical status of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, which still has no canonical recognition in the Catholic Church.
The society was founded by French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who also incurred automatic excommunication when he ordained the four bishops against papal orders. The society has not accepted the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council and its concepts of religious freedom and ecumenism.
The statement from the Secretariat of State said the society would have to recognize the teachings of Vatican II and of post-conciliar popes to be in full communion.
It said the four bishops at present do not have a canonical function in the church and "do not licitly exercise a ministry in the church."
The Vatican has emphasized that even after the removal of the excommunications remaining problems need to be resolved before full communion can be established with the society's leadership and members.
The Secretariat of State statement -- like a statement the previous day from the Vatican press spokesman, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi -- reiterated the German-born pope's remarks at his Jan. 28 audience, in which he recalled the suffering of Jews during World War II and said the Holocaust should stand as a "warning to everyone against forgetting, denying or minimizing" evil.
Father Lombardi said the pope's words at the general audience were "unequivocal."
The spokesman said the pope had spoken about the horror of the Holocaust in his 2005 visit to a German synagogue and in his 2006 visit to the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz. He said the papal statement at the Jan. 28 audience "could not have been clearer, and from the context it is apparent that it referred to the positions of Bishop Williamson and to all similar positions."
"On the same occasion, the pope also clearly expressed the reason for removing the excommunication, which has nothing to do with legitimizing positions denying the Holocaust -- positions which were clearly condemned by the pope," the spokesman said.
Father Lombardi's statement was released by the Vatican press office late the same day that German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the pope and the Vatican needed to make clear there could be no denial of the Holocaust.
At a news conference in Berlin Feb. 3, Merkel said she normally did not comment on church matters "but we are talking about fundamental questions."
"This is not just a matter, in my opinion, for the Christian, Catholic and Jewish communities in Germany, but the pope and the Vatican should clarify unambiguously that there can be no denial" of the Holocaust, she said.
On Jan. 21, the same day the pope lifted the excommunication, a Swedish television station aired a November interview with Bishop Williamson in which he repeated his position that the Holocaust had been exaggerated.
The papal decree lifting the excommunication was made public Jan. 24 and Jewish groups -- especially in Germany, the U.S. and Israel --expressed shock that the Vatican would lift the excommunication against Bishop Williamson even after his comments had been televised.
German Cardinal Walter Kasper, who coordinates the Vatican's dialogue with the Jews, said the controversy was fueled in part by a lack of communication within the Vatican and by "management errors in the Curia."
Cardinal Kasper said he has been following the unfolding controversy "with great concern."
He said the pope "wanted to open the discussion because he wanted unity inside and outside" the church. But the cardinal said he "would have also liked to see more communication in advance."
Vatican: Bishop's Holocaust statements 'strongly rejected' by pope
By John Thavis
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Vatican said a traditionalist bishop who has minimized the full extent of the Holocaust must disavow his positions before he will be accepted into full communion with the church.
A Vatican statement Feb. 4 said Pope Benedict XVI did not know about the controversial statements by British-born Bishop Richard Williamson when he lifted the excommunication of him and three other traditionalist bishops ordained illicitly in 1988.
"The positions of Bishop Williamson on the Holocaust are absolutely unacceptable and are strongly rejected by the Holy Father," the statement said.
In order to function as a bishop, Bishop Williamson must distance himself from his previous statements in "an absolutely unequivocal and public manner," the Vatican said.
In a statement meant to deflect the increasing public outcry over the papal decree lifting the excommunication, the Vatican said the decree did not change the juridical status of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, which still has no canonical recognition in the Catholic Church.
The society was founded by French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who also incurred automatic excommunication when he ordained the four bishops against papal orders. The society has not accepted the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council and its concepts of religious freedom and ecumenism.
The statement from the Secretariat of State said the society would have to recognize the teachings of Vatican II and of post-conciliar popes to be in full communion.
It said the four bishops at present do not have a canonical function in the church and "do not licitly exercise a ministry in the church."
The Vatican has emphasized that even after the removal of the excommunications remaining problems need to be resolved before full communion can be established with the society's leadership and members.
The Secretariat of State statement -- like a statement the previous day from the Vatican press spokesman, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi -- reiterated the German-born pope's remarks at his Jan. 28 audience, in which he recalled the suffering of Jews during World War II and said the Holocaust should stand as a "warning to everyone against forgetting, denying or minimizing" evil.
Father Lombardi said the pope's words at the general audience were "unequivocal."
The spokesman said the pope had spoken about the horror of the Holocaust in his 2005 visit to a German synagogue and in his 2006 visit to the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz. He said the papal statement at the Jan. 28 audience "could not have been clearer, and from the context it is apparent that it referred to the positions of Bishop Williamson and to all similar positions."
"On the same occasion, the pope also clearly expressed the reason for removing the excommunication, which has nothing to do with legitimizing positions denying the Holocaust -- positions which were clearly condemned by the pope," the spokesman said.
Father Lombardi's statement was released by the Vatican press office late the same day that German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the pope and the Vatican needed to make clear there could be no denial of the Holocaust.
At a news conference in Berlin Feb. 3, Merkel said she normally did not comment on church matters "but we are talking about fundamental questions."
"This is not just a matter, in my opinion, for the Christian, Catholic and Jewish communities in Germany, but the pope and the Vatican should clarify unambiguously that there can be no denial" of the Holocaust, she said.
On Jan. 21, the same day the pope lifted the excommunication, a Swedish television station aired a November interview with Bishop Williamson in which he repeated his position that the Holocaust had been exaggerated.
The papal decree lifting the excommunication was made public Jan. 24 and Jewish groups -- especially in Germany, the U.S. and Israel --expressed shock that the Vatican would lift the excommunication against Bishop Williamson even after his comments had been televised.
German Cardinal Walter Kasper, who coordinates the Vatican's dialogue with the Jews, said the controversy was fueled in part by a lack of communication within the Vatican and by "management errors in the Curia."
Cardinal Kasper said he has been following the unfolding controversy "with great concern."
He said the pope "wanted to open the discussion because he wanted unity inside and outside" the church. But the cardinal said he "would have also liked to see more communication in advance."
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has called on the Pope to clarify his positions on the Holocaust, most especially Holocaust denials, by lifting the excommunication of Bishop Richard Williamson a Bishop ordained by the Society of Pius X. As posted here, Williamson believes that the Nazis were 'only' responsible for the deaths of between 200,000 and 300,000 Jews during the Second World War and there was no gassing in the camps.
Merkel is incensed at the action of the German Pope and is demanding a clarification. This is all big time stuff as the leader of Germany is putting the Pope, a German citizen, in the position of clarifying an ethical position. It is also painfully obvious that the Pope is on the wrong side of this ethical position at the moment and his home country is incensed.
The Vatican, which generally has had the same famous openness as the Kremlin always did, is denying a problem and saying that the Pope's position is already clear.
I think not.
First, very tragically, in terms of ethical credibility, the Vatican's is low. Very low. This is the same Vatican that made Cardinal Law something of an ambassador in Vatican City (a sovereign nation) so he would not face charges on clergy sexual abuse coverups in Boston. This is a Vatican that turned a blind eye on years of sexual abuse by clergy inflicted on minors.
Secondly, there is that old adage about actions and words. The action of the Vatican, by lifting the excommication off of Williamson speaks far louder than any words spoken by the Pope or anyone else. When one considers that there are still huge questions that remain unanswered about Pius XII and the Holocaust, these current actions speak very, very loudly.
In one of those amazing moments in history, we are seeing the nation of Germany, led by Chancellor Merkel, take a very high road, demanding a world that recognizes the Holocaust and the evil that transpired during those terrible years. And, conversely, a Vatican turning a blind and denying eye on the events of history. Angela Merkel is taking the high road. The Pope, it appears, is hiding on the subway...
Merkel is incensed at the action of the German Pope and is demanding a clarification. This is all big time stuff as the leader of Germany is putting the Pope, a German citizen, in the position of clarifying an ethical position. It is also painfully obvious that the Pope is on the wrong side of this ethical position at the moment and his home country is incensed.
The Vatican, which generally has had the same famous openness as the Kremlin always did, is denying a problem and saying that the Pope's position is already clear.
I think not.
First, very tragically, in terms of ethical credibility, the Vatican's is low. Very low. This is the same Vatican that made Cardinal Law something of an ambassador in Vatican City (a sovereign nation) so he would not face charges on clergy sexual abuse coverups in Boston. This is a Vatican that turned a blind eye on years of sexual abuse by clergy inflicted on minors.
Secondly, there is that old adage about actions and words. The action of the Vatican, by lifting the excommication off of Williamson speaks far louder than any words spoken by the Pope or anyone else. When one considers that there are still huge questions that remain unanswered about Pius XII and the Holocaust, these current actions speak very, very loudly.
In one of those amazing moments in history, we are seeing the nation of Germany, led by Chancellor Merkel, take a very high road, demanding a world that recognizes the Holocaust and the evil that transpired during those terrible years. And, conversely, a Vatican turning a blind and denying eye on the events of history. Angela Merkel is taking the high road. The Pope, it appears, is hiding on the subway...
Rational Faith
One of the most pressing questions people have in regards to religious faith is this. Can faith be reasonable? By reasonable, my definition is in terms of this: Can a rational and reasonable person remain a rational and reasonable person and still have faith in God? As I like to consider myself to be a rational and reasonable person who has faith in God, my answer is obviously in the affirmative.
Having said this, the largest ‘religious’ growth group is that of people who do not have any faith in a supreme being or are highly skeptical. What is interesting is that in questioning people about their lack of faith the issue is often a lot less about an idea of God and a lot more on how religion is practiced. As people lose faith in religion they lose faith in God.
There are lots of good reasons to lose faith in religion. I have often felt that the best evangelists for atheism are Christians. This comes from several different directions.
The first direction is that many ‘believers’ make people of faith appear to be ignorant and unwilling to embrace science and or technological development. I sat, watching in amazement, that a person was explaining that modern science has proven that the world is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs and people lived side by side with each other in those days. The fact that this allegedly modern science is discounted by the vast majority of the scientific community which is actually almost speechless at hearing on how things were dated, seemed to have eluded the presenter. To be frank, this struck me as coming from the Fred Flintstone School of Science. I watched the television and found myself saying, “Dino, Daddy’s home!”
Modern day science and good theology are not incompatible. Bad theology and science, are, however. When people are continually confronted with a bad theological world view they will embrace Flintstone Science and make everyone who is a person of faith looks ignorant. Faith does not require being ignorant.
A second issue is this. People often confuse certitude with faith.
Faith, by its very definition, requires a step into the unknown and the unknowable. It requires that ‘leap of faith’ from reason to pure belief in something that cannot be proven. World religions are built on faith in a Supreme Being, not certitude. Certitude is something that can be proven, objectively, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Strong faith has a strong belief in something; but that strong belief cannot be proven. Anecdotal witnessing is wonderful and inspirational, but it proves very little other than the conviction of the person doing the witnessing.
When people of faith claim to ‘know’ God’s will, and ‘know’ what God has called them to do and that they ‘know’ God, they are not witnessing to faith. They are making claims of certitude and certitude (not doubt) is actually the opposite of faith. And, because they claim certitude, a certitude that they can only witness to, but never prove, they often repel people who are seeking.
A third point is this, and I’m using Christianity as an example. Christianity is not about politics. When people speak of religious voting blocks it is often a strange image considering that Christianity is founded on faith in Christ and the teachings of Jesus, and Jesus was remarkable apolitical.
Jesus’ ‘render unto Caesar’ moment was so interesting because Jesus demonstrated little to know interest in Caesar. His indifference to Caesar was readily apparent. Later, facing death, Jesus treated Pontius Pilate with complete indifference. In a day and age when people were looking for a leader to rise up against the Romans, Jesus was preaching about a Kingdom not of this world. In terms of morality, Jesus had two major topics. They were ill treatment of the impoverished and self-righteousness. Jesus found the self-righteousness of the crowd wanting to stone an adulterous woman to be significantly more appalling than the woman’s sex life. He did tell her to ‘sin no more,’ which means he acknowledged that she had done wrong, but her adultery was not the burning issue in his life.
In the conventions of the two major parties this past summer God was mentioned a lot. It appeared that both parties were running with God on their side. I strongly doubt that neither party would have ever thought of inviting Jesus to speak to their conventions because Jesus’ words to them might have peeled the pain off the walls of the hall or melted the stadium seats. Yet everyone wanted God on their side; a far easier claim with God in Heaven rather than on the floor...
Is faith rational? Yes. Within limits. Faith does require a leap into the unknown; but leaping into the unknown is not unreasonable. It only becomes unreasonable when we make it so.
Having said this, the largest ‘religious’ growth group is that of people who do not have any faith in a supreme being or are highly skeptical. What is interesting is that in questioning people about their lack of faith the issue is often a lot less about an idea of God and a lot more on how religion is practiced. As people lose faith in religion they lose faith in God.
There are lots of good reasons to lose faith in religion. I have often felt that the best evangelists for atheism are Christians. This comes from several different directions.
The first direction is that many ‘believers’ make people of faith appear to be ignorant and unwilling to embrace science and or technological development. I sat, watching in amazement, that a person was explaining that modern science has proven that the world is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs and people lived side by side with each other in those days. The fact that this allegedly modern science is discounted by the vast majority of the scientific community which is actually almost speechless at hearing on how things were dated, seemed to have eluded the presenter. To be frank, this struck me as coming from the Fred Flintstone School of Science. I watched the television and found myself saying, “Dino, Daddy’s home!”
Modern day science and good theology are not incompatible. Bad theology and science, are, however. When people are continually confronted with a bad theological world view they will embrace Flintstone Science and make everyone who is a person of faith looks ignorant. Faith does not require being ignorant.
A second issue is this. People often confuse certitude with faith.
Faith, by its very definition, requires a step into the unknown and the unknowable. It requires that ‘leap of faith’ from reason to pure belief in something that cannot be proven. World religions are built on faith in a Supreme Being, not certitude. Certitude is something that can be proven, objectively, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Strong faith has a strong belief in something; but that strong belief cannot be proven. Anecdotal witnessing is wonderful and inspirational, but it proves very little other than the conviction of the person doing the witnessing.
When people of faith claim to ‘know’ God’s will, and ‘know’ what God has called them to do and that they ‘know’ God, they are not witnessing to faith. They are making claims of certitude and certitude (not doubt) is actually the opposite of faith. And, because they claim certitude, a certitude that they can only witness to, but never prove, they often repel people who are seeking.
A third point is this, and I’m using Christianity as an example. Christianity is not about politics. When people speak of religious voting blocks it is often a strange image considering that Christianity is founded on faith in Christ and the teachings of Jesus, and Jesus was remarkable apolitical.
Jesus’ ‘render unto Caesar’ moment was so interesting because Jesus demonstrated little to know interest in Caesar. His indifference to Caesar was readily apparent. Later, facing death, Jesus treated Pontius Pilate with complete indifference. In a day and age when people were looking for a leader to rise up against the Romans, Jesus was preaching about a Kingdom not of this world. In terms of morality, Jesus had two major topics. They were ill treatment of the impoverished and self-righteousness. Jesus found the self-righteousness of the crowd wanting to stone an adulterous woman to be significantly more appalling than the woman’s sex life. He did tell her to ‘sin no more,’ which means he acknowledged that she had done wrong, but her adultery was not the burning issue in his life.
In the conventions of the two major parties this past summer God was mentioned a lot. It appeared that both parties were running with God on their side. I strongly doubt that neither party would have ever thought of inviting Jesus to speak to their conventions because Jesus’ words to them might have peeled the pain off the walls of the hall or melted the stadium seats. Yet everyone wanted God on their side; a far easier claim with God in Heaven rather than on the floor...
Is faith rational? Yes. Within limits. Faith does require a leap into the unknown; but leaping into the unknown is not unreasonable. It only becomes unreasonable when we make it so.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Beyond Boundaries: Sunday Sermon
Beyond Boundaries
Text: Mark 1:21-28
Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo
February 1, 2009
Every few years we United Church of Christ clergy attend an event called boundary training.
It is, on one level, a friendly reminder to us to not get engaged in improper behavior with members of the church. On the other hand, it often ends up being an adventure into telling pastors to keep their distance from the members of the church. After our last session I was afraid to smile at anyone from St. Marks. Well, that’s an exaggeration. A little. Ultimately there is a value of boundaries but there are certain areas when people are called to move beyond boundaries.
Mark tells us of a significant moment in Jesus’ ministry that moves not only beyond boundaries, but leaps over them in a single bound.
Jesus lived in an era and a culture of strict boundaries. In Judaism there was a boundary of clean/unclean, pure/impure. It was part of a greater cultural boundary of honor and shame.
Some passages require an insight into the ancient world and how world views differed from our’s.
The ancient world, the Middle East, Rome, and Greece, for example, lived on the premise of honor and shame. One did all they could to cultivate and live lives of honor; one avoided shame. Shame was the ultimate bad thing.
To give an example of this using modern times and that era.
If a person from that era was captured and given an option of having their fingernails removed forcibly, inflicting great pain upon them, or running down the street naked to humiliate them, they would choose the pain over the humiliation. There is honor in pain; shame in humiliation.
Most of us would not particular want to stroll down the street naked, but if we could avoid the pain, we’d do so. We are not a society that lives on the premise of honor and shame like they did.
There was a huge boundary between honor and shame. And, in particular to the Jewish culture of the era, that boundary was also about pure and impure, clean and unclean.
It starts with this. Jesus entered into a Synagogue. A Synagogue, like a church, was a sacred place, a place of Worship and prayer, a place where God dwelled in a special way.
Into this sacred place a man with an unclean spirit enters.
There was a proper response. Ignore the man and leave. He was unclean, he was impure, he was the personification of shame. He brought all that was filthy into the Synagogue and everyone was expected to depart----and come back another day to purify what the man defiled. The man was to be ignored and fled from. That was the rule.
Yet Jesus, instead of fleeing, instead of living within the boundaries of the times and traditions not only did not leave, he confronted the man and confronted the demons. In doing so he defies every boundary of his time and people.
The narrative continues:
What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God."
25 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out of him!"
The man, through the demons speak an Jesus tells them to shut up and compels the evil spirits out.
Jesus teaches us a couple of incredibly profound lessons on when it is a good thing to cross over boundaries.
The first one is this. Evil and impurity are not so much to be fled, but to be encountered with goodness. The way to combat evil is to be better than it and confront it.
One of the hallmark differences between good ane evil is that evil seeks to divide people and good seems to always try to unite people.
Adolf Hitler taught hate by division. Love people like you; hate those not like you. Josef Stalin did likewise. Charles Manson did the same thing. Osama Bin Laden does the same thing. People who are like this are good; people who are like that are evil. Create labels and division and create large boundaries to maintain that separation.
Goodness does otherwise. People who strive to do good seek to unite people. They put labels aside and speak to everyone. They confront evil by attempting to lower the boundaries and by trying to be above that which is evil. Jesus’s goodness was always so present in breaching the boundaries and in John’s Gospel when his prayer is that all may be one....words of great goodness and grace.
The second thing is this. We are challenged to recognize that many boundaries are artificial and need to be crossed.
There is a legend about Merlin teaching the young Arthur about boundaries. Merlin turns Arthur into a hawk:
From the earth, Merlin shouts to Arthur, “What do you see?”
Arthur shouts back, “I see rivers and trees.”
“No,” an irritated Merlin responds and repeats his question. “What do you see?”
“I see villages and...”
“Come down,” orders Merlin. Arthur, the hawk, returns to earth and becomes Arthur, the young boy. Merlin tells him, “Someday you will know what you saw.”
The theologian John Shea tells us that the day that Arthur knew what he saw was the day Camelot died. He realized what he had seen was a world without boundaries, limitless possibilities. It wasn’t until the dream died and new boundaries were in place, that he realized what he had seen.
St. Paul wrote in Galatians:
There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
The words of St. Paul are these. In Christ, there are no limits, there are no boundaries. In Christ, the power of God’s love is a power without any limits on it. Those boundaries, those limits are usually created by us, but never God.
Truth be told, I live most of my life with a sense of boundaries and I actually do see a great deal of value in the boundary training we receive. Some of it is, frankly, silly, but much of it is very valid and important. There are boundaries that we all do live by and those boundaries are appropriate and good.
We are reminded, however, that God has no boundaries in His love for us. God will confront anything evil, anything impure, anything unjust with great power, great goodness, and great love. And invites us to do likewise.
Jesus confronts demons in the most unlikely place, the most sacred space, freeing those around him from the boundaries of hatred and the darkness of despair, and inviting everyone into a world of love filled with the light of Christ.
Text: Mark 1:21-28
Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo
February 1, 2009
Every few years we United Church of Christ clergy attend an event called boundary training.
It is, on one level, a friendly reminder to us to not get engaged in improper behavior with members of the church. On the other hand, it often ends up being an adventure into telling pastors to keep their distance from the members of the church. After our last session I was afraid to smile at anyone from St. Marks. Well, that’s an exaggeration. A little. Ultimately there is a value of boundaries but there are certain areas when people are called to move beyond boundaries.
Mark tells us of a significant moment in Jesus’ ministry that moves not only beyond boundaries, but leaps over them in a single bound.
Jesus lived in an era and a culture of strict boundaries. In Judaism there was a boundary of clean/unclean, pure/impure. It was part of a greater cultural boundary of honor and shame.
Some passages require an insight into the ancient world and how world views differed from our’s.
The ancient world, the Middle East, Rome, and Greece, for example, lived on the premise of honor and shame. One did all they could to cultivate and live lives of honor; one avoided shame. Shame was the ultimate bad thing.
To give an example of this using modern times and that era.
If a person from that era was captured and given an option of having their fingernails removed forcibly, inflicting great pain upon them, or running down the street naked to humiliate them, they would choose the pain over the humiliation. There is honor in pain; shame in humiliation.
Most of us would not particular want to stroll down the street naked, but if we could avoid the pain, we’d do so. We are not a society that lives on the premise of honor and shame like they did.
There was a huge boundary between honor and shame. And, in particular to the Jewish culture of the era, that boundary was also about pure and impure, clean and unclean.
It starts with this. Jesus entered into a Synagogue. A Synagogue, like a church, was a sacred place, a place of Worship and prayer, a place where God dwelled in a special way.
Into this sacred place a man with an unclean spirit enters.
There was a proper response. Ignore the man and leave. He was unclean, he was impure, he was the personification of shame. He brought all that was filthy into the Synagogue and everyone was expected to depart----and come back another day to purify what the man defiled. The man was to be ignored and fled from. That was the rule.
Yet Jesus, instead of fleeing, instead of living within the boundaries of the times and traditions not only did not leave, he confronted the man and confronted the demons. In doing so he defies every boundary of his time and people.
The narrative continues:
What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God."
25 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out of him!"
The man, through the demons speak an Jesus tells them to shut up and compels the evil spirits out.
Jesus teaches us a couple of incredibly profound lessons on when it is a good thing to cross over boundaries.
The first one is this. Evil and impurity are not so much to be fled, but to be encountered with goodness. The way to combat evil is to be better than it and confront it.
One of the hallmark differences between good ane evil is that evil seeks to divide people and good seems to always try to unite people.
Adolf Hitler taught hate by division. Love people like you; hate those not like you. Josef Stalin did likewise. Charles Manson did the same thing. Osama Bin Laden does the same thing. People who are like this are good; people who are like that are evil. Create labels and division and create large boundaries to maintain that separation.
Goodness does otherwise. People who strive to do good seek to unite people. They put labels aside and speak to everyone. They confront evil by attempting to lower the boundaries and by trying to be above that which is evil. Jesus’s goodness was always so present in breaching the boundaries and in John’s Gospel when his prayer is that all may be one....words of great goodness and grace.
The second thing is this. We are challenged to recognize that many boundaries are artificial and need to be crossed.
There is a legend about Merlin teaching the young Arthur about boundaries. Merlin turns Arthur into a hawk:
From the earth, Merlin shouts to Arthur, “What do you see?”
Arthur shouts back, “I see rivers and trees.”
“No,” an irritated Merlin responds and repeats his question. “What do you see?”
“I see villages and...”
“Come down,” orders Merlin. Arthur, the hawk, returns to earth and becomes Arthur, the young boy. Merlin tells him, “Someday you will know what you saw.”
The theologian John Shea tells us that the day that Arthur knew what he saw was the day Camelot died. He realized what he had seen was a world without boundaries, limitless possibilities. It wasn’t until the dream died and new boundaries were in place, that he realized what he had seen.
St. Paul wrote in Galatians:
There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
The words of St. Paul are these. In Christ, there are no limits, there are no boundaries. In Christ, the power of God’s love is a power without any limits on it. Those boundaries, those limits are usually created by us, but never God.
Truth be told, I live most of my life with a sense of boundaries and I actually do see a great deal of value in the boundary training we receive. Some of it is, frankly, silly, but much of it is very valid and important. There are boundaries that we all do live by and those boundaries are appropriate and good.
We are reminded, however, that God has no boundaries in His love for us. God will confront anything evil, anything impure, anything unjust with great power, great goodness, and great love. And invites us to do likewise.
Jesus confronts demons in the most unlikely place, the most sacred space, freeing those around him from the boundaries of hatred and the darkness of despair, and inviting everyone into a world of love filled with the light of Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)