My Account

France Bans Public Prayer

2011-09-17T06:14:00.000-07:00

http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2011/sep/16/french-minister-vows-enforce-law-banning-prayer-ou-ar-1399285/

Yesterday I learned that France has banned public prayer - prayer on the streets. Although I don't know the implication of the laws for Jews and Christians (or any religion who finds it acceptable to pray quietly or standing up), this law appears to mostly apply to the Muslim population who spread out mats and bow down on the sidewalk to pray.

This law comes after a string of laws in the last decade aimed at curbing religion in "secular" France. At first the French government took on a role similar to our ACLU - trying to seek out and destroy all religious images that appeared in any "public" setting (read: no crosses at school). In this step they outlawed headscarves that Muslim women wear, but in April they tightened the ban on headscarves to be any where in public at all (as opposed to a public state-run institution).

Although the growing Muslim population in France appears to be the main target of such laws, as Christians and lovers of freedom, it is our responsibility to take a critical look at what is happening over the sea. Of course, I have two main questions when I see these new laws:
1. When are the laws going to crack down on Christian practices? (Like, when will they force any religious institution out of the country or keep people from going to church)
2. Laws like these targeting a religious group appear eerily similar to laws the Germans used to target the Jews. It has been less than a century since World War II. Does no one else notice the similarities? (By the way - even Germany itself has been issuing disturbing comments about its Muslim population).

Of course, disturbing to me as this law is, I find almost more disturbing the comments I read about it - comments mostly made by Americans. (Note: I read an article yesterday that was not the link I posted. When I posted the link, there were no comments on that particular article.) I'd like to address those comments here because I think that people in the free world need a splash of cold water in the face to see that something like this happening in France is to be pitied not emulated.

First of all, a popular and apparently reasonable comment was that the pray-ers were taking up city space and sidewalk space. This comment doesn't appear to be malicious towards religion but applauding the practicality of the law. However, even this reasonable comment deserves attention. Here in America I have seen many instances where large groups of people take up sidewalk space for various reasons. We allow protesters and people who pray outside of abortion clinics. We have TV's in public where people may gather if there is breaking news. Funeral processions are led through the streets by police, slowing down traffice. And if there was overflow at a church because of a popular speaker, wedding, or funeral, I have no doubt people would be standing in the streets. Now, we have some ordinances, like in the case of people praying at abortion clinics, that people cannot block sidewalks or loiter. And common decency dictates that you try to stay out of the way. But if France had issued an ordinance saying you cannot block a sidewalk when you pray it would be different than banning praying in public. Some pictures I saw showed the pray-ers crowded into an alley with cars, filling the alley up. Now, if those cars were not theirs this does present a problem, but we don't know all the facts. Perhaps they drove the cars to the mosque. Perhaps they jump up and get out of the way when the car owner comes back. If they are not blocking the car's way, I see no problem with their praying in the alley.

Another comment that popped up was that there are similar laws in many Muslim countries that target Christians. While that is the case, it doesn't seem to stand to reason that non-Muslim countries must be equally as brutal. What ever happened to turning the other cheek? We must protect the freedoms of the people we disagree with as well as the people we agree with. How will Muslims come to know Christian love if we prevent them from practicing their religion? This is perhaps the touchiest part of the issue for me. We have heard for years about theocracies in Muslim countries and dictatorships in the middle east. I disagree with their government and the burdens they place on their people. But when we talk about France we are talking about a democracy - an ally of the United States - that at least pretends to advocate freedom. Further, when people in the United States show support for such policies, they are undermining our own Constitution which protects freedom of religion! We cannot force freedoms in other countries, but we can protect them in our own.

The last set of comments were usually the most mean-spirited. You know those commentators who sprinkle their comments with cuss words and crudities? People who write comments like these usually use arguments that imply you are an idiot if you disagree. In the case of this article, the comments tended to be along the lines of, "Religion is stupid for anyone," "Islam should not force people to pray," "The Muslims are trying to force their religion on me," and "I get so disgusted when I see those people praying - I should not have to see that."

As to comments like the first two I listed, who is anyone to judge what another religion teaches? We can disagree as reasonable people without resorting to insults. But it is the second two comments that were more common and more disturbing. We already have a group of people in America who think that someone practicing his religion is the same as that person forcing his religion on someone else. But there is no force. The observer isn't even technically forced to see it. He can see someone praying and walk the other way. But if he chooses to watch, that does not mean he is being forced into the religion itself. Perhaps it is the inner workings of his own heart that make him so adverse to public displays of religion. The self-described atheist may feel as though he's missing the poing of something higher than himself. A religion that has high moral values - such as modest dress, temperance, charity, and self-control - may threaten his way of living for the moment. Still, this is not forcing anything upon him. And, of course, those of us in other religions should watch out - Muslims are in the spotlight now. How long until it is Christians?

Besides, what about religious people who have atheistic ideas "forced" on them? The morals of atheism are much more prevalent and forceful in today's society than any display of prayer or religious artwork. For instance, on movies and TV we see immoral behavior and are told to accept it. People dress in immodest clothing in broad daylight. News organizations and schools teach a science that leaves no room for God. Is this not forcing atheistic ideas on us? I find these trends more disturbing than seeing someone bow down for prayer, even if it is a different religion than I practice.

One more item. I have heard a lot of support in America for banning headscarves, and I disagree with these laws as I do with the law banning prayer. But the reason most Americans support the law is because they feel the headscarves are demeaning to women and "we have moved past that." But who are we to judge a woman's religion? While it is true, I am sure, that some women in this culture do not choose to wear the scarf of their own free will, most do. Most consider it a sign of obedience and modesty. I look at anti-headscarf laws as I would look at a law that said all women must wear short skirts and bikinis in public. I would be upset and threatened if I was told I could not dress modestly - and it would keep me indoors. Laws against headscarves in public could keep many educated Muslim women from pursuing careers and leading otherwise normal lives, simply because they believe strongly in their sense of modesty! Religion and culture are interwined, and it is true that many of these women grew up learning about the codes of dress in their religion. But that does not make them brainwashed any more than any Christian, Jew, or Buddhist is brainwashed by his parents. Once we are adults, we are all free to choose whether to continue in the religion of our parents or move on to something else.

Overall, I think Americans need to take a look at this law and consider how they would like it applied to themselves. As Christians we should stand with the Muslim community on this one, before the tables turn and the government comes after us. As Americans of all religions - including atheists - we should consider our freedoms - free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion - and know that one day each of us will be in the minority. We will all, at one time or another, have an unpopular view. We protect our freedoms not because we all like each other and like to listen to each others thoughts. We protect them because it is the right thing to do.

The Boycott

2011-03-06T17:09:00.000-08:00

It's kind of funny how the world works. A few weeks ago, almost by accident, I discovered that a company that is near-vital to my current life situation, one that I do business on a regular basis, one whose competitors don't hold a candle to, donates money to Planned Parenthood (PP).

I had been aware that there is a group of pro-life activists out there who research PP donors and boycott them. (Their website is www.fightpp.org) But the list is locked down and must be purchased, and so I never got involved. I could claim ignorance before. I cannot now. And in learning about this company, I learned about more - one which, though less vital to my current existence, turned my stomach. And so I purchased the list. (Some are turned off by the requirement to purchase the list but I can justify the organization's reasons - not only do they use the money to fund their research and campaign, purchasing shows that you have a greater commitment to the boycott, which I will explain below).

My list arrived in the mail and was easy to read. I quickly ran through it and highlighted companies that I do, did, or would reasonably expect to do, business with. There was also a list of "dishonorable mentions" - not-for-profit groups that also donated money to PP (who would have guessed that when you "donate" these groups just redirect your funds for you). It also included a schedule for me - it had divided people who subscribe to the list into categories, and we are all asked to write letters to different companies on a weekly basis. I see the value in this idea - that way the company is always being reminded. However, I wasn't sure what to do with the list - many of the companies on my schedule were those I did not do business with. Without being slightly dishonest, threatening to boycott a company I would never normally buy from doesn't seem to be much help.

The list also promises to update me on new additions and, more importantly, subtractions. For instance, Mrs. Fields and Kohl's have recently been removed from the list. It is important to know so that we can - and even should - begin buying from these companies again. They are the prodigals! Although I like Kohl's, and although JCPenny's and Sears (as far as I know) were never even on the list, I should favor Kohl's in my shopping now so that they can see the difference the end of the boycott made. On the other hand - we don't want to accidentally send a letter to a company that is no longer supporting PP.

Anyway, I have some observations about how this boycott thing works, I'd like to write about because I find it interesting. I would like to devote some time to the companies themselves and their replies - if any - but only on my Pro Life page. The reason is that I think we have a responsibility to boycott these companies, even if we don't write letters, because of where the money goes, I know that if someone finds out a company name and then ignores the information, then they have a conscience issue - so that is why I will only write the names on the other page.

Writing these companies is a unique and paradoxical activity. First of all, there is the challenge of pointing out how incredibly disappointed I am, while still being polite. But also, I want to be (honestly) complimentary toward the organization. Essentially my message is this - I love your product and always have. I appreciate your desire to give back to the community, but I don't agree with how you are doing it. When you stop, I will buy your products again, and even go out of my way to do so.

As I mentioned above, some of these companies are very hard to boycott. For some, it is a mental, emotional, or financial boycott. I couldn't believe that family organization was on that list! That company's competitor is so expensive and has terrible service! But then you have to think, "Am I willing to pay for abortions? How many babies am I willing to kill to save money?" But other companies are almost impossible to boycott! There is a company on this list that is so ingrained in every day life, that it would almost be like boycotting water! (Another reason I don't give out names - if it's unavoidable, how can you live with the guilt). Some companies are those that I would never buy the product, but I find myself using at work (software - for some reason there are a lot of software companies). Others are media outlets, such that I never actually give them any money - they make all their money from advertisers but depend on ratings. So how do I know if I am contributing to their ratings?

What I have found is that setting ground rules is essential. For instance, I only boycott the actual company, not those that sell the products. For instance, Wal-Mart is a major retailer, and it carries a lot of these products because they are popular with customers and because it offers choice. At this time, I choose not to boycott Wal-Mart because they are not on the list, and that is a good thing. In the same way, if I am boycotting a television network, I am not going to flat-out boycott everyone who advertises on that channel. Or boycott a company who donates to a charity that donates to PP.

Another ground rule is about how to treat the company you work for. Most of us don't have enough power in our company to make decisions like charities to donate to, although we can always try to influence from the inside. One website I went to said not to quit your job if you're company is on the list, unless you are a revenue producer. I slightly disagree. I would attempt a few times to change policy from the inside, while looking for a new job in the mean time. But there are other issues with your work place - like I mentioned before, software. I can't change what software my company uses, nor can I decide which office supplies we buy. I can still write letters, but I have no actual power behind the letters.

I have decided, whenever a charity on the list asks for money, that I will donate money to a charity not on the list - and then I can write the charity and show them my choice.

So far I have been lucky to not have to make life or death decisions based on this. I don't take any regular pharmaceutical drugs, but many pharmaceutical companies are on this list, and many make unique life-sustaining drugs! I honestly don't know how I would handle this ethical dilemma, except I think I would ask my doctor if there was anything even close that another manufacturer made. But these situations make the company's position even more disturbing - it is as if they are holding you hostage to help pay for PP, just as we are forced to pay taxes which go to PP as well.

Some companies are such that their presence on the list doesn't surprise me, and I don't think we CAN make much of a difference - even economically. Maybe they sell "adult products." Maybe their CEO is a known advocate of population control or other liberal type agendas. Some sell pregnancy tests, which can be used by PP but also by pregnancy crisis centers - they are a product for both. We can still boycott the company due to ethical reasons, but it may never make a difference because they see their donations as in-line with their business model. I just learned also that many of these companies are based in Europe - where the abortion mentality has been ingrained much longer than in the U.S.

While I am alarmed at sickened at some of the companies on the list (so-called "family" companies), I am also surprised at some NOT on the list. Not that I'm complaining. The biggest surprise is animal oriented companies and charities (I don't remember seeing the Humane Society). As I said, I'm not complaining, and I think it shows that most companies have better charities to donate to - PetSmart, for instance, would be donating to the Humane Society and not bothering about PP. But I also know some very strong pro-animal and pro-environment people are also for population control, and I can see the connection. It comes down to, "Love animals, hate humans." But that is not what I see on the list, so I like that.

This is a very serious boycott, and I have already found times when it is difficult to follow - but I do. It makes me think about other types of boycotts - some people boycott non-green companies, companies that use sweatshops, or non-American companies. Such morality based boycotts are hard - they consume every aspect of our life, and we have to trust God to take care of us if we have to make difficult or financially insecure decisions. Still, I have do to what I have to do - and I hope that very soon I can report a company coming off the list!

Social Media

2011-03-05T05:54:00.000-08:00

"Kids these days just don't know how to communicate." Even as my parents' generation begins to embrace social media outlets, they still bombard me with cliches like this. I most recently heard this when both my cell phone carrier and my dad berated me for emailing tech support rather than calling them.

I saw email as a more convenient way of fixing my problem - explain the problem, wait for a reply, and follow the steps outlined. I could still go about my business without inevitably waiting on hold for hours and then talking to someone with a heavy accent. (To be fair - I later had to call the customer service line and with the exception of the lady judging me for initially emailing, the service was quick and understandable). My dad saw my choice of email as an attempt to avoid personal contact.

There is certainly a generational problem here. My general philosophy is, "If I cannot do it via the internet it's not worth doing." What I mean by that is, if I need to purchase something, ask for help, look for directions, addresses, or phone numbers, or even look at a restaurant menu, I would rather be able to do it online. Obviously that doesn't mean I hole myself up in my house and never leave. But like many in my generation, I have found the internet useful for conveniently placing help requests, searching for the best price, and making purchases without in-your-face salesmen trying to get me to upgrade (the popups do that for me).

Whether this strategy is right or wrong, it is the way of the future.

Further, people in my parents' generation don't like social media. They see it as inferior to real life interactions - including telephone. I suppose they never stop to think that telephone itself is a form of social media that has evovled. It is true we are social people - we have a real need for interaction and that includes physical touch and presence. Having a cell phone, email, and facebook at my disposal allows me to keep in touch with people I would otherwise lose track of. It allowed me to not go crazy from loneliness when travelling on the road. Not only is it "good enough" when you are physically unable to connect with friends and family, it is a great tool to facilitate those meetings when they do happen.

In other words, I don't think our generation has a problem communicating at all. Okay, so, "What r u up 2?" may fly in the face of all grammar nuts out there (like myself, actually). But if kids actually think that these are correct spellings, that is a failing of the education system, not social media. (Further, language DOES evolve - words are created to reflect the language of the day, and in some cases grammer can be revised to reflect popular useage). Instead, people are communicating much as ever. We are just using different methods.

Another objection is the TMI aspect of social media. This is an objection to WHAT we communicate. But we must remember, again, that what we say also evolves. Our general style of speaking to each other has become less formal over the ages. Even before we could post TMI on facebook, we tended towards announcing it to our friends, family, and coworkers in person. This TMI comes in forms such as facebook status updates and blogs. The former I tend to see as a mini-creativity festival. Can you say something quirky and funny to amuse your friends and semi-friend? The latter is a great way to express your opinions, whether people read them or not, or to stay in touch with friends and family long distance ("Today little Millie took her first steps, see the photos!"). Those who tend to be crude or too-open in real life will tend toward the same on the internet, and those with standards will continue to hold them.

In other words, I think that people complaining about the mass usage of social media are comparable to people complaining that we don't know how to write in cursive or ride horses anymore. While I don't think face-to-face conversations will ever go out of style, complaining about the method we use to communicate seems to be akin to complaining about progress in general. Ultimately each generation will choose its outlet, and the generations before and after will wonder at it!

On a similar note, social media etiquette seems to be a point of contention as well. Frankly, it seems I have bad cell phone etiquette. I guess you are not supposed to talk while walking down the street or in any public place. I am sorry, but that's the very reason I have a cell phone - to be able to have a conversation with someone when I normally would not. I'd like to know who has determined what is and is not rude when it comes to cell phones. It seems to me that the cell phone users tend to break "all the rules," which means the rules need changed. In other words, many of the so-called cell phone etiquette rules seem to have been set up by those who don't use cell phones.

Now, I agree some places are just too much - like restaurants. But no cell phones in public at all? I live alone and am alone much of the time. Although I would like that to change, I cannot live in perfect isolation. Many times that I find myself on the cell phone when people would prefer I not be, it is because I am in a place where people have companions. At the grocery store or in the cafeteria, people are enjoying conversations with real-life friends or coworkers. But I have none with me at the time, so what is so wrong about enjoying a conversation with a friend who is not there? In other words, the only difference between those who are "polite" and "impolite" is whether the person they are talking to is there physically or not.

And I am not sure why talking on a phone while walking down the street would offend anyone. It is the same concept as above. I am not one to just enjoy exercise because I can - and so I like to take walks and talk to people. When I cannot have a real person because of distance or scheduling issues, then I call a friend or family member to talk to. A walk down the street by myself without anyone to talk to would bore me to tears and become real work at that point.

In other words, I think that those who use the social media should set the standards. If a group of teenagers are sitting at a table texting while eating dinner and none are offended, then perhaps we should see that as the new norm - for the future generation. Granted, texting while eating dinner with grandma would be considered rude. But those who are actually using the product do not take offense.

And my final point is about instant gratification. It is true, we are too connected. Just like I refuse to take a walk without being "entertained" (because that is really the heart of it), many of us cannot go for extended periods of time without being connected. While I don't know if this is good or bad in itself, it can lead to an instant gratification mindset, which can be dangerous if we allow ourselves to be instantly gratified in other ways. In other words, it is good to force ourselves to take breaks from social media and cell phones - even me - in order to teach ourselves discipline. But to have discipline taught to us by an older generation who never exercised such discipline themselves (their self-gratification was lower tech but existed nonetheless) is a little demeaning.

So the point is - stop judging old men! You can join the social media train or not, but don't pretend that it is somehow inferior to the communication methods of the past. Like any form of communication, it is only as good as its users. And, since apples don't fall far from their trees, if you have a problem with the users, you might want to consider exactly why that is.

Unbelieveable

2011-03-01T16:41:00.000-08:00

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/House-GOP-Lists-25-Trillion-usnews-2718863982.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

Here is a link that should make every American angry. Some of us believe in more government spending than others, but a listing like that on this link, and those listed below, is enough to drive anyone mad. We may each have our own pet projects on this list that we like, but as a whole, every single one of these items should be scrapped. It is my hope that a large portion of these ideas are put into place.

"Stimulus" Repeal: Eliminate all remaining "stimulus" funding. $45 billion total savings. - This makes sense. Many governments try to squeeze everything they can out of a budget in order to be given the same or larger budget the next year, which creates waste. Not just the stimulus, but all projects should be accountable to unused funds.

Eliminate federal control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. $30 billion total savings. - Any federal organization that operates as a business, collecting fees and such, should be expected to survive on its own. The Post Office and the Federal Reserve both operate outside of the US Budget. Not to mention the incredible problems both these organizations have caused our country in the last several years.

Repeal the Medicaid FMAP increase in the "State Bailout" (Senate amendments to S. 1586). $16.1 billion total savings. - This is one of those items that people would probably scream over. However, consider this. States have to balance their budgets (just look at what's going on in Wisconsin), but the Federal Government has TRILLIONS of dollars in debt. Would it not be better to allow each state to handle the replacement of these federal funds in the way it sees fit? They can raise taxes or cut expenses, but it would be their ultimate choice. Further, budget conscious states would not have to shoulder the burden for states that require more hefty federal assistance.

More than 100 specific program eliminations and spending reductions listed below: $330 billion savings over ten years (included in above discretionary savings figure).

Here is the full list of cuts:

Additional Program Eliminations/Spending Reforms

Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings. - Public broadcasting utilizes a combination of Federal funds and donations (and corporate funds) to operate. So why do we even need tax dollars to go here? Make it compete on the market - I am sure there are tons of corporations willing to donate in order to have their name mentioned once or twice. Further, is it really so wrong to have advertisements on these stations?

Save America's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.

International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings. - Why are we giving money to Ireland? I just watched a web broadcast about taxes in Ireland, and to hear Ireland tell the story, they are doing great! Why would we just ship money over there if we are the ones with huge debt problems? Why not just use this money to incentivize corporations to repatriate to America? I have a lot of respect for the Irish, and because of that respect, I really don't see Ireland as a country that needs our charity.

Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.

National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings. - Frankly, I think that arts should have to stand on their own. Who says what art is, anyway? There seems to be a mindset that people will not buy the great art and it needs to be subsidized. But by that definition, is not "art" just anything crummy enough that no one wants it? I think that "art" is something that I would be willing to PAY FOR and hang up in my living room. Further, this money sometimes goes toward creations that are just sick - remember Piss Jesus? The picture of a crucifix in urine? No one's tax dollars should have to go to that.

National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings. - Doe anyone even know what this is?

Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.

Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings. - Once again, a corporation should survive on its own. The airlines are constantly struggling to turn a profit, and we don't bail them out.

Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually. - Preposterous! 68 duplicative education programs! We spend so much money on education, and no one thought to check to see if the job was already being done?!

U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.

Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.

Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings. - Congress going green! I say cut it by 75%. (Admit it, they need notepads to doodle on and play hangman while people are debating on the floor).

John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.

Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.

Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.

Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings. - Again, I would say cut this even more. I would make states pay for any travel expenses incurred by their representatives. Senator Moran, I am happy that you were elected, and I love it that you like Kansas so much that you want to come back every weekend. But if you expect me to pay for it - and for people in other states to pay for it - then you are mistaken. By all means, stay the weekend in D.C!

Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.

Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.

Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.

Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.

Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.

Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings. - What does that even mean? I am picturing people wheeling sand onto beaches in a constant but futile effort to keep the beach from eroding away.

New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.

Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings.

Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings. - See, this is an item I could get behind in certain circumstances. Start-up costs for rail programs are beyond most mid-size city budgets. But at the same time, how could this be done that is fair to the states? Why should people in Wyoming subsidize a high speed rail in Kansas City? Cities do have bonds for these types of things.

Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings. - I wanted to find out what this was, so I googled it, of course. I was taken to the "Office of Population Affairs." Another national committee of some sort that I have never heard about. Why not defund that while we are at it? So I usedc their search engine to find a "family planning" center "near me." Sure enough - Planned Parenthood. This is just despicable - federal money being used for abortion providers. The House actually did just pass the budget that defunds Planned Parenthood, and we will see if it passes the Senate.

Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.

Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.

Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.

Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.

FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.

Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.

Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually. - This may be an item we cannot do without, given the recent regime change in Egypt. However, assistance to foreign countries should be given carefully and following the Bush protocol. That is, the purpose should be to create allies and prevent terrorists and promote freedom. Also, specific goals should be set as to how to use the money, and there should be accountability with the receiving government.

U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.

General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings. - I think D.C. should be able to raise money the way any other city would. The fact that the Federal Government operates there should not stop this. In fact, it should help - D.C. could levy a property tax on the White House! All the monuments should fall under national park service jurisdiction. Tourism and business travel should provide nice streams of revenue.

Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings. - See above.

Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.

No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.

End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services. - Was not this supposed to end when Obama took office?

Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.

IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.

Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings. - THAT should outrage every honest taxpayer in America!

Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years. - We are seeing this in Wisconsin now. Taxpayers pay union workers, who are required by the union to fork over a portion of their salaries in dues, which are then funneled to political candidates for their campaigns. Many good, honest, union workers disagree with the ideology of the people their dues go to elect, and at least half of the rest of Americans don't like the idea of their taxes becoming free campaign money for the "other side."

Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.

Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.

Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings. - Say what?

Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.

Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.

USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.

Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.

Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings. - Once again, let's think about the free market here. If the FDA can create a certain type of ruling on what an organic item is, then companies can and will find ways to fit the description. Customers who are organic-happy are already willing to pay a premium for organic food, so if the organization that labels the food as organic has to be a real business, so be it. Organic food prices may go up, but that is the choice of the consumer.

Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.

Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings.

One final note - the fact that most people don't recognize most of these items is a huge red flag. It means that:

1. They are not working - if they were working, we would have heard of them. Everyone knows what the U.S. Military or Customs is.

2. They are helping a very small, obscure subset of the population or a special interest group.

3. They are complementing or doubling up on other efforts already in place, including established charities, business, and other government programs.

Read the list again, and if you think you can live without even half these programs, I think it's worth considering dropping them all. We can alwas re-fund special programs, but we can do it this time in a reasonable manner! Let's get realistic with the national budget.

One more thing - crying about the fact that these cuts are a drop in the bucket does not mean that this spending is responsible! Yes, we need to address entitlement programs, but we also need to clean up our own budgets. I cannot imagine having this many wasteful, useless items on my personal budget - why do we want our tax dollars being put to such use?

Conscience Clauses

2011-02-25T20:20:00.000-08:00

Conscience Protections

Last Friday the Obama Administration, through Health and Human Services, eliminated important conscience protection laws that provided healthcare workers with protection from employment discrimination if they chose not to dispense or prescribe for abortion drugs or contraceptives. This sudden change is a dangerous step towards outright religious discrimination in this country, and comes from an administration that fights religious viewpoints and Americans ability to express them at every turn.

I thought a lot about conscience protection clauses since hearing the news. It's a complicated piece of work, and in short I think the courts should enforce religious freedom as defined in the constitution - that government can't legislate religion.

But just to mention the complexity, think of a few examples where religious freedom is NOT protected.

The movie Sergeant York is based on a real-life man who wishes to sit out of World War I because he has read the Bible and found it to say that "killin'" is wrong. After a review of his case, he is told to fight anyway, and he goes on to be a war hero as he uses his sharp shooting skills to save his platoon. One reason that York's case is rejected, I believe, is that thousands - millions even - of other Christians have read the same Bible and still engaged in killin'.

This is a kink in conscience protection clauses. For instance, if York had been a member of a notably pacifist church like the Quakers, would his case have been accepted? His story shows the importance of courts deciding cases rather than laws legislating. If the answer to my last question was "yes," then draft-dodgers could say they had joined the Quaker church. On the other hand, if it is "no" then it opens up the door for Quakers to be drafted into armed service. A court is able to look at individual circumstances and try and judge the heart of the person who is conscientiously objecting.

In the terms of a Health Care worker, would a Protestant refusing to dispense birth control be afforded the same protections as a Catholic? I am not aware of any Protestant churches that have an official stance against birth control. The new law protects mainstream Protestants, most of whom object to abortion but not to birth control. Frankly, the legislation is a major blow to Catholics and Mormons who wish to work in the health care field, as they are the only organized religions I am aware of who have moral objections to birth control.

Another question is the extremity to which the religious views interfere with the job. A muslim who has to pray five times a day may not be able to carry out a job that requires continual alertness, such as being a policeman (remember the scene in Robin Hood where Robin Hood was being attacked while his friend prayed?) or an air traffic controller (although breaks could be scheduled with due replacements during these times) or even a surgeon (I have heard of surgeries taking hours upon hours). But when reasonable, these requests should be accomodated.

When I worked in public accounting, religion was interesting. At training we had Mormons - who cannot work Sunday and Hasidic Jews. The Jews could not work Saturdays, and could not engage in the training that was scheduled for that day. They were accomodated. Both groups - the Mormons and Jews - could not work one day a week in an industry that required 6 - 7 day weeks. I always wondered about it. They were not officially discriminated against, but in a way, they could have been. My teams always chose to work Saturday and take Sunday off. If there was only one Jew on the team, what would have happened? The Jew could have been isolated by his choice to work Sunday instead. Further, during intensely busy times, the firm would have to honor the religious person's need to have a day off, but resentment would be created among the team. Work would not get done. Deadlines may even not get met. There is no way the company could fire these people for their religious beliefs, but I also do not doubt that these traditions put a strain on both the religious people involved as well as their managers.

More hypotheticals: Let's say I was asked to audit a company that performs embryonic stem cell research. Our office actually had a client like this. I would conscientiously sit out. I don't think my firm could punish me for that. On the other hand, if I were to have interviewed with a smaller accounting firm who told me, "We do work with primarily two clients - Planned Parenthood and an embryonic stem cell research lab. The rest of our clients are small. Most people end up on one of the large clients." If I took the job and then insisted on having only the smaller clients, it would be difficult to believe I actually had a religious problem with the clients, and my client preferences would get in the way of my job.

I mention this because the protections for health care providers can be seen in a similar way. If a person works for an OBGYN and refuses to dispense birth control (provided that the OBGYN is not a private, pro-life doctor's office), this objection would get in the way of the health care worker performing his job - so much birth control is dispensed in these settings. On the other hand, it is unreasonable of the government to make everyone dispense birth control, even if the person involved works in a family practice setting or hospital, where he can reasonably carry out the rest of his duties without performing this one act.

And that becomes the heart of the matter. What the administration has done is effectively limited the Health Care field to a certain set of religious beliefs, excluding Catholics and Mormons. I already know of Catholics who aspired to be doctors, nurses, or pharmacists but were pushed back because of the connections of the health industry to abortion. Some objected to taking vaccines required to work in hospitals because the vaccines were created using research on aborted babies. Others knew that working in pharmacies would require them to dispense birth control and other abortifaceants, which went against their moral beliefs. And if these aspiring doctors make it to their rotations, even if their eventual field of study is not OBGYN, they still may be asked to work in a Women's Health Clinic or public hospital where their morals will be challenged.

And in my opinion, it goes directly against the Constitution for the Federal Government to deny an entire career field to a group of people because of their religious belief.

Another hypothetical example: A fundamentalist Christian becomes a science teacher. She does not believe in evolution and refuses to teach it. However, she is able to teach most other sciences and a large portion of biology without broaching the subject. Some may say she should not have chosen to go into science. Others may say she should not have chosen to teach. I think that she should be able to do both if they are her passions. Schools can reasonably work around this. She can just not teach it and fill in holes where relevant. She can be assigned Chemistry and Phsyics classes. She can have another teacher substitute (although everyone knows the kids will still be taught evolution). But if it goes against her beliefs to teach it, she should not have to.

In the same way, I think doctors, nurses, and pharmacists should be able to not prescribe or dispense birth control if it goes against their beliefs. They should not be fired if they refuse to prescribe it. They should not be passed over for a job if they refused to dispense it.

What a dangerous precedent to set - the Federal Government mandating which religious beliefs are valid enough to protect and which are not considered legitimate. It is my hope that Congress can overturn the ruling with stricter legislation, or perhaps that the courts will, as I know that many health workers will begin to litigate if they are fired as a result of this act. However, I fear more for the next generation - the health care workers that will not enter the field - that are already not entering the field - because of this blatant religious discrimination by the U.S. Government.

Land of the free, home of the brave. The administration should be ashamed of itself!

I'm Halfway There

2011-02-24T18:10:00.000-08:00

I'm halfway there, and if that counts as compromise, then I am going to call it that.

With the national deficit skyrocketing, the debt going only up, not down, and statistics saying that soon 40% of all federal spending will just be to pay interest on the debt, I am ready for a change. And I think most Americans are. But most aren't ready for what that looks like.

The ever-present debate has two sides - do you lower spending or raise taxes (or both) and which bad option appears good in a recession? I have always, ALWAYS, been anti-spending, whether in a recession or not, whether we had a "balanced budget" or not. But what about raising taxes?

Let's look at the other side. Barack Obama wants to raise taxes. He does - anyone who listens to him talk can tell. First of all, he campaigned on not raising taxes on people making less than $250,000. However, when he had to sign the extension of the Bush tax rates in 2010, suddenly his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class changed into a (now-broken) promise to RAISE taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year.

Now, if he were wanting to raise taxes to help cut the deficit, I would maybe be a little more understanding. But instead we see a habit in this president of outrageous out of control spending. In addition, he has already come out as critical of Republicans in Congress who wish to cut a lot of domestic spending programs (option 1 above). What he says is that these cuts are a drop in the bucket. But so are taxes raised on the upper-class. So if deficit reduction is his goal with the proposed tax increases, he should be willing to work with the spending cuts the Republicans propose - perhaps they can both get their way if they work together.

But I said I'm halfway there. The reason is, while I support deep spending cuts and generally am opposed to any tax increase, I might be willing to see a combination used to help bring down the deficit, if done right.

First of all, straight tax increases - increasing the rate of tax charged on a given bracket for instance - chill my bones. The rates don't ever seem to go down, and the numbers just depress you. The more you make, the more you pay, and innovation and hard work are repressed. On the other hand, the tax code is incredibly large because of all the deductions (also known as "loopholes") that are offered.

As an accountant, and having been through Tax Indoctrination Class (also known as Income Tax I) in college, I am less opposed to the complexity of the tax code as I would normally be. Much of what is in the tax code is meant to drive social and economic behavior. As someone who doesn't think government should interfere much in life, I can't say I support the tax code being this way. However, it is "closer" to a free-market system than just implementing demands. For instance, isn't it much better to have the government pay you $1,500 if you install an energy efficient appliance than for them to come knocking on your door and say, "We're here to install your new energy appliance. We'll be done in about four hours."

If we were to raise taxes (while reducing spending) one way would be to simply flat line the tax code. I support a "fair" and a "flat" tax, but what I am saying is simply keep the bracket system we have and erase deductions. Some deductions like mortgage interest payments may be hard to get rid of, but the great thing about getting rid of it is that someone else will have to get rid of something they don't want. When everybody hates the idea, it may be close to being a good compromise. (The only deduction I would not get rid of would be charitable contributions - that is because charity and government overlap in so many areas, if you get rid of this deduction, government may need to step in to take over lost charity revenue, which would be counter productive).

Also I think that everyone should have a share in the tax system. That means, heinous as it sounds, I would raise taxes on the lowest income people. Not much. I think if people paid a minimum of 1% income taxes - no matter how little they made - then they would have a more vested interest in where the government spends its money. Cutting social programs would be easier if everyone involved was saying, "My money goes to WHAT?" As it is, almost half of Americans do not pay any income tax.

Late in 2010 Obama had a team come up with ideas to cut the deficit. In my opinion, their ideas were good, and I would be willing to accept some of the proposed tax increases (they suggested getting rid of some tax deductions as well) if they implemented the proposed spending cuts. But realistically, their ideas were too little, too late. The president is right in one regard - spending cuts make up such a small portion of the deficit. Any real reform has to come from social security and medicare.

I think our generation is ready for that. I have been ready since I was eight. George W. Bush tried to get us ready. But I really do think that when we are paying to support retirees who got us in to this mess and never saved a dime for retirement, and our taxes start to go up to make up for the smaller generation, then we will really start to panick.

The deficit commission had ideas that I think should be implemented, and even more dramatically. Namely, raising the retirement age. Social Security was implemented back when most people died soon after retirement. Now people are healthy and able to work when they are in their late sixties. I think the retirement age should be raised one year every five years. That allows people to actually reach retirement but helps stave off our national debt problem. I think people in my generation understand that they would rather retire as old as 72 than to pay 14% of all their income and never get that money back.

The point is, I'm to the point that I'm willing to compromise and accept a little bit of both: spending cuts and tax increases to help the deficit go down. And if I'm halfway there, that means a lot more people are there because I'm not exactly what you would call a moderate. Also, if I can come up with ways to decrease the deficit, certainly people in Washington can do it.

On Reading Decision Points - Medicare Part D

2011-02-02T17:16:00.000-08:00

I was working in a pharmacy when Medicare Part D took effect - it was interesting trying to get seniors to sign up and to understand what was going on. My generation's frustration with seniors who refuse to learn how to use the internet came to the surface as I imagined all the grannies and grandpas tying up phone lines while they were explained things that could easily be learned in a quick internet search (my general philosophy is that if I can't find it on the internet, it's not worth doing).

I remember being frustrated with seniors who entered the "donut hole" and then complained about it. They were getting their drugs covered, which was new to them, so they should take what they can get! I get very short-tempered when Medicare and Social Security issues hit the news because I know my generation is paying for it all but will probably never see any benefits of it.

So, yeah, a $400 billion expansion of a hated entitlement made my blood boil, especially as it was implemented under my favorite president. But after reading his side of the story in Decision Points, I have to give him a little more credit.

One purpose of the program was actually to save money. As he said in his book, at the time Medicare would not cover preventative drugs but would cover expensive surgeries after a problem had occurred. In other words, why not cover the blood pressure medicine to avoid paying for the heart attack. The logic is sound, and if it had saved Medicare money, I would have been all for that.

In addition, many problems I had with the program were the result of Democrat interference and "bipartisan" compromise. I understand that sometimes compromises are needed to get things done in Washington, and that they are a way to keep the minority party represented. However, in my experience compromise means "expensive" as interest add on and on to a bill. I would have preferred that the president pull out of the bill if it ended up costing ANY money instead of saving money in the long run on preventative care.

Still, I am glad that, having read his thought process, I now understand where he was coming from. One of the biggest disappointments coming from this president turned out to have been a reasonable idea after all.

On Reading Decision Points - No Child Left Behind

2011-02-01T17:07:00.000-08:00

I'm not going to lie, I was never opposed to No Child Left Behind, no matter how many teachers of friends of teachers I heard complain about it. Even when taking some of the qualifying tests myself, I didn't resent the legislation. One reason that I accepted the great "unfunded mandate" was because the "unfunded" part spoke to me more than the "mandate" part. The other reason was that I was recently out of the public school system when it became news and knew first hand its limitations.

Of course, one major limitation in the form of the teachers' unions has become clear to a majority of people in this economy. Teachers constantly demand more funding with less results, when, as a student, it was clear that some teachers just weren't effective but retained their jobs due to strict union rules.

In his book, president Bush reminds his readers of something I never forgot and never understood when No Child Left Behind was criticized. The program was implemented in Texas before it was signed nationally, and it was a huge success. Now, if congress changed some of the ins and outs, that is one thing. Also, any time a larger government like the federal government intervenes in a smaller government, like a city or state, there are bound to be beaurocratic nightmares. That's why I don't generally like government involvement.

Another issue that people brought up with the program, Bush also addresses. It was the idea that teachers spent all their time "teaching to the test." The test was a comprehension exam of the basic skills our children should know before going on to the next grade. So if you teach these skills, then what is the problem?

Frankly, I think that the people who set the standards add a lot of fluff. I know I experienced a lot of nothingness when I went through school. We learned all about endangered pandas and the environment, and yet when we read aloud in groups it was excruciating listening to other kids stumble through basic books.

If students, and therefore teachers, are tested on basic reading and math skills, then that is what students will learn. I don't see a problem with that.

I read about president Obama's new education initiatives and, based on the limited knowledge I have of it, I don't have a problem with it. But I was very disappointed to hear that No Child Left Behind is about to be left behind. In my opinion, it was a well-thought out program that seemed to be working, as long as other kinks in the system were worked through.

On a similar note, in the current education debate I learned something I had not before thought of. The way the education system is set up - in the suburbs - allows high achievers to, well, achieve. But average students do not fly as much. I'm not sure what the solution to the disparity is. I know that in European countries, where education is much better overall, kids are given aptitude tests going into 8th grade or so. That determines where they go to secondary school, which means their curriculum is tailored to their means.

In America we do not do such testing because we don't want to hurt any child's feelings by sending him to a school that doesn't prepare him for college. But at the same time, so many students either drop out or don't to go college when, instead, they could go to a trade school and make a decent living without the debt of college.

A real drawback to this system is that the state determines a child's potential. But at the same time, right now all children are falling behind.

In my suburbian school, I had several GREAT teachers and, although I was not often challenged by my classes, I thoroughly enjoyed the learning process. It pains me to hear of the sad state that the majority of American schools are in, but I know that there are shining star teachers out there who can teach to the level our kids deserve. And I don't think we need to throw tons of money into the system to get these results. I think No Child Left Behind was a great step in the right direction, and I just hope we're not stepping backwards now.

March for Life in Photos - 2011 Estimated 300,000 In Attendance

2011-01-29T18:32:00.000-08:00

Here are the girls from my room, from left to right Sasha, Carrie, Becky, and Sarah.

Beautiful and creative sign one of the young men in our group penned.

The last line on this sign says "Yet we kill unborn children?"

"Hey, Obama! Your mama chose life!" We had this chant going for a section of the march, at least a hundred of us nearby were shouting it. President Obama has one of the worst records in defending human life of any president since Roe v. Wade. He was the only senator who did not sign on to the bill to end the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion. He stands by decisions of doctors to allow babies to go without medical care if they are born as a result of a failed abortion. And on Saturday, as hudnreds of thousands were traveling to Washington D.C. he was talking to a group of pro-abortion women promising to allow abortion to continue under his watch.

Ironically, Obama fits the stereotype of a person in danger of abortion, had he been conceived after Roe v. Wade had made abortion legal. His mother was in college and unmarried when she became pregnant with him - pregnant by an african during a time of extreme racial tensions. Yes, his mama chose life, so who knows if a future president or Nobel Peace Prize winner is being aborted.

The House has introduced the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," given the numerical designation H.R. 3. Please contact your legislators - both in the House and Senate - to tell them you support this act! Not only will it creater stricter laws about taxpayer monies going to pay for abortions, such as was debated in the recent Health Care legislation, it will defund Planned Parenthood, which receiveds over $300 million in Federal Funding a year. The current monies are supposed to go towards non-abortion services that Planned Parenthood provides, but everyone knows they just get pooled. Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America, and any extra funds they get just help them to continue to provide more and more abortions.

What a beautiful sign! What joy these five women feel - four who feel the peace of having made the right decision for the care of their child, and one who now has four children who may never have been able to have any.

New Germany - the unborn are second-class citizens being methodically slaughtered in the womb. In addition, those who stand up for them are being silenced, such as the silence of news organizations who turn their heads to our march.

What a beautiful way to say she regrets her abortion! I am so glad this woman chose to heal, and that she now is trying to prevent women from making the same mistake!

The March for Life 2011

2011-01-27T15:36:00.000-08:00

Every year around January 22, tens and hundreds of thousands take to the streets of Washington D.C. to protest the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. The rally / protest, known as March for Life is largely ignored by the media - both traditional outlets and more conservative outlets. In fact, if you didn't go yourself or know to Google it, you just might never know it happened.

I know that on Monday, January 24th 2011 there were no less then 27,000 people on the Washington Mall. I know that because before the March, they packed into two stadiums that hold that many people for a youth rally. I also know that the 27,000 is a minimum because I didn't go to the youth rallies at all. But I went to the March. And so did as many as 300,000 other people.

When did we start ignoring 300,000 of anything? There are 30,000 people protesting in Egypt, and it makes the news in America. This was ten times that (albeit a peaceful protest).

After the march I was invigorated to give more attention to my pro-life blog, and to helping the fight for life in any way I can. But today I write to show that the March took place. That it happened. And that there are hundreds of thousands of people who believe in this so much that they make a quick trip in the dead of winter not to sight-see but to pray and march and use our freedom of speech and assembly to protest a decision that they believe to be wrong.

Although the only historical site I saw on my trip was Ford's Theater, I felt awed to be in the nation's capital. I was in the heart of Democracy. America, in my humble opinion, still remains the freest country in the world, and Washington D.C., with all its flaws and corruptions, still remains the heart of the country.

But as I walked to the Supreme Court, I realized there were flaws. I don't think the country needs any kind of revamping - because I think any form of government is going to have flaws, and lots of them. But there I realized that the nine justices on the Supreme Court have a concentration of power that can be almost dictatorial. Roe v. Wade is not the only case that has shown the power of the Supreme Court, but it shows it very well.

The only way for the people, the supposed rulers in our democratic republic, to change Roe v. Wade is to either collect together a supermajority of votes to change the constitution, or to find a way to perfectly time the appointment of pro-life judges to the Supreme Court with a case of import that may cause the court to change course. Both are unlikely. As to the first option, it seems a little odd that nine justices, many who no longer serve, were able to rule over millions and millions of Americans - over half by most estimates - who believe abortion to not only be morally wrong, but to be murder.

As I approached the Supreme Court, I saw all the guards standing outside like statues, dressed in black uniforms. I applaud the guards - they are doing their job, and making sure a fight does not break out, either because of our rally or because of the counter-protestors on the Supreme Court steps. I am sure as they stood there, they had to think about their position in this battle of hearts and minds - I hope that our side put on an honorable showing. I think that both sides did, and although I find the pro-choice argument sickening, I appreciate that we were able to engage in healthy debate.

But seeing all those guards brought to mine other, less free, countries, where armed guards walk the street day in and day out. And I realized that, great as our country is, there is a kind of sick imbalance of power which allows the Supreme Court, symbolized by these guards, to authorize the killing of millions of unborn babies a year. But we were doing it differently - we were there to bring about change peacefully.

The temperature was in the twenties. It was cold. I hope that people who saw us or knew of us took that into consideration. I hope that they understand that this topic means so much to us, that we are willing to give up two precious vacation days, hundreds of dollars, and a lot of luxuries to go on the march. To try to get the attention of the country. And in doing so, we are not "out to get women" or trying to be oppressive "anti-choice" people. We are crying out for justice for the unborn children in America, and asking for recognition of the pain that abortion has caused millions of women and men as well.

Ultimately that is why we were there - to change hearts and minds. The hearts and minds of legislators, the court, Americans, and women in crisis situations. And if even one heart was changed, then I will be happy with what we did.

On Reading Decision Points - Embryonic Adoption

2011-01-14T17:02:00.000-08:00

One of the first things President Bush did, much like one of the first things President Obama did, was to tackle the question of federally funding embryonic stem cell research. His book outlines his thought process and all the input he tried to receive along the way. In the end, his decision was to award grants to scientists researching embryonic stem cell lines that were already in place but to use the rest of the grants on non-embryonic stem cell research - research which paid off with better and more ethical results than embryonic stem cell research.

I disagree with his final decision, although I appreciate that he tried to create a decision that would be bipartisan but respect his morals - including the sacredness of human life. I have two problems:
1. I don't think that it is the government's job to fund ANY kind of stem cell research or other scientific project. I think that the funding of science should be private, especially as scientific breakthroughs tend to have just as much potential return as any other investment.
2. One danger of researching new cures using embryonic stem cells is the potential for success. I am surprised that, at least in his book, the president did not seek input on what would happen if a scientific breakthrough was made using embryonic stem cells. It is so much easier to accept disease when there is no cure, but what about when the cure is unethical? Why bother researching using embryonic stem cells if, using the president's morality as well as my own, once a breakthrough is reached, no more embryos are allowed to be killed in order to advance the cure? It really seems both illogical and unethical to research along lines that may not yield results. Under this line of reasoning alone, I would create an all-out ban on embryonic stem cell research, federally funded or not.

But what stuck out in the President's autobiography about his stem cell research was his discovery of an agency that placed embryos left over after In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) procedures with a new family. These embryos would otherwise be frozen forever or used for stem cell research. Children adopted such are called "snowflakes." Although I applaud these efforts ethically, I find myself confused at these proceedings.

First of all, we must understand that IVF is not considered a life-affirming method of becoming pregnant. However, for some the draw to have what they want, when they want it, becomes too much. There is a biological desire in us all to see our genes passed on, and when we find we cannot do it naturally, we seek alternative methods. Another reason for wanting IVF I will discuss later.

However, IVF is an expensive and dangerous process - dangerous for the babies. Let's say a doctor fertilizes 12 embryos. He may then implant six in a woman's uterus, leaving six left over to be frozen, adopted, or used in scientific research. (Left-over embryos may be kept if the parents want a second or third child). The chances of these embryos growing into fetuses and completing a healthy pregnancy are low. Many women experience pregnancies outside of IVF in which an egg is fertilized but does not implant. These short-lived pregnancies are fairly common and may be as high as 50%. It stands to reason that IVF pregnancies may suffer a similar rate of failure to implant.

Let's say that three embryos implant. Many times, these three embryos grow into healthy babies - and that is one reason for the sudden upswing in multiple births I have noticed recently. However, if too many implant - perhaps all six - a doctor may recommend terminating a few of the babies. The recommendation is made both for the health of the mother, the safety of the other babies, and the sanity of the parents who may be facing raising six children.

This is why IVF is such a controversial procedure. It attacks natural life at every turn. If you believe, as I do, that life begins at conception, then you can see how betwen 50% and 75% of the embryos conceived are discarded at the parent's whim.

Ethically, I don't know the response for adopting someone else's embryos. I believe that, expensive as each procedure is, if one or two embryos were implanted in the adoptive mother, this would not create the need for abortion, nor would endanger the embryos. Therefore, I can see it being ethical. On the other hand, one could say that saving the frozen embryos until science may be able to birth them without further endangering their health (more than a natural pregnancy would) may be the most ethical decision. Given a choice between destruction for scientific research and loving adoption, the second choice is glaringly more ethical.

But ethics aside, I find the very idea of adopting someone's embryos...odd. First of all, if a parent is looking into adoption, why not adopt one of the millions of born babies or fetuses around the world? By this I mean a child that is either in more immediate danger of abortion or who is living in abject poverty.

Of course I already know some objections. Adoption is a long, expensive, and potentially painful process (if birth parents choose their mind). While IVF is also expensive, it may be considered by couples to be a "more sure" thing. Further, if they are pro-life and believe life begins at conception, then the value of a child will not be based on how far he or she is along in fetal development. (By the way, one of the miracles of life is that a baby's gender, along with all his genetic coding, is determined on the day of conception - knowing that our unborn babies have genders, even if we cannot determine them yet, should be just one more reason to support the belief that life begins at conception).

But another reason I find this odd is that couples who participate in IVF are the exact opposite of your typical adopting mother. Most mothers who place their child with adoptive parents are unwed, young, or financially incapable of raising a child. Parents who participate in IVF are generally married (or couples, in the case of homosexuals) and have the financial means to raise a child, as evidenced at the very least by their ability to pay for the procedure.

Many pregnant women shun the idea of placing their child for adoption because of the lack of control. They don't put it that way, but it comes down to that. Parents have a natural love for their children, and it is hard to give one away, even if you know it is best for the child. However, giving away an embryo created during IVF is completely opposite this philosophy. It represents having the means and ability to care for a child, but not the desire. It is almost a, "Whatever," attitude towards the adoptive parents, "Sure, you can have my child. I'm not going to use it."

I did think of one major reason why a genetic parent might choose to place his or her embryo for adoption. When a homosexual couple or couple who cannot conceive because of a problem with one person's gamete, the embryo created uses a sperm or egg donor and only the original sperm or egg from one parent. As such, all embryos created are only "half" the couple's. It seems easier to give away a child created by this method if only one parent was actually involved in the creation of him or her.

Don't get me wrong, I don't fault the adoptive parents for their route here, but it seems a little sick of the genetic parents. And I think the genetic parents were very good to make the choice to adopt - rather than try to justify the killing of the embryo "in the name of science." It is a better choice to save the child's life.

Of course, down the road, if the parents want another child, will they have to engaged in a new round of IVF, having given away their remaining embryos?

I think this is a practice that is just interesting to think about - it calls to mind so many questions, some of which I have not written out. IVF in general can verge on the creepy, with the large potential for destruction of life and the "test tube baby" feel. Adding the additional prospect of adopting an embryo makes the process even more interesting to the amateur bioethicist.

Follow Up to Affirmative Action Post

2011-01-12T15:47:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I posted about President George W. Bush's search to find a Supreme Court Justice. As I thought more on the process, I thought about the odd situation that presidents are put in when it comes to selecting justices - essentially there is one thing everybody wants to know about the potential new justice - pro life or pro choice?

This is given the euphamism in the press of "litmus test." While the phrase could refer to any belief, the most incindiary topic of this century, when it comes to Supreme Court justices, has been abortion and Roe v. Wade.

If ever there were a case of media bias, you would be able to note it in the way that the press ask presidential candidates their philosophy on supreme court justices. A pro-life presidential candidate may be forced to say he will not use a litmus test, while we all know that he can still end up with a pro-life choice (on purpose)! Essentially he sidesteps the question because he know he will be villified if he answers honestly.

On the other hand, a pro-choice presidential candidate has only to say, "We have a precedent in this country in the case of Roe v. Wade, and I expect any justice I nominate will respect that precedent." You see, by using big words like "precendent" and "respect" he essentially answers, "Yes, I do have a pro-choice litmust test," without saying so outright. And his answer is brilliant.

In the mean time, the pro-life president searches for supreme court candidates, secretly throwing out pro-choice applicants. In fact, he may throw a few pro-choice candidates onto his list of "potentials" in order to appease the pro-choice media, knowing full well he intends to discard them.

Given this climate, and my thoughts on George Bush's search for a female supreme court justice, I thought how I might address the "litmus test" question while still being true to myself.

"Miss Presidential Candidate - if I may - if elected, do you plan to use a litmus test when selecting Supreme Court justices in order to load the court with pro-life judges who will attempt to reverse the legal precedent of Roe v. Wade?"

"Litmus test seems like an oversimplification of the problem of finding a judge to sit on the highest court in the country. So many factors go into determining whether a candidate is capable for the position, and if he or she is the best choice. Certainly I would want the person best qualified for the job.

However, that said, I also have certain beliefs that I cannot deny or pretend are unimportant, including the value of human life. If elected President, I would swear to protect the lives of all Americans, to my ability, including the unborn.

One of the advantages of being President is access to an almost unlimited number of qualified candidates for any position, and the responsibility of the President is to choose just one. I believe it is possible to find highly qualified candidates for the position of Supreme Court justice that are also defenders of life. I believe that choosing to make this an important qualification in no way jeopardizes my ability to choose an exceptional justice.

As such, I would be dishonest to my beliefs if I said that I am not going to consider it an important criteria in looking for a justice, but do not be afraid - I will still select Supreme Court justices that are every bit up to the standards of the current court, and whose intelligence and demeanor will make their cases for them, when the time comes."

I suppose that one might say it is more important to get elected than to get into a controversy. It is more important to skirt the issue and give the standard question, so that you may have the chance to be elected and make the final decision. But on the other hand, isn't it also important to rally the base? Isn't it important to tell the people that you stand for something, and that something is life itself? Isn't it important to let the pro-life voters know you will not let them down, and at the same time warn the pro-choice voters not to expect you to rally to their cause?

It doesn't really matter, as in the end we will elect whom we will elect. But it seems to me there should be a way to win either way.

On Reading Decision Points - Affirmative Action

2011-01-11T17:11:00.000-08:00

I am going to summarize a story that George W. Bush told in his autobiography, "Decision Points." When Sandra Day O'Connor decided to retire from the Supreme Court, the president asked for a list of potential replacements from all types of backgrounds. He narrowed this list down to five - of which one was a woman. From there he narrowed the list to three - and the woman did not make the top three. He finally picked a judge, John Roberts, but was forced to use this pick to replace Chief Justice Rehquist who had died suddenly.

For some reason - perhaps because he was a Republican and knew he would be under more scrutiny, perhaps because it was what he truly believed - he felt that he should replace O'Connor with a female so that the court would not be completely male. Instead of turning to the woman who had made the top five list, he continued searching for another woman to fill the spot. The choice he made was completely villified. The poor woman had to withdraw her nomination because of unjustified bad press.

In the end, the president picked the second choice on his original list of three - a man.

This story, in my opinion, is a wonderful example of the dangers of allowing affirmative action to crowd out rational judgment in our lives. Imagine that the president was just simply any old employer and review his steps.

1. He had an opening. He asked his staff to pull up strong resumes from people of various backgrounds - including differing races, genders, job histories, religions, and so on. Using criteria he had set up in place for the job, they narrowed the list.

2. They narrowed and narrowed. There were probably many women on the original list, but with each narrowing some dropped off (as did some men). By the time the final five were cut down to three, two, or one (depending on how you look at it), there was just one woman to cut. There were four men to cut. How's that for fairness for you? Still, the point is that the president performed his due diligence and came up with two candidates that stood out - both men.

3. When the president chose to have a woman for his second justice, he once again began the search. This made no sense to me - he had a ranking of candidates from his previous search, why not just pick the second on the list? Or why not pick the woman who had made the top five? The answer to the second question is easy - because she was not the best choice. As it stood, the best choice was a man. The president went in search of another candidate who could be both a best choice and a woman. The problem was, he had already pulled the most qualified candidates in the country in his original search. Was it possible he had missed someone?

4. He thought so, but the rest of the country did not. In narrowing his search to women, he also allowed himself to look narrowly AT women. Based on his version of events, it seemed he was so desperate to find a qualified woman, that he threw caution to the wind in his choice.

Now, I am not saying that there are no qualified women out there to sit on the Supreme Court. It may very well be the case that there are qualified women who did not share in the president's philosophical outlook (I can name two because they both became justices during his successor's presidency). Perhaps we can criticize that both the president's and his advisors' circles did not include enough females to produce as candidates. The reasons can never be known - and I do NOT think that the top three choices were men because of some sort of bias.

In fact, my point is that bias in the other direction, looking specifically for a woman, ended up hurting the president. And, had his choice been confirmed, she may have hurt the Supreme Court - if the criticism of her was fair.

I'd like to point out this little story as a lesson against the use of affirmative action in any respects - because if it can backfire against the most powerful man at the world, someone who has access to a pool of the best and brightest candidates, it can backfire any and everywhere else.

On Reading Decision Points

2011-01-10T16:34:00.000-08:00

I never really intended to write so many book reviews in this blog. But, reading is something I do - whether it's the news websites or books or my new Kindle(!), it's one of my favorite ways to ingest information (as opposed to the TV). And so, I find myself in the middle of at least three books that I feel a need to share thoughts on.

I have always respected George W. Bush, and have said so. One reason is that he went after two of my deepest fears as a child: Sadaam Hussein and Social Security. True, he was unsuccessful with the second item, but I know the circumstances were beyond his control - even the most powerful man in the world is not all-powerful.

Of course, Bush's outspokenness abou his faith has always impressed me. Before I speak of specific in his book, Decision Points, I would like to pull out an example. As a new Catholic, I was stunned to read some of the president's memoirs regarding pope John Paul II. For instance, although not a Catholic himself - nor bound by Catholic teachings - he asked the pope and the Catholic church in general to continue its strong leadership in lessons of morality for the United States and the world. Also, he said that at the funeral of the late pope, his wife told him, "Now is the time to pray for miracles."

I wrote in my own story of coming to the Catholic faith how the pope, and probably John Paul II played a role. I felt that the belief of the holiness of this man by people who were not even Catholic justified to some extent the Catholic beliefs about him. How could he be holy and also a liar? The president's memory of the burial impacted me because it helped to confirm what I already knew. As Christians we are all on the same side - most Christian denominations agree with Catholic Christians on teachings of morality, and we can see someone devoted to God and agree on that. Catholicism and fundamentalism are intertwined in close ways, and without knowing it, the former president helped point it out.

But to continue - after Bush won his second term, I tuned him out. This wasn't an insult on my part - it was actually a complement. I felt he could run the country, and I didn't need to worry about checking the daily news or talk radio to see what was going on. I knew about the protestors, and I wished he would have defended himself against some accusations. In his book, he explains he thought it was beneath him. But I also had fun watching his and Donald Rumsfield's press conferences, where they sidestepped trapping questions of the media like pros, Bush always with that little smile on his face.

(By the by, I have always seen something of Harrison Ford in George Bush - perhaps that laid back accent and half-smile. If there were ever going to be a big time movie made about him, I would love to have Ford play him. Unfortunately, their generations are backwards, which I suppose is acceptable, given that Hollywood would probably never honor the president with that type of attention).

Already just a few chapters in, I have noticed some topics the former president brings up that inspire me to write. So I will follow this post with a few more topical posts about his book.

(Oh, and as a general critique, the book is well-written in that it is clearly in his voice - his own words. What I find interesting is that the first few chapters mirror a biography I read of him soon after his election in 2000 - the data was the same, but it was interesting to hear what he pulled out and thought was important to share).

On Slavery

2011-01-09T10:43:00.000-08:00

Slavery is an abomination. It is quite wrong that one person should buy another, and that such a purchase has the protection of the law. A person does not even possess his own life; so how can he possess another person's life? Yet this does not mean that slaves should be disobedient to their masters, nor that htey should try to escape their condition. To be a slave, to be in the legal possession of another human being, does not in any way impede spiritual salvation. On the contrary, by performing his duties with a humble spirit, a slave may advance the progress of his own soul. Even if the tasks he performs are useless in themselves, the attitude with which he undertakes those tasks is profoundly important. Similarly, masters need not necessarily feel compelled to release their slaves. In some cases, where the slave has sufficient wisdom and strength to make his way in the world, this may be right. But in other cases, where the slave would be plunged into poverty and destitution, it is better that the master keeps the slave and looks after him well.

-St. John Chrysostom

Love of Others

2011-01-08T12:30:00.000-08:00

Nothing is more frigid than a Christian who is indifferent to the salvation of others. Indeed I wonder if such a person can be a true Christian. To become a disciple of Christ is to obey his law of love; and obedience ot the law brings joy beyond measure and description. Love means to want the best for others, sharing with them the joy of love. So the Christian feels compelled to speak to others about the law of love, and the joy of obeying this law. Of course, many people are shy about speaking to others; in their case actions motivated by love will be a most eloquent testimony. But those who are not shy will surely want to express their joy at every opportunity. There is no need to use fine words or elegant phrases; even the most uneducated people can convey joyful love by the spirit which accompanies their words. Even slaves have been known to convert their masters and mistresses by the sincerity of their speech.

-St. John Chrysostom

This quote reminds me of another quote by St. Francis of Assisi - "Preach the Gospel, and if necessary use words."

It also reminds me of the end of a book I read today. In it we are reminded that as Christians we are fighting a war. But our enemy is not our enemy at all - it is those whom we want to convert. And sometimes we may have to oppose their actions - for their own good - but at all times we are required to love them.

Ah Christmas Songs

2010-12-26T12:43:00.000-08:00

Christmas Songs I don't Particularly Like:

Cherry Cherry Christmas - never should have been written. I don't have this strong feelings about most songs, but seriously. (P.S. I have a magic touch - no sooner had I typed this out than the next song on the radio - you guessed it! And I did this yesterday...okay, let's talk about "Do You Hear What I Hear" "What Child Is This" and "Africa.")
Mary, Did You Know? - Very good lyrics, yes, and perhaps goes farther than most songs to tell the Nativity / Jesus story, but I just don't like it, and that's that. I think it has to do with years of going to church as a kid and hearing terrible covers of it, usually by people who introduced it as a "wonderful new song they found just this year that they really like and is just so beautiful.' Yeah, it can't be new every year.
Merry Xmas (War Is Over) - mixed feelings here. The song itself is okay and singable and not requiring of changing the channel, but it is so...well...you know...written by hippies.
Christmastime Is Here - Really bad children's choir, not a really good melody...you have to be really sure of yourself to make up a new Christmas song and actually expect it to be a hit...this is yuck.
Santa Baby
Merry Christmas Baby - honestly, it says she is "lit up like a Christmas tree."
God Bless America - okay, I know it's not a Christmas song, but this seems as good a place as any to put it. It is disproportionately popular, and I absolutely can't stand it. It's not that I have a problem with the words...but it is an ugly, repeat U-G-L-Y tune. Yuck.
Christmas in Kansas City - that is not even a real song.

Songs Overplayed:

Chipmunk Christmas Song
Away in a Manger
Have a Holly Jolly Christmas - not a bad song, but it is overplayed. Now, the Burl Ives (is that right?) version I might actually move to the Don't Like list...but that may be due to overplayedness, so I won't.
Train's Song - It may be too early to tell, but I have decided that this song is GREAT if you just hear the chorus, like on the Coca Cola commercial, but even getting through the full song can be a little much, so onto this list it goes! :)
The 12 Days of Christmas - except the funny ones...honestly, the only way to get away with this song anymore is to make it funny. Specific examples are the one that says, "Beer!" and the one where they break out into other songs in the middle, "On the first day of Christmas my true love gave to me Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer!"
All I Want for Christmas Is You
Christmas Shoes

Songs I DO Like: (I mean, really really like)

What Child Is This
Do You Hear What I Hear
Hark the Herald Angels Sing - almost any Christmas hymn with a few exceptions
Do They Know It's Christmastime?
Christmas Canon
Wizards of Winter
Anything Mannheim Steamroller
Silver Bells and It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas - make me think of 1940's Christmases....
Where Are You Christmas?
Nobody Wants to Be Alone on Christmas - from my Home Alone soundtrack
That Jamaican style song of "Hark now hear the angels singeth a new king born today and man will live forevermore because of Christmas day..." I like the old Irishy sounding version, too, but the Jamaican one is jammin' ya know?
Polar Express song by Josh Groban - I had better like it, it's in iPod.

The Christmas / Holiday Wars

2010-12-23T16:06:00.000-08:00

Okay, so here's my thoughts. I'm not 100% opposed to "Happy Holidays" because there are so many holidays at once. In addition, in the old British sense, "Holiday" could refer to vacation from work, in which case there are multiple "holidays" at this point. But there are some times I think it is carried past nonsense. For instance, why say "Holiday Ham?" If you "holidays" is meant to include Jews, then they would not eat a ham for the holidays. And at this point of the year, (I admit I don't know much about Kwanza, I don't wish to know much, I think it's made up) Hannukah is done and over with! So unless you are referring to Christmas AND New Year's, then Holidays doesn't seem as applicable. I mean, we are two days from Christmas, what other holiday could they be talking about?

But here's another thought - is there really any way to win this? I mean, Christmas has been so commercialized, that even saying that doesn't really mean much. And we now have the "Christmas spirit" instead of Christian giving to thank for charitable contributions and general good cheer around the holidays. In a way, "holiday" is almost more appropriate because the word comes from "Holy-day." If you are fighting a Christmas vs. Holiday war, it's almost like you have to come around from the right flank and say, "I am throwing a Christ-child party." Or "I am going home to celebrate the birth of our Savior Jesus Christ." It sounds a little fundamentalist but it at least keeps the real meaning of Christmas alive whereas the word Christmas doesn't necessarily do that anymore.

One last thought, though. Even though Christmas itself has been so commercialized and taken away from the purpose, it is interesting to note that the word is under attack. That means there is still enough of Christ in Christmas to make someone upset. As long as there are carols and ancient symbols (Christmas trees) there will always be opportunities to explain the true meaning of Christmas

2010-12-22T15:22:00.000-08:00

I have observed that there are two types of rich people. The first enjoys spreading his ealth: he loves to live in a fine house, surrounded by beautiful furniture, and to eat the most expensive food. The second enjoys keeping his wealth: he would rather live in a howel as long as he possessed a chest full of gold and silver coins, and his greatest pleasure is to sit at a tabile, counting out his money. Which type of rich person can most easily be redeemed? Without doubt it is the first. The rich man who likes spending his money usually enjoys welcoming others into his home, so they can admire his wealth; and he takes pride in welcoming them to his table, to enjoy a sumptuous banquet. That openness to others can, with effort, be transformed into a genuine desire to share his wealth with others. But the miser who hoards his money has a heart that is closed and dark; and it is almost impossible to pry open the door of his heart in order to let the light enter. If a rich man invites me to a banquet, I may accept, hoping to convert him. But the miser never invites anyone into his home or his heart.

-St. John Chrysostom

Idols

2010-12-21T04:23:00.000-08:00

We may observe people worshipping statues, and we accuse them of idolatry. We say that these lumps of wood, clay, or metal are lifeless, and so possess no divine qualities. Indeed we find the idea of worshiping statues so bizarre that we even laugh with contempt at those who do it. Yet far more dangerous than statues that are visible are the numerous idols which are invisible. Power is such an idol. Some people who possess powerful personalities desire power for themselves, and in this way make it their idol. Others like to be under the sway of a powerful personality, who makes decisions on their behalf, and in this way releases them from the task of making moral choices for themselves; thus they make the powerful person their idol. Fame is another invisible idol. Some people with the gift of speech love to bask in the warmth of adulation, and so make the admiration of others their idol. Those others find perverse pleasure in treating the gifted speaker as a god, whose every word must be treated as infallible. What I am saying is that the most dangerous idols are not outward objects made of wood and clay, but reside inside the human heart.

-St. John Chrysostom

Sometimes I feel that I have the last problem that St. John talks about. I know how much I admire hearing a gifted speaker or reading an inspiring book. It is hard to hear that perhaps I put more faith in these people than in God - the man who gave them their gifts. How humbling to

Greed

2010-12-19T18:18:00.000-08:00

Those who love money are fierce in the pursuit of it, like wild animals pursuing their prey. They do not allow th eties of friendship to restrain them; they betray, cheat, or exploit their closest friends when there is gold and silver to be gained. Nor do they let the chains of conscience inhibit them; they learn to make their consciences as numb as fingers on a cold day. Even members of their own families may be used in their quest for wealth. Their eyes become blind to the suffering they cause, and their ears deaf to the cries of those whose lives are ruined by them. They imagine themselves to be free, purusing their own interests without constraint. Yet in truth they are slaves to their own greed; and this greed only brings them misery. So they bring a double misery into the world, to those they exploit and to themselves. Worst of all, they are even grateful for their own greed; they give thanks that this desire for money motivates their actions and gives purpose to their lives. While they feel this gratitude, they can never escape.

-St. John Chrysostom

O Holy Night

2010-12-15T03:59:00.000-08:00

"O holy night the stars are brightly shining
It is the night of our dear Savior's birth
Long lay the world in sin and error pining
'Til He appeared and the soul felt its worth.
A thrill of hope, the weary world rejoices
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn.
Fall on your knees! Oh hear the angel voices!
O night divine! O Night when Christ was born!
O night dvine! Oh night, O holy night"

This song is so peaceful and beautiful - if the readio is any indicator, I think it is one of the most beloved Christmas songs. Josh Groban, I think, is the one you will most often hear singing it now. But he also cuts out important parts of the song, in my opinion.

In the first verse, I just noticed this year the phrase, "The soul felt its worth." Wow! What a great way to describe the Christian experience. We know how much God loves us - that He would send his son to die for us, to save us, to allow us to come up and be with him. I would say that means our souls are worth a LOT!

I also like the phrase "weary world." Whenever I think things are really bad, I think about when Jesus came to the world, and I realize that even 2,000 years ago the world was weary. The Jews were a conquered people. Life was hard.

"Truly He taught us to love one another
His law is love and His gospel is peace.
Chains shall he break for the slave is our brother,
And in His name all opression shall cease.
Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise we.
Let all within us praise His holy name.
Christ is the Lord, that ever, ever praise we
Noel! Noel! Oh night, oh night divine!
Noel! Noel! Oh night, oh night divine!"

I don't have anything to comment on the second verse, really. But I do love the line about breaking chains. Consequently, I did a quick internet search, and it doesn't seem that this song was written as a political statement about slavery in the Civil War, although that is what I think about when I hear it. Still - breaking chains is not a concept for days gone by. There are still slaves today - literally, and people enslaved by their own sins, their own trials, their misfortunes. In that sense, everyone is a slave. But more importantly, everyone is our brother.

But truly, I think that I could just sing the words of this song over and over again without getting in to any special "meaning." O Holy Night!

2010-12-13T17:53:00.000-08:00

All of us are liable to complain of our work. We grumble at the hardness of our work, at its monotony and dullness, at th elack of time to rest and relax. We moan about how weary we feel. And we wish that we were wealthy enough to be free of work. But just imagine what perpetual leisure actually means. In your mind let me give you a large house in which to live, filled with comfortable furniture. In this house you only need to nod at a servant, and you will be brought dish upon dish of the most delicious food. Outside there is a garden filled with trees and shrubs, which bear sweet-smelling flowers. For a few hours, for a hew days perhaps, you would enjoy being in such a place. But soon you would feel bored and restless . Your bones would become still for lack of exercise. Your stomach would swell with all that food. Your head would ache for lack of anything to stimulate the mind. Your mansion in which work was impossible would seem like a prison. God has designed us to labor for our bread; only in toil can our minds and bodies find contentment.

-St. John Chrysostom

An Ideal Church Community

2010-12-10T15:13:00.000-08:00

I often speak of the rich and the poor. I would rather not have to speak in these terms. If everyone acted according to the teachings of Christ, there would be no rich and poor; all would be equal. This is because the rich would continue giving away their wealth until everyone had the same. Since only a minority have truly embraced the teachings of Christ, this is not going to happen. But we can make a start; and the place to start is the Church. Let the rich give liberally to their church congregations. Then let each congregation use this bounty to support widows and orphans, the sick and the crippled. And let those whom God has called to perpetual virginity be the primary means through which this bounty is channeled. Hospitals and schools can be built where those in need can come, and where those called to celibacy can serve them. The rich would take no pride in their gifts, because those receiving the gifts would not know their names; their gratitude could be directed only to the Church. So let your particular church become in this way a reflection on earth of the glory of heaven.

-St. John Chrysostom

Well churches are halfway there. I love church fundraisers and the weekly ways that the church asks me to give. I love knowing that Pastor knows where to send our charitable contributions - that the needy in our parish know to come to him, and that the rich in our parish DO give. On the other hand, we fall short of St. John's dream in many ways.

First of all, the rich have not given away so much that they are like the poor. I don't blame them entirely. It would be irresponsible to give away so much that your own family is not taken care of, or that you are not taken care of in your old age, or if there is a disaster. Then again, if you have become such a generous giver, then I am sure people will help you in your time of need.

Second, there are not enough religious to take care of the administration. Yes, Pastor does a good job for our church. But what about the school attached? In the olden days, schools and hospitals were run by nuns - sisters who only needed lodging and food, not large salaries like the teachers and nurses in today's hospitals. How do we get more people into the religious life? Why has it lost its appeal? I don't know the answer to that. But I believe it starts in the home. Much like parents should teach their children good morals and charity, they should encourage children to THINK about going into religious life. That is one of the most charitable things a person could do.

Self Discipline

2010-12-09T16:44:00.000-08:00

The skill which the rich need to use their wealth well is the highest of all arts. Its workshop is built not on earth but in heaven, because those who are rich must communicate directly with God to acquire and practice this art. Its tools are not made of iron or brass, but of good will, because the rich will only use their wealth well if they want to do so. Indeed good will is itself the skill. When a rich person sincerely wants to help the poor, God will quickly show the best way. Thus while a person training to be a carpenter must learn how to control a hammer and saw and chisel, the rich person training to serve the poor must learn how to control the mind and heart and soul. He must learn always to think good thoughts, expunging all selfish thoughts. He must learn how to feel compassion, expunging all malice and contempt. He must learn how to desire only to obey the will fo God. That is why I say the skill of being a rich disciple of Christ is the highest of all arts; and the one who possesses it is truly a saint.

-St. John Chrysostom

I know he talks about physical wealth in this passage, but to me I think also about our hearts and minds. Do you think only rich people need to learn unselfishness? Perhaps they do - perhaps my perception of rich is different from his. For I am sure St. John would think we are all rich, here in America. Someone starving to death, always worried about getting enough to eat, would not have time to learn the arts of unselfishness, and indeed he could not possibly think to be selfish. Someone starving to death does not wish for a TV or iPod. He only wants food, and that is reasonable.

Here in America we all want more, more, more. No matter how rich we are, we always want more. And no matter how poor we are, we can be a little selfish. Admit it. That is why we all need to follow his advice in this passage - to learn to "control the mind and heart and soul." This is what we call "discipline" and hardly anybody I know (including myself!) has it anymore.

A World Without Money

2010-12-08T15:29:00.000-08:00

You tell me that you need money. You say that money is necessary to enable you to buy the things you need. I do not disagree with you. I, too, require money in order to survive. But I wish that I did not need money. Or rather, I wish that none of us needed money. Got tells us to trust him to provide for all our needs. I wish we could trust other people also to provide what we need. Indeed as a preacher I am forced to do this. I proclaim the truth of God; and I dpeend entirely on the gifts of those who hear me - gifts which usually come in the form of money. Others among you make things. If all of you gave to others freely what you have made, money would become unecessary. If each of you took trouble to observe the needs of others, and then according to your abilities freely met those needs, none of use would need moeny. And no one would go hungry or cold; all would have sufficient.

-St. John Chrysostom

I don't think the point St. John is making here is so much about a barter economy as it is a continuation about talking about meeting peoples' needs. It seems hard, when you think of it, to take what we do for a living and do it for free to those who need it. If you check out items at a grocery store, how can you just, um, not charge someone? If you work in a factory making lightbulbs, you can't just take a few to distrubte to the poor. You are not in charge of making those decisions. Although I have discovered that there are charities that take accountants to help prepare tax returns for the needy. I could also help people with their finances by giving advice. But we CAN help those in need - either with our money, or with our talents. It doesn't have to be the same talent we use to make a living. It could mean making dinner at a soup kitchen.

Also, he talks about looking around for need. Open your eyes! I have been upset recently because our society doesn't favor charity. What I mean is that, when I read books or watch movies from about WWII or before, people would take baskets of food to poor neighbors or go give soup to a sick friend. Nowadays we live in neighborhoods separated by miles and also by class. Those in large houses don't just "see" the poor needing food. But that doesn't mean we can't go out and seek it. I wonder how often we see a need that needs met, but don't "see" it. How many times do we have the opportunity to do good but don't even know it's time to do something? I am sure I am the worst at this, so I am not trying to lecture, but I am trying to become more aware myself.

Interconnectivity

2010-12-07T15:15:00.000-08:00

Consider how an ear of corn is produced. Most of us would point to the labor of the farmer in tilling the soil, sowing the seed, and harvesting the grain. But it is not as simple as that. The farmer needs the blacksmith to make the spade, ploughshare, sickle, and axe. He needs the carpenter to make a fram for the plough and to make a yoke for the horse. He needs the leather worker to make the harness. He needs the builder to make a stable for the horse, and a barn to store the hay and grain. He needs a baker to turn the grain into bread, otherwise his labors are worthless. And he needs the forest worker to provide wood for the carpenter to saw, and wood for the baker to heat the oven. So just to produce corn, many different people are needed. Since we depend on one another for our very survival, why do we ever try to exploit and cheat one another? Nothing could be more stupid and irrational than to try to get the better of someone else; people who cheat and exploit others are cheating and exploiting themselves.

-St. John Chrysostom

I think about the politics of the day and the anger that is out there when I read this. Everything is connected including, in a way, cheating people. (Think about someone who runs a Pay Day Loan operation and then uses the profits to, well, buy stuff). All I have to do is to look personally at my job to see how it connects to the rest of the economy.

We sell insurance to small businesses. Small businesses do most of the hiring in this country. I have been used to working with big corporations - I worked for a large accounting firm, audited huge, Fortune 500, public companies, and now I work for a Fortune 500 public company. But, large as we are, and as much as my world has revolved around large businesses, we need small businesses to thrive! This is something I have to remind myself of when I wonder what the "big deal" is about small businesses.

It's a circle, too. Although I do a lot of shopping online, or at Wal-Mart, or at a large grocery store, I also do patronize small businesses without knowing it. What is a local restaurant but a small business? And when I needed a contractor? So they help me by being customers of the company I work for, and I help them out with my patronage.

Certainly all people should look at their lives this way. So many people get angry at "the rich" or "big business." But we all rely on each other. If someone who makes cars resents those who buy cars, what good is that? It would be like a doctor resenting sick people.

What Child Is This?

2010-12-06T20:04:00.000-08:00

"What Child Is This" has been a favorite Christmas song of mine from the first time I can remember singing it. The Greensleeves melody is beautiful and haunting, reminding me of a far away age. Yet, without the the carol's lyrics, the melody is nice but not absolutely memorable.

"What Child is this who, laid to rest, on Mary's lap is sleeping,
Whom angels greet with anthems sweet while shephderds' watch are keeping?
This, this is Christ the King, whom shepherds guard and angels sing.
Haste, haste to bring him laud, the babe the son of Mary."

"Why lies He in such mean estate where ox and ass are keeping?
Good Christians fear: for sinners here the silent Word is pleading.
This, this is Christ the King, whom shepherds guard and angels sing.
Haste, haste to bring him laud, the babe the son of Mary."

I like the second line in this verse, and yet I am not sure if I am interpreting it right. "Good Christians fear." Can you imagine the awe and fear of seeing God in person? And perhaps, if a Christian, of seeing your personal Savior? The fact that He is a little baby makes it even more awesome - that power causing fear. Not fear for our lives, but just immense awareness of something greater than we are. I wonder if those who visited Baby Jesus felt that - did they know how important he was? They knew something, or they would not have come, but did they KNOW? I wonder what it would have been like to have seen Him on that night (or any time as a baby) and carried that one meeting with you your whole life. Did they become Christians later on?

Of course, the second half of the line, "For sinners here the silent Word is pleading." Are the two halves connected? Well, I think so. All Christians are still sinners - so here they are meeting their Savior, the Word, who pleads their case before the Throne of Heaven. I think that would increase my awe and fear, knowing that. And non Christians? Other "sinners?" Well, their case is being plead as well. That is the beauty of the Christmas story.

"So bring Him incense, gold, and myrrh. Come peasant, king to own him.
The King of Kings salvation brings; let loving hearts enthrone Him!
Raise, raise the song on high, the Virgin sings a lullaby.
Joy! Joy! For Christ is born, the babe, the son of Mary."

It was a few years ago that this carol became my all-time favorite. Usually there is one each season, and true enough there are those that I like. But since the words, "King of Kings" popped out at me, I cannot get them out of my head at Christmastime. The King of Kings! The greatest king the world will ever know, and He is just a little baby! It goes back to the awe in the last verse. I can't write more because the feeling those words inspire in me is not one that I can put into words. It's just...wow. This is why I do not write Christmas songs - I am not articulate enough to express what needs to be said about the incarnation. All the awe and power and joy come to earth on one night. It is beautiful!

2010-12-05T11:37:00.000-08:00

The amount we give is not judged by the largeness of the gifts but the largeness of our hearts. The poor woman who shares her meager pot of stew with another poor woman is far more to be praised than the rich man who throws a few gold coins into a collection at church. But although most Christians acknowledge the truth of this, their words and actions convey a different message. When a rich man makes a large gift to the church, he is heartily thanked; and although he will not feel the lack of that money himself, he is praised for his generosity. When apoor man makes a small gift, nothing is said; even though that gift may cause him to go hungry, no one praises him or thanks him. It would be better to priase no one than to confine our praise to the rich. Better still, we should take trouble to observe every true act of generosity, whether by the rich or the poor, and then offer our praise. Indeed let us be as generous with our praise as people are generous with their money.

-St. John Chrysostom

Hark! A Carol

2010-12-04T09:53:00.000-08:00

Once again as I listen to the Christmas carols playing on the radio this year, I am lulled to sleep by the wonderful beauty not only of the songs but of the messages they convey. So much theology, such a complete story of Christianity, is wrapped up in these simple hymns! And it is so gratifying to hear them play on secular radio stations - what a way to get the message out!

So I am adding some here - to just celebrate their words and to add my thoughts.

"Hark! The herald angels sing,
'Glory to the newborn King!
Peace on earth and mercy mild
God and sinner reconciled!'
Joyful all ye nations rise!
Join the triumph of the skies!
With the angelic voice proclaim
Christ is born in Bethlehem!
Hark! The herald angels sing,
'Glory to the newborn King!"

I think the fourth line says it all here - "God and sinner reconciled!" Why, that's not a statement about the nativity, it's a statement about the cross! It's all about WHY Jesus came to earth - not just the fact that He did. Of course, the joy of the nations sends a powerful message, too. For instance, that Jesus came for the entire world, not just for Israel. Rejoice ye earth!

"Christ by highest heaven adored,
Christ, the everlasting Lord;
Late in time behold Him come
Offspring of the Virgin's womb.
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see,
Hail the Incarnate Deity!
Pleased, as man, with men to dwell,
Jesus, our Emmanuel!
Pleased, as man, with men to dwell,
Jesus, our Emmanuel!"

I love the way this verse emphasizes the nature of Jesus. This is theology at its finest, and from the earliest days of Christianity. Jesus - fully God! - the Incarnate Deity! And also wholly man - a man who chooses to dwell with us!

"Hail the heaven born Prince of Peace!
Hail the Son of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings
Risen with healing in His wings
Mild he lays His glory by,
Born that man no more may die:
Born to raise the sons of earth
Born to give them second birth
Hark! The herald angels sing
Glory to the newborn king!"

This is my favorite verse of all! Once again we have the beautiful names for Jesus and a description of the joy he brings - light and life! But what I love is the incorporation of the Passion into the Christmas story. Here Jesus lays his Glory aside to come to earth as a man. But not only to come to earth, to die! Although the song doesn't talk about Jesus' death specifically, we know that is what it means when it says, "Born that man no more may die." It was his Passion that gave us that everlasting life.

Further, there is a kind of dual meaning of the words saying "Born that man no more may die: born to raise the sons of earth." The words speak of us - men. But they also tell the story of Jesus. He died, so that we would not have to die. And then he raised himself from the dead - and now he will raise us up as well.

This is why I love Christmas songs so much - what a wonderful opportunity to sing or talk about Jesus - and not just baby Jesus - His entire life's work! Because it all started at the Nativity!

2010-12-03T15:23:00.000-08:00

When a tailor makes and sells a garment, only one service is performed, that of putting clothes on a body. The same is true of a cobbler making and selling a pair of shoes; the only service in this case is to put shoes on the feet. But when a person makes a gift to another person, of money or some object, a double service is performed. First, the receiver derives a material benefit from the gift. Second, the giver derives a spiritual benefit, because this act of generosity will have brought a blessing to his soul. And there can even be a third service: if the receiver is filled with humble gratitude that will be a blessing to that person's soul. Imagine a society in which no one sold anything, but everyone shared freely their skills and wealth. Then every action in that society would bring not only material benefits, but spiritual benefits also. Such societies already exists in miniature: families operate in this way. How wonderful it would be if villages and towns could become like large families. Then heaven would come down to earth.

- St. John Chrysostom

Thus the joy of continual giving. Imagine if Christmas were all year round. Imagine if we took care of each other - first those closest to us in our families and our friends, and then ever widening our circles. Last year I went to the St. Joseph table at my church, a communal supper and fundraiser to give money to feed the poor in our parish throughout the year. What if each parish had not just one St. Joseph table, but several throughout the year. And it not only fed but clothed and sheltered the needy in the parish. And then perhaps those not "in" the parish, but in the nearby community. How great the world would be if we gave not just on holidays and parties, but all the time!

The Skill of the Rich People

2010-12-02T15:10:00.000-08:00

One person has the skill to hammer brass into the most exquisite shapes and to engrave elaborate patterns on to it. Another has the skill to make furniture, joining together different pieces of wood so firmly that no one can break them apart. A third person can spin the finest yarn, while a fourth weaves it into cloth. A fifth craftsman can lay stones one on top of the other to build walls, while a sixth puts a roof on top of the walls to make a house. Indeed there are so many different skills, each one requiring many years to attain, that it would be impossible to list them all. So what is the skill that rich people should acquire? They do not need to fashion brass or wood, or to build houses. Rather, they must learn how to use their wealth well, to the good of all the people around them. The ordinary craftsman may think that that is an easy skill to learn. On the contrary, it is the hardest skill of all. It requires both great wisdom and great moral strength. Look at how many rich people fail to acquire it, and how few practice it to perfection.

- St. John Chrysostom

This was a good challenge for me to read. One way you can read this is in terms of how we serve others. Some people have passions and talents that allow them to volunteer in very hands-on ways. But others, truly most of us in this middle-class society we live in, have financial means to give to those less fortunate. It is possible that there are those in this world whose talents are making money. There is nothing shameful in that. And if they use that money to procure their own security, and make more money, they can give even more money to those in need.

The challenge is in determining how much someone needs. We want to set aside money for the future - for future children, for retirement, or for unforeseen accidents. But hoarding too much money can be greedy and uncessary. So what is a reasonable amount? That depends on the person - we all just have to give some serious thought as to what that is for us.

The Visible Church

2010-12-01T15:06:00.000-08:00

"Theology for Beginners" by Frank Sheed has the subtitle of, "A Modern Classic." I feel the title, which appears a little self-serving, becomes a good descriptor of the book. Sheed writes in a way that is easy to understand and conversational, almost in the stylings of C.S. Lewis himself. Further, several gems pop out at you from his writings. I'd like to write a few quotes from one chapter in particular, "The Visible Church" that were "Aha" moments for me.

"There is a feeling that one who makes all his own decisions in religion is freer and more natural. But if a man joins, or remains in, the church because he believes Christ founded it to give us truth and life and union with Him, then it is mere sanity to accept the doctrines and the moral laws it tells us Christ has given it, and the means of life and union. It is not as if we could discover these things for ourselves. We know them on God's revelation or not at all. We must find the teacher authorized by God to teach and accept his authority. The alternative is to go without. And freedom is not served by ignorance."

I feel this is what many people say about "religion" or any kind of structured church. But we all accept teaching from somewhere, even from ourselves. Ultimately it is the Holy Spirit that guides us to truth, but then how can so many people be guided to different truths? It is because we are not looking to the correct teacher. Perhaps we are not able to discern on our own the truth we hear or believe. That is why he says we are not able to discover these things on our own - because even if we searched and studied, we would not be able to discern the truth between different messages without the Holy Spirit.

"She [the church] has had popes who made no fetish of personal holiness, but not one of them has ever tried to reword the law of God to allow for the indulgence of his own temptations."

This is a wonderful apologetic statement for those who use the failures of the popes to reject the Catholic church, and Sheed is absolutely right. There have been popes with mistresses, it is unfortunately true. But none of these popes has come out and said that mistresses are a good thing, a holy thing, or not a sin. Instead, they have had to personally take on the burden and shame of living a double life, but the teachings of the church have remained intact.

In addition, a similar thought really helped me on my road to determining if I should convert. Many people will accuse Catholic teachings of not being biblical, or even being anti-biblical. But the Catholics use the same Bible as Protestants. In fact, it was early Catholics who wrote the Bible we all use today - although the "Catholic Church" did not write individual letters in the New Testament (the apostles did), it chose which letters to include in the canon we now know as the Bible. If the church thought its teachings were anti-biblical, would it not be easier for it to change the Bible itself than to defend its actions? I speak in a general sense here, but specific doctrines do hold up against the Bible, and many hold up better than their Protestant counterparts.

"A medicine must be judged not by those who buy it but by those who actually take it. A Church must be judged by those who hear and obey, not by those who half-hear and disobey when obedience is difficult."

Like the quote above, this quote emphasizes that we are not to say the teachings of the church of a whole are invalid because of the lack of holiness of its members. In fact, we are all less than holy, although some are more holy or unholy than others. Still, any church would agree that they want to be judged by the message they are teaching rather than the actions its members do with the message. And though members of the Catholic Church can fail miserably, but it saints have been inspirations for the entire world.

"It seems so strange that so many Christians think the Apostles fulfilled their commission by writing the New Testament, leaving behind them no successors, nor any need for successors, with the authority the Lord had given themselves. It seems strange, for one reason, that it would mean only five of the twelve had obeyed their Master - Matthew writing a gospel, John a gospel and three brief letters, Peter two letters, James and Jude one each. Not a word written from Thomas, for instance, so ready with his tongue...
It would seem strange for another reason - that the Church Christ founded would be a teaching church only for a half-century or so, in all the centuries since merely a library. Circumstances change and someone must have the authority to apply the teachings to the new circumstances; otherwise they would end up as frustrations rather than teachings. Even in the doctrines themselves there are depths which the believing mind can explore, with all the danger of error but all the rich possibilities of development. With every operation of the unstagnant mind of man upon the truth, the question must arise, "What did Christ mean?"
So it has proved. There is not a word uttered by Christ that has not met a great number of diverse interpretations, some of them intelligent, some immensely attractive, but contradicting each other. How are we to know? Without a teacher - to tell us, beyond the possibility of error, which of the various meanings is Christ's - we should have no revelation but only an ever growing pile of conundrums."

This is a beautiful, clear way of explaining some of the thoughts that went through my head before I decided to become Catholic. There were too many people running around interpreting things differently, and even though some interpretations were very intelligent, they could also be contradictory. I knew that God would no have left us to live in a world of chaos! There had to be A truth out there to find.

Your Possessions Own You

2010-11-30T16:33:00.000-08:00

Do you feel upset when you drop a plate or pot and it smashes into tiny pieces on the ground? Do you feel anxious when a strong wind is blowing, and you can hear the tiles on your roof coming loose? Do you feel worried about the crops in your field when it rains so hard that the ground is flooded? Do you feel frightened at night when you hear a door click or squeak, wondering if robbers have come to steal your goods? To feel those things is quite normal. Yet the challenge of our faith is that we become so indifferent to material possessions that nothing of this kind can concern us. Of course, while we remain on this earth, we mus thave plates on which to serve our food, roofs above our heads to keep us dry, crops growing in the fields to feed us, and some basic pieces of furniture in our homes. But if we work hard day by day to the best of our abilities, we can be sure that God will provide what we need. And if something is broken, lost, or stolen, God will decide if and when to replace it.

-St. John Chrysostom

2010-11-28T18:22:00.000-08:00

When we live according to the moral principles of our faith, those around us may respond in three possible ways. First, they may be so impressed by the example of our goodness, and so envious of the joy which it brings, that they want to join us and become like us. That is the response which we most earnestly desire. Second, they may be indifferent to us, because they are so bound up with their own selfish cares and concerns; although their eyes may perceive our way of life, their hearts are blind, so we are unable to stir them. Third, they may react against us, feeling threatened by our example and even angry with us; thus they will cling even more firmly to their material possessions and selfish ambitions, and slander us at every opportunity. Naturally, we dread this third type of reaction, because we want to live in peace with our neighbors, regardless of their personal beliefs and values. But if no one reacts to us in this way, we must wonder whether we are truly fulfilling the commandments of Christ.

-St. John Chrysostom

2010-11-27T19:00:00.000-08:00

Some people see the houses in which they live as their kingdom; and although in their minds they know that death will one day force them to leave, in their hearts they feel they will stay forever. They take pride in the size of their houses and the fine materials with which they are built. They take pleasure in decorating their houses with bright colors, and in obtaining the best and most solid furniture to fill the rooms. They imagine that they can find peace and security by owning a house whose walls and roof will last for many generations. We, by contrast, know that we are only temporary guests on earth. We recognize that the houses in which we live serve only as hostels on the road to eternal life. We do not seek peace or security from the material walls around us or the roof above our heads. Rather, we want to surround ourselves with a wall of divine grace; and we look upward to heaven as our roof. And the furniture of our lives shoulod be good works, performed in a spirit of love.

-St. John Chrysostom

Pandora's Box

2010-11-24T17:15:00.000-08:00

Pope Benedict XVI has always been a strong leader - he does not compromise Catholic beliefs or values for modern trends. In many ways, his positions are more conservative than even his predecessor's, Pope John Paul II. So why did he open a pandora's box this week? Benedict's comments on the use of condoms this week has confused pretty much everyone in the world - Catholics and non-Catholics alike. In fact, it is only a small minority of Catholics, those perhaps most "popish" to begin with, that actually understand what he meant. Like me. I am educated in faith and morals, and after reading story after story in the news, I feel confident that I understand what he was trying to say. But I disagree, in part, with what he said, and in whole with the fact that he said it. I might even go so far to call the comments irresponsible because of the confusion it causes in Catholics, non-Catholics, and pretty much everyone else.

I said "popish" Catholics would understand what the pope meant. What I mean by that are practicing Catholics who are well versed in their faith. They know the rules, they know the teachings. They can read the comment and the comments on the comment and say, "Okay, that's just a clarification of something that was already in place." For instance, a good practicing Catholic who, for a medical reason such as the having HIV, felt a need to use condoms within a married relationship to prevent spreading it to his wife would most likely go to his priest and discuss the matter. The priest would then most likely tell him that, for this case, the use of condoms was justified. And even after the pope's recent comments, most good practicing Catholics would still want to consult a priest about these things.

But the danger for Catholics who are non-practicing or have little knowledge of the church is a misunderstanding of what the church teaches about sex and contraceptives. While the pope positively reaffirmed the church's stance on contraceptives, his comments may be confusing in the effect that it appears he is justifying certain types of relationships. For instance, how can using condoms be justified for male prostitutes when prostitution itself is a sin? For people who call themselves Catholics but don't have a knowledge of church teaching, they may see the pope's comments as an open door policy. Those already practicing sex outside of marriage may see this as the "go-ahead and by the way, please use protection" announcement they were waiting for. In America at least we have a society that hears what it wants to hear, picks up on sound bites, and doesn't bother to research the issues. Even though the Vatican followed up on the pope's comments by saying it still affirms sexual relationships ONLY in marriage, the damage may have already been done.

In addition, the comments are unclear to non-Catholics. The news media, by nature, twists stories and adds bias - it's almost unavoidable. But the fact is, they have already pounced on this story and are spreading it around as though the Catholic church's entire position has changed. In comments posted on news pages I have read cynics complaining that the "infallible" pope was changing his story. While this is juse not the case, it is a very real and serious consequence of the pope's announcement, especially in a world so ready to judge the Catholic church and Christians in general.

The truth is, papal infallibility goes only so far as the pope declares it ex cathedra. This means the pope would have to say that his statement is infallible, and the statement would be much more formal than simply a comment to a reporter. Ex cathedra statements are very rare - most popes only ever issue one and many issue none. When they are issued, they become infallible doctrine in the same sense that the Apostle Peter may have issued a statement on morals. And the church believes these statements to be infallible because we do not think God would have left us with no way to interpret scriptures in light of changing times. All other guidance by the pope is just that - guidance. It guides the church, and Catholics should seriously consider his statements. But it does not mean it has been issued infallibly, nor that it cannot be changed at a later date. The pope's statements this week were most certainly not made ex cathedra, which means he could be just as prone to misjudgment as you or me, which is exactly the reason I take issue with him stating it.

Although, as I said before, his comments do not actually change any of the prior teachings of the church, people jump to conclusions and say that the church is changing its course and therefore they must have been wrong before and are wrong in other matters. That is a dangerous lie to spread.

Finally, I think that the pope's statements dangerously add to the mythical idea of "safe sex." While not condoning sex outside of marriage, the pope has said that "safe sex" is morally responsible. However, the previous stance of, "No condoms at all" was a much safer stance to take when considering the spread of deadly diseases. So many people fall into a trap of believing that just by using condoms they can avoid STD's. The church's position has been like that of a caring parent, warning children that condoms can fail and have dire consequences when they do. Indeed, between 3% (with perfect use) and 17% (with typical use) of condoms fail. The proliferation of this usage in our society is not making the world SAFER from STD's but perpetuating them at a remarkable pace. 3% is about 1 in 33 - how many people would use 33 condoms in a given year, let alone a lifetime? And 17% is close to 1 in 5! Recent studies show that about 1 in 5 homosexual men in America have HIV and other studies say that about 1 in 5 adults of both genders have an STD of some sort. It does not seem a coincidence that the failure rate of condoms is almost exactly equal to the instance of STD's! The idea that not allowing for condom use is somehow dangerous is backwards! Rather than accept 3 - 17% of the population catching deadly diseases, is it not more humane to promote abstinence and fidelity so that 100% of the population can be disease free? Instead, the ready availability of condoms has given people the mindset that they can have "safe" sex, which leads to more sex, which spreads the disease faster and farther.

Consider this final thought. For Catholics engaged in premarital sex, the church's doctrine on contraceptives and condoms is probably the farthest thing from their mind. For if they are going to sin in this sense, why would they strictly adhere to rules that can be seen as adversarial to their health? For this reason alone the pope's comments should not have been necessary. It is like saying, "If you drive drunk, go ahead and wear a seatbelt." Telling someone to do something that "may" protect them, even when they are doing something incredibly dangerous in and of itself, is not going to solve the bigger problem. No, I think the pope opened pandora's box, and I just hope that he finds a way to close it again before too much damage is done.

Hypocrisy

2010-11-19T18:46:00.000-08:00

We who are disciples of Christ claim that our purpose on earth is to lay up treasures in heaven. But our actions often belie our words. Many Christians build for themselves fine houses, lay out splendid gardens, construct bathhouses, and buy fields. It is small wonder, then, that many pagans refuse to believe what we say. "If their eyes are set on mansions in heaven," they ask, "why are they building mansions on earth? If they put their words into practice, they would give away their riches and live in simple huts." So these pagans conclude that we do not sincerely believe in the religion we profess; and as a rsult they refuse to take this religion seriously. You may say that the words of Christ on these matters are too hard for you to follow; and that while your spirit is willing, your flesh is weak. My answer is that the judgment of the pagans about you is more accurate than your judgment of yourself. When the pagans accuse us of hypocrisy, many of us should plead guilty.

-St. John Chrysostom

2010-11-18T18:28:00.001-08:00

Imagine a carpenter with the crudest of tools. It takes him many days to make a simple table; and its quality is so low that the price he obtains for it is poor. He has a choice: either he can spend all the money he earns on food and drink, or he can set some money aside, even if it means going hungry, in order to buy better tools. If he does the latter, then he will soon be making good tables much more quickly, and so his earnings will quickly rise. This choice is analogous to a spiritual choice that each of us must make. Either we can spend for our own pleasure all the wealth we possess or we can set aside part of our wealth to give to others. If we do the latter, then we may sacrifice a few immediate, earthly pleasures; but the joy we earn for ourselves in heaven far, far surpasses the pleasure we have lost on earth. Every act of charity on earth is an investment in heaven.

-St. John Chrysostom.

Wow, so I have to think about this one a while - that is why I am posting these one at a time anyways. It really speaks to what I have been mulling over tonight, a topic that comes up often. That is, how do we reconcile the way we spend our time or money to heavenly expectations? If I don't watch THAT TV show I am missing out on entertainment and potential bonding with the folks at work. But if I am avoiding something immoral, or am doing something helpful with my time, it is worth it, right? I don't think we have to live a miserable life - that is not what I am saying. But sometimes living a life of a Christian is not as fun as the life others live. How "un-fun" are we willing to go if it means doing the right thing? The thing we know is right? And also, what is the depth to which God calls us on these right things? Is watching a bad TV show really immoral if we are not behaving as the characters on the show? Or does it corrupt our minds? What is hot and cold and lukewarm? How do we know when we've reached them?

Loaning at Interest

2010-11-17T19:06:00.000-08:00

When a family falls into poverty, it may be compelled to borrow money in order to survive. But if the lender charges interest on the loan, then that family will fall deeper into the pit: not only will they have to repay the loan but also the interest that accumulates on it. The lender may pretend, even to himself, that he is acting kindly; but in fact behind the guise of charity he is acting with extreme malice. He is trading on the calamities of others; he is drawing a profit from their distress; he is demanding a material reward for an act of charity, and so turning charity into robbery. He seems to be beckoning the poor family into a safe harbor, but in truth he is taking their ship onto the rocks. The lender may ask: "Why should I lend to others money that is useful to me, and demand no reward for it?" My answer is that you shall receive a reward: in return for the gold you lend on earth, you shall receive gold in heaven at a far greater rate of interest than you could ever imagine.

-St. John Chrysostom

In today's banking system, loaning money at interest and investing for interest are common practices and not unethical in most cases. Most money experts agree that taking out a loan on a house is necessary, and that taking out a loan on at least a first car is usually also necessary.

But there are systems that do take advantage of the needy. Payday loan companies appear to offer a quick fix, while really charging exorbitant interest. They take advantage of someone's need to have money fast. They may argue that the high interest is charged to offset the risk, but that is no excuse. Those driven to such places are in the most dire of straits, usually, and they need good financial advice and help, not gimmicks.

Now, on the other side of the aisle are those who borrow. As St. John says, sometimes it is necessary. But think carefully before entering into debt for something! Here is the example from a book I recently read that made it plain to me:

Say you make $30,000 a year, but you find you can't live on it, that you must live on $32,000. So you borrow the $2,000. Now the next year you will (especially in this raise-less economy) also make $30,000. But you will now have to pay back the $2,000. AND you will still have to cover the living expenses you tried to live on last year. So your quality of life just went from spending $32,000 a year to spending $28,000 a year, and that doesn't even begin to calculate the interest! You see the squeeze? If you are going to live on $28,000 a year, it is better to start off that way and save the $2,000 for yourself.

The Art of Being Poor

2010-11-17T18:07:00.000-08:00

The sins of the rich, such as greed and selfishness, are obvious for all to see. The sins of the poor are less conspicuous, yet equally corrosive of the soul. Some poor people are tempted to envy the rich; indeed this is a form of vicarious greed, because the poor person wanting great wealth is in spirit no different from the rich person amassing great wealth. Many poor people are gripped by fear: their hearts are caught in a chain of anxiety, worrying whether they will have food on their plates tomorrow or clothes on their backs. Some poor people are constantly formulating in their minds devious plans to cheat the rich to obtain their wealth; this is no different in spirit from the rich making plans to exploit the poor by paying low wages. The art of being poor is to trust in God for everything, to demand nothing - and to be grateful for all that is given.

-St. John Chrysostom

So it is with our society these days - class envy is alive and strong, and it drives people to extremes. We are asked to be content with what we have.

2010-11-16T18:35:00.000-08:00

Share what you have, lest you lose what you have. Spend what you possess on the needs of others in order to keep what you possess. Do not cling to what you own, lest it be taken away from you. Do not hoard your treasures, lest they rot and become worthless. Entrust all your wealth to God, because then it is protected against all who want to steal or destroy. Do you understand what these injunctions mean? Or do they sound like nonsense to you? To the person without faith, they mean nothing. But to the person with faith, they make perfect sense. Faith tells us that God alone can supply the material things on which we depend. He gives some people more than they need, not that they can enjoy great luxury, but to make them stewards of his bounty on behalf of orphans, th esick, and the crippled. If they are bad stewards, keeping this bounty to themselves, they will become poor in spirit, and their hearts will fill with misery. If they are good stewards, they will become rich in spirit, their hearts filling with joy.

-St. John Chrysostom

To those whom much is given, much is expected. It is harder to be rich, by far, and so many rich people fail at the test they are given. But those who succeed are charitable and worth of emulation by us all, even those who are "middle class," for are we not rich by the rest of the world's standards? But those who hoard their wealth only want more and more and more and are never satisfied.

Love and Marriage

2010-11-14T19:11:00.000-08:00

"In a family the husband needs the wife to prepare his food; to make, mend, and wash his clothes; to fetch water; and to keep the rooms and furniture in the house clean. The wife needs the husband to till the soil, to build and reapir the house, and to earn money ot buy the goods they need. God has put into a mans' heart the capacity to love his wife, and into a omwna's hear the capacity to love her husband. But their mutual dependence makes them love each other out of necessity also. At times love within the heart may not be sufficient to maintain the bond of marriage. But love which comes form material necessity will give that bond the strength it needs to endure times of difficulty. The same is true for society as a whole. God has put into every person's heart the capacity to love his neighbors. But that love is immeasurably strengthened by their dependence on one another's skills."

-St. John Chrysostom

At first glance, this quote may appear old fashioned - fit for the 4th century, in which it was written. But it still holds today. St. John speaks of specifics for a wife's role, but he essentially describes work - hard work. In today's society many women work outside the home, which means they work doubly hard when they get home.

But whether a marriage involves one person working outside the home or two, it is still a teamwork situation. Both wife and husband work for the betterment of the whole.

These days many people find themselves in a twisted version of what St. John is talking about. They play house first, moving in together before they get married. Then, as he mentions, they find themselves unable to break up, both dependent on each other for finances. But without the lifetime commitment, eventually they do part.

In addition, there are married couples who experience the times when "love within the heart may not be sufficient" to hold on. But as women assert their financial independence, they march out of the homes when things get rough, using day care to help raise the children.

The truth is marriage is hard, and there are times when it may seem "easier" to quit. Sometimes people pull through because they believe that marriage lasts forever. Or they need each other financially. Or they are too ashamed to admit defeat. Whatever the reason, they pull through those hard times to better times on the other side, and that's how it is supposed to be.

Because marriage isn't supposed to be all lovey-dovey and romance, but it IS supposed to last forever.

Wages

2010-11-14T19:09:00.000-08:00

"Commerce in itself is not bad; indeed it is an intrinsic part of God's order. What matters is how we conduct our commerce. The reason why commerce is necessary is that God created human beings with different ambitions and skills. One person is a good carpenter, another a good preacher; one person can make crops grow in the poorest soil, another can heal the most terrible diseases. Thus each person specializes in the work for which God has ordained him; and by selling his skills, or the goods he produces, he can obtain from others the goods that he needs. The problems arise because some people can obtain a far higher price for their work than others, or because some people employ others and do not pay a fair wage. The result is that some become rich and others poor. But in God's eyes one skill is not superior to another; every form of honest labor is equal. So inequalities in what people receive for their labor undermine the divine order."

- St. John Chrysostom

2010-11-14T19:06:00.000-08:00

"Remember how we have all been created. All human beings have a common ancestor. Thus all human flesh has the same substance; there is no difference between the flesh of the nobility and that of peasants. When we commit an act of charity, in which we use our excess wealth to help someone with too little, we are acknowledging our unity with others. After all, the rich and the poor have the same flesh, the hunger of the poor should ccause pain to the rich; and the pain can only be soothed through assuaging that hunger . Sadkly, rich people often speak about charity, expressing their good intentions, but their deeds do not match their words. Good intentions give some cause for hope: they mean that the rich recognize their unity with the poor. Our challenge is to persuade the rich to turn words into actions. Preachers must try to do this; and so also must everyone who has an opportunity to speak to the rich."

- St. John Chrysostom

2010-11-14T19:04:00.000-08:00

We do not need to buy air, water, fire, sunshine, and things of this kind. God has given enough of all these blessings for everyone to enjoy them freely. The sun shines equally on the rich and the poor, and they both breathe the same air. Why is it, then, that these necessary things, which sustain life, are created by God for common use, while money is not common? The reason is twofold: to safeguard life and to open the path to virtue. On the one hand, if the necessities of life were not common, the rich, with their usual greediness, would take them away from the poor. In fact, since they keep all money for themselves, they would certainly do the same with these necessities. On the other hand, if money were common and available to all, there would be no opportunity for generosity on the part of the rich and gratitude on the part of the poor.

- St. John Chrysostom

A Message from St. John Chrysostom

2010-11-14T18:55:00.000-08:00

A few months ago I decided to read through the "Doctors of the Church," a group of people who were considered to have made a significant theological contribution to Christianity throughout the ages. One of the books I have read was by St. John Chrysostom, a man who lived in the early days of the church and wrote about equity. I enjoyed his work because it was challenging yet doctrinally sound. I would call it a summary of Christian economics.

The book I had broke his sermons into short page-long pieces, and since St. John's works are now considered "public domain" I wanted to reproduce what he said here - it will help me to keep in mind his advice as well as to share some good wisdom with those who otherwise might not seek it.

"The rich usually imagine that, if they do not physically rob the poor, they are committing no sin. But the sin of the rich consists in not sharing their wealth with the poor. In fact, the rich person who keeps all his wealth for himself is commiting a form of robbery. The reason is that in truth all wealth comes from God, and so belongs to everyone equally. The proof of this is all around us. Look at the succulent fruits which the trees and bushes produce. Look at the fertile soil which yields each year such an abundant harvest. Look at the sweet grapes on the vines, which give us wine to drink. The rich may claim that they own many fields in which fruits and grain grow, but it is God who causes seeds to sprout and mature. The duty of the rich is to share the harvest of their fields with all who work in them and with all in need."

Answered Un-Prayers

2010-11-11T15:35:00.000-08:00

So here's a question I have been considering. I am a huge believer in the power of prayer - that all prayers are answered, even if the answer is "No." I believe that it is very reasonable that God may want to give us the things we ask for, so long as they are in His best interest and ours. I have no trouble that God CAN answer even the hardest prayer and that he is WILLING to answer prayers for even relatively small things. I don't like to pray for silly things, but I think God can use answers to silly prayers to bolster faith in others.

But here's my question - does God answer prayers we don't ask? I have found this phenomenon appearing with almost regularity in my life. A problem comes up that I either believe is to small to pray about, or that I just neglect to pray over. And yet, the problem resolves itself with miraculous speed. Now, if I didn't have a strong faith, I would call this luck, and I don't really have a problem calling it luck now. But I still wonder if it may be more than that. Is it wrong to think that maybe God is trying to get my attention? To say, "Sarah, you didn't bring this to me, but look what I can do if you would!" A little reminder to bring everything to Him.

Now, whether we believe that God does reach down and solve insignificant problems in our lives or not, there is no reason why we can't be grateful to Him. We are supposed to thank God for all our blessings, and so these answered un-prayers (as opposed to unanswered prayers) are most certainly a cause for thanks! As the Christmas song says, we should go to sleep "counting blessings instead of sheep." And maybe that is the lesson I need to learn today.

Reality TV

2010-10-27T15:12:00.001-07:00

I remember the good ol' days when reality TV first hit the scene. People were fascinated by this new genre, although at first it was just an outcropping of what had already been in place. Game shows where people competed for outlandish prizes and talk shows where people were exposed for their good deeds, odd quirks, or outrageous personalities. Still, most people I knew thought the reality TV thing was a phase that would pass. It certainly seemed that way, as soon "Celebrity" editions of popular shows came out, trying desperately to change things up to keep audiences interesting. Still, some of the first shows exist - Survivor and Big Brother, and other shows are always coming and going. Some shows are educational, others are entertaining, and still others are just wrong on so many levels.

This year I have found myself watching some of the shows, despite not having cable and despite not really wanting to. I was just drawn in. But I feel like I could be a great contestant on some of these shows. For other shows, I will have to wait for "special editions" to compete, like:
"America's Next Top Really Really Short Slightly Overweight Kinda Old to Begin a Career Like this and Not All That Attractive to Begin With Model." (also known as "America's Next Top Foot Model" (or hand...or elbow...just not face)
"The Moderate Loser" For those of us who really want to be pushed to lose that extra 10 - 20 pounds
"Dancing With the Regular People."
"Extreme Makeover: Condo Edition" Although I've never seen them demolish a home that is part of a larger block of homes...I don't think I have done anything of merit to qualify for this.
"I Was Smarter than a Fifth Grader when I Was in Fourth Grade."

But I think reality TV should try to do some good in the world, while it is going strong. For instance, instead of all the celebrity editions of everything, these shows should hire people who have been out of work for a long time, to help jump start the economy. Also, some of the TV shows could really serve purposes in psychological research, all they would have to do would be to tweak a few things to make the experiments truly scientific. A show I watched a few times, "Dating in the Dark," claims to be a unique new dating experiment. Well, why not take it up a notch and get some psychology grad students involved in designing the show so that it truly meets the qualifications for an experiment. The same could be said about, "What Would You Do?" This is a great show that puts people in interesting situations and then tests what they would do. It is close to scientific because they change up different variables, one at a time, in order to see if the response changes. Once again, just a few tweaks, and people could write believable research papers on the results. Similar to "Myth Busters," it would be both educational and entertaining, and colleges would benefit from the research funding.

And, of course, the shows could continue the great work they do with charity - shows like Oprah's big giveaway, where people compete to do the most good or like "Extreme Home Makeover." Even normal shows like "American Idol" or "Dancing With the Stars" could incorporate community service - teaching young, at risk, teens how to dance or sing to keep them out of trouble.

And maybe we could get some of the morals back in line with traditional American values, or at least not glorify risky behaviors. Imagine a show about young people choosing to date purely. Or the next episode of the bachelor could (SPOILER ALERT) end with the bachelor rejecting both finalists with a Public Service Announcement type discussion on why we don't enter serious relationships with men who date multiple women at once.

Since reality TV looks like it's here to stay, I just figured these could become incorporated into the genre for the betterment of all Americans.

Silence

2010-09-10T18:15:00.000-07:00

I wonder what it would have been like to be an alien watching our planet in the 1940's. Or even an impressionable teenager or pre-teen. The world seemed ready to fall apart, at war for years. Millions were dying. In Europe, a crazy dictator was methodically trying to exterminate an entire race of people. Others, even those who were considered credible in the free world, supported a less drastic measure of "purifying" the world through eugenics. Wars raged on, with no side appearing to win, and all over the globe. Those countries that abstained from the war effort drew into themselves, their populace beginning to seethe with discontent. In or out of the world, things would have appeared hopeless - perhaps to the extent of the end of humanity itself.

If we didn't know it was true, the horror of the Holocaust would seem like a sci-fi or horror film. I saw "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas," and it seemed like some sort of M. Night Shamaylan creepfest, but unfortunately too much of it was based on historical fact (the surprise twist was made up).

And then, a victory - in Europe - that gave hope to the world, but it was short lived hope. How could the Allies rest while there was still a gruesome war going on halfway around the world?

And so it happened in early August, two flashes of light. Boom. Boom.

And then, silence.

If our observer were to watch the next 50 years, it would be as if the entire world took a collective gasp. What was this horror that had been unleashed? And when would it strike next? It was as if the world was waiting.

On the planet, life went on - advances were made in technology, social norms changed, people married and had children, they worked and played. But collectively, the gasp remained. In the silence of space, looking down on the planet our observer might wonder what had happened to make the planet as quiet as the space around it.

And gruesome as the question is, I have to wonder, 65 years later, why there were only two explosions.

While the world gasped at the display of power, the United States stood like a mother separating feuding children. The world was gasping. She was screaming, "Stop!" Like the first time a child gets spanked, the effect was instantaneous and, in the scheme of history, short lived.

Our alien doesn't know that in the quiet the world shivers. Nations race to develop the power to explode these horrendous bombs. But the mother is ready, her arms remain outstretched, weapon in hand, facing her enemy, who also carries his weapon. The parents face off - the children cower behind their legs.

I can't help but wonder what would have happened if it had not been the United States who developed this weaponry first. What if it had been any one of our three main enemies at the time. Would they have used the bombs as a warning signal? Or would they have used them to annihilate their enemies and advance their agenda? I know that history is written by the winners, and that the winners therefore come out as "good." But couldn't you also assign the term "good" to the defenders, rather than the aggressors? In which case, wouldn't the result be the same?

Silence.

After going through the Liberty Memorial, I am even more aware now that we may just be living in the time between two wars. 20 years after World War I, Hitler was still vengeful. 20 years after World War II, the war was still at the forefront of Europe's mind, and C.S. Lewis was always writing about it in the 60's.

And yet, even as the pot starts to simmer again, I wonder if this weapon will ever seriously come back. The mother is watching the kids of her enemy - little children who want to play with their daddy's gun. But mother still has her arms outstretched, ready to defend her children. I think that, even between the adult parents, there was an unspoken agreement not to pull the weapon out again. A decision to take two steps back in that particular scientific advancement to advance the cause of something more important that was threatened by its very existence. Humanity.

A Never Ending Recession

2010-09-03T20:42:00.000-07:00

I'm two classes short of a minor in economics, but I do have a Master's in Accounting. And two years into the Recession, I have the same thought about it I did going in. "How did the Great Depression end?" and "Will this not be a self perpetuating crisis?" Frankly, I don't think there is a way out, and it's a good and bad thing. Much like the crisis we have created with healthcare, it is a crisis of our own doing.

Let me explain.

During the recession, people are either out of work or afraid they will become out of work, or they are asked to take a pay cut. As such, they cut back on spending all but the necessities. This causes companies that make "luxury" items (anything that is not clothes, food, houses, cars) to lose revenue and lay people off, adding to the recession. Now, some of these companies struggle as well, because we have found creative ways to make a necessity (car) a luxury (fully-loaded SUV, a new one purchased every two years). So more people lose jobs, less people buy luxuries. I really don't see the cycle ending until we are back to food, utilities, cars, houses, etc. (On the other hand, when the iPad and the Kindle are some of the hottest selling items of the year, can anyone really say that we are in a recession? Perhaps people just traded their annual splurge on a car to a splurge on an electronic device - I could see that).

But there is something, I think, different about this recession than there was about the Great Depression. We actually have enough resources to go around. Yes, there has been an influx of homeless and no structures in place to take care of them, but that is just because shelters take time to build. Americans still produce enough food and clothes and shelter to give everybody the necessities.

Take a simple economy. 100 years ago people spent all day every day making food. Everybody worked and everybody ate. Then someone discovered a way to make twice as much food using half the workers. Now there is a surplus of food, but there is 50% unemployment. The question becomes, how do you distribute food to people who aren't working? So the newly unemployed start being creative. They invent luxury goods and a perceived "need" among the employed. They trade those goods for food. Again, someone refines the process, and the number of employees needed to produce food is cut in half again. Pretty soon, only a small fraction of the population is producing food for the entire population, but a large economy has sprung up to trade non-food luxury items back and forth.

Now, let's look at real history. In the 1950's we suddenly had an influx into the workforce. We always talk about women going to work, but in reality, we mean middle class women. Any perusal of a 19th century novel will show you that women had been working for centuries - either to support themselves or if their husbands could not make enough to support a family. So what we mean by women in the workforce is "women who otherwise would not HAVE to work and still be able to feed their family."

Of course this caused an economic boom. Families' incomes doubled, so they were able to purchase more luxury goods. And these luxury good companies sprung up and hired the additional workforce that had caused such an influx.

Now we are faced with the opposite problem. Baby boomers are starting to retire - which may help our employment numbers. But it also means the largest portion of the population will be scrapped for cash.

But if we think about present unemployment numbers and then walk back to the pre-1950's era, are we really surprised that we now see 10 - 17% unemployment? (17% is the estimated actual unemployment when people who have dropped out of the job market are considered). Would this represent the previously unemployed middle class woman?

I wonder if every married, parenting couple that could affor do to so voluntarily selected a parent (let's be feminist here and say it could be the father OR mother) to stay home with the children, I imagine our unemployment numbers would fade away. Sure, these families may have to downsize and not live the large life they had been living. But look at the alternative. Employment is allocated sporadically across the population. Most families still have two incomes, while young singles right out of college and divorced mothers may have been hit by layoffs. Going back to a pre-1950's model may actually put our economy back in balance. It would just lower our standard of living.

But once again, our standard of living was actually over-inflated. Partially because so many people were living up to their ears in debt (I am still furious at what I see as the majority of American people who put us into this terrible mess and still expect someone else to get them out of it). But also because we had two-income households.

I am not writing this as a sort of action item, although I do think the real benefactors of having single income families would be the children who get to be raised by their parents again instead of corporate day care. I am just pointing out that the economy is a big and complicated monster - prone to cough up problems rooted decades ago. We must face the reality that perhaps our productivity is so good that we can only ever gainfully employ 90% of the population. And we have resources enough for everyone - we are just in the middle of growing pains to discover how to make sure everyone has them.

On 9/11

2010-09-03T20:33:00.000-07:00

Sometime in the days after September 11, 2001, my history teach began to ponder the impact of the terrorist attacks in a historical sense. I remember how he analzyed it at the time, that it was not as big an event as the attacks on Pearl Harbor had been. But, he said, we would have to see just what the consequences of the attacks were.

Nine years later, I think he was right to some extent, but he may have undervalued the significance of the attacks. Nine years later we are still involved in the war on Afghanistan and the War on Terror. Nine years later people are still sore and hurting about a mosque being built in New York City. Nine years later the idea of a terrorist attack is more real to us than it ever was before the attack.

Pearl Harbor forced our hands - and it got us involved in a world wide war, and it ultimately resulted in the Allies winning the war. If the War on Terror ever careened to the proportions of World War II (I hope not World War III at all), then it would be comparable.

I also noticed the impact World War II had on those who lived in that time period, and also the impact of World War I. 20 years after World War I, Hitler began the second World War because he was still bitter about the outcome. 20 years after World War II C.S. Lewis was writing books about the war, using Nazis as his example of "bad guys." (Frankly, 65 years later World War II continues to have a lasting impact on us - even those who did not live in that time period. It literally changed the world!)

So we are not even halfway to the midpoint of 20 years to see if this was a defining moment. We are in the middle of a recession that, experts say, will define my generation's spending habits. And my generation is still involved in the Afghanistan war. But in 11 years will we all continue to think of September 11th with the same patriotism and fervor that we do now?

I don't know. And I don't know what answer I would like. I would like to say "yes" because it means we would remember those who died that day and what it means to be an American. On the other hand, to say "yes" would imply the terrorists had won - they had created an "incident" as great and terrible as the attack on Pearl Harbor had been.

But I supose it doesn't matter - in 20 years I will probably still know exactly what 9/11 means on my calendar. But hopefully 11 years from now the terrorists will finally understand what the Japanese learned - don't mess with the USA.

An afterthought: the other day I went downstairs to our cafeteria, and the news was playing. On it was a picture of black, billowing smoke. My immediate thougth was, "Oh no, what have they blown up this time?" The video turned out to be of the oil well explosion in the Gulf. However, it reminded me of the impact 9/11 had on me - an embedded uneasiness about certain things - behaviors of airplanes, clouds of smoke. I don't know when that unease will go away.

A Good Friday

2010-09-02T16:04:00.000-07:00

Recently I wrote about a typical Sunday for me. I thought it would be fun to explain my typical Friday. First of all, let me backtrack to the rest of the week. Most nights I get home around 5:00 and aim for bed by 9:00 (so I actually get to bed by 10:00). These days include as long a walk as I can stand, eating dinner, playing computer games, maybe a soak in the tub.

Mondays I volunteer, which I always go to in a crabby mood, dragging my feet. I don't get home until 7:30 or later, which cuts my 5 hours into about 2 (thus the crabbiness).

Tuesdays Kristen is usually home, so I like to talk to her. Sometimes we just sit together in the living room both playing our computers. Sometimes we go out to dinner.

Wednesdays are my veg nights. I have nothing going on.

Thursdays I have puppy class (intermediate dog training, actually).

But Fridays I don't care when I go to bed, because I can "sleep in" or take a nap the next day. So I have a ritual. While the general weeknight pattern takes place, I have a few twists. I eat cheese pizza, for one. I also allow myself any other fun snack - like ice cream or s'mores. Sometimes I rent a movie. But the best part happens at 9:00.

At 9:00 I get into the big poofy red chair and prop my feet up. I have at my disposal a book or my laptop. I also have a nice glass of either wine or Dr. Pepper (in a wine glass, of course, to add to the glamour of it). Then I turn on the TV and watch "Star Trek: The Next Generations" - which I personally think is the least appealing of the four series I have followed in my life, but which I had rarely cared to see when it was airing. I get lost in the sci-fi show, in odd musings, subtle political statements. And, of course, I have my book or computer for the advertisements.

After Star Trek the King of Queens comes on and reminds me of my stay in Chicago - ah, I miss those days!

And I also miss Fridays when I don't get to play this came. I am half tempted to perform the routine tonight, and just risk being crabby tomorrow morning. I haven't decided yet, but I do know that I don't have any Dr. Pepper or wine lying around...

Memorial to Liberty

2010-08-30T18:59:00.001-07:00

The first and last things you witness at the Liberty World War I Memorial Museum are striking, overwhelming, and contemplative. For lack of a better description, they are, “Whoah!” moments. And everything in between is like walking through a History Channel special – complete with sounds and music, wafting through the museum, from the video repeating itself at the far end of the exhibit.

The first “Whoah” comes with the entrance video that uses the primitive footage of the day to describe the factors leading up to the first World War. Social, economic, political, nationalistic. Along with ominous drums beating, the video informed us that the pot was boiling. And then, the assassination of the Archduke of Hungary.

What comes next is what makes the entire video worthwhile – the words scroll up too quickly to write down or memorize, but I will summarize from what I can remember. One at a time, in complete silence, the following sentences appear on the screen. “One month later, within the course of a week:” “Russia declares war on Austria.” “Germany declares war on Russia.” “Germany mobilizes its troops against Belgiuim.” “France declares war on Germany.” “Russia declares war on Germany.” “Germany declares war on France.” “England declares war on Germany.” Within a week, the entire world is at war.

The first half of the museum takes you through the first half of the War – when only Europe was involved. You are astonished by the death toll – over 20 million – not just stated, but displayed in various graphs. One in three soldiers die. You see photographs of ancient castles in Europe destroyed. And you peer into diorama trenches to see exactly what trench warfare looked like from a soldier’s point of view and hear him describe his experience. Trench warfare defined World War I – in a little less than a month after the war began battle lines were drawn. Both sides dug trenches and waited. Waited for the other side to lose enough men to give up. For three years, the battle lines barely changed. Meanwhile Germany began to suffer a horrible famine, even as its resources were being sent to the war.

Another moving, although less mind-boggling, video describes the environment in which America entered the war. In short, Germany offered Mexico the Southwest states if they would join the war against the U.S. and convince Japan to do the same. In an act of outrage and self-defense, President Wilson, who had just been re-elected because of his stance of trying to gain peace in Europe while staying out of the war, declared war on Germany. Coming from a museum in Kansas City, MO, USA, perhaps the video was a little one sided. But I couldn't help but be moved by the thought of the Americans coming to the rescue - that it was our entrance into the war that changed the outcome and spelled the beginning of the end.

In fact, after three years of deadlock, the war the Americans entered was fairly fast paced. Just the body count of the troops we sent to Europe drastically outnumbered the German soldiers. Even though Russia pulled out to deal with its own crisis, the Allies still pushed through. Once the war was won, it was interesting to think of what a horror that time period must have been. The dead, over 20 million, were barely buried when a flu crisis swept around the world, killing as many. Communism swept through Russia, causing panic and scare in America. And Germany was left bitter. Even more interesting was learning that England was already setting up a Jewish state in Israel and dealing with Palestinians to negotiate a treaty - a treaty that would be vague and broken and lead to lasting tensions 100 years later.

The museum is set up in a kind of mirror image, and so the last "Whoah" moment came at the end, in a room of quotes. Each quote was on a holographic display, and when you moved around it, you could see who said it and when. The second to last quote hissed, "The deaths of 2 million German boys shall not have been in vain - we demand vengeance." Who said it? Adolf Hitler, 1923. Chilling.

The first time I went to the museum another takeaway was the sheer brutality of the conditions of war. Men lived in trenches filled with icy mud, with very little room. They were dirty, cold, sick, scared. We really have no appreciation for intense pain these days. But then again, not long before World War I, pioneers were travelling through heat and cold to cross the country and living amid bugs, bad water, and dangerous attacks. People were working in dangerous factories and living in dirty slums. Life was just plain harder back then. Add to the distress the sheer pointlessness of the war - a war even experts can't quite agree on why it happened.

But one thing is for certain - although we may not understand why World War I happened, we know exactly what caused World War II. The War to End All Wars did not take the pot off the heat, it just left it simmering.

DiSCover Your Personality Type

2010-08-27T18:44:00.001-07:00

Red, yellow, lion, D, C. What do these things have in common? Why, they're personality types, of course! In my short life I have undergone multiple personality tests. They are an almost magical window into the unknown world of me, or anyone else, and yet, they use a simple and accurate method to analyze your deepest desires. You. Unlike horoscopes and bogus personality tests that ask your favorite color, real personality tests ask you to describe yourself in unique ways and by thinking of different situations. And what I find interesting is that the three legitimate tests I know of end up with four basic personality types. Now, I don't know if a Lion and Red and i are all the same thing - I get more confused allocating the animals out. So I am going to talk about a personality system I took last summer, DiSC, because I am most familiar with it, and because my family members have also happened to take this test.

In one sentence or less, the personality types in the DiSC test are:
D - Leader, impatient, results oriented, fast paced decision maker.
i - Politician, personable, chatty, people oriented
S - Loyal, kind, nice, friendly
C - Logical, wants the correct answer.

Note that the i and S personality types are people oriented and describe people that most of us would want to be our friends. The outer two are more results oriented, and they describe traits that many of us would see as key to success. Remember that.

Now, the DiSC test can actually create infinite personality types, but there are 12 main ones. Each person has a most dominant and second most dominant personality trait. For instance, my mom is a CS - Logical but also really nice. The infinite number of traits just depends on the person. Some people have almost even traits - where all four are either high or low. Some people have dramatic differences between their first trait and their second. There is a graph I filled out for myself, but just imagine each trait being assigned a number, and the higher the number, the more of that trait you have. But the 12 main ones are the combinations of the strongest and second strongest trait for any given individual. And that is what we were asked to look at when learning about our personalities.

So if there are 12 traits, we end up with 2 traits being predominantly results oriented (non-social), and 2 traits being predominantly people oriented - DC, CD, iS, Si. Assuming that personality traits are evenly distributed across the population (which they very well may not be) that results in 1 in 6 having very few people skills and 1 in 6 being incredibly people oriented. When I think of this, it makes sense. Most people are just normal, but get a group of friends together and you will ultimately have one wallflower and one social butterfly (unless the group is of 12 people, in which case you will have two of each, and so on).

Now, I wanted to blog about this, because I want to bring it up later. In addition, I think it's important to be aware of the different personalities and what they bring to the table. Their strengths and weaknesses. I think everyone should participate in a personality study (not just the test - there should be some formal or informal learning ABOUT the different personalities as well, not just your own) at some time in their life. Many companies promote these as well. But your personality types affects how you see the world. I, unfortunately, am of the 1 in 6 with double no-people-skills personality whammy. DC. That is not an excuse for me to be rude or anything, but it helps me understand some of my difficulties in working with people. I also wish more people would attempt to understand the DC's and CD's.

When I was learning about the DiSC personalities, our instructor divided us into groups by strongest trait, so I was with the C's (my test was wrong the first time I took it, but my CD numbers are similar). It was fun working with like-minded people to answer the instructor's questions. (I also had fun pointing out when my C's were acting like D's "Let's just answer the question and keep going." Because I was at a training for accountants, there were quite a few C's that had strong D traits and, I assume, vice versa). Right before this exercise I had been complaining to a friend that the i's ruled the world. Even though we all went through these nice little personality sessions, at the end of the day we were all expected to talk to each other and behave like i's. During show and share my worst fears were confirmed. When asked how their personality group could change and be aware of other personality types, the i's said, "We don't change for other people. Other people change for us."

A year later, I am still exhausted by this mentality. Being an i is a self-perpetuating talent. At some point you were accepted in a large peer group, you developed skills for engaging with lots of people (I think i vs. S may have a little to do with those who prefer a large circle of friends vs. a smaller circle). And now you will always have a large circle of friends because you have a sort of magnetism. You are popular.

I wonder if there was ever a time where the "popular" or "admired" personality type was a D or C. I think, perhaps, during the times of the Greek philosophers C's were admired and respected. D's or Di's are probably in their prime in times of war - when great leaders need to take charge. (Now a Di or iD is probably a politician, and you can see how respected those are). And some personality traits are gender linked, too. I don't think there are more female S's than i's, but if you have the people personality, I think women are expected to behave more like S's, while men are expected to behave more like i's.

Ultimately I have never walked away from a personality session without being cognizant that it takes all four types to really get anywhere - whether we have that in people with two strong traits or a mix of one strong trait for everyone. I just wish the world at large would begin to recognize the contribution of the D's and C's.

Letters to Malcom: Chiefly on Prayer

2010-08-27T18:43:00.000-07:00

For C.S. Lewis to write a book on prayer would have been too hard. It would have been boring, dull, and full of claims he could not substantiate. So instead he wrote, "Letters to Malcom" (by the way, I know the correct grammar for a book title is to underline it, but because of limited formatting here on the internet, I put the titles in quotes, I hope you don't mind). These were imaginary letters to an imaginary (I assume) friend in which Lewis discussed his thoughts on prayer and many other things. How fun would that book have been to write! Not only did he put down all the thoughts he wanted to convey to the general public in the letters, but he had to imagine what the response of his dear friend had been and so formulate his writing. It is not, I think, unlike when I write and wonder what some of my close friends would say in response to my ideas or opinions and then try to address such objections or comments before they are made.

It was, I believe, a quote from C.S. Lewis in a different book on prayer (but by Philip Yancey) which taught me that we can pray for past events, so long as we do not know the outcome. I heard once of a man who said, jokingly I believe, that he always prayed his parents would meet or that a great Christian writer would be converted. But this was silly, since he knew the positive outcome of both. While he could pray in thanksgiving for the occurrence of the events, intercessory prayer was no longer needed. On the other hand, if his friends had handed him St. Augustine's "Confessions," and he had proceeded to read it, knowing nothing of Augustine but only that he truly lived, it would seem reasonable to pray for his conversion, until one had finished the book and found that said conversion had, indeed, happened. As he said, our prayers are answered from eternity (no matter what the answer is) - because God is outside of time as we know it.

Another mind-boggling concept that Lewis put forth in his book was about our attitude toward prayer. It's hard, isn't it? I mean, he blatantly stated that many times we rush through it, get distracted easily from it, or do it out of a sense of obligation. I have been driven to distraction by how much I am distracted at prayer. But Lewis also adds an excellent point - perhaps the times when we pray because we feel obligated to, or when it is hardest to do so because we are tired or distracted or bored, are the times when our prayers are most pleasing to God. Don't get me wrong, I think we need to cultivate a joy of prayer and focus on developing our relationship with God. But it makes perfect sense that it doesn't make sense to pray, especially if you don't enjoy it. So forcing yourself to do something unpleasant is a true sign of belief, of faith, of desire to please God. Think about it - a man who is scared for his life may pray very earnestly and without distraction even if he has never prayed before. Another man may dutifully sit in his room twice a day to speak to the Almighty, even when he'd rather be fishing or reading or eating or sleeping. Doesn't the second man show more of a devotion? A desire to cultivate a relationship?

Another point he makes is that ready-made prayer and home-made prayers have a blurry line between the two. Some people look down on ready-made prayers, when in reality, the Lord's Prayer is one of the most popular prayers of all time (and rightly so, given its context). But Lewis also points out that many times our prayers become formulaic, whether we mean for them to or not, and sometimes they become outright repetitive. So is a home-made prayer recited every night any better than someone else's prayer recited every night? Wouldn't it be the heart behind the prayer that matters more than who came up with the original words? I have also heard that some repetitive prayers serve more as a meditation tool - to be background noise to the heart as the heart works out its own prayer, whether that prayer be with words or not.

It's So Crazy It Just Might Work...

2010-08-26T15:42:00.000-07:00

So I've been thinking up some crazy/controversial/would never work in a million years improvements we could make to the government and tax code. And, like any out of this world idea, the more I think about it, the more I like it, and the more reasonable it becomes. So I've decided to share it - because it seems so ingenious, and also because I am trying to find flaws in it (other than the obvious, "People would never go for it!" and "It's too much change!")

First of all - the change I think is more realistic, which has to do with Congress. I would like to make each state pay for its own congressmen. Doesn't this make sense? All states are equal in senators, but why should a state like Kansas, with four representatives, also pay taxes in to support the salaries of the many many many California reps? Further, if states paid salaries, then the states could dictate how much the congressmen should make. Instead of allowing Congress to vote themselves pay raises, the state senate and state house could decide if a raise was in order. This wouldn't necessarily eliminate a, "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" situation, but it would be at least one additional control to, "Why, yes, thank you, I do think I deserve a raise!" Within the state, we could also add a control - the Senate votes for the House raises and vice versa. And salaries could be set a one level, say $50k, and then indexed for inflation using an unbiased index, to be re-evaluated only once every 10 years or so.

Now, as states start to see this cost coming out of their own budgets, they will naturally want to cut costs, which leads to the second phase - telecommuting congressmen. Honestly, of all the jobs in the world, this should be one that is acceptable to perform from home or the state capitol - unless you are emotionally attached to the U.S. Capitol building. I think this will make congress much more productive. Sure, filibusters would be easier, but you could also do online voting to break it. Imagine congressmen dealing in multi-tasking politicking - chat sessions while watching the video of a speaker and making phone calls to their peers. Work could be done around the clock. Controls would have to be made - such as a fingerprint or retina scan to vote - because a really good hacker or wife could easily override a password control. How much money do we waste flying congressmen back and forth? We could completely eliminate that. And congressmen would have to live at home like the rest of us. Finally, this would set an example by all the "Green" politicians for individuals and businesses to conserve energy and minimize commuting and travel.

My next idea is crazier.

I propose that the government evaluate its budget and create three categories - Necessary Infrastructure (such as roads, the Executive Branch, and revenue department), Military (including FBI and CIA), and Social Programs / Services. This last category would be a catch all for everything except Social Security and Medicare (which I will someday write about separately). Let's throw it all in there - schools, national parks, welfare, foodstamps, everything. (By the way, I think we could privatize much government - for instance, what if all interstates were toll roads? It is not reasonable to toll a city street, but an interstate is different. Then the cost of driving on it would be burdened by those who drive the most - a cost driver, or add a surtax to airplane tickets to pay for airport security). Let's say that the analysis comes out as such: Infrastructure 10%, Military 40%, Everything Else 50%.

I now suggest that, after a quick delousing of the tax code, a new tax structure is put in place. It will look a lot like the old one - with the brackets and all. (Although I generally favor a flat tax - let's make baby steps here). Citizens will now have only half the amount of taxes taken out of their paychecks as before. The other half will be calculated the same way, by the government and tax code, as a mandatory charitable contribution. Everyone will have to contribute to any charity of his or her choice, else pay a tax fine. For instance. Roy makes $100k. His tax rate is 30%. He now pays $15k in taxes to the Federal Government (I am only talking about the Federal government here at all) and is required to pay $15k to a charity or charities of his choosing. If he does not pay the $15k, then he must pay the entire amount plus an extra 5% ($5k) in additional taxes to the federal government.

Charities would continue to be defined as the not-for-profit organizations currently recognized by the government, and they would be expanded to include other groups, such as schools. (Local municipalities would be able to continue to support education with local taxes, but the federal funding would go away). All Federal Social programs would cease. They would have been replaced with charities.

The benefits of this idea are obvious. First of all, the free market and not special interest groups or the vocal few, would determine the value of a social program. (Think, the arts vs. food for the hungry - art is nice and all, but it should be able to sell on its own just like any product. I don't want my tax dollars paying for some of that sicko stuff). Second, charities are MUCH more efficient than the federal government and have less red tape to deal with. Even if "taxing" charitable contributions caused a decrease in the funding of these programs overall (compare the dollars spent before on Federal Programs + Charities to the monies spent afterwards on Charities alone), the efficiencies of the charities, which now have an influx of money, would overtake the decrease in dollars spent.

Another obvious benefit would be the economic impact. "Taxes" would go down for everyone, while we pay the same amount or less to help people. (There were always those who spent nothing, and there will always be those who spend more than is required). As charities get the funding they need, they can hire workers instead of relying on volunteers, they can buy the supplies they need, and they can execute large projects they had been putting off. All this will add money to the economy while still helping those in need.

There would be a psychological impact as well. People would get to take ownership of their money and help people. If you gave me $1,000 to give to charity, I would still feel good about it if I got to pick the charity, even though it was never my money. Consider the increased impact of giving my own money away, even if it is forced. Everyone has different passions, and each person can use their money towards the not-for-profit(s) he or she feels most strongly about. Parents can use all their contribution towards their local school. Animal lovers can give to the Humane Society. Bleeding hearts can donate to homeless shelters. All these diverse interests would simply help to buoy charities that are already successful and fill almost every need society can come up with. Further, people can start their own charities knowing that when they ask for donations, people might be more willing to give (in an effort to fulfill that tax requirement by the end of the year).

Now, the potential pitfalls of this plan should be addressed, and with the addressing of them, a little bit of beaureacracy - but I like to call it clarification.

First of all, if not-for-profits got an influx of money, would they not just hoard it? Or become "for-profit?" Well, we would have to start taxing them. The charity tax would be different than that on individuals and corporations - they would just have to pay 100% to other charities. So, if a church had an operating budget of $1 million but received $1.2 million in tithes, it could do one of several things. It could increase spending, perhaps by paying a higher salary to the staff (a higher salary which would, in turn, result in "tax" revenue for other charities), or it could set aside the money for a capital project (a reasonable amount, subject to audit), or it could donate a percentage of its operating surplus (like 25%) to yet another charity.

What about charities that are competing for public attention focusing too much on advertising? Well, for one, this is not entirely bad, because it will employ advertisers and raise awareness. But the tax law should not change for charitable events. For instance, if Yellowstone had a fundraiser where, for $5,000 you could go on a private tour of the park and stay there for a week in a fancy suite, you could only count, say, $4,000 towards your required yearly charitable contribution if the cost of a normal trip to Yellowstone was $1,000. If you pay $50 for a charity banquet, that won't count unless you fork up additional money once there (because you got a fancy meal).

And what about charity waste? What if schools start lining their hallways with gold? Well, so what? Already we donate to a lot of programs that can be eccentric or wasteful - many churches are oversized or over-glitterized. But the government creates a lot of waste, too. Anything the charity spends its money on also creates commerce.

Finally, what happens when charities start mixing their donations with services? Like, if you want to use your entire donation towards your child's private school, but then they waive the tuition? I'd say they shouldn't be able to do that. But that will even out as well. If a school charges $5k a year in tuition, but then concerned parents start donating like crazy to the school, the initial reaction will be to lower the tuition for all. But lower tuition will open the doors to private schooling to many who could not afford it before, and the rollbooks will swell beyond capacity. The school can then either add on (which will require capital expenditures and therefore once again raising tuition) or it can cut students. But now it is cutting the amount of students by a qualification other than money - test scores, locality, etc. When it does this, a new mix enters the private school - a mix of higher and lower income students all chosen for their academic abilities. Once some high earning parents choose to donate their money elsewhere (their son or daughter's new school), the school will once again need to raise funds. This cycle will repeat until a good medium ground is met. Tuition may settle down at $3k a year, and parents with school age children will choose to spend all or most of their required charitable contributions at the school.

In fact, I believe one of the greatest beneficiaries of my idea will be schools. Parents will begin taxing directly to schools, and will therefore hold those schools more accountable. School budgets will skyrocket. And as education gets better, our entire country will benefit.

Scams may be inevitable, but they are inevitable now.

As far as implementation, I recommend a one year phase-in. Instead of a charitable deduction, people will be allowed a charitable credit on their taxes up to 50% of their tax expense for the year. The government may collect a lot less money this way, but it can also start phasing out social programs. It can find those programs that can easily be assimilated into a successful local charity and facilitate that process (sending federal funds to the charity until the new tax code is phased in). It can then start to cut other, more wasteful programs, either cold turkey, or by phasing out the impact (for instance, if you qualify for foodstamps perhaps the monthly amount on your card would decrease throughout the year. In the mean time you would be sent information on local food kitchens and pantries - food kitchens and pantries that would theoretically be ramping up production).

One final benefit - and it has to do with the psychological impact. Some may choose one large donation a year. Others may set aside the required amount each paycheck. Still, everyone will be tested - we will all have to keep charitable programs near the top of our minds. We will look around for ways to help people and see ways we can and take ownership. Instead of pushing the task of taking care of our fellow man on to the government, the government will be pushing the task on to us. As we "fix" our country by improving schools, helping the homeless, and keeping the environment

A Fresh Breeze

2010-08-25T17:52:00.001-07:00

When I stepped outside my house yesterday morning, I was hit with a refreshingly cool blast of air. The outside temperature had dropped to somewhere in the 60's, and I believed I could have stood outside much longer without being too cold and yet still feeling the rush of cool wind on my face. Again I experienced the coolness, and also the silence, at 2:30 this morning when I took my dog out, although I kind of rushed inside creeped out a bit. Outside the streets are silent, cool, inviting. It feels like fall and school, even though we all know another heat spell or two are around the corner before the leaves start to change.

I love fall. Fall is so motivating to me. It always feels like something exciting is coming, even though that something is winter, which is not exciting (unless that Something is Christmas, which is). Looking back on my life, I suppose I see why. Although summers were good for vacation, camps, rest, and working hard, fall brought me back into daily contact with my friends, into exploring new subjects in school, and to fresh blank notebooks, ready to be written in! What is more exciting than an open book?

And in recent memory, I can honestly say the best three months of my life (in, say, the last 10 years or so), happened during the fall.

And this fall I absolutely know something is coming because I am in planning mode. If my plans fail, or if my dreams are not realized, I have backups and alternatives galore to fill my head with excitement. Yes, an intense fall prepares me for an exciting winter and so on. Life will move fast now or it will drag on. I only have to savor it.

Fall is also nice because we can once again venture outside. Every summer we get excited at the opportunity to spend our days at the pool and our nights in the backyard barbecuing. But reality hits, and we rush into the air conditioning to escape the biting bugs and the searing sun. And compare fall with spring, where hopes are also born of venturing out in the warming weather. But spring is always wet. And, although October has its fair share of rain, I feel like the tendency in fall is toward the perfect crisp, cool, sunny day.

Walking down the city street in the cooler weather made me FEEL much more like I was in a big city again. Perhaps this was because one fall I was. Or perhaps because I felt more able to enjoy my surroundings in general, no matter where they were. Still, as I readied to cozy up in the winter, I imagined a new social experiment - a month without a car. These are my chronicles of commuting on public transportation.

Fascinating, right? After I had mentally planned everything out, I realized none of it would work. I would have to walk 1.5 miles each way to the bus stop each day, and I would need to get there by 6:00-ish. Rain or shine. And in September I would have to start wearing dress-clothes to work again. What about volunteering on the weekends? Was there a stop any bit closer to my house? Oh, the weight I would lose! But financially I'd be no better off! I'd have to drive more miles into work or pay for parking to break even on the bus. So my mental experiment with big-city life failed from the get-go, but it was nice to dream.

Then again, if I really lived in the big city, I would miss out on the joys of fall. As mornings grow colder and colder, still refreshing, but edging closer to dastardly cold. As the nip in the air is joined with the faint smell of smoke in fireplaces. As trees change colors, spiders retreat (at last!), pumpkins pop up, and children walk to and fro with their backpacks on. I'm so glad this happens every year - hands down my favorite season. And something's coming (watch for "Sarah's Top Secret Project" in the future).

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime

2010-08-25T17:50:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading a book called, "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime." The book is written from the perspective of a boy with autism who is trying to solve the mystery of a neighbor's murdered dog. Written very simplistically but with lots of cursing, the book is a fascinating insight into the life of an autistic child. Given that autism now affects (liberally, I think) 1% of the population, the chances of any given individual interacting with someone with autism seem higher than ever, and anyone who does should take steps to understand the disorder. My relationship with autism is fairly well removed - my sister's friend's son has it. And I've really never met him.

But I have a closer relation to Asperger's Syndrome, which is described as a mild form of autism. My sister believes she has it. Now, with Asperger's you have to be careful - because it is more mild, many of the signs appear the same as stereotypically "nerdy" behaviors - specifically poor social skills and obsessive behaviors. I think what made my sister believe she had it was her complete inability to read certain obvious social signs, but as she has matured, she has grown out of this, and I think overall if she does have the Syndrome it is a mild case. Still, walking back on the autism scale from the actual disorder to Asperger's to nerd to well-adjusted human being, I can relate. I, myself, am closer to nerd and Asperger than I am to "normal."

For an example, let me relate a few items a person with Asperger's shared on an Internet discussion board. He said that it was hard to meet girls, and so his buddies suggested he ask girls he was interested in about their job, to start up a conversation. But he didn't understand because he didn't care about their jobs. And when girls were interested in him, they would remark that he was tall, but he didn't catch that they were flirting, he just thought they were stating the obvious, and it kind of annoyed him. As another example, take the character Sheldon on the sitcom, "The Big Bang Theory." He is a guy who is stuck in his own world, cannot read people, and gets fixated on various things. He also has OCD tendencies.

What is interesting for me is that I GET this. I GET why the guy on the discussion board was so confused, and yet I also GET what he was doing wrong. I like being able to see both sides of the coin. Frankly, I think people put too much emphasis on certain social skills, and sometimes it has gotten to the point that it is not a social skill but an interest that is in play. For instance, the inability to make good small talk in a group may have less to do with social skills than simply not being interested or informed on the topic of discussion. Likewise it should be allowable to simply not be interested in talking to others in certain social situations, but wallflowers tend to be looked on with suspicion by social butterflies.

Reading the book about the autistic boy took these social ponderings to a new level. I think I could work with him - I really do. It wasn't until near the end of the book that I caught that he was screaming a lot (he says it so matter-of-factly it's easy to glance over). But when he is not screaming, his perspective of the world is tolerable if you are willing to be patient. For instance, he is very literal, so you should be literal when interacting with him, and you should do fine. And he has his OCD items, which you can work with. And he doesn't read emotions on faces - so you should be clear about what you are thinking. (Say, "I am angry right now...") Of course, I have never interacted with someone with autism to know how easy or difficult it would be. My college roommate went through classes and read books on dealing with different learning disabilities, and autism was one of her favorites. I wonder now if one reason is that she, like me, feels comfortable working with someone who processes things through logic and literalism, rather than emotions and good interpersonal skills. People are hard - I understand why anyone could have trouble understanding them, especially someone absorbed in logic.

Personally, I have my own people skills problems. For one, I find it hard to distinguish some suggestions from commands. Like, when someone says, "Are you coming to the meeting?" when he means, "Let's go to the meeting." And I am thinking, "No, I wasn't planning on it." Another thing I hate, not dislike, hate, are superficial greetings. And these are so common, it sometimes makes it almost hard to function in an office. What I mean is when, in passing, you see someone you know, and they say, "Good morning!" I don't need to hear that. A simple smile would do, although, depending on the strength of the relationship, I prefer averted eyes. Still, even with a close friend "Good morning!" is just too shallow. No real conversation ever comes from it. Or when someone asks how you are. True friends greet each other more familiarly, as though already in the middle of a conversation, "George, you will never believe what just happened." Pleasantries are not pleasant. Nor are those statements, again, often made to near-strangers or strangers, that appear to be conversation starters but really lead nowhere. "My, you guys sure drink a lot of coffee." "Looks like rain, doesn't it?" and my favorite, "Looks like your food will get cold before you ever get to the 11th floor." These are statements of facts, not ice breakers. I know social norm is to come back with some cute, witty comment, else give a simple acknowledgement. But my mind gets so stuck searching for the first, I have little energy for the second.

My final thought about the book is that autism is a sliding scale - which we can see with it sliding down to Asperger's Syndrome, and then on to "nerd." And it makes me wonder - if social skills are unavoidable in the modern world and workplace, how do we treat people with mild forms of autism? We cannot discriminate against them in our hiring practices, but if they cannot communicate, their job opportunities are limited. I don't mean that people with Asperger's should try to become salesmen or politicians any more than I believe I should be allowed to be a professional football player. Instead, I think of my own world - one of accountants and actuaries and, to some extent, IT personnel. None of us are known for our people skills, and yet I have found over and over again that I, who am not clinically challenged in this area by any means, struggle to keep up with the high interpersonal standards of the business world. So if one without good people skills cannot be safe even here, then where can someone who does have a Syndrome find meaningful work without some sort of protection? But if protection is offered for those who have been diagnosed with social problem, how fair is it that I, who naturally struggle, am not offered the same protection simply because it is my personality, and not misfiring neurons in my head, that are causing my social issues.

Time to Buy Buy Buy!

2010-08-24T17:15:00.002-07:00

As a mere speculator - someone making observations without a vested interest - might I suggest a house within the Kansas City, MO school district for your next purchase? That is, of course, if you have a job in the Kansas City area and Johnson County is not an option for you.

To be sure, real estate prices are continuing to plummet (oh woe be to we who already own price-inflated homes) along with the interest rates (oh woe be to we who are locked into 30 year mortgages over 5% - unable to refinance but just terrified that the next loan we take out will be at 14% when inflation hits). So now is a prime time to buy a house almost anywhere. (Please buy one in my neighborhood - I'd like to get some of the competition off the market in case I ever decide to sell).

However, I have been thinking that now might be the time to buy in Kansas City - because their schools are terrible. I don't know of a lot of big city school districts that you would say "do well." But Kansas City has big problems. Amidst a budget crisis common in these times, the district cut half the schools. Lights out. Go home. Not wanted anymore. It can't get much worse than this.

Which is precisely why it's the time to buy! Everyone knows that a school district has a tremendous impact on the value of a home - even if you don't have kids, if you expect to sell it to someone with kids, you want your house to be in a good school district. So why am I suggesting you buy a house in the worst school district for miles and miles? Because I think that the KCMO school district has hit rock bottom. And if the schools have, the housing prices are about to.

One of the reasons the district has been suffering is that those who could afford to have moved out of the district - to Johnson County or Independence, MO. Those left are those who cannot afford to relocate, and thus cannot pay increasingly high property taxes to support the schools. The quality of education deteriorated, and now people predict it will get worse because class sizes will increase and children will have to go to new schools.

But in every dark cloud there is a silver lining, and the KCMO school district is taking advantage of an opportunity to restructure things. Obviously kids need to be reshuffled to new schools, and teachers need better expectations in order to perform better. So the district has adopted a new educational philosophy that is starting to grow across the country - let kids move at their own pace.

There is a fear, of course, that this would "leave kids behind." Those who cannot grasp the material would never learn it. But I think just the opposite would happen. First of all, kids would be placed where they need to be intellectually. This means the faster learners would jump into more difficult subjects. Many behavioral problems actually come from children who are simply bored (read "Matilda"), and if they were challenged in their classes they would pay more attention and learn better, and school would be more interesting. Slower learners would not be distracted by these faster learners nor intimidated by them. They would have teach help, and we could minimize the collective sighs that happen when a child asks a question the rest of the class finds obvious. Let's face it, the American school systems generally cater to the lowest common denominator, meaning the children who get "left behind" are actually those who have the most unlocked potential.

In addition, there is pressure to advance children to the next grade whether they have mastered the material or not. One reason is so the child can remain with his friends and peer groups and not "feel" dumb. So to protect his feelings, we harm his education - if he did not get pre-algebra, how is he expected to get algebra, and so on? How can he keep up if he reads at three grade levels below his peers? Education builds on itself, so if we don't give children the fundamental building blocks, they will always be behind. This kind of structure minimizes social advancement because children will not necessarily be placed in grades with children of their own age. If they don't get the material, they don't move on. But they can move on in the subjects they do understand. This lets kids who excel at math continue upwards while they develop their reading skills at a lower level.

Ultimately, I think this may result in more kids graduating high school and entering college - perhaps even on time. So much of what we learn, especially in our high school and college years, is not relevant for its factual data but seen as a way to help us "grow" as individuals. So if a person completes 13 years of public education and passes his ACT's, why not let him go to college, even if he hasn't taken Chemistry yet? (There will be a college version of chemistry he can take). If he needed help getting through high school, he can start with community college before going on to university.

Even if you don't believe in this system, you have to acknowledge that the KCMO school district is attempting to restructure and fix a broken program. This attention to details and this effort will not be wasted. There's really nowhere to go but up for the city, so buy up now! Your property could be worth a lot more in a few years!

Pieces o' Eight

2010-08-24T17:15:00.001-07:00

Arghh matey! Me's got myself a bag full of pieces o' eight just nigh screamin' to be spent on rum! Treasure, aye, that's what me calls these beautiful little shiners.

Ooh I just shiver my timbers to think about it - coins! Practically worthless these days, coins still get me excited when I find them all jumbled up. The heavier my purse is laden down with change, the happier I am. And, accountant that I am, they make me even happier when they are properly sorted. I love to store them in bags reminiscent of old-time leather purses (not just for women!) and those $$ bags you saw in old cartoons.

When I was in Europe I marveled at the abundance of coins. Both 1 and 2 (and maybe even 5 and 10) euro coins circulated freely. And, because I couldn't use my credit card very often because over overseas fees, I loved to transact in them. I have always liked to break my denominations down - whether it is giving a $20 for a $4 item or a $10 for a $1.80 item, I like to use up the biggest bills first. And this practice in Spain helped me break up my silly paper euros into glittering gold and silver coins.

There was a drawback. Not one to wear a purse back then, my pockets were many times heavy laden with the jingling currency. But it was worth it to reach my hand into my pocket and pull out a handful of treasure! The only sad part was that these euros represented about $1.20 each, and as such all but a few souvenir pieces had to be spent or turned back into American money before going home. So I handed in my beautiful pieces of eight to be given back a floppy, dirty piece of paper and two tiny dimes. Click clack.

Now back in the States (for many years, in case you were wondering - my Spain trip was in 2003) I mostly use my credit card - it gives me that 1 - 5% cashback discount that we happy few who pay our bill monthly so do love to see. I'm not going to lie, plastic is fun. It feels so grown up. So futuristic. And kind of silly - like being tickled - to hand someone a worthless plastic card and then make out with all kinds of treasure from their store. I feel a little mischievous.

But, to be true, my eyes glittered like the sun on the sea when I read an article the other day that combined two topics dear to my heart - cost savings and coinage. Yes, it said that the United States could save half a billion dollars (every year?) if we stopped printing paper money (well, paper $1's) and instead traded in dollar coinage. The article made perfect sense to me - bills are much more fragile and wear down easier, wheras coins last almost forever. Consumers, the article said, do not respond well to coin money. I hear them. Whenever the government issues new coins, my first impulse is to hoard. My precious! How pretty all those little Susan B. Anthony dollars look on top of a pile of quarters. How shiny are those indian dollars! Pretty pretty pretty. My motive may be different than other Americans - when I have a chance to spend a dollar and must choose between the bill and the coin, it is going to be the bill because I am holding on to that coin! But if they took the bills away (or stopped printing them and eventually let them run out) one of two things could happen. I could either start hoarding the bills (see the historic $1 bill!). Or I would spend the coins because they were less novel. Either way, the coins would be spent.

I think it's a good idea. This is one situation (a very rare one) in which I think we should follow Europe's and Canada's example and go metallic! We can issue $1, $2, and $5 coins! Little schoolchildren would love us.

Now, there is one other drawback, other than consumer response (and not having enough change receptacles in the standard cash register for these coins). That is, of course, the increasing trend towards a cashless society. As I said, I put every transaction I can on plastic. I do this because I know I am responsible with my money and will not go into huge debt or spend more than I meant to. (I say this because most money advice books tell you to use cash so you can see and feel exactly how much you are spending). And there are transactions that I cannot but use my credit card, such as purchases on the internet. My cafeteria has gone cashless in order to "speed things up." Checks are becoming a thing of the past as money transfers pay most bills and many vendors don't want to deal with the possibility of a bounced check (cash, debit, and credit are all more secure from the store's perspective). It seems to me that cash is on the verge of being outdated - something we give to children to teach them about money, or something we transfer between ourselves since most of us don't come equipped with credit card machines.

So, although I would like to once again feel my pockets laden down with coins that actually amount to something, I feel the trend in America today is one that should be followed. We can probably generate as much cost savings through the gradual phasing out of cash altogether than to begin a new coin pressing project that will spend what we saved on paper bills in the start up costs to get going. Let American capitalism determine the capital!

If It Makes You Happy

2010-08-24T17:13:00.000-07:00

On my desk at work, I have two elongated sticky notes with red cursive writing on them. I wrote these notes in an attempt to minimize any opportunities for my coworkers to call me crazy. I speak, of course, about those rare instances when you are walking down the hall and a memory of something incredibly funny comes to mind and you can't help but laugh or grin. Yes, grinning for no reason seems to turn others off - I don't know why.

Still, I sometimes glance over at the ever-growing list and get an instant lift from something I see on it. (On the top - the second page is hidden, I don't know how useful it is to have my funny moments hidden). So I have decided to share the list with the world. Granted, some of these are inside jokes or "You had to be there" moments, but I will do my best to explain.

- "Practical joke of sending Maggie to the clippers and she falls off the table." That dog is impossible to trim her nails. So in desperation I took her to a professional groomers at PetSmart. They asked me to step outside to pay, and as I stood at the cash register, I could see Maggie and her handlers inside the window. She was desperately trying to get away, and they were desperately trying to hold her still, and then, whoops! Her paws slide off the table. Don't worry, she didn't actually fall. If she had, it would not be so funny. But it felt like I had just played a mean joke on the PetSmart employees - "Here, declaw my dog!" When in fact, the task I had asked of them was physically impossible.

- "Talking about the advertisement on PBS and it pops up (Ken Burns)." One Sunday I had spent the entire afternoon with the PBS channel on. I wasn't watching it so much as listening to it as I did other things. When Kristen came home she sat in the living room as I explained to her how all the advertisements repeat. I listed them off - in the perfect order to which they appear on the channel - and was in the middle of saying, "That one where Ken Burns pops on the screen," and the TV said, "Hi! I'm Ken Burns." Little ironies like this happen all the time, but it was pretty funny that night.

- "Anything from Meet the Robinsons." But mostly Goob.

- "Dogs in UP." Have you seen that movie? I would say 80% of it is kind of a snoozer, or give it a B- rating overall, but the dogs are hilarious! It is because they capture the very essence of what dogs are like. "Hi! I'm Doug, and I just met you, and I love you." He he he...

- "The day I accidentally called MP to his face." That's actually what I wrote down. Anyway, my sister was dating (and is now married to) a guy named Michael. Because it was her first serious relationship, we gave her a hard time about it, and I joked that she called him "Mikeypoo." What my parents forget is that they joined in the fun, too. Anyway, maybe the third time he met my parents they told him that I call him that. It was a good joke. But to his face I was careful not to call him that. Until one night it just popped out. I kept talking, but my mom grew mysteriously silent before erupting into laughter. I'm glad it happened, though. Now that the cat is out of the bag, I never worry about whether "Mikeypoo" is around when I call him that. And, of course, MP is short for Mikey-Poo.

- "Maggie bounding into her cage." Well that was a cute moment more than anything else, and how I long for it to repeat itself! I think she was tired. And I give her a nice big treat whenever she gets in her cage. But one morning Maggie saw me getting my stuff by the door ready to go and just bounded into her cage as if it was a game. She always looks betrayed when I close the door on her, though...

- "Punchy." That was a new term I heard for grumpy, and it made me giggle. Now whenever I am "punchy" I just remember that I am "punchy" and I feel better. :)

- "Listening to the spaghetti conversation next door." Men are Like Waffles, Women are Like Spaghetti. That is the title of a pretty decent book I just read. It's one of those "understanding the opposite sex" books. Men are like waffles because they compartmentalize their lives into boxes. Women are like spaghetti because everything runs together in and around itself and touches every other aspect of their lives. One day, during the few weeks I was reading the book, I tuned into a conversation in the cubicle next door - a conversation amongst three women. I had to laugh because, with the help of the book, I could see the conversation through the eyes (perhaps) of a man. It noodled in and out and all around, starting in one place, going somewhere else, and still ending up where it should be. Something completely simple for me to understand, and I then realized that perhaps a man would be overwhelmed to hear it.

- "Maggie burying her bone in the chair." This is the funniest thing I have seen in a while. When I give Maggie a bone she walks around with it in her mouth crying for a while and then "buries" it either by "hiding" it (usually next to the book case or some other obvious place) or by "burying" it in the chair. To do this, she jumps on the chair and vigorously scratches it for a while, making digging motions with her arms. Then she gingerly places the bone on the chair. I had seen this several times before but almost fell out of my chair laughing when I saw the conclusion. She then "pushes" the "dirt" back over the bone by rubbing her nose, in a circular motion, on the chair around the bone. She has now gone through all the necessary motions to bury a bone, and the bone still sits in plain sight. It is so funny to watch and, of course, cannot be repeated on demand.

- "Pushing Maggie off the bed." This is not animal cruelty, it's just one of those little "ha ha" moments in life, like when we watch Funniest Home Videos. No animal is hurt. In fact, the reason it's on my list is more for the emotional mindset of the dog. I am trying to train her that the bed is not an appropriate place, but I can almost sense her frustration. She thinks that I am a puppy and, as such, am quite rude to take the comfy spot for myself while she sleeps on the floor. It's that little, "But...but...but..." that I can almost hear coming out of her mouth when her attempt to jump on the bed is foiled by a quick placed hand.

- "Mom picking up her domino and saying, 'I have a two...'" A non-thinking moment for the members of my family. We were playing Mexican Dominoes, and as we started to set up our trains, my dad said, "Wait, don't we need to draw to see who goes first?" Well, that was a non-thinking statement for him. In Dominoes we don't do that - whoever has the appropriate double (Double 12, Double 11, and so on) places it on the table as the first move. So that was strike one. Strike two was my mom, sister, and I all mindlessly obeying and drawing an extra domino. It wasn't until my mom proudly announced, "I have a two..." that we all realized the GroupThink that had just happened. It was like waking up from a trance, and I still giggle about it.

- "Me blowing out my candles super quick." The same night another example of mindless obedience. My mom, sister, and I were in the middle of some (probably goofy) conversation while my dad was preparing my birthday cake. All of the sudden, my sister said, "Blow your candles out, Sarah." and my mom began to sing "Happy birthday." Without thinking, I turned my head to where, as if by magic, my dad had appeared at my side with a cake, and blew out the candles in a rush. My mom suddenly cut off her song. It was the world's shortest rendition of "Happy birthday" ever, and I barely even knew what I had done. I was just obeying orders.

- "The crazy people on the video game." All my life I have never been good at video games, but I have usually enjoyed watching other people play, especially when they make light of it. Anyway, my sister was playing "Indiana Jones" and had just finished destroying all the minions when her husband came into the room. "Why are you killing all the crazy people?" He asked. The minions weren't bad guys at all but crazy people. Then, to make the moment even funnier, they all ran back onto the screen in a dance-like manner waving their arms about. Erin had to lasso them and drag them over to a switch to sit on in order to pass the level.

Well, looking at this list I know it is probably hard to see the humor I see in most of these. But I also wanted to share the concept of the list itself. It is so nice to be able to glance over at it and suddenly be able to chuckle my way through a bad day. It is the perfect tool at work, a place that many people find stressful in its own right, and it helps me keep a crazy smile on my face.

Feeling Good

2010-08-22T18:41:00.000-07:00

As I lay on the newly shampooed carpets of my house and looked around today, I realized I was in a good place. I am established. The kitchen is finished. The carpets are cleaned. My couch is as awesome as ever. If my life were a running TV show, my house would be the welcoming, familiar set that identifies the show - perhaps even more so than the characters.

An hour later, the floor was covered with green puffballs of various shapes and sizes, half a dozen doggie toys, and bits of the recliner. Kritsen was watching the travel channel, and dreaming up a video blog tour of Hamburger, so that we could find the banana guy. Maybe not the best scene for a TV sitcom, but it's home. It looks like a two year old lives here. It's lived in.

Still, last week I sat on the clean floor (near daily vacuumings, thanks to Maggie), and had similar thoughts of contentment. Truth be told, I feel like my life is missing its soundtrack. Not that I'm not listening to enough music. But that seriously there's a symphony underscoring my days that I just can't hear. Musical vibrations are all around me just waiting to be heard, and I can't make them out. I think the song is exciting, fast, happy, with a driving beat. It's transitional music - music that underlies that day to day monotony that leads to a new adventure.

So I'm feeling happy - settled, content.

My feet hurt - this weekend I made two lasagnas, three pies, spaghetti, eight burritos, and four hamburgers. A good month's supply of food.

I would like to spend Christams in Germany. Actually, I would like Christmas to come - that would be so pleasant!

A Royal Problem

2010-08-17T15:23:00.000-07:00

I'm an accountant, and accountants don't like change. I'm also a recovering anglophile - someone obsessed with England. My obsession was strong in my high school years when I could often be found reading books set in England, such as Harry Potter, Sherlock Holmes, and Jane Austen novels. I even did an independent study on the history of England and spent Sunday mornings teaching my mom and sister (the total population of our Sunday school class) what I had learned. It was this memory, as well as the fading memory of a dream about George II - IV, that had me thinking about the Royal Family this morning.

I read an article recently about protesters who want to end the English monarchy. I don't know that, as an American, I can technically weigh in on the argument, but the idea just makes me think a lot. England DOES spend a lot of money to upkeep the monarchy, especially considering that the Queen has very little real power - if any. On the other hand, the monarchy is a symbol of England, and perhaps the money spent on the family could be equated with money we spend to upkeep national monuments like the Lincoln Memorial.

We have moved long past the days of the French and Russian revolutions, where dispensing with a monarch meant dispensing with his head. So I imagine if England quit the monarchy, they would simply say, "Ok, go about your business, but we are not going to pay you a salary anymore." No more bodyguards. No more palaces. (Or would they give them a palace or two to keep - would it be upkept by the state as a historical place - what assets are actually Elizabeth's vs. England's?)

How odd would that be - to wander around knowing you were a direct descendant of a royal line, perhaps the most well-known and powerful royal line in recent Western civilization, but not actually BE a prince? How strange would it be for Prince William to just become William and say, "I could have been king."

The Refinement of Drinking Options

2010-08-15T14:56:00.000-07:00

I tend to see a lot of dichotomy in the world - good and bad, this or that, if you're not with us, you're against us. Look at all the examples in real life - the two political parties, Pepsi vs. Coke, KU vs. KSU. But it seems to me that, when it comes to what people drink or don't drink, there is a certian pride, even snobbery. It comes from the strangest places, but it seems to divide people into two classes - those who drink it and those who don't. For my part, I partake of all three of the concoctions listed below, and quite proudly so. Perhaps it is because of this that I notice the pride of those who abstain. Judgment.

Pop

I could actually say there are three classes of people - those who drink pop, those who drink diet pop, and those who don't drink pop at all (and those who call it soda and those who call it Coke). I drink regular pop, and all flavors (except Coke). Yum! The sugar, and to some extent caffeine, really makes my day. I drink root beer as though I am a connossieur, trying it at different locales. I know which types of pop taste best with different types of food. Pepsi goes well with popcorn and pizza (ANY pop goes well with pizza). Root beer and Mexican go well together. Dr. Pepper is good with a nice steak dinner.

If anything, I may look down on the people who drink Diet Pop. I don't understand what kind of game they're playing. I'd be the first to admit that pop is insanely bad for you, which is why I want mine loaded up with sugar. If I am going to die from it, I want to go down happy. To me, diet pop is worse than tasteless - it tastes bad. And the sugar also keeps me accountable. If I know it is going to my waist, I will drink in moderation. Oftentimes diet pop drinkers overindulge, without realizing that there are other detrimental effects of pop besides sugar.

But all pop drinkers are looked down on by those who don't drink pop. Time after time I remember offering pop to someone, only to hear a nasty, "Oh, I don't drink pop." I mean, sometimes it's nasty. Sometimes I suppose it's meant to be a neutral statement, but it just feels that way. I mean, why can't they say, "No thanks." Instead, they load a world of meaning into one little comment. "I'm a fitness and health buff who has trained myself to LOATHE sugary drinks in favor of water water water and I don't drink little fizzy drinks designed to bust my diet and add ten pounds to me." Every time I encounter these people, it's like overhearing someone slam my favorite movie. I just want to slink off into the corner and sip my grape soda until it's time to go home.

On the other hand, I have met former pop drinkers who say the same thing. But for them, it's a statement of how far they've come. For them, "I don't drink pop." is like saying, "I used to be 100 pounds overweight and one sip away from a coronary, so I broke the habit cold turkey 10 years ago and now I don't drink pop at all." But the other crowed is so much bigger. They are the same people who won't consider eating at any fast food establishment. I believe in moderation - yes, my pop drinking needs to be toned down, but I can indulge in pop and fast food every now and then without severely endangering my health.

Coffee

I've been an insider and outsider of "Coffee Clubs." You know, those people who go to coffee houses and sit and talk for hours about science and philosophy and religion. They know the different types of beans and brews and can double as their own barristas. For some reason, these people tend to be the ones most likely to drink their coffee plain, or with minimal additives. They also drink TONS of coffee - like six cups a day or more - and you are as likely to see them in the coffee house at night as in the morning. Sometimes people develop these habits because they need caffeine to keep them going on their busy schedules. In my case, I liked the coffee house atmosphere.

Then again, I drink my coffee with lots and lots of milk and sugar. Before I joined the coffee drinkers, I was a casual coffee drinker. Usually I partook of that nasty stuff offered at church events because it was something different than water. If there had been more lemonade in those days, I probably never would have developed a taste for coffee. Still, I learned to like it, and in college I just loved going to the coffee house to study. I still like the thought of sitting in a dark corner with a book on a rainy Saturday morning with a coffee in hand listening to jazzy music. Aaahh!

For a while I was on the anti-coffee-snob side of the table. I would drink it, but I never wanted to become reliant on it. I didn't want to need a cup of coffee (or two or three) in the morning to get me going. Yet here I am today, drinking two cups a day on average and walking into work most mornings grumpy because I'm going to have to wait 15 minutes for the first cup to brew.

But my anti-addiction stance was never as strong as some I have seen who don't drink coffee. Like the non-pop drinkers above, they say it with a certain pride. What's worse, there is an implied addition to their statement that they don't drink coffee. "And I don't understand those who do." Well, in fairness the taste is a learned one - who likes it on the first try? And it gives you HORRIBLE breath. Also, when I first encountered espresso, I couldn't stand the jitters it gave me. I still can't to some extent - it was too powerful. Non-coffee drinkers don't upset my sense of self esteem as much as the non-pop drinkers, but they sometimes have to add little snippets to their statements. "I don't drink coffee, I drink TEA." As though this makes them somehow more refined? I guess it is back to the British vs. the Americans when it comes to morning drink of choice.

Alcohol

People could write books on this testy drink, and I believe the 18th and 21st Amendments attest to how controversial alcohol is. But I'm talking specifically about pride here. Let's start with the teetotalers. Now, I believe you can be against personally drinking alcohol yourself without being a snob about it. But there are people who look down their noses at even moderate drinkers. Someone once told me that if I abstained from drinking among a group of drinkers, I would appear snobbish. Part of that may be just being too sensitive, but part of it may be bad past experience with non-drinkers. It's very easy to get into a list of all the negative impacts of alcohol with someone who is drinking, but non-drinkers need to consider all the facts before they judge. Is the person driving? Is he drunk? How often does he drink and why? A moderate amount of alcohol may actually have beneficial health impacts, so the drink should not be ruled out all together.

On the other side of the spectrum are binge drinkers. These are the people who go out every weekend and drink to get drunk and then go home, sleep off the hangover, and start all over. It is hard for me to understand why someone would want to spend their free time engaging in activities that are designed to make them forget said free time and end up sick the next morning. Not understanding, I avoid these situations like the plague, but when I go I try to have a drink in my hand - to avoid offending them. Still, it's odd that on the days they are sober, I'm the one who feels like an outcast. Everyone had so much fun last night, but no one is able to quite tell me why. It's so hard to feel the outsider - perhaps this is what non-coffee drinker feel like when everyone is over at the coffee pot at the office.

Among moderate drinkers, there are drinking snobs as well. I absolutely do not like beer - ugh. I have an almost involuntary reflex to it - ugh. This disdain (of the flavor, not the concept really) makes me a "wine snob" I suppose. I like the idea of wine. I like the idea of pairing it with food - and cheese, I LOVE cheese - of drinking it with a good book and maybe some chocolate, of visiting wineries because they are always in the most beautiful parts of the world, of going to wine tastings and so on and so forth. It's such a social drink but also relaxed. It's versatile. It's pretty. It can be sweet. But it does have a certain snobbishness to it, doesn't it? I mean, it just reeks of "the finer things" in life and contrasts with the idea of a "beer after a hard day's work." It implies a quieter, nerdier type of person who wants to come home and read a book, as opposed to a louder, more boistrous person who wants to go to BWW and watch sports. So from that aspect, I suppose it is kind of snobby.

Now, the underlying point of my story here is to do all things in moderation. Don't look down on people who drink pop, coffee, or alcohol because in moderation there is nothing inherently wrong with any of these drinkgs. But if you are a drinker of these, be careful. Too much of any of these can be very very bad for you and for others. Oh, and the other point is that maybe we should all find more important things to take pride in than what we do or do not drink.

A Taste of Wichita

2010-08-15T13:31:00.000-07:00

For my birthday, my sister invited me down to Wichita to experience the Taste of Wichita, a new event designed to raise money to fight hunger. I had been to the Taste of Chicago before, and I figured it would be like that, but on a smaller scale. It actually had more differences than size - and I'd actually say its size was proportionately smaller for the size of Wichita - making for both positive and negative aspects of the day.

I think the Taste of Chicago is not a charity event. It is more money making oriented, and you buy tickets that you use to purchase food at many of the different booths. You can spend a long time there, but you also have to pay specifically for the food you eat. We found that it worked well to get our food, go sit in the shade to eat, and then walk around trying to decide what to eat next. This made for eating something every half hour or so. And you split what you eat, and you try crazy new things!

At the Taste of Wichita, you buy an arm bracelet that simply lets you into the event. Instead of choosing food to "purchase" from vendors, each vendor has a specific food item they want to share. Because this is a charity event, it means the vendors are there for some publicity and often want to give you their menus and fliers. Still, not having to worry about the quality of food we were about to receive made going from booth to booth more relaxing. And even though the portions were small, I was stuffed by the time we left. It was the hottest day of the year, or so it seemed, so we generally grabbed our food and headed to the shade to eat it. The price to get in was only worth it if you considered you were giving money to charity, but getting a filling meal was also nice.

The sun and heat had made me tired, so I insisted we get rehydrated (with pop, of course). Erin didn't want to head home yet, because she didn't want our dad making fun of the short amount of time we had spent at the event. So we headed back to her house, where the plans changed again. In order to only take one car back to my parent's house, she insisted on waiting for her husband to come back from shooting with his friend.

So we played "Lego: Indiana Jones" on the Wii. I am a terrible video game player, and most of the time in the past when people are playing the games I am content to be fascinated watching them. For some reason (perhaps a sugar high) it seemed that this game was hillarious. When Erin let me jump in, it got even funnier, due to my lack of skill. We ended up playing for hours, and yet it didn't feel like a wasted day because I was spending time with my sister. And it was a game that I was actually able to somewhat succeed in, so that helped.

We went home and had steaks for dinner, and then we played Mexican Dominoes, which is one of three games we generally play in my family (domonioes, progressive rummy, or rummikubs). Of course we always have a good time laughing and telling jokes and playing around, but this time it felt even funnier.

My mom went to church with me, which really meant a lot on my birthday an all! Unfortunately we were celebrating the Assumption, which can be awkward for a non-Catholic who doesn't understand what is going on. I wish she had been able to come to a more "typical" mass, but I am also glad she went to this one. Hold nothing back - be not ashamed - put your best face forward - that kind of thing.

I drove home, which I think exhausted the puppy. She doesn't sleep in the car anymore. She sits down, leaning against the seat, and looks up at me with her ears down. I don't know if she's bored or carsick or what. Near the end of the trip today she was trying to sleep sitting up. In a construction zone we had to drive on the shoulder, and it completely freaked her out. She jumped into my lap (awkward!) and kind of sat there shivering until I found a rest stop and let her walk around a bit.

It's a nice enough day, I'm hoping we can take a long walk tonight - but first, I have to forage for food!

My Happy Movies

2010-08-15T10:41:00.000-07:00

My family has kind of obsessive personalities...nothing insane or anything, but we tend to get in ruts. My mom quilts. My sister, well she went a little overboard with her comic book phase. On the wonderful ven diagram that my coworker has in his cube, my mom and sister are "nerds." I have a little bit less of the obsessive tendency, but other nerd traits, so I think that actually makes me a "dweeb." :)

Of course, I get in ruts, and I tend to watch movies or listen to songs until I can't ever see them again the rest of my life. Star Wars. Pirates of the Caribbean. Any song by Avalon. Of course the real winners last forever. (And this throws me back to the conversation I had with my brother in law, where we talked about how you can own a movie, but when it's on TV you drop everything to watch it, or you own a song, but you always stop the radio on that song when it's playing. Ironic!)

Well, I would like to introduce three movies that may soon go the way of Star Wars for me, but I think everyone should see for themselves. These are movies that either put me in a happy place, or I watch when I want to feel good. They are the chocolate chip cookies of movies.

The first is not well known. It is a 1960's movie creatively titled, "Francis of Assisi." I received it in a package of Catholic movies a friend sent me, which I may dive into more later. However, this was a movie that surprised me, and I think I watched it about three times in a row. It has all the characteristics of a goofy 60's movie - although I think Francis is a pretty good actor. But I was more inspired by the positive (not 100% historically accurate, but then again, what St. Francis movie is?) motiff of the movie, and also the religious aspect. Friendly for non Catholics, although non Christians may not love it, it really talks about the yearning to follow God's will and go the extra mile to do what you think is right. As someone who has always struggled with loneliness, the passion of Claire rips out my heart and reminds me that there is only One person who can make me perfectly happy. Even though the movie ends with his death (I hope that's not a spoiler - it's an autobiography and the man IS a saint...), it still makes me feel happy afterwards. And maybe that I put my priorities where they should be.

The second movie should not be surprising, given my recent post lauding C.S. Lewis. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (and to some extent its sequel) is a story that almost cannot go wrong, no matter how portrayed. Still, in leaps forward from the old BBC version of the movie, the recent movie is one of the few movies that is as good or better than the book it was based on. I could go on an on about the story - it is so magical, yet it is a parable, too! And this representation makes it so much better - the colors, the characters! The animals seem (a little) more lifelike. And the music is incredible! Many times it gives me goosebumps! Of course, the end of the movie is a little bittersweet. It kind of makes me sad because a) it's over and b) I was not able to participate. I will never open my closet to find a secret world inside. I will probably not even find a secret passage. But it's nice to imagine. By the way, the music in this movie is incredible and the movie is set in an era I have always found fascinating - World War II. Of course, I watch this one so much, it is soon likely to go the way of Star Wars...

The final movie I could go on an on about - Meet the Robinsons. First of all, it is incredibly quirky. And it has a good message (Keep Moving Forward). The music is enchanting, although I think the best part is the song, "Little Wonders" at the end of the movie. The movie is hilarious! I sometimes walk down the hall with a goofy grin on my face just thinking about aspects of the movie. The bad guy is Classic! Well, not classic in a traditional way, but just really funny - perhaps my favorite character! I don't know what it is about this movie, but it just gets me all giggles to watch it or think about it or talk about it. I think one reason is it reeks Disney. Even the future world imagined in the movie reminds me of the dreams of Tomorrowland and Epcot in Disneyworld. But this movie, too, leaves off a little bittersweet - I think it's the reporter that says, "You have a bright future ahead of you!" I know we have to keep moving forward and shape our destiny, but who among us really knows with as much certainty as Lewis did that our future is going to be bright? I mean, my current life is not as good as the bright future I imagined as a kid - will my future go better or worse? I can do everything I can to make it go better, but I cannot be certain that it will. Lewis was certain (and I guess you can't go too far downhill from orphan no one wants), and that's why the movie ends a little bittersweet.

Why Can't Christians Defend Themselves Properly?

2010-08-11T15:11:00.000-07:00

"In a posting on her Facebook page, she [Anne Rice] said, “I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being ‘Christian’ or being a part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/08/rev-shuler-anne-rice-christianity-quit-christ-pharisees-god-love-forgiveness/

I will be honest, the first time I read this article, I was kind of angry. In quickly skimming the article, I thought the pastor had watered down Christian faith into the "Jesus was a cool dude" attitude. "How like a Methodist." I thought. (I also had the opportunity to hear him on the radio). However, reading it again, I think Bill brings up good points.

And I'd like to bring up some other points. I think that Christians take this kind of criticism lying down too much. I suppose that statement doesn't sound like, "Turning the other cheek," but at the same time, if we were more vocal about what we believe, and not what the media wants to make it seem like we believe, then people like Anne Rice may think again before "quitting" Christianity. (By the way, I also think that if she had taken the time to sit down with a spiritual leader to voice her concerns, she may have come to a different conclusion - but I hope she at least did that and just couldn't accept what she heard).

I recently told a friend that I was afraid to put any kind of fish or cross bumper sticker on my car because I tend to be a defensive driver. I didn't want people to associate any unpleasant driving errors I committed with my Christianity. My friend told me I should put the fish on the car - "That way people will be reminded that Christians are people, too." I think we are both right, in ways. I WISH I could take my friend's advice with a clean conscience. However, there are so many in the media that jump on just that kind of behavior.

Christians are hypocrites! That is their cry. Sometimes they rightly point out a person who claims to be a Christian or even a minister but who is cheating someone. Or the unchristian behavior, more common before the 1950's, of some parents who had teenage daughters getting pregnant.

But when we don't properly respond to these accusations of criticism, by saying, "We are people, too, and we have failings," we set ourselves up for people like Anne Rice who just quit.

If we appear to be anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-artificial birth control, anti-democrat, anti-secular humyanism, anti-science, and anti-life it is because we have allowed others to define the debate. For years we have allowed popular media to level all these accusations at us without speaking out. As Reverend Bill and my friend said, perhaps the first response to these criticisms is that we have failings ourselves. But we also need to explain WHY we appear this way.

What are all these "rules" and talk of "sin?" Well, sin is something that separates us from God. So what does that mean to an athiest? Sin is something that hurts us, hurts others, or hurts God. Could we not, as Christians, stand up in a court of law and logically defend unpopular Christian stances, such as abstinence, heterosexuality, and marriage? Are there not reasons enough for us to obey the 10 Commandments, even for a non-Christian?

I'd like to address Anne's problems with Christianity, because if she, or others, are misinformed, they need to know the truth.

Anti-Gay

Although I would like to write more extensively on this later, we'll just start out by saying Christians are NOT anti-Gay. Most Christian denominations ask that people with same sex attractions remain celebate. They define marriage as being between one man and one woman, and they extol the values of a two-parent home with a mother and a father. However, they also try (as best as we imperfect humans can do) to love both people who have same sex attraction and those practicing homosexuality.

But we have lost control of this debate somehow. The reasons we are perceived as anti-gay is mostly because we do not support gay marriage, and to a lesser degree because we support abstinence for those with homosexual tendencies. So the debate is really about sex. And in that case, it's a tired, old debate. Christians are not judging people for who they are - they are saying that sex outside of marriage is a sin, just as we would say to any heterosexual unmarried couple. Of course, there is forgiveness for sins and redemption, and chaste couples have their own problems. No one denies that. I could write forever on this, so I will move on.

Anti-Feminist

The major problem I hear from feminists about Christianity is the lack of leadership and the pro-life attitude of the church. I will address the latter in the next section. First of all, not all Christian denominations are male dominated. Many allow female pastors and elders. Some even refer to God as "Our Mother," and so on. If Anne sees anti-feminism in the Church, perhaps she should look to a different denomination.

However, her conclusion on the rest of the denominations is also false. Jesus was very pro-woman. He spoke to women and loved them and they followed him in troves! But he also chose men to be his disciples. Perhaps it was the prejudice of the day, or perhaps there was a leadership role he felt men could naturally fill. Still, many denominations choose to mimick Jesus in having men lead.

Just because men are leading does not mean that women are held in contempt. Quite the opposite. Women play a very important role in the life of all of us, and so they play an important role in the body of the church. The church celebrates the differences between men and women.

Further, as a woman, I feel there is, or can be, more power in being the "strong woman behind a strong man." When you speak quietly, more people listen, and women have been driven for centuries to do good in their communities, right wrongs, and persuade the men around them, even when they had no official rights, to take their point of view.

Anti-Artificial Birth Control

As with the last objection, this can be a denominational thing. However, having recently learned more about the objections to artificial birth control, I think it is defensible and, like the "anti-gay" issue, could probably use its own blog.

One reason artificial birth control is seen as an issue is because life begins at conception. That is the view of many Christians and it is not something that can easily be proven or misproven, so you will have to take that as our premise if you want to understand us. You don't have to agree, but it is critical for understanding. So if life begins at conception, any birth control that could interfere with that life is, well, deadly. Many hormonal birth controls can cause a fertilized egg to be rejected by the body, thus ending the life of a very very young embryo. For this moral reason alone, hormonal birth controls are rejected by some deonominations.

Secondly, artificial birth control creates the perception that sex is safe. It has created a noticeable increase in sexual activity among non-married couples, especially teens, and teenage pregnancies are soaring. If you argue that, for married couples, it is okay, you still cannot turn a blind eye to the rate of unwed mothers and STD's exploding in our country today.

Also, it creates a barrier between you and your partner and you and God. This is hard and abstract for people not brought up in it, I know. But one way I look at it is putting your needs above what God wants and above your potential children. Yes, God could make you get pregnant if He wanted to. (He did it to Mary). But he wants you to be involved and open to it. Birth control allows us to put our priorities before God's. It promotes the idea of, "I'm not ready to have kids."

Anti-Democrat

Christianity does not, or at least should not, tell you how to vote. If social positions are leaning towards Republicans, it would appear that we are anti-Democrat. But is that Christianity's fault or the Democrats? What I mean is, I think the largest reason that so many Christians are Republicans is because Republicans are friendly to Christians. So you see, it is not that Christianity is Anti-Democrat, it is that many Christians perceive Democrats to be anti-Christian. It all comes down to everyone being able to have their own vote, and to vote what their conscience tells them.

It seems to me that Christians are about as politically divided as any other group of people - with some siding with Democrats and some siding with Republicans. If the church appears to side with one party, it may be because of a certain issue, most of which are issues Anne already complained about, and which I am addressing.

Anti-Secular Humanism

I am not going to lie - right off the bat I had to goole this word, because I wasn't sure what Anne was talking about. I found a website of Secular Humanists and read their definition. I would note that they describe themselves as non-theists, so, yes, that would not quite be Christian. http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=what§ion=main

But in more detail, why would Christianity be anti-Secular Humanism. The "secular" part of the term is very helpful. Christians belive in a better world after this one. We hope there is something more, and therefore we ask of ourselves to give to those in need and not cling to the things of this life, which include objects, experiences, and people.

Another tenet of secular humanism is that we can reach Truth through self realization and earnest searching. But Christians believe that we cannot ever be perfect humans on Earth and that we need God to come down and redeem us and bring us to him, not the other way around. Although there are some ideas that secular humanists have that may not, by themselves, be contrary to Christian beliefs, their main points are pretty much opposite of what Christians believe!

If Anne Rice is a secular humanist, then it may explain why she was so quick to dump Christianity. If she had expanded her understanding "beyond" the church. Her last statement about continuing to follow Jesus kind of says it all. The "Jesus was a great teacher" mentality, a mentality rejected by some of the greatest Christian theologians, takes Jesus as God out of the picture. It becomes the heresy that the church was fighting against in the 4th century, alive and well today. So, no, it is not compatible with Christianity.

Anti-Science

Well, some Christians have dug the grave for all of us on this. They refuse to look at scientific evidence if they have any inkling of a suspicion that it might go against what the Bible says. However, these Christians seem to be forgetting some of the most important Christian beliefs - that God is all powerful, that He is in control, that He can do anything!

Most mainstream Christians do not see a contradiction between Christianity and science. I personally think Science supports Christianity - it shows how many questions are left unanswered! And it shows the wonders of God in his creations, and his ingenuity in how He created us! It is unfortunate that some who want the earth to be 6,000 years old or refuse to believe in the theory of evolution cannot accept that, if God is supernatural, He can also create THROUGH science. Be creative - God is!

Anti-Life

I don't know what Anne means by this. Most Christians are "pro-life" from an abortion standpoint. Many are also against the death penalty. We like to give to our fellow man so that he can live...eat, have shelter, and so forth. I cannot address her concern because I just don't understand it.

So that's my thought on some of the issues Anne, and most of the popular media, have with Christians today. That, and hypocrisy, which will always be around. Who among us are not hypocrites? I think we need to take time to address these issues so that people like Anne who are really trying to search for Truth do not reject us as biased. In the end, she may still not agree with Christianity, but at least she will not think that we are just "anti" everything good in life.

Westward Ho

2010-08-08T16:58:00.000-07:00

All trails do not lead to Kansas City, but they do lead from it. The Oregon, Santa Fe, and California trails all started out in Independence, MO. Twice now I have visited the Frontier Trails Museum in that same city to learn about the journey westward these pioneers had. Surprisingly enough, the days of the wagon trains were pretty short. Perhaps 20 years passed between when the west started to open up and when the transcontinental railroad was completed. When I look at the trail travelers in that light, I really admire them. I mean, they suffered and took months to do what the next generation did in a week. The really did blaze a trail.

It was hard for me to see a direct connection between these trails and my own life. Sure, I live in Kansas, but our state was pioneered by farmers and ranchers. I haven't really heard of a "Kansas Trail." And neither did any of my ancestors come here in a covered wagon (that I know of). But the Santa Fe trail did cut right through, which I hadn't realized before.

But more interesting was the brochures we found at the museum, courtesy of the National Park system, that gave us a driving tour of the Santa Fe and Oregon trails. These brochures have been made for each state along the trail, and we only had the first brochure! There were some 37 stops, which would have taken us all the way to Topeka. Instead, we went through the first 12.

Stops included sites the pioneers may have seen along the way or popular camp grounds. We went to a graveyard that had once been on the trail and stopped to read some headstones. The graveyward was much newer than the trails, but the headstones still told stories. A man was written to have given up everything for his family - his family which consisted of a child who died young and a wife who died soon after. And the strangest headstone I have ever seen, "The Horse Thief 1898."

Most of the sites were to see the swells of the wagons. The best I can describe this is the space between wagons. The wagon ruts themselves have long since been covered by dirt and grass. But they carved holes so deep, that little miniature hills can be seen all across the metro area. Once you see them, it will be easy to see them again, and perhaps you will mistake any little hill for such a swell.

Going on this tour gave me an odd feeling. I have visited old buildings before, but I never felt so much like I was standing IN history. 150 years ago, THIS was the frontier! And people were embarking on a journey that 1 in 10 would not complete. They were headed into months of misery for something better on the other side. Only three days out from Independence, many were already experiencing incredible difficulties. And this early on, the number of wagons would have been unthinkable. At the trail head, the Oregon trail was a mile wide.

Even now I can't go out my door without recognizing where I stand. My house may not be a historic site, but it is so close! So many buildings and streets cover these trails! We have a Santa Fe Trail Drive that actually was the Santa Fe trail! I always think of history as something that happened back east or in Europe, but it's right here under my nose. And all it takes to discover it is a little bit of gas!

A Typical Sunday

2010-08-08T16:49:00.000-07:00

Well I have been reading Anna's blog, which is much better than mine. And I am thoroughly impresssed by the full life she leads! She has challenged me to seek out better opportunities for education and entertainment. But I also thought it would be nice to blog about what I am doing for a change, rather than what I think or feel. (The guys at work call blogging your "Feelings Journal.") So I thought I'd write about a typical Sunday, because this is one day that is usually the same each time I do it. And I don't mind, because it all goes back to that resting thing God wanted us to do. After a Saturday like yesterday, I needed this, and I was, as usual, sad to hit the 4:00 mark - the time on Sunday that I would have gotten home on a weekday, thus marking the end of any "extra" freetime over and above that.

6:00 - I woke up to take Maggie out - she is sleeping in my room now, but I still don't trust her enough to not have an accident when she first wakes up. Human or dog, we all have to hit the bathroom right away.
7:30 - Go to church. Sometimes it is donut day, so I go downstairs after church and grab a chocolate covered donut and a small coffee. It always takes longer to drink the coffee than eat the donut. I read the bulletin while doing this. The last couple of times, Anna and Patrick (her Irish husband) come and talk to me. Anna helped teach RCIA last year. They are an older couple who like to travel. He is very opinionated about Ireland and England. She is just a beautiful person. I think they must be within 10 years of my parents age, but they seem kind of older.
8:30 - Back from church. On non donut Sundays I sometimes buy the 49 cents drink from Quik Trip. I come back and usually take a nap.
10:00 - Nap is over. I work on my crossword puzzle. This is the giant one on my wall. I pour some Mountain Dew into a wine glass and work on the puzzle as long as the Dew lasts. I opene the curtains so the natural light can hit the puzzle. This has a much greater effect in the winter, and I love sitting up there on winter mornings in the sun!
11:00 - Took Maggie out to work on tracking. We had a long course today, but she pretty much followed it through!
12:00 - Went shopping. I do my grocery shopping on Sundays. Some weeks it's all out grocery shopping. Most weeks it's just fresh fruits and veggies. Today I had to buy shoes as well. I am mad - WalMart only carries one brand of shoes now.
1:00 - I come home and start cutting up my veggies and sorting the fruit into baggies to take for lunches this week. Today I also started a rib meal in the slow cooker. Then I made cookies. I was supposed to fry them, but it didn't turn out. I ended up baking them. I am now waiting for Kristen to come home and tell me if I can take them to work, or if I have to eat them myself.
3:00 - Done with all official tasks for the day. I spend the rest of the night (usaully until 9:00 - I'd like to go to bed at 8:00, but Kristen comes home then, and we inevitably talk) doing anything I want. Today it was a nap and blogging. On cooler days a walk is involved. Sometimes I write letters.

Boring - maybe - but I like the routine. I need the rest. I need to recouperate. I am already dreading next Sunday because I will be driving home, but I will cope somehow.

KRHA

2010-08-08T16:37:00.000-07:00

In the summer of 2000, when I was but 15 years old, I journed to K-State and spent a month living in the same residence hall I would come back to two years later. I was at KRHA, which is Kansas Regents Honors Academy, a summer program also known as "nerd camp" which gives kids the opportunity to take college level courses. It alternates between the six state colleges in Kansas (K-State, KU, Fort Hays State, Emporia State, Pittsburgh State, and Wichita State) and is completely free if you are accepted. You can buy course credit.

Our theme was "humanities" which kind of eludes me. It seemed to focus on high and mighty literature that we were expected to read. I also took a class on Violence in the Media which was pretty sick. I get that we were trying to analyze things, but it just seemed like watching a lot of strange, violent movies.

I don't know why I was thinking back to the books we read. I thought I'd share them with you - in case anyone wanted to pick up some meaningless college credit. There was value to a some.

Beggars in Spain
This was a fiction book, and science fiction to boot, so I loved it! We only read the first episode of a little trilogy. I think we should all read this book, because it is surprisingly starting to become relevant. It tells the story of a girl who was genetically engineered so that, not only would she be perfect, she would never have to sleep. It digs into the problems of jealousy she encountered, and also her own desire to understand the rest of us who do sleep. As people have more and more opportunities to custom make their children, this is a great book to help you think about some of the results.

Robinson Crusoe
Another fiction novel, this was pretty good. It kind of drags on, but it's a classic, so I can't really argue with that. And we all know the countless remakes of this story.

Amusing Ourselves to Death
Of all the non-fiction, I probably liked this one the best. And I would recommend it, because it is also pretty relevant. It talks about the increase in popularity of the media, and our dependence on it. It also talks about how we have developed ADD, that a scene in a TV show or movie now is on average less than a minute, and any given screen shot is less than three seconds. It challenged us to watch the news and look at it deeper to see how it had become the bread of the masses. Our teachers showed us a news clip, first with the words, and then with the sound muted, to show us how funny the video clips that go along with the nightly newscasts can be. All in all, you learn to see the sensationalism of it. As more and more people spend time in front of the computer (look where I am) or TV or playing video games, this book is very relevant to dive into some of those issues.

Imagined Communities
I thought this was the hardest book I had ever read. Incredibly college level, it takes 200 pages to make an interesting, but simple, point. The point is that we only imagine the communities we live in, and yet we stake everything on them. We call ourselves Americans, but our borders are just ideas we have come up with. We call ourselves Kansans and think that means we have something in common with other Kansans, but it might not. That, and I may have less in common (right now) with someone who lives in western Kansas than I do with someone who lives in Kansas City, MO. The irony of this book was that we were asked to read it over the fourth of July weekend. Yay for patriotism.

The Autobiography of Henry Adams
Being the grandson of two US presidents made this joker think he could write. Wrong. This was a hard and long book to get through. And it just made no sense to me. I literally was throwing it across Hale library in frustration. I know he was obsessed with the dynamo, an early engine that he felt symbolized society. I also know he used the word bourgeoise a lot.

Dr. Strangelove
Not a book, but a movie we did watch in class. This movie is pretty funny - but it's dark satyre. A much better way to waste time than reading some of these books. It tells the dark story of what could have happened if something had gone wrong during the cold war. We can literally thank God that something did not. I watched it again this fall, and some of the comedy was lost when I wasn't in a mass audience laughing, but if you are a fan of satyre, this is a must see.

My Catholic Movies

2010-08-08T16:03:00.000-07:00

As mentioned in an earlier post, a friend sent me five Catholic movies once. These movies were so diverse and so good, I just had to share them with the world. I am going to write about them from most non-Catholic friendly to most Catholic. All of these movies are great, clean entertainment. Also, I discovered a publishing company, I believe it is Ignatius Press. It makes movies about Catholic Saints. They are originally in Italian, but they are kind of a BBC quality. Very good and informative, and very challenging. My philosophy is that the lives of older saints, pre-Reformation, are easier to accept because that's just what Christianity was back then. But these movies would be like watching a movie on Mothere Theresa or Pope John Paul II.

Now, for the five movies I have:

The Scarlet and the Black
Christopher Plummer, the father from the Sound of Music, plays the bad guy in this movie - a Nazi soldier charged with overseeing the occupation of Rome in World War II. His opponent is a mild mannered Monseignor, who wears the beautiful round glasses typical of the era, flirts with wealthy women, and likes to play golf. A humble man, his entire mission in life is to do what's right. He goes head to head not only with Christopher Plummer, but with Pope Pius XII (I think that's the right number) who is concerned about keeping neutral. This is an interesting movie to watch for anyone who has heard about the controversy of the Vatican neutrality in World War II. The plot is good. Monseigneur wishes to help refugees and escaped prisoners of war, most of whom are English or American. Over the course of the Nazi occupation, he helps thousands hide in Rome, creating an intricate network to hide the escapees and feed them. Friends are lost along the way. When the Nazis retaliate by forcing the Monseigneur into the Vatican, never to leave, he continues to work hard - creating elaborate disguises to get out and help. This is a great movie for just some entertainment and popcorn, but the follow up boxes at the end of the movie tell a pretty powerful story in themselves.

The Bells of St. Mary's
This is a black and white Bing Crosby and Ingrid Bergman film. It has a sister film I have not seen, but it tells the story of Bing Crosby, an Irish priest, who comes to oversee a convent. Ingrid Bergman plays the part of a fiesty nun who has her own way of doing things. The two butt heads on some issues but become friends. Unfortunately, the nun gets tuberculosis and is sent away to Arizona for some recovery. (Thinking of a convent in Arizona sent me on a quest to visit convents and monastaries across the country - of which I have visited a total of none so far!) This was the movie where my roommate was screaming at the priest, yelling at me for making her watch a horrible movie, and generally being in a huff because the suspense (will he do the right thing or not?) just kills you!

Francis of Assisi
I spoke of this movie in my list of favorite happy movies, and I don't know what more I can say. This is a biography of St. Francis. He was a man on the town who had a conversion experience while at war. When he came back, he rejected the wealth of his father and began a life of serving others. His dear friend, Clare, who was also wealthy nobility, ran away from home and formed the Poor Clares, the female version of the Franciscans. Of course, the "dear friend" part is actually just romantic legend. While it's nice to see these two, beautiful platonic friends who work side by side, Clare was actually born much later than Francis. While she modeled her Poor Clares off his style of absolute poverty, they probably met in passing just once or twice.

The Song of Bernadette
This movie was nominated for a few Oscars back in the black and white days when it came out. I believe the actress was nominated for one. This is a cute story - kind of slow - but also interesting. It tries to stay historically true to one of the great mysteries of the 19th century. Last year I blogged about the story of Fatima and how I had never heard of it growing up, but it was huge in the Catholic world. Well, you always hear Fatima paired with Lourdes. These are the two huge modern day miracles that everyone talks about. Lourdes is a town in France where Bernadette, a young poor girl who was also simple and asthmatic, encountered a vision of the Virgin Mary. Mary asked her to return to the grotto, which was essentially the town dump, 14 days in a row to pray the rosary. Bernadette's faith and simple statements about the woman she had seen (always just described as "the lady") drew the attention of city officials, and even became nationally renowned. When asked for a miracle to prove the visions, a fountain sprung up out of the ground. This fountain has healed hundreds since the time it was formed, but the Catholic church will only recognize some 30 or so, because it takes such care to substantiate any claimed miracles. This is a cute movie that tells a story. You don't have to believe it, but it is interesting. As I said, it's also a little slow, but that's kind of the style of movies from back then.

Marcelino
Well, this is cute but weird. A Spanish film, it was dubbed over for our viewing pleasure. It is also incredibly old. I would only really recommend this if you like foreign and old films. The story is of a little boy adopted by monks. When he grows up to be an onery five year old, he goes into the attic, where there is a crucifix. However, the Jesus on this crucifix is alive! (Scary!) So the boy starts to take him bread and wine (and so in Spanish, it is the story of "Marcelino pan y vino - see, a rhyme). Finally, he is given the option to see his mother again, and is taken to heaven with Jesus. The monks see this happen and declare him a saint. As far as we can tell, there is not a real St. Marcelino - the rhyme itself makes the story seem more made up than anything else. It's just a cute little story someone made up. I didn't mind watching it the one time, but I'm not really ready to repeat it yet.

Cost Cutting in Today's Recession

2010-08-08T15:29:00.000-07:00

I'm not really a fan of the media. Any of it, although I certainly consume a lot. Even "non biased" (or biased the way I want them to be) news outlets can be ridiculous sometimes. Local news is worse, with the craziest things being touted as stories. Yesterday I read a story that was both interesting and wrong. I mean, it took good facts, but went a completely different direction with them than I would have. The story was about what cities and states are doing to cut costs. They mentioned (in reverse order) cutting off public services like trash pickup and street lights, ending public transportation, and shortening school years.

One city mentioned in this story had cut trash service to public parks. At first, I thought this was a drastic measure that would have little financial impact. I still don't think it will make that much of a difference if the trashman hits one more stop. But if trashcans were removed from parks (as opposed to being left in parks to indefinately fill up), then patrons would find somewhere else to put their trash, or take it home with them. Most of us do not litter - we've been brainwashed enough that the idea is laughable.

Another city turned off 1/3 of its streetlights. Citizens were concerned about a rise in crime, even though there is little statistical evidence of a correlation. Now, this cost cutting measure seems reasonable enough to me on the outset, but it appears the city was not methodical in turning the lights off. Some areas were left dark. Now, if someone turned off every third light on a given street, I don't think it would have that much of an impact (especially on streets where the lights are on both sides). But it appears (and it doesn't seem too far fetched) that city council, after approving the measure, probably said, "Not in my neighborhood!" and then turned off the lights based on their own passions, rather than reasonable application.

The City of Atlanta shut off all its public transportation. But, for the sake of my point of view, I will call it mass transportation. The article profiled a man with no car and the difficulties he now faces. Now, I think if I lived in a big city, I would take advantage of the mass transit. (I wish I could take more advantage of it now, but even though we have bus service to my work, it is very limited). And if I felt that everything I needed was within this transit system, I would probably not hold on to a car. Of all the "boo hoo" stories in this article, this is the one I most side with the citizens on. It's kind of drastic to ask someone to go out and buy a $10,000 car when they had been spending less than $10 a day on transit.

On the other hand, citizens need to understand how much this service cost. That, and it is a service that many (perhaps the majority of people in today's car driven society) don't use. The article said the cost was $8 million a year - I wonder if that included any unfunded pensions. That seems to be a big problem with most government budgets. I think the city could have looked at many alternatives. They could have increased fares to the point that the project was paying for itself. Riders would either buy cars if there were savings to be had or pay the extra, if the savings were in the public transportation. The city could have also looked into being bought out by a private company. I know people cry out in terror at the idea of a corporate run transit system. But you have to admit, a company would probably run the system better. It would be on time more often. The workers would be friendlier. The workers would be paid less. And savings would be passed on to the consumer. The city's proposed solution - an increased sales tax - places an undue burden on the half of the city that does not use the public transportation. A service like this should be able to pay for itself or it is not necessary. Patrons should be willing to pay to use it, or it is not necessary. But cutting it off all of the sudden one day seems a little dramatic.

Finally, in Hawaii, the state had cut an extra 17 days from the school year by having Friday furloughs. Now, I would think that the point of expressing this in an article would be to discuss why education is such a big expense and what can be done to cut costs. It may have discussed whether or not shortening the school year would adversely impact the education of children - children who already lag behind other devleoped countries. It may have discussed the theory of vouchers, or if the general public should be expected to shoulder the education of our children, and so on. Instead it focused on how hard it was for parents to find childcare on the extra day off.

Okay, so finding childcare can be an issue. But how is finding childcare for 17 extra Fridays different than finding childcare for the summer? And what about all the parents and families that already have childcare covered? I speak of families with a stay at home parent, a grandparent or aunt or uncle who can watch the kids, where at least one parent is a teacher, and so on. Certainly creative parents can find a way to take care of their kids for 17 Fridays - perhaps the schools can help parents create pools of 5 or so kids, whose parents rotate watching the kids on the day off. (But that's part of the problem these days - people don't know their neighbors, and both parents usually work either because they want to or they have to - and Hawaii is one of the poorest states in the nation, so imagine homes with two working parents are even more necessary).

But the big problem with making childcare the point of the article is that education was never meant to be government-paid childcare. If it was, then why does it only start when kids are five years old? And why does it not run 7:30 - 5:30 every day all year round? Education is education. Work is work. People have been juggling the two ever since moms went back to work. Our focus should be on getting our children the best education possible, so that when they have kids childcare is hardly a problem at all. We should be concerned about our kids learning, not whether or not their parents had to eat a vacation day to stay home with them.

I was so disappointed with this article. It could have gone in so many different directions, but instead decided to take the same old, "These poor people are losing their favorite public services!" direction, rather than evaluate other possibilities. It could have looked into how the cities who turned lights off allocated the dark areas. It could have questioned what other alternatives Atlanta looked into before shutting down the trains. It could have asked if our kids are getting a proper education?

(I went back to find the article, which I believe appeared on msn.com on Saturday, but it has been replaced - searches do not yield much - although a search on related words brought up plenty of articles, which probably have the same boring theme. This was not the first article I had read on education that took the approach of, "What are the parents going to do for childcare?")

Maggie

2010-08-06T15:37:00.000-07:00

On a Friday night in late March, I browsed Petfinder looking for a puppy to put in the little cage I had set up by the front door. I generally performed a search on females with two breeds, Beagle and Shiba Inu. (I think the Shiba is one of the most beautiful and less well known dogs out there! But after Golden Retrievers, Beagles - with their adorable faces and awesome noses - were at the top of my dog list). There she was, a beagle / dachsund mix labeled "Daphne" by her current owner. About 11 weeks. I could meet her at PetSmart the next day if I filled out an application. (Apparently as hard to adopt a pet as to adopt a person - you practically need references!)

When I got to PetSmart I wasn't planning to adopt right away. I just wanted to see if she was as cute in real life as in the picture. She wasn't. She was more dachsund than beagle - longer than she was tall. And she was so wriggly in my arms. This puppy definately wasn't for me! But another puppy caught my eye - Miss Charley. They pulled her out, and she sat patiently in my arms as I arranged to take her home with me. Seriously, you just HAVE to leave with a puppy! All my dog supplies were still at home, so we had a precarious car ride trying to keep her still. Then another precarious car ride to another Petsmart to get more supplies.

Well, Miss Charley changed names a few times - from Pepsi to Maggie, which stuck. However, we could have also called her Wiggley or Princess (because she is spoiled), and I have always actually kind of liked Miss Charley (or just Charley).

We took Maggie through puppy classes, where she was a solid B student - thanks to my roommate's dedication at training her. Honestly, we were competing for best behaved against two dogs who were months older than her! (Puppy class also contained for us a St. Bernard puppy - that thing was huge!) Now fairly well trained and house trained, we are awaiting late August to begin another round. I am looking into moving her into agility or tracking.

I take Maggie tracking once a week or so. It consists of me crushing up a hot dog and and walking thorugh the grass, dropping bits of hot dog every now and then to keep her motivated. She's really quite good. We did a teaser agility lesson at a dog show this spring, and she was a natural at that, too. She is good at jumping, crawling, and running. Areas for improvement include staying off the couch and not chewing on our fingers all the time.

I hear that dogs learn their personalities from their masters. My sister's dog is pretty jumpy. On the fourth of July, Maggie barely reacted to the fireworks, even before we started our sensitization training (give her a treat when a firework goes off). But my sister is pretty jumpy, and I am pretty calm, as is Kristen. So we have a pretty calm dog.

(Here's the thing on my sister's dog, Ember, an Australian Shepherd, Poodle mix (Aussiedoodle). She has a psychosis! This dog will not eat, drink, or sleep if there is a ball to be thrown. She will literally play herself to exhaustion. I have seen her take a ball to Maggie and wait patiently for it to be thrown. Ember is way too skinny, but you can only tell when her fur is shaved for the summer, because she won't eat when she can play! This kind of obsession in a human would get someone committed).

Maggie has a few quirks of her own. The funniest is that whenever she has a bone (or something similar) in her mouth, she wanders around the house crying. I mean she is worked up about it! It's really sad to see her so sad. We believe that it is because she is a digging species and wants to bury it but cannot find a way to do so inside the house.

Another quirk I have to add - she likes to "talk" to the doggie in the window. In this case, it is her reflection in our porch window. She usually stares at it, wondering (we assume) why that doggie had to live on the porch when she gets to live in here. She also may wonder why she can't smell it. Tonight she did the craziest thing, though. Both Kristen and I are pretty sure we saw her offer her fish toy to the dog in the window. How sweet - they share!

My Beef About Foreign Languages

2010-08-05T16:16:00.000-07:00

I love language. I love the one I speak. I love the one I try to speak. I love to learn where the roots of words come from and their history. Perhaps it is because I am a girl and like to talk, but I really do love to study languages. (Not to be a linguist - I would be terrible at learning many more languages, although I would like to).

My first thought on the problem with language came as I listened to the local evening news. The women were giving a report on some Mexican festival in the area, such as Cinco de Mayo. And suddenly in the midst of a perfectly American sentence, fluid, and perhaps over-pronounced, Spanish came flying from the TV. Now what was that all about? I pick on Spanish because I speak it, a little, myself. But I really get kind of tired of newscasters going out of their way to pronounce words in their native equivalent. I remember after September 11th, Kabul suddenly started being pronounced "Cobble," and Seoul "Soul." (By the way, when did Osama bin Laden become Usama? It seems he suspiciously changed his name a little over a year ago...)

I understand what is going on - an attempt to be respectful of a language and politically correct. But at the same time, throwing a perfectly pronounced foreign word into an English phrase sounds, well, foreign. Much better to Americanize it as best you can. For instance, when I was in Spain, I loved to hear the telecasters say, "George Boooosh." (And they could have said Jorge Arbusto, too!). But if they were to suddenly twang his name all out like we Americans do, it would have ruined the phrase. Words flow melodically from our lips, and I think it is much better to keep the flow any day than to stumble over pronounciations.

(By the way, I wonder if the new political correctness arose with the development of the internet, as native speakers started writing nasty letters to stations telling them exactly how to pronounce certain words).

And that leads me to my second beef about language - who translated Asian words into Roman letters? Honestly, I worked with a girl from China once named Fang. Pronounged Fong. Now, if she had been from Spain or France, I would have said, "Ah, well that is an interesting trait of French pronounciation." But she was from China, which means her name was actually spelled as a bunch of symbols. Some wise guy a long time ago took those symbols and tied them to English phoenetics. And he did a terrible job! It would be just as easy for her to spell her name Fong of Fahng or something, and people would mispronounce it less! And what about all the Nyguens? (Did I spell that right?) I think that is pronounced "win." So why not spell it that way? Or at least Wyn. I have no problem with the Chinese language (or other Asian or Arabic languages). I am just shocked that the English speaker who translated them did such a bad job!

But speaking of the translator, I have one more beef about foreign languages. And it has to do with maps (and money, I suppose). The area we call Germany today used to be called Bohemia. And it consisted of many little states. But now it is Germany. Not so fast. In German I learned that the country is called Deutchland. (Spreichen se deutch?). In Spanish, the country is referred to as Aleman. Three words for the same country?

Now if newscasters have enough respect for a language to try to pronounce it impeccably, why do we not have enough respect for other countries to list their countries (as phoenetically possible) by the name they call it? I have in my mind a map of the world with countries like Deuchland, Espania, and Mehico (We would have to change our spelling of Mexico if we wanted to pronounce it as close as possible to Mexico). I have noticed this phenomenon all over the world - in Spain we visited Seviya (Seville). Italy is Italia. Is it really that hard to say these words? I know there is a trade off between correct spelling (as in Mexico) and correct pronounciation, but in some countries (Spain) we don't even try. I am sure there are many many more examples in Asian countries.

Of course, it goes both ways. I actually like what the United States is called in Spanish - Los Estados Unidos. A direct translation of the words. But most countries aren't called a word (like a noun) they are called a proper name. (Many countries also have thsi United States or other descriptor word before their proper name. We, however, are not allowed to use America because that is seen as the name for the whole continent. Still, when it is the United States of Mexico, I see not why we can't be called America because that is in our full name). Anyway, I am trying now to phoenetically spell "United States" in a way that a Spanish speaker could pronounce that sounds like it does in English, and it's hard...Junidad Stits (hoo-nee-dahd steets?). And, of course, it's nonsense in Spanish. It kind of reminds me of that word game we played in college. But still, an American overhearing this in a conversation might actually be clued in that someone is talking about his homeland!

Okay, so that's a pipe dream... :) But it's fun to play around with.

My other question is about money, and it really is a kind of question. Dollars, pounds, pesos, yen, euros. All are words for money. I know I'm a little off base because of pounds and dollars - both words for currency in English speaking countries. But I believe a difference in pounds is that they are not base 100. Still, a yen or a peso - that's like a dollar in Japan or Mexico! I know, I know - it's not like a dollar. That's why we have the exchange rate, and it's very complicated. At times, I think both yens and pesos are more equivalent to the penny or dime than dollar.

My problem is that we call them the Japanese Yen or the Mexican Peso. Why not call it the Japanese Dollar or the Mexican Dollar? And the Mexicans could call our dollar the American Peso. I mean, otherwise Dollar is a kind of proper noun instead of a noun that kind of means, "the local currency."

I am trying to think of an off-base example...how about a book? I mean, you would not start talking about a new "libro" just because it was a book you got from Spain, or that was written by a Spanish author, would you? No, you tranlsate the noun back to English. So why pull out all the yen you got in Japan and not call them Japanese dollars? (Because yen is easier to say!) :)

Okay, so those were my random thoughts on foreign languages. Ideas that will never ever take hold...they may not seem politically correct at first, but I am trying to be fair. If I do any foreign language a disservice, note that I am willing that they do the same disservice to English. :)

C.S. Lewis

2010-07-29T18:35:00.000-07:00

I can easily say that C.S. Lewis is, hands down, my favorite author. He captured my imagination as a youngster with his Narnia series and had me looking in closets for secret worlds well into my adult years. Then in college he wowed me again with his theological books, "Mere Christianity" and "The Screwtape Letters." On a dark December night in 2008, a priest opened his homily with, "I've been reading a science fiction trilogy by C.S. Lewis...." I knew immediately that a) I had found a kindred spirit in the priest and b) I had to read those books, too!

The second book in that space triolgy, "Perelandra" and "The Problem of Pain," another of C.S. Lewis' more theological books had a profound impact on me. For the first time I can ever remember from my reading career, I had to set the books down, sometimes mid-chapter, in order to allow what I had just read to sink in.

I discovered that C.S. Lewis had an amazing way of expressing himself, whether by storey telling or through logical argumentation, that was much stronger than anything I could ever say. Often in his works he would say something I had tried to express myself, but he said it in a way that I knew millions of people would understand. As of late, I have wondered if one reason he is so profound is simply because he was English - reading the writings of someone who speaks my native tongue will probably provide more value to me than reading something that was translated.

Theologically, I do not know him to have ever stated anything glaringly blasphemous. In fact, I often find him expressing opinions that I had thought only I felt, that I had never expressed to anyone. When I read his essays, I found them relevant to the world I live in, too, and strangely comforting. If he was battling these ideas in the 1950's that I am battling today, then it means that the deterioration of society has bene much slower than he feared.

Once I discovered how amazing he was, I decided to embark upon a journey to read all his books, many of which are collections of essays. While I still would not say that C.S. Lewis has ever written anything bad or boring, in reading through his essays I found a repetitiveness of topics that was a little disheartening, but nothing a few months' break from the author couldn't cure.

But it was in reading "Surprised by Joy," his autobiography, that I began to feel like I knew the man, and it was a little melancholy. Somewhere in the middle of the book I realized that we would not really have been friends. For one, I think I admire him too much to ever have been his friends - I know from personal experience that the more I like someone and want them to like me, the less I feel like they do. But I do think I would have fit well into his circle - perhaps as the girlfriend / wife of his very best friend. You see, I think we are too similar, but if we had a common denominator, someone who found both of our types of logic and thoughtfullness attractive, it would bring us into the same group. But I do think we would butt heads sometimes - either because I am too opinionated, or because I am not eloquent enough to really say what I mean. Of course, the worst part of reading the book was realizing how important literature was to the man. I have read quite a bit of literature and have even gone through a phase of seeking it out. But I have found that "literature" is much like the Oscar winning movie - someone finds it of value, but it is not entertaining in the least bit. One day I should like to go back through "Surprised by Joy" and Lewis' other works, and read through all of his literary references. I go almost mad trying to understand some of his examples. But that was his passion, he made it very clear, and I would never have been able to keep up with that.

Now I find myself about halfway or more through his collection. I am reading, "The Four Loves," which like all Lewis books is incredibly profound. I just realized, having read a section tonight, that it is almost like a discipline I should have. For, each night when I pick up the book, it speaks to me some relevant little tidbit, almost as if C.S. Lewis is speaking to me. "Now Sarah," I can almost read, "In your situation, this is what is going on..." and "The reason you are so upset right now is..." and "In order to move forward and get to a better place you are going to have to...but don't worry..." And so on! I should not be entirely surprised - the man was a Christian, and as such, his books would make for tremendous Bible studies.

How I wish everyone else were reading all his books. We would certainly all be much more educated and thoughtful. But I cannot express the sentiments he puts forth, however much I want to tell my roommate about whatever profound tidbit he most recently put my way. Still, I may have to start the whole exercise over again and make sure that someone in my small circle reads the books along with me...for even having my roommate read it after me does little good if it is a deep discussion I want.

As a final note on C.S. Lewis - I have given him praise as an author and theologian. After the authors of the Bible, I would say he is my favorite Christian writer. I make the disticntion, though, because I know that he was not an inspired biblical writer. In theological terms, he was just an average joe who was uncanny at putting things together. With that said, I have often found a similarity almost in voice between the writings of Paul and C.S. Lewis. Indeed, the narrator in my head usually is the same for both authors. I think this is because Lewis mimicks Paul in ways, and he goes into a depth that Paul goes into. Both are so very careful to try to make things clear. But Lewis has one advantage, for me, that Paul does not, simply that he writes originally in English (as mentioned above) and that I need no context to understand Lewis' writings. I know what World War II was. I don't know all the little nuances of 1st century Rome. Still, I want to make it clear that, between the two writers (or any Bible author for that matter), Lewis is inferior because he was not inspired. But as a person who can take what Paul wrote, what was inspired, and break it down into waht a normal person can understand, then C.S. Lewis is phenomenal and takes the cake!

Purgatory

2010-03-22T18:34:00.000-07:00

I think the church I was raised in had a unique view of heaven. Because we believed there would only be one "Last Judgment," we believed that souls do not go directly to Heaven or Hell upon death. Instead, depending on their goodness on earth, they went to a kind of holding cell - something bland and confining like a prison or something very much like heaven but not the real thing. As a teenager, if my Catholic friends brought up Purgatory, this is what I imagined. I imagined Purgatory and the prison holding area to be the same. I imagined it like an expanse of brown, dried grass, sitting under a brownish green sky...there was nothing to do, but no pain really.

My friend explained Purgatory to me as I took a walk one summer afternoon, well before I had ever started to consider Catholicism. "It's simply a place you go where you can draw closer to God without temptation." While this is not the whole story, I will pause to explain the effect that statement had on me. I was an instant believer. I have always felt a little anxiety over going to heaven, because there is no sin in heaven. Perhaps because I am a little bratty, or perhaps because of original sin, or both, I could not imagine me - Sarah, my soul - without the inclination to sin. What if all the other souls in heaven got on my nerves? The idea that I could go to Purgatory and learn not to sin before standing in front of God for eternity gave me a sense of relief.

Now, based on my friend's explanation, I pictured Purgatory as a valley of rolling hills. You couldn't call it anything close to heaven, nor to the best places on this earth, but it was not unpleasant. On the top of each hill was a tree - perhaps an apple tree in bloom or covered in apples - and beneath each tree a soul sat. Here we souls contemplate God without ever feeling hot, cold, hungry, fat, tired, thirsty, or jealous. And the longer we sat, the longer we learned to want God - even though our circumstance was not so bad. Eventually, our longing would be so great that we would be ready for heaven, and to heaven we would go.

The other thing my friend told me about Purgatory was that it was a safe place. "If I die and find myself in Purgatory I will be the happiest person ever, because I know I will get to heaven, it's just a matter of when." Perhaps because of misunderstanding and grace abuse, some Catholics have given a very different view of Purgatory. In their minds, they can behave however they want in this world, and then in Purgatory they will make up for it. We cannot judge where they go when they finally leave this world, but if they are living wholly unchristian lives, then they may go to the alternative to Purgatory and Heaven.

A few months later, my friend sent me a booklet on Purgatory, presumably because of my interest in it. I was shocked to read it! Purgatory was not a happy valley - it was a pit of fire! Pain - horrific pain - worse pain than anyone on earth has ever experienced - awaits us there. And we get to stay there until we are ready for heaven? What is going on? For one, the idea of painful fire is not so far different than my idea of learning to love God and learning not to be sinful. Doesn't fire purify? If we are scalded, won't that burn off the old, dirty self? Aren't we supposed to be baptized in fire? Although the pain of Purgatory now sounds dreadful, I imagine it could be like the good kind of pain. Pain that heals.

Because our sins have been forgiven, we no longer have to fear death. If we have been saved, then we will go to Purgatory. However, because we are sinful, we must also be cleansed of and punished for the sins we have committed. This is similar to a thief who steals a TV. If he is caught and the TV replaced, he still has to go to jail. If he repents of his crime and turns himself in, he still has to pay for the TV. Even if the TV owners forgive him, he still has to serve his time.

My Decision Made

2010-03-11T14:05:00.000-08:00

The story of my decision winds down now. Having committed to going to Mass and falling in love with the passion for God, my heart had almost decided to be Catholic. I had jumped off the cliff. However, I wasn’t ready to tell anyone, and I still had doubts. My heart and intellect had to be on board, because I had to know if my decision was what God wanted me to do. No doubt he would pull me back from the edge in one way or another if he wanted me to stay Protestant.

In early January I was reading a book called the “Dictionary of Christianity.” Terms started to blur together, but I was fascinated about all the things about Christianity I still did not know. I found an entry on a group of heretics in the middle ages. These heretics were a precursor to Anabaptists in one way but also a remnant of a more ancient heresy in another (heresies in the first four centuries after Jesus tend to run together in my mind, but they centered on the divinity of Jesus, and their conclusions caused further theological breaks with the church).
For some reason, I was surprised to think of a heresy in the Middle Ages. Before, I had thought that any “heresies” the Catholic Church had “crushed” were legitimate protests, and that the response was a power struggle. While I don’t condone the church’s more violent responses, as I read about this particular heresy, I found that it was, indeed, a heresy.

The heresy, based on Jesus’ divinity, was an old one that the church had been fighting for years. In the 4th century, they had defined Jesus as fully God and fully Man. Either / or was not a possibility for them. And ever since they had defended what they knew to be true about Jesus – what all Christians, Protestants and Catholics alike, who believe the Apostles Creed or Nicene Creed believe. Emotionally I was struck – the Catholic Church had been defending not just Christianity but the very essence of Jesus since it was started!

My mind raced on, as I remembered what I knew about early church history. The church had defined what we call “Christianity” in the 4th century in the Nicene Creed and through the assembly of the New Testament. With all due respect, people who are followers of Jesus but do not believe in the Apostles Creed which explains his divinity, are not necessarily Christians – or not what I would call Christians. This is why Catholics believe Protestants receive many graces and are saved through Jesus, while some Christ following sects are not given titles within the fold (Islam could be called a great Christian heresy – Muslims believe in, and to some extent follow, Jesus, but do not believe him to be God).

In addition, for us to believe the Bible that we have, to know that is complete and made up of the best books, to know that God’s word is in it, we have to trust that God helped the assemblers of the New Testament to create an authoritative source.
As such, anyone who believes in Christ and calls themselves a Christian must believe in what the Catholic Church was in the 4th century, or they must re-evaluate if they believe the Gospel at all…

And so I did. Because I cannot separate myself from Christianity, I realized that it was necessary to delve in to Catholicism. Many of the practices that Protestants oppose today were set in place when the Catholics created the creeds and the Bible. In addition, the church had 1800 years of near-continuous history to record its rationale for certain beliefs, so we can always test things we don’t understand.
In the year since I made my decision, I have joined the RCIA (Rite of Catholic Initiation for Adults) program, and I feel even more confident in my choice.

Although I dived in, I had lingering doubts about certain things, but one-by-one the doubts were erased. Beliefs that seemed hard before now seem clear as day, and morality that had astonished me now makes sense from a life-loving perspective. If I found something hard to swallow, I would set it aside in trust, and in time, I would see how it fit into God’s plan.

A Group of Apostles

2010-03-09T17:19:00.001-08:00

Also in Louisville, I attended my first Catholic Mass on my own. I was blown away. I would like to spend some time discussing the details of Mass and why they are so special later, but I will keep things shorter for now. Every single phrase and gesture has meaning – deep meaning. I had trouble following, but from just the one mass I remember taking away two special things.

First, an altar server carries a crucifix held high on a stick to lead the procession of altar servers, lectors, and the priest, up to the front. This was one example of the incredible respect for God, Jesus, and Jesus’ act of sacrifice on the cross for us that I learned was a natural part of Catholic life. Watching the robed procession, I felt as though I could be watching the early apostles. As if they were carrying the cross through ancient streets, ready to tell people what this symbol was all about.

The other takeaway was the response to readings from the Bible, especially the New Testament. After a reading, the crowd would say, “Thanks be to God!” and for the Gospel, we sang a song (Alleluia), stood up, and said, “Praise to You, Lord Jesus Christ,” when the reading was finished. Besides being respectful, to me this showed how excited Catholics were about the Word of God. They were thanking Him for it! Yes, thank God for the Gospel! While the words do not save us, they tell us the story of salvation, and without these words, we would not know of what Jesus did! Praise to You Lord Jesus Christ!

After several weeks of attending mass and observing this and many more “rituals,” I told a friend, “I would think Catholics were crazy if they didn’t love Jesus so much!” Although both Catholics and Protestants can be both hot and cold, I think Catholics are more notorious for being cold to their faith. However, if you attend Mass, you know there are some people left in both the church leadership and the masses in general who completely get the Gospel story. As such, with Jesus as the center of everything, a Catholic Mass is as passionate and fired up about Jesus as any gospel revival meeting.

Who Wouldn't Want to Be a Saint?

2010-03-08T19:04:00.000-08:00

One argument that atheists use against Christians is the apparent inconsistency of the Bible. However, Christians believe the Bible to be true and not inconsistent. And yet we all interpret it differently. For instance, to use an old example, when slavery was legal in the United States, Christians on both sides of the debate would use the Bible to support their cause. This didn’t make the Bible wrong, but it did divide Christians. Jesus doesn’t want His children divided.

Over and over again I have found myself hearing the words, “Well, I believe…” tied to a perspective on theology. I’m not talking about someone’s religious beliefs of another faith. And I’m not necessarily talking about the beliefs of specific denominations within Christianity – that would be “we believe…” I’m talking about the personal confusion that many people have about certain matters of theology. How can the layman tell? Many people do not want to be told what to believe, but I felt more and more certain that someone had to tell me because there was a right answer out there, not just an “I believe.” It had to either be someone with more education and training, or else someone who was divinely influenced. Preferably both. Otherwise, knowing exactly what God wants would be impossible.

More and more I was drawn to the idea of a pope, a council of leaders, a tradition leading back to Christ himself. I could not explain it that way at the time, but I wanted unity within the church.

Summer turned into fall, and I went to Louisville. I was alone for months on end out there – and I was choosing not to go to church. Because I found church to be about music and people, it did not make sense for me to get attached to a church I could not return to, or go to a church where I knew nobody. In addition, I thoroughly believed I would just spend Sunday mornings in a Bible study devotional, but that rarely materialized.

I grew lonely and hardened to God for the first time in my life – a dark night of the soul. I started crying out in the night for Him to come back to me. I will never forget the words of a Catholic friend, who spoke to me as I silently cried on the stairs of my hotel loft. “You keep digging for buried treasure in all these different places, but I’ve found it. I keep trying to get you to see that I’ve found the hole, and that the treasure is over here, but you just keep digging new holes.”

That weekend I went out and bought a book called, “The Dictionary of Saints.” It had a short paragraph on pretty much every saint recognized by the Catholic Church. At the time, I couldn’t have explained a saint to a Protestant, other than by saying that these were people the church believed to be in heaven.

Their stories were similar. Many were martyrs. Others were women who ran away from their rich families to become nuns. There were priests and monks, too. A few were married people. Short as each paragraph was, and similar as the stories became to each other, I could not put it down. I read it like a book, rather than a reference. I found myself longing for that kind of life. I wanted to be a saint, not to be put in some kind of book, but to live the kind of life wholly devoted to God! I didn’t know if I was ever going to get married or not, but if not, I wanted to be a nun! (Being a nun as a last resort for unmarried women is the wrong attitude to have, by the way, although I didn’t understand back then).

I was challenged to purify my life, and am continually challenged to this day to live in the world but not of it. One challenge was movies. I found it hard to “not get” to watch PG-13 movies, or felt guilty for doing so. “Who,” I wondered, “can go through life like this? No wonder Protestants are not legalists, we would all be Puritans.” But I realized that if something would bring me closer to God, then I could not excuse myself from it with a clean conscience. Bad movies would have to go (could I watch them with Jesus in the room anyways?). In addition, I needed to make a greater effort for prayer time. I have felt these spiritual revivals come and go in my life, and I know that God uses some of our hardest times to call us to him. However, I did find a new perspective that helped keep the momentum going.

It Can't Be They're Lying...

2010-03-07T18:53:00.000-08:00

For thousands of years man has wanted to grow wings and fly. For those of us who have done so with the aid of an airplane, we understand why. The ancients longed for something they missed but could not explain. The most breathtaking experiences in life can be found 30,000 feet in the air looking down. In the summer of 2008 I was flying to from Kansas City to Minneapolis on a weekly basis. One Friday on the return trip, as I watched the sun setting over clouds that looked like ocean waves painted in gold and orange, I found myself turning away from the astonishing beauty to contemplate the turmoil in my own heart.

A friend had been giving me pamphlets on Catholicism. These pamphlets and books I soaked up eagerly – not knowing or suspecting that I was searching for something deeper in my Protestant faith, I enjoyed what I perceived to be a friendly debate. I would read the arguments and return my own, supposedly better, ones. I realize now I was just repeating hollow catch phrases I had heard from my other friends.
I don’t know what particular tenet of faith I was thinking about that Friday. Perhaps I wasn’t even concerned about Catholic apologetics at all. But the first seed of logic was then planted in my mind that maybe Protestants weren’t the be-all-end-all authority on Christianity that I thought we were.

Here is the chain of thought. Catholics rely on the teachings of the church – which consists of priests, bishops, and the pope. Each priest is in charge of a parish – people that are his surrogate family. The priest goes to eight years of seminary - eight years to learn about theology. So he knows the Bible and the Catholic teachings very well. (Here we must understand that I already realized that the difference between Catholics and Protestants was more than just sola scriptura, for no matter what they called it, the differences were not about the scriptures themselves but how to interpret them). Each week he was in charge of saying the mass, saying the prayers of the Eucharist – prayers that Catholics believe turn bread into the person of Jesus Christ.

Here’s the problem – if any one priest ever had a doubt about major Catholic tenets of faith, such as transubstantiation, then to continue to participate would be blasphemy. In addition, because of his advanced learning, he would be more culpable for leading others astray. Many people fall away from the faith of their youth, and many will deceive others because they are embarrassed to admit they were wrong. However, could the overwhelming majority of priests go to school for eight years, perform masses every day of their lives, and truly not believe in their hearts that the doctrine was sound?

My mind whirled onward. I began to think of the pope. Catholics have a doctrine of papal infallibility which by that time I understood enough to not get it confused with some kind of worship. They believe that what the pope and the church leadership (usually working together and always with prayer) set out as doctrine will not be wrong. This comes from Jesus’ own words to Peter saying the gates of Hell would not prevail against the church. But what about all the corruption that had plagued the papacy? Surely the pope knew about all the darker secrets of the Catholic Church for the last 2000 years. I am sure that if there was a secret book of knowledge hidden in the Vatican, some documentation of fraud in the church or Christianity itself, the pope would know about it. And if priests could be culpable for leading people astray when their consciences tell them otherwise, how much more a pope! For not only does he have to believe what he teaches, but he has to do everything in his power to make sure it is theologically correct.

But this couldn’t be. Everybody, Protestants included, loved Pope John Paul II for his humility, service, and moral standards. Hadn’t the Pope been taken up into heaven with Jesus in the Left Behind series, which was written by two fundamentalist Protestants? (random, I know, but this was a thought I specifically remember) To suggest that the pope of all people is a fraud almost certainly means he is a liar, because of all people he should know how much of what he teaches is true and how much isn’t. And if he is a liar, then he certainly cannot be the humble man that he is seen as.

And here I was astonished to find the first glimmer of Catholic sympathy. We are to examine the teachings of our elders and leaders against scripture, and if we do this with the teachings of (at least recent) Catholic popes, then we find that there is nothing anti-biblical about them. However, as Protestants we tend to choose which teachings we follow. We may give the pope a big thumb’s up because he reprimanded a world leader about a policy that violated human rights. However we ignore the pope’s teaching on abortion and contraceptives. It’s not just a matter of convenience for Protestants – it goes back to who gets to interpret the Bible, which I will talk about later.

This thought lodged into my head like a grain of sand in my eye. If I blinked enough times it went away, but usually it sat there and irritated it. You see, around this time I was already beginning to struggle with the moral relativism that had come into the world even among Christians. I wanted to be free and independent and not have anyone tell me what to believe. But when I looked at a moral situation, and everything seemed gray, I wanted black or white. From that moment a sympathy arose in me. I wanted a pope. I didn’t necessarily want the Catholic pope. But I wanted that certainty – that voice sounding out among the debate. Some form of authority – a gavel pounding, a tie breaker, an executive order – anything.

A Not-So Brief Announcement

2010-03-06T17:37:00.000-08:00

It is time to officially announce a change in my life that has been two years in the making and will become official in April. Some may know of it already. It is my intention to be confirmed into communion with the Roman Catholic Church, and to remain so for the rest of my life. As this may come as a shocker to many, I intend, over the next few weeks, to explain my thought processes and journey. I don’t expect anyone who knew me as a Protestant to be influenced to pursue the same route as I did, but rather to gain an understanding because they will surely be surprised. But because it was really a journey and long road to where I am now, I feel I must put detail into my decision.

For me, being a Christian is an innate part of me as being a girl or having blue eyes. It is something I can never see changing at all. Belief in God is a no-brainer, and belief that He has used Jesus to save the world is an easy conclusion following that. I was raised as a Protestant in a denomination most would not have heard of. Like many Protestants, we believed we “had it right,” but (unlike many Protestants) we also were very tolerant of the beliefs of others – especially Christians. In high school I developed friendships with Mormons and Catholics. We spent hours debating our religions, but no one ever had the intention of converting another. I respected both groups. This was also the time I dramatically fainted in the middle of a Catholic Mass.

In college I gravitated over to a non-denominational evangelical Protestant church and learned so much about my Christianity. My friends went to Bible College and were amazingly knowledgeable about all things Bible and Christian. Sermons put Bible verses into the context of the time. I learned the importance of accountability partners, a personal relationship with Jesus, and even communion. However, the largest failing of this church was not its fault – it had an unsurpassable music program. As such, looking back I realize that I was more interested on Sundays in whether I liked the songs we were singing than actually turning the music into praise of God.

After college, I embarked on three years of near-solitude caused by geographical distance from my family, heavy work travel, an intense work schedule, and a roommate with a second shift schedule. Solitude can drive someone mad, but it also provides a forum for introspection. With God as my only constant, it became important to maximize my relationship with him.

Random Story

2010-03-05T15:11:00.001-08:00

Last fall my mom went on a Caribbean Cruise - down to the Virgin Islands, which are connected, through an island chain, to Haiti. When she came back, at Thanksgiving, she got sick. It started with, and mostly was limited to, a night fever and chills. Anyone who has ever read a book about the old frontier knows what that means - malaria!

Well, because we live in Kansas, doctors don't know what malaria is (too many text books, and not enough old west books I guess). My dad had a doctor friend from India who diagnosed it in a heartbeat just based on him describing my mom's symptoms. But she wasn't our real doctor. Our real doctor insisted on taking blood tests. The only problem is, with malaria you have to take the test when the fever is high. Apparently it is a parasite that grows in a cycle phase, and the fever comes at the height of the cycle to combat the parasite. Therefore, high fever = high concentration. What we didn't know was that, even with a test at the height of the fever, sometimes malaria just isn't found in the blood tests.

Right before Christmas, my mom was getting worse. She was sick in the day as well as the night. In addition, she had developed shortness of breath. The doctor finally agreed to give her the malaria medicine, even without a positive diagnosis, which was ok because this medicine can be used to prevent malaria as well as treat it. It didn't work.

The next time she went to the doctor (a specialist now), he gave her a new round of medicine - for medicine resistant strains. But we had a scare, because he thought she might have a clot in her lung...and then he sent her home. Luckily, there was no clot. My mom's abnormal breathing turned out to be a side effect of the medicine and left.

For Christmas we were to go to San Diego. I was going to fly to Chicago, then to San Diego, and then drive home with my parents. As my mom's condition worsened and treatment didn't work, my dad asked if I could cancel the trip. But because my mom really misses her mother, they pushed to try to go to San Diego anyway.

I flew to Chicago. When I got there, my dad called and told me mom was worse and to change my return flight to Kansas City. I did. Then he called back and said she was feeling better, that they would try to go to Amarillo and see if she felt good then. When they got to Amarillo, she was feeling good, so they went on. I changed my flight back to San Diego. The next morning, my dad called back. They were going home to be near my mom's doctor - she was worse. I changed my flight to Kansas City. (The moral of this story is to fly Southwest. Not only did they let me change my flight many times, I ended up with a huge refund due to the price difference betwen Kansas City and San Diego, and the second time I booked my San Diego flight, I got a refund on that, too).

They put my mom on double antibiotics when she got home - a pill and IV meds she took every day in the hospital. She took those for a week - going in even on Christmas. The fever started to subside. She was better! Through the entire ordeal, she had lost a LOT of weight because of reduced appetite - it was one of those Catch-22's because she looked great, but it was unhealthy weight loss and bound to return.

So that's my story about malaria showing up in Kansas. The moral of the story (besides fly Southwest) is that if you are in a malaria region, take the preventative medicine rather than risk catching it. Or use a lot of bug spray.

Oh, and malaria is not known to be in the Virgin Islands, but it is in Haiti, so it's reasonable for it to have migrated down through the island chain to where she was.

Sunny Days

2010-03-04T14:03:00.000-08:00

The sun is up in the mornings when I go to work! What a blessing. And it's up in the evenings even when I am done with my activities! It's interesting, because every year it seems the sun pops out from nowhere and lights up the world. The truth is that it gradually rises earlier and earlier, so why do we miss this? I mean, if you look at a calendar, the sun will rise about 1 minute earlier every day - sometimes two at most. So how do we find ourselves suddenly basked in this warm glow? I am not the only one who notices this - many people I have been around in the last week have commented on the sun's presence, and it seems this happens other springs as well.

When fall comes, it sometimes seems more subtle. I am always sad that even as early as August the long evenings of summer have grown short. At the very least, I think we make it all the way up to Daylight Savings Time (or the reversal of it) before we notice any drastic changes. (As opposed to Spring where the sun is SO out there, but I don't even know when Daylight Savings Time will start - the joys of having a cell phone!)

I just wish we had sun more often. I know God plans everything a certain way. But when I was in England (and to some extent Alaska) I was mesmerized by the sun's presence. It was the height of summer, and at 11:00 PM the sun was just starting to set, and the sky was fully light by 4:00 AM. The problem is that in the winter the opposite happens...I don't know the specifics on when the sun is up in English winters. In know in Chicago it set at 4:00 in November, so even earlier by the solstice. At the equator, the sun is out 12 hours a day and away 12 hours a day. Steady steady.

If I was rich I suppose I could follow the sun - and the heat - and go extreme north in the summer and extreme south in the winter. However, when I look at latitudes, I am thankful for where I do live. I am glad that we have the opportunity to have more than 12 hours of sun a day in the summer. I am glad that in the winter we aren't limited to five hours of it either. The sun and cold of winter combine to make it a season of rest - we are all sleepy and lazy, and to some extent this is a good thing. It is God's plan. When the sun comes back, we are re-energized to go again!

I did a study on my own and found that sunrise and sunset are affected almost equally by latitude and longitude. So when the sun sets early in Chicago, it also rises early, showing that the number of sunny hours a day are close to the numbers we get in Kansas. This shows that part of the difference is Chicago being farther east in the Central time zone. In my study, I looked at the sunsets in cities moving east across my time zone for a certain amount of miles (I did this on weather.com and mapquest.com to find zip codes. weather.com no longer has user-friendly postings of sunrises and sunsets - they are hidden). I then moved north in the time zone for the same distance. I found that the distance I chose (I think about 500 miles or so) made a 30 minute difference in sunrise based both on moving east and moving north.

I find this fascinating, because time zones are a man made phenomenon. We can change them based on political boundaries and widen some. But even within a time zone, sunrises and sunsets can be very different. Although I haven't looked up the difference, I would imagine sunrise in Chicago (northeast portion of central time zone) would be DRASTICALLY different than sunrise in Amarillo, TX (southwest). If this is the case, then our own personal expectations of how much sun there should be can be molded by where we live. Our routines can be affected, to.

So these are just my thoughts on the sun. Welcome back!

The Lenten Mystery

2010-03-02T18:28:00.000-08:00

We are now in the season of Lent, which is a traditional 40-day period before Easter in which people make sacrifices to understand the importance of Easter. While Lent still has a very Catholic connotation, especially with Catholics giving up meat on Fridays or wearing ashes on their foreheads, many Protestant churches also encourage giving something up for Lent.

I began celebrating Lent in high school because a Catholic friend was. After sitting down and thinking hard about what a fast was and why this is an appropriate way to become closer to Jesus, I decided to join in the fun. That year I gave up pop. In subsequent years I gave up chocolate and TV, etc.

In college a Protestant Bible Study leader encouraged us to delve deeper into Lent and give something up that was more meaningful. Giving up chocolate is a fake fallback because it makes us healthier anyways. We should give up something that is standing in our way of God. This led to more serious contemplation and the giving up of time in order to grow closer to God (more prayer, going to daily church, etc.)

Since then, I have heard that we should give up something that is "intrinsically good." Something that is not a problem for us. This goes back to not giving up something that will actually make you a healthier or better person just by giving it up. If that were the case, you should be doing it already anyways, or at least practicing moderation. Perhaps a good example, using this philosophy, is giving up listening to music on the way to work. Now you have more time to pray to God. In addition, if you are not somehow addicted to music, this is an example of giving something up that is intrinsically good (if the music isn't dirty) and not a problem for you.

This Lent I was struck by the power of the season itself. It had never hit me before that much of the Christian world spends 40 days preparing for Easter. That's about 1/9th of the year! We already give up 1/7th of the year on Sundays to go to church.

The power of what Jesus did on the cross, by dying and rising again, restoring us all to life and forgiving us of all our sins, is so great, we think of it time and time again. During Lent, we prepare and contemplate, pray, and fast our hearts out, so that when Easter comes we can actually understand what is being placed before us. But even with all that prepration, we can never fully know.

40 days to think and pray. 40 days to consider your worth in the eyese of God. 40 days to try to wrap your mind around the crucifiction and why it had to happen and what it did. 40 days to learn about this great man. 40 days to draw close to God and attempt to become a better Christian.

This is truly a great season!

The Love Approach Part II

2010-02-25T17:51:00.000-08:00

I've been posting a lot of political blogs recently, and the main reason is that at lunchtime at my new job I scan through all the news websites (and MSN for its quirky stories) and then spend the rest of the day thinking about the news. I cannot promise that future posts will be either funny or political. However, I want to wrap my thoughts together.

My political views, shaped by my dad by the time I was eight and furthered through logic as I grew, tend to be of a minimalist government and capitalist society. I love history and acknowledge the advances we have made. There were gross abuses of the capitalist system, however, I cannot see that government regulation has made much of a positive impact since the middle of the 20th century. Once workers were being treated fairly and safely and laws were in place to protect consumers, capitalism pretty much had everything it needed.

I recently discussed my views with a friend over lunch. I mentioned abuses to capitalist systems - such as fraud, intent to deceive buyers, and so on. She made an excellent point - even these abuses, under a truly capitalist society, get discovered and rectified. Think about Enron. The people who committed fraud at Enron today are not rich, many are in jail, and the company is gone. The unfortunate side effect is that the hundreds of innocent people involved in that scandal also saw financial ruin.

In a way, this is a fairly black and white view.

That brings me to my other point. I believe in pure capitalism, but I also believe in charity. Sometimes people, whether due to situations in their control or not, cannot rise to the advantages of a capitalist society. When that happens, those of us who can should aid them. America is great because no one need go without a home or food because there is always a homeless shelter or food kitchen to provide for needs. (Of course, we still have homeless for many reasons, but most efforts to help these people off the streets end in failure, as this lifestyle is of their choosing). There are programs for education and self betterment as well, and still plenty left over to help other countries.

Even in charity, capitalism is a helpful tool. It is better to teach a man to fish, they say. And ultimately, we all want to have jobs and to feel usefully employed. Think about the early Christians - they shared everything, and no one was rich or poor (which is essentially communism), but they also made a point that everyone work to their ability.

Capitalism is a good system for a good economy, but charity is a good system for a good society. Unfortunately, when charity gets written into the economy through government intervention, the opposite of what is intended can happen. I have heard that some people believe their taxes are too low. In their human sympathy, they feel guilt about their well-off position and wish to spread the wealth. However, because they have come to rely on the government to spread the wealth, they don't even think to actually spend their own take-home pay on charitable works. Others spend the money but do not get involved. Every election year, the media reports charitable giving by candidates. It always seems the candiate who is most anxious to institute government social programs is the one who spends the lowest percentage of his income on charity.

I could go on and on in different directions that I may take in future blogs. However, I want to give an example of why it is so important that changes in society be brought about by love and not government intervention. Because I am a woman, I feel the following is an appropriate example.

The historical picture for women has been mostly negative. For thousands of years, culture and laws did not allow us to vote, hold well paying or respecatble jobs, or escape from abusive marriages. However, thorughout history there have been shining stars of women who achieved great things. Many times, I look upon these women only to discover that there was a man who believed in them. A father or husband taught her his trade, encouraged her to get an education, or so on. This does not mean that women could not succeed on their own (many did) but only is an example of how the love and care of a man was often pivotal for success.

So it was with gaining the right to vote. How do you "gain" the right to vote? You can't vote yourself the right. Someone else has to vote it for you. The first state to allow women to vote had to do so on the urging of men. The first woman elected to congress was voted for by men and women. But how do you get men to allow women to vote? Because the men who know women and love women see that they need to have a voice. Because men realize that the system as it stands is unfair to women and unethical on a human rights level.

Essentially, love only, not government mandates, allowed women to reach equal voting ground with men.

Throughout the first half of the century, women gained grounds professionally and educationally. Once again, male institutions had to open up their doors to women out of love and compassion. Women took over in the workforce during the wars and men, gratefully, worked together with them when they came back. Men loved women. Women loved men. Real change happened.

However, in the 1960's and 1970's, the attitude changed. Women started to resent men for various reasons, forgetting that it was men who put them in their position of voting and working. They started demanding more and more "rights," and trying to gain equality. These women are still trying to gain equality, because to them, nothing will ever be enough. They stopped celebrating the beauty of being female and the love and companionship of men, and they started celebrating themselves and their own perceived achievements.

Rules enacted during this time did not serve to help the environment of men and women. It started to become common for companies to feel obligated to hire and promote women, which led to resentment among male employees. Women were given scholarships to colleges that men could not apply to. Women forced their way into all-male organizations. Any given remark was subject to be called sexist. And so on.

Men stopped feeling the need to love women into a position of respect because women were pushing their way in - sometimes causing resentment. So, compare the changes in the first half of the century to the second half. In the first half, women gained the right to vote and to work to support themselves. These concepts have become so embedded in our culture because they work. They are based on love. In the second half, women complained about nearly everything, elbowed their way in to what they could, and complained some more. If anything, although women have the same rights as men, it is possible that they have eroded some of the respect men used to have for them.

This is what I mean when I say that change has to be brought about by love. Once we won the right to vote and work, it was only a matter of time before other equalities fell into place. Hard working women would eventually be rewarded by their bosses with promotions and raises. This may have taken time, just as the voting process took over 100 years, but it would have happened. And then we would live in a world where we are truly equal. Instead, both sexes seem to be constantly looking over their shoulders, always suspecting the other of trying to keep them down. It truly became a battle of the sexes.

This same pattern continues in any venue in which one group of people or the government try to force something upon someone else. To put it another way, all Christians are taught the virtue of charity, but very few give up everything they have for the sake of others. Through our own growth in Christ and love for others we can also help change the world and make it a better place, but any kind of forced response diminishes the physical and spiritual returns of the good it attempted to do.

The Realization of All Things Conspiracy Theory

2010-02-22T18:48:00.000-08:00

"Beggars in Spain" is a three-part novel about a woman who was genetically engineered to not require sleep. The science fiction book addresses the topics of society's resentment against genetically improved humans. However, the book may be more science than fiction.

I recently read an article about parents who were "genetically engineering" their children so as to avoid passing on genetic diseases. Their methods varied. One Jewish community, which already practices arranged marriages, took into consideration risk for certain genetic diseases when pairing couples. Other couples who are using artificial insemination pre-test embryos for susceptibility to genetic diseases before implantation. The final method is to abort fetuses who test strong or positive for these dieases.

Oddly enough, the article seemed to praise these efforts and applaud the parents who made these decisions as heroes of the human race. However, when I look over that last paragraph, I see ethical dilemma after ethical dilemma - eugenics, bioengieering, abortion. Are any of these topics easy?

One's view on the ethics of genetic selection may be based on when you believe life forms. For instance, some may find aborting fetuses a much higher ethical problem than discarding embryos. I would like to leave my opinion out of that argument for a moment to say that, whether one considers embryos to be human beings or not, the idea of testing, selecting, and altering embryos sounds eerily like genetic engineering. It brings to mind words like 1984 and clones.

The plus sides of genetic selection are obvious - people will be healthy. Diseases will not be passed on to future generations. But the drawbacks are numerous!

1. As people select their children to not have genetic diseases, research for cures for these diseases will go by the wayside. This will effectively leave out those who choose not to use genetic testing either for ethical or financial reasons.

2. The definition of a genetic disease may broaden. Already most parents who find out they are carrying a Down Syndrome child choose to abort. How many other diseases and birth defects will we decide are too burdensome either on the parent or child to warrant carrying the baby full term? For instance, what if the child is missing a limb? A thumb? Will we be able to test the potential IQ of children before they are born and abort children who are only average? And what about eugenics? The idea that we can create the perfect human being, and idea that was popular in the 1930's and inspired Adolf Hitler?

3. Right now genetic testing is only being performed on embryos from parents who are trying to have children. However, as this science expands, it could become more popular and less carefully used. If genetic selection is performed on too many children, the gene pool could be decreased, which may actually cause MORE sickness in the general population.

4. The ability to use genetic testing to select children is an emerging technology, and it will therefore be used only in dire cases or for wealthy individuals. This will serve to further the class gap. Poor families who cannot affort genetic testing will have to struggle to pay the medical costs of raising sick children, while the wealthy will choose only to have healthy (and perhaps intelligent, athletic, etc., when the technology improves) children.

5. Those who are now living with genetic diseases may be hurt by the process. I was interested in the response to the Super Bowl commercial from Focus on the Family. Here a woman stood up and said how blessed she was to have her son, and her son stood up and said how happy he was to be alive, and people actually became outraged. What kind of person does it take to look a mom and her son in the eyes and say, "No, this man should not be alive?" And he was healthy. People who are not in perfect health can still contribute to society, love, feel, and enjoy life. And more than that, their parents love this child. Sure, times are tough, but parents were meant to love their children, and ultimately, they are a joy to them.

6. Some of these genetic diseases do not kill for many years. One man featured in the article had Huntington's Disease. I am not an expert on this disease, but the article itself said that first symptoms often do not appear until someone is in their 40's, and even then, the disease works slowly. To be sure, a slow death is not appealing to anyone. However, this is all the more reason to find cures for the disease itself. The man was so proud he was going to eradicate the disease in his family, and yet he had his 40 healthy years to live. Who are we to say that a potential child, whether embryo or fetus, would rather never be born than to live a good life of 40 years? What if that child had found the cure for Huntington Disease, forging on through life-saving necessity?

7. Most importantly, this practice furthers our culture's downward spiral into a culture that has no love. By genetically testing potential children, parents are giving a clear signal - only healthy children will be acceptable. However, there are still many diseases that cannot be diagnosed in the womb, and non health related traits such as intelligence are all but impossible. Further, sometimes pre-birth diagnoses are inaccurate. How many times does a doctor get the gender of a baby wrong? I have seen it happen. Are you willing to trust your child's life on a similar diagnosis? Or risk a healthy baby's life to actually perform the test in the first place?

Further, when parents close the door on unhealthy children, they are closing the door to the possibility of unconditional love. A year, four years, or even 12 years, after their healthy child is born it is possible he could get in a car wreck and enter a wheelchair for the rest of his life, or perhaps suffer severe brain damag. How will parents who custom ordered a healthy child deal with the unpredictable?

How will children in the family feel about the practice - will they feel the love of their parents looking out for their health? Or will they feel pressure to measure up to the pre-set standards? Will they wonder if they would have been a twin or triplet, if only that other embryo had not shown predisposition to a genetic disease?

This is so important. No matter what your opinion on birth control, abortion, or even genetic testing is, if you set out to do something "for the children," you must consider all the consequences of that choice. Ultimately, what are the motives of genetic testing? Is it really to have healthy, happy children who will lead fulfilled lives? Or is it so we can have wealthy or middle-class parents who don't have to struggle along for finances and free time as they help their child, God's precious gift, through life. Are these heroes of humanity after all?