Honeymoon's Over

My sister's on her honeymoon this week. I envy her visit to tropical paradises with the man of her dreams. However I, too, have been on a honeymoon these three weeks. Not quite in the same way as she, but a honeymoon nonetheless. I have been working at a new job.

Week 1 -

The first day nerves evaporated by afternoon when I felt a rush of enthusiasm. My boss had just told me (with a funny look on his face when I asked) that we work 40 hours a week. All the time! And then he said we work flex time, so I can come in at 6:30 and leave at 3:30 - no traffic! I wasn't necessarily busy all week, but it was all new and exciting. I was trying to get to know the poeple, and I was trying to learn everything I could. The last thing I wanted was for them to regret hiring me!

On Day 2 I felt a little nostalgia for my old job. This nostalgia came mostly in a longing for Microsoft Outlook and perhaps a Windows operating system that hadn't been made while I was still in college. Although Office 2003 arrived on my computer by the end of the week, it really seemed quite unreasonable to me that no one had told me the company used Lotus Notes for email before I accepted the job. (What can I say, I'm an accountant and can't handle change!) However, when I left my job on Day 2 at 4:00 - let's just say no more nostalgia.

Week 2 -

I continue to feel a little odd. I also continue to learn until, by the end of the week, I can do most of my routine tasks by myself - if I had system access. Although my work is different in form, I still don't feel much different than I would have felt the first week or two of working at a new audit client. My coworkers would have all been entirely new. The place would have been new. And our workload would start out light-ish.

I begin working early and am loving my free time. I am a person again. That's the only way to say how I feel, and I want to shout it from the rooftops, "I am a person again!" I hadn't realized until now how my last job had taken that feeling from me. I knew when I was working there that I was not Sarah. But I didn't know just how much the company had contrived to squash everything good about, well, life. I joined the church choir, read, played my crossword puzzle, and generally wasted time. It was great.

Week 3 - The Honeymoon Ends

No matter how much you love your job, coming to work after a 4-day weekend is always going to be hard, especially if you wake up at 5:15. I found out this week that the reason we work 40 hour weeks is because we work hard during our busy times, and our non-busy times are...well...not busy. So when my manager said we were adequately staffed, he meant (at least in my former world's terms) overstaffed. Still...loving the job.

And then I had a bad day. Lack of sleep and caffeine combined to put me in an emotional state by Wednesday that little things threatened to make me cry. My coworkers play a game of Jeopardy each day where they answer questions on a calendar. They play all year long and track their points! I finally had the courage to ask my cube-mate to play along (I LOVE trivia), and I got a fairly blunt and unappologetic, "No."

The day went downhill from there. I can't remember all the specifics, but I think my manager patronized me, I did something wrong, and I didn't have much to work on.

But then I went home at 3:30 and it got all better.

You see, I can be generally happy at anything I do. Which doesn't mean a bad day doesn't come along now and then? So when it does, it's nice to know that the day will end as soon as possible - 8 hours after it began. I can go do something that will get my mind off of work, instead of living work and then sleeping and dreaming about it.

So the honeymoon's over. I have learned that my job is not perfect. I will have to work to grow relationships here, just like anywhere else. I will have to find ways to entertain myself in the slow times, while hopefully impressing management along the way. However, I do not regret my decision to be here, and if I ever do, all it takes to put me straight is one look at the clock.

Proselytizing Practices

While the Supreme Court today defended the freedom of speech for American businesses, one American business was forced to water down its message after a brutal three-day media campaign. Trijicon, a Michigan based military supplier, recently announced it will cease to provide rifle sites with Bible verses and will even provide kits to remove the offenses.

Because the downfall of the Bible Sites was so quick, let me fill you in. This Michigan company has been providing supplies to the military, including those in active service, for a very long time. However, recently the company came under fire because the scopes that it sells to the military has Bible verse, typed out in shorthand code, on the end. The articles described the verses as listed at the end of the the serial number. The references read JN8:12 or 2COR4:6. That seems harmless enough.

However, there was an outcry from the same people that fear prayer in school and people wearing crucifixes in public. First, they said, this was an example of proselytizing in the military, which was clearly banned. Second, they said that these scopes might cause Muslims to believe that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq really are new age crusades.

Wrong on both accounts - and a little paranoid.

First of all, this is not proselytizing. The military was unaware of these scriptures until the story broke. Further, "JN8:12" does not seem to me overtly Christian, and a person would have to willingly follow the trail of coded letters and numbers to an actual Bible before they were ever inundated with Christian teachings. The placement on the scope seems subtle enough as well. I would imagine that the maker of the scopes had a good intention to declare his faith (subtly) and perhaps spread hope among soldiers. Overwhelmingly, those who would open the Bible to see what the references mean would be those soldiers who actually have a Bible, and are therefore already Christians or seekers. Other soldiers who might turn to the verses would also be seekers who might ask a Christian buddy to help them figure out the code.

The other charge is also ludicrous, in light of the words of the scriptures. Although the Old Testament is full of stories of God asking the Israelites to wipe out their (His) enemies, the verses on these scopes do not reference war at all. John 8:12 says, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." And 2 Corinthians 4:6 says, "For God who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' has shone in our hearts to bring to light the knowledge of the glory of God on the face of Christ." The scriptures speak of light.

Does bringing a message of light into a soldier's dark world constitute a religious crusade? Frankly, the verses bring humanity back to war. Imagine your brave American soldier - he is over in Iraq risking his life to keep our country free. But does he like what he's doing? No - war scars people. You can't engage in active combat without feeling it. And if you can, well, then the hardness of your heart may be a scarier threat than the enemy you are fighting over there. The fact is, bringing a message of hope is a great idea. It reminds soldiers (who are already Christian) what they are fighting for, what they can expect in the end, and who is ultimately in charge.

These inscriptions are not a threat to anyone - ANYONE! Much larger a threat is the mindset that says that a few letters and numbers have to be immediately erased or else risk an international crisis. But honestly, what kind of message is being sent to soldiers when messages of hope are suddenly banned? I say leave the inscriptions on! They will hurt no one, and they will serve to aid those who need it in a time when they need it most.

I would also like to talk on a similar subject to a study that came out today about how Americans feel about Muslims. Not very well.

It's no surprise, really. Although we are all told, and I believe most people truly believe, that the acts of terrorism we experience are the acts of radical extremists who represent the fringes of their religion, it is hard to accept this fact when you are afraid for your life. Some would say that ignorance is the heart of prejudice, and this is somewhat true. What is a more accurate statement is that prejudice comes when someone's representative sample of a group of people is so small as to not accurately display the group as a whole.

Muslims represent less than 1% of the American population. So, less than 1 in 100 people are Muslim. I don't have anywhere near 100 friends, so my chances of having a Muslim friend are pretty slim. The study found that those who knew a Muslim personally were a lot more inclined to think favorably of Islam as whole.

So think about this - most people don't know any Muslims, or do not know a Muslim well. Our only representations of Muslims come from the news. Basic headlines related to Islam include acts of terror, mistreatment of women, and tyrannical religious regimes in the middle east.

That is not Islam. We know that Islam shares some basic tenets of faith with Judaism and Christianity. We know that Allah is their word for God and that, like Christians and Jews, Muslims believe in only one God. Muslims pray. They worship. They try to follow their faith's teachings.

The study showed that those who attend a religious service of some sort regularly were more inclined to have a positive view of other faiths. Well that's interesting. For my entire life I've been told that Christians are biased. We shove our faith down the throats of others (like with the rifle scopes), and we will not tolerate other religions. However, apparently intolerance is more linked with either atheism and agnosticism, or with those who claim a certain faith but do not follow through. Those who practice their faith (charity based faiths like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) know that God loves all His children. We each believe He has a specific plan in showing that love, but that does not justify hatred, mistrust, or violence towards people of other faiths. In addition, those who attend religious services regularly feel, like I have felt, the hatred directed towards us from the media. How can we, then, justify similar feelings towards other religions when we have felt the heat of judging ourselves?

Finally, on that point, the study showed a mistrust of Muslims by a large degree - over 40% of people in the study claimed "a little prejudice" toward Muslims. Interestingly enough, the next religion on the list - Christianity. Although much lower than Islam, 18% of those polled expressed a little prejudice towards Christianity, as opposed to just 15% against Judaism. This is an interesting number in light that, about 82% of Americans are Christians. So what does that mean? It sounds like somewhere around 40% of Christians are prejudiced against Muslims. However, 100% of non-Christians are prejudiced against Christians.

So which religion is the most intolerant?

The Blindeside

Some are calling the best movie of the year, one which I have not yet seen, The Blindeside. It's supposed to be one of those happy-feel-good movies, and better yet, it's based on a true story. My mom said, "It's a movie about how people are supposed to behave."

I haven't seen it, but I know the basic gist of it - a woman takes in a boy who has no friends, no family, and no future. She raises him as her own, and he has a glorious career. A movie about how people are supposed to behave.

After the earthquake in Haiti, I saw several news programs about American parents worried about their adopted Haitian orphans. Apparently the process takes a while, and they are unsure if their adopted children survived. Watching these programs, it occurred to me that if there aren't a lot of orphans in Haiti now, there soon will be.

Why can't we all adopt a Haitian orphan? Or an orphan from any underpriveleged part of the world for that matter, or an American? I have discussed the matter with a few people, and they have some good excuses.

1. They are too old to be raising a child.
2. They don't have enough money to take in another child.
3. (This is mine) Their lives affairs are not in order to take in a child (they would be a single parent, for example).

However, in any one of these three situations, these people would still be able to offer a child a better life than the alternative. Do you think a child plucked from starvation cares if his parents are older than all his friends' parents? Do you think not having college paid for or not having designer shoes is anything compared to the pain of starvation or neglect? And if I really could lift a child out of those situations, isn't a caring mom who is doing her best and has to use child care occasionally better than a crowded, dirty orphanage?

It's what we should do...it's how we should behave. And yet we don't.

The truth is, saving children is one of many noble causes that we can throw ourselves into. Why not work to feed the villages they come from? Provide clean water and shelter? Help out at homeless shelters and pregnancy crisis centers in our own country? Send money.

It's still not enough. Recently I was challenged to think about what the world would be like if every Christian lived the ideals of our faith again. What if each one of us took up the banner of a cause - any cause - and lived it with passion? But the problem is, most of us don't have that kind of passion. At most we have the volunteer a few hours a week and donate a percentage of our paycheck kind of passion.

And I am ashamed to think I don't have it either. I recently started to get involved in a cause I was passionate about, but work situations got in the way. Now that I have free time, I keep finding excuses not to jump back in. I am busy. They are not open. I need to call and forget. I deserve to relax a bit after the job I just got out of.

So this is my new commitment - to call those people this week and jump back in, and I challenge each of you to become passionate about a cause. If all of us did something big, the world really would be a better place. And go rent The Blindeside. It's a movie about how we are supposed to behave.

The Truth About Road Rage

We all have road rage. Although there are many who would not admit it, ("The other drivers are the ones with the rage, not me!") it's still there. Think about any time you have "tskd" or sighed or frowned or shrieked because of the actions of another driver. If you have shouted out loud in your car, cursed another driver, or rammed your car into theirs, you probably have road rage at some level.

So why does driving, even when we have no where to be, stress us out?

Don't you like to think of driving as a car commercial - zooming aimlessly around mountain curves or through the desert? Or perhaps just going for a country drive - taking in the scenery. Although analysts think it may be dying, America has a "car culture," mostly because the car represents the American spirit. It represents independence, achievement, versatility, and invention. We love driving to work rather than taking trains or buses because of the independence of leaving when we wish and arriving when we wish.

We just don't take into consideration those other pesky drivers.

You see, the root of all road rage is a frustration because of a lack of control. Add to this problem the perception that the cause of that frustration may be a car - an inanimate object -rather than another human. (We also have a need for speed, as objects in motion tend to stay in motion).

Think about the scenarios you find yourself in while driving. Traffic. This one gets to me - we are all in the same situation, but no one wants to do anything about it. When I am sitting on the highway doing nothing, I wonder why the other cars (as opposed to the people in them) didn't take the bus. I wonder what granny-lady two miles down the road is holding us up. And I wonder why the concept of merging is so hard. I can't control how many drivers are on the road at any given time, and it frustrates me.

(Frankly, rush hour traffic always gets me logistically speaking because the highway goes on forever - if the cars in the front of all the entire traffic are moving at the speed limit, and the cars behind them, and the cars behind them - what's the problem? Why does it get to such a problem?)

One exhibition of road rage I employ involves tail gating. I'm a little nervous about getting in a wreck, so I don't do it to the extreme that others do. But there's nothing more frustrating than being blocked behind someone going under the speed limit. Especially if there's no one in front of that person. And especially if you're in the middle of a three-lane highway blocked in on all sides by lollygaggers. While people debate (oftentimes with the police) the accetable ranges to exceed the speed limit, I usually think of it as a common courtesy to at least go the speed limit. But I can't control how fast other drivers go.

I get frustrated at a red light because I have no control. I have no control of when the light will change. I have no control of whether the car in front of me will go through the yellow light or stop early. If I am turning right, I have no control over whether the car in front of me will also turn right, therefore allowing me to continue my forward momentum.

The final example I will give is based on a lack of control as well as something that fights against all the rules of fairness we were indoctrinated with as kids - right of way. From the time we are five years old we are taught about lines and how people are served in the order they get in line. We are taught that the people behind us will patiently wait while we take our turn. However, on the road, these rules do not matter. If I am turning left (anywhere) I can be stuck there for hours while oncoming traffic keeps on coming and coming. Even though I was probably at that intersection before the other cars even considered taking a trip, I still have to yield.

Add to this frustration when you cannot predict the movement of other cars. Blinkers are a great tool when used properly. Enough people have thumbed their noses at the concept that it has ruined it for everyone.

The same frustration comes with lights. They have become fairly predictable for me. However, sometimes they do not follow the pattern I ascribe to them. Or perhaps they last too long. Or they didn't recognize that I had pulled up in time to give me the arrow (you see - first come first serve only is a good rule when it works in my interest).

Let's just face it, American spirit or not, the minute we put the key in the ignition, we give up a large part of our freedom, and it's not just limited to following the laws. While you may choose a career with any level of personal interaction that suits you best, when you get on the road, you have to interact with all kinds and play nice. There's no real rhyme or reason to it - you have to dawdle behind granny because...well, what other choice do you have?

And that, my friends, is the truth about road rage.

Living the High Life

I have usually thought that I would like to be fabulously wealthy or else a bit on the poor side, but not somewhere in between - such as moderately wealthy. While it might be obvious why I would enjoy being "fabulously wealthy," it may seem stranger that I would prefer, for lack of a better word, lower class to middle class.

The answer, of course, comes from the challenge. Just for definitions sake, let me explain what I mean by fabulously wealthy, moderately wealthy, and somewhat poor. Fabulously wealthy means that, without having to have a job or even "manage" my finances unless I choose to, I can do whatever I want - take vacations, buy a house, buy a car...without thinking of the financial consequences. I believe a sum of at least $5 million might put me in this area, although with inflation and such, it might take more. Obviously fabulously wealthy is a crazy dream.

Moderately wealthy is what most of us are, or what we might call "middle class." You may want to picture "upper middle class," however. Moderately wealthy means you manage to pay the bills, put a bit (or a large chunk really) into savings, and still have plenty left over to spend or splurge as you see fit. This means that, while you cannot have both a new luxury car and a boat, you can have one, or you can have both in a few more years of hard work. Moderately wealthy is full of perceptions. Maybe the object that I am choosing between is not so pricey as a car (do I buy a book or a DVD?), but there is disposable income involved.

Somewhat poor is somewhere between making minimum wage and...well, moderately wealthy. It is where you don't have to choose between the book and DVD because you likely can't have either, where you potentially work multiple jobs, and where you likely have government subsidies. So what's the advantage?

To me, moderately wealthy is not a challenge, especially since most Americans fall into the range somewhere between wanting a book and a boat. An income earner of moderate wealth can hope to work himself up from wanting a book to a boat, but there is little chance of any of us becoming fabulously wealthy. That kind of wealth is inherited, won, or earned in those hard to come by, hard to perform jobs.

So while it would be nice to dream about, if I want to live like I'm moderately wealthy, I have to actually spend money that I have earned. Every purchase or decision has a drawback associated with it. Being moderately wealthy brings to mind the common phrase, "You can't take it with you." Why should I struggle to get from book to boat if I'm still going to be in the same relative class?

No, an actual struggle would be nice. Throughout my college years I felt as though I was living in a board game. You budget. You work. You spend less than you make. And then, boom - I had a job that paid all the bills I had to pay (just not all the bills I wanted to pay). There is no uncertainty or excitement in life.

So I have created a false sense of poverty. I don't stick to it as much as I should - I still find myself eating out or being wasteful in another way (books...I have to buy my books). But I throw everything I can into savings in the hope that one day I can jump from book to boat in an instant, even though I would be content to live in the book class the rest of my life.

On the other hand, I have been reminded that there are advantages to being Moderately Wealthy, and I can apply them to making my life more pleasant. Today I noticed a coworker with a unique coffee cup, and I realized that there are simple ways to make yourself feel fabulously wealthy without actually so being.

1. Chinaware and Dishes

One advantage of being moderately wealthy is that we can make purchases that are not a necessity. My dishes were given to me by my well-meaning mother. I did not pick them out. I did not register for them. They are quaint. But not fabulous. I prefer to leave them that way because I don't really care to go spending money just so the china I (and usually I alone) eat off is more attractive.

However, my coworker's mug reminded me that there are advantages to picking out some great dishes. She was drinking coffee from a clear glas mug, which is something I only associate with the high life. You know, you sometimes see such glassware on cruises or first class cabins or fancy hotels. And yet, here she was in a 9-5 office sipping from a piece of art.

I imagined myself sipping out of that cup...let's face it, coffee's coffee, and it probably would get cold so quickly...but every time I lifted the mug to my lips, I would imagine myself a princess and dream of a sunlit breakfast room...I have nothing to do all day, and after I finish my coffee, I will sit in the garden and read...ah the high life.

Although I haven't tried it, I'm sure a similar effect could be produced if you ate dinner on fine china. I am sure some fine looking china can be bought at very reasonable prices - the conveniences of a modern world!

2. Moderate Alcohol Consumption
While the media have done a most excellent job of pointing out the perils of smoking, they have not taken the same steps with drinking. Perhaps this reflects a societal acceptance of one over the other. "Going clubbing" has been romanticized, and many young people believe the best way to spend their nights off is to go to a bar and drink until they can't remember anything. Personally, I would rather remember what I do in my free time because otherwise it feels wasted. However, Hollywood has done an excellent job of pointing out a more sophisticated, moderate type drinker.

I recently watched a movie where the main characters would meet over cocktails - sometimes in an "upscale" bar, sometimes at home. Over the holidays I watched Frasier entertain his guests by offering them a glass of wine or brandy (or was it sherry)? Formal dinners of any sort are accompanied by wine - not water, and punch is always spiked.

Whether moderate alcohol consumption is advantageous to your health is still an uncertain debate, but the jury came back long ago and announced that moderate drinking was not detrimental to your health. Many people drink a glass of wine with dinner for heart problems. I am told alcohol (red wine specifically) may help bust belly fat. The myth of a "night cap" helping you to sleep has been busted, but I have no problem with someone drinking in the comfort of their own home.

With the exception of beer (which is nasty and, I believe, almost crude), alcohol can have an image of sophistication. While I am neither advocating or fighting against moderate alcohol consumption, I have found its addition to my routine makes me feel classy.

I don't mean I drink a glass of wine every night. Actually, I would call myself a light drinker. What I speak of is the relaxing effect pouring your pop, juice, or even water into a wine or martini glass can have! Indeed, my new favorite hobby is to pour my Mountain Dew into a wine glass, open my blinds, and stand in the morning sun working on my crossword puzzle.

Yes, blame Hollywood and warn weaker minds against the real dangers of alcohol, but even without the buzz, it can add a hint of sophistication to your life.

I could go on about ways to feel like you are living the high life while still on a budget. However, it's up to your imagination. As someone with disposable income, you can choose how to spend your money. Perhaps you want to fly first clas - just once - on a family vacation. Or visit the extremely pricey restaraunt even when it's not a special date. It's your choice.

I, on the other hand, am going to curl up with my wine goblet, looking forward to when the sun streams in my room, and I will remember to keep my eye out for clear glass coffee mugs so that I, too, can feel like a princess.

In recent months as I have followed the news, politics, economics, and even observed my own peers, I have noticed class envy as I have never seen it before. Pursuit of wealth is one of the building blocks of a capitalistic society, but there is a growing sentiment that a certain amount of wealth can be too much.

How much is too much? One blogger I read wanted to tax 100% of earnings above $75,000. Politicians throw around ideas of higher taxes for the "wealthiest" which they quantify as people making over $200 - $250 thousand a year. Other news talks about capping CEO salaries and benefits at $500,000 a year. Is there such a thing as making too much money?

Well, first of all, before someone on the outside can sit and declare a salary as "too high" they need to determine the circumstances. While I would LOVE to be paid $75,000 a year, if I lived in New York City or California, I would be pretty upset about that wage and might even find myself barely scraping by, due to the high cost of living. In addition, what if you are a father of several children with a stay at home wife? Would $75,000 cut it?

Many people make it on less, and I applaud them. I am a huge proponent of living within your means, whatever those are. But I am not against bettering your situation either. Sure, making $250 grand a year would allow pretty much anyone anywhere to live comfortably. But does that justify capping salaries and taxing high earners?

I'd like to look at two points. First of all, why are these people paid so much? And secondly, why does it bother the rest of us that they make so much? The answer to the second question will help explain why we justify out attitudes against these people.

I have seen the business world. I have seen the "fast track." And I got off of it. Having seen the fast track, I can tell you exactly why people who make so much are paid so well. It is because they have worked hard for it. Imagine for a minute the jobs that would pay six figures. What do you think about? Doctors, lawyers, CEO's, accountants and wall street financiers, small (but successful) small business owners.

What do these people have in common? They have all worked hard to be where they are. Doctors go through years and years of medical school and come out the other side with high debts. In addition, many work long hours and are often on call. The same is true for lawyers and businessmen. Small business owners often work seven days a week and work years before they start to see a payoff, and many fail.

I have seen how you can jump on the "fast track" to the top. I was in public accounting for a few years. If you are willing to work 60-100 hours a week for five or six years, you, too, can make six figures. If you are willing to work them for 15, you can be a partner and make LOTS of six figures. You can be a millionaire by the time you are 40, if you are smart.

But then what? Well, you continue to make your huge salary as a partner in a large firm, or you become an officer at a corporation. Either way, you work long hours and weekends and holidays. You rarely see your family. You have a huge house you rarely enjoy. You can hire a nanny and a cook and a maid because you have no time to do household chores yourself.

Further, in these careers, putting hours in at work is not the least of your sacrifices. You are a face - an important money making machine for your company. You are expected to stay fit, to look good, to dress nice, to drive a great car, and to attend banquets and parties. You donate your money to charity and you donate your time (or find people who work for you who will donate theirs).

And you go through a wife or two or three, as each one tires of waiting up at night. Unable to commit time to work on a relationship which was not built solidly to begin with, you are one of the lucky few if you never experience a divorce. And these days, if you marry before you are in your forties, you are also one of the lucky few.

And that is why these people make so much money. If the anticipated reward was not so high, they would not sacrifice so much. Companies need someone to run them, and these people need to be experienced and well trained. How much more experience can they get other than putting in 80 hour weeks for 20 years?

And now to why people are so envious. I admit, I sometimes wish I had the "easy" life. I, too, look at large houses and dream about what it would be like to come home to them. It would be nice to do something without budgeting for it. It would be great to travel on a private jet to exotic locations and attend balls. But I walked away from that life, because ultimately I can be happier with simple things.

So why are we so envious? Well I think in a way we are hard on ourselves. We all made a decision to give up that life in one way or another. We decided the hours were too long. We decided we weren't interested in being a doctor. We decided not to go to college. We didn't want to take a risk of opening our own business.

Being envious of high-earners is similar to being envious to someone who found a great sweater 80% off. We both had the potential to get the bargain, but only one of us went out hunting for it.

True, money is necessary for survival, but there are other things that are good and necessary. We all need water to drink and air to breathe, but if you throw me into a pool of fresh water, I will probably focus on getting air and not stop to take a drink. The same is true of all of us. As we go through life, we will have to make decisions based on our circumstances that often result in giving up someting else.

Many choose not to go to college - they save time and money by jumping into the workforce. There are jobs that do not require a college degree that pay enough to make a decent living, just as there are college degrees that will not get you a decent job anywhere.

Is that why we are envious? Because we know that we are ultimately the ones to blame for our economic state?

In addition, class envy transcends classes. Those who make $75,000 envy those who make six figures, and those who make six figures envy those who make seven. I think the reason we envy them is because it is easier. We all know how hard it is to make that kind of money. Someone who says that "no one deserves" to make more than $75,000 would jump at the chance to have an $80,000 job. However, if I said they had to work 75 hours a week for it, they might not be so quick to jump.

One final point - although you sometimes hear it with sports figures, I almost never hear people complain about the salaries that celebrities make. Being a movie or rock star is a hard life, too - it also requires long hours, lots of hours, and the paparazzi hounding you day in and day out. And yet, I almost never hear someone say, "They paid him $22 million to be in that movie?! No one should ever make that much!"

Why is it that the hard working Americans who make millions are hated while the Americans who bring home a load of dough from making one movie are idolized? I often see celebrities as getting paid oodles to do something they love, but a lawyer working late nights all alone is probably working hard to desperately hold on to his dream. What is the difference?

Many, I think, believe that if a lawyer's pay were cut in half, they might see a raise somehow. They see a company go through layoffs while the executives still make six figures or more. However, put things in perspective. Depending on the number of layoffs, a company could probably pay their CEO nothing and still not make up for the money they are trying to save by laying off their workforce. In addition, as mentioned before, the CEO makes such a high salary because he has to make the hard choices. Does anyone think the President laughs with glee when he sends troops out to a war zone? So do they really think CEO's enjoy announcing layoffs? No, they look at all the options and try to do what is best for the company.

Like it or not, money motivates people. If you had invested a large amount of money in a company, and the board came to you and said, "We have to hire a new CEO. We can hire a young man who just graduated from community college with a liberal arts degree and pay him $50,000 a year or we can hire the man who took Big Company X from the bring of bankruptcy and turned it into a profitable company in just five years, but he wants us to pay him $5 million a year." What would you say? (Believe me, if you split that $5 million among all the shareholders, you'd probably get back less than a dime). That salary is an investment - and it's an investment being made for you. This is what happens with companies all the time.

Class envy is completely out of place in America today. While we all have the potential to realize our dreams, many choose not to because they look for an easier route. I do not envy high earners, but I do respect them. And I know that this country could not run without these people - and that these people would not be motivated to go out and run the country if there were not a high motivation attached.

I'm not saying to go out and hug your doctor or send a thank you note to a local CEO. But we should all be more aware of what America would be like without these people. Because a country where there are no high earners - well, that's Communist Russia, and is that what we really want?

Fatima

One of the great tragedies that resulted from the Protestant revolution in the 16th century was the splitting of Christianity not just between Protetstant and Catholic, but into two cultures. today all Christians share certain key cultural aspects, such as the celebration of Easter, and vary on others, such as the celebration of Lent (which is actually becoming more popular among Protestants). We share teh same moral code devoted to family service and charity, but there are some disagreements on certain details.

Another sad result of the culture clash is that we no longer share a history. I recently came across an astounding bit of history so recent that some witnesses may still be alive, taken as a matter of fact, not faith, by most Catholics but never even heard of by most Protestants - the visions of "Our Lady of Fatima."

Of course, therein lies the silence. One of the biggest cultural differences between Catholics and Protestants is the treatment of Mary. Most Protestants see reports of Mary sightings as laughable hogwash, but so does the Catholic Church. In general, all reports of "miracles" are investigated with a skepticism bordering cynicism. And it is this very cynicism that makes "approved" sightings of Mary that much more spectacular. Rather than encouraging mass hysteria, the Catholic Church has only approved 15 of 265 supposed Mary sightings as being considered legitimate, and many of these approved only after years or centuries of investigation.

In 1916 and 1917, three Portuguese children claimed to see visions of angel and Mary on a hillside. The angel taught them to pray. When Mary appeared, she toled them she would return on the 13th of the month for six months. When word of the visions (spread by the excitable youngest child) got out, the children were told to be silent by their parents, their priest, and by the local authorities (the Portuguese government severely restricted the role of the church at the time). But even upon threat of torture or death, the children would not recant.

Each month they returned to the hillside where they saw "the Lady." A large crowd began to gather. Some claimed to see lights when the lady was present. Many said the sun dimmed or a cloud appeared.

The lady told the children that she would bring them all to heaven - the youngest two very soon. She also showed them three visions, called secrets: a vision of Hell, a prophesy that World War I would end and be followed by an even more terrible war, and a vision of persecutions of Christians. In addition, she predicted that Russia would soon become a threat to the entire world.

So far I am sure most people are not impressed. Visions may be imaginations. Prophecy may be lucky or only as authentic as any other non-religious prophecy (like Nostradamus). But what happened nexte is what makes me consider these events remarkable. It made many people believe the children who had not before. Now, remember the year was 1917 - a far cry from ancient Israel or the Dark Ages where superstition was compounded by a lack of scientific knowledge. Nor was the story passed down orally for years before finally being recorded.

On October 13, 1917, the children reported that there would be a miracle, so that those who could not see "the Lady" would believe. The hillside was crowded with somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 people. As they looked on, the sun dimmed so they could see it without hurting their eyes. Then it began to spin and change colors - all colors of the rainbow. Most astonishing of all, it turned bright red and rushed towards the earth. After the display, the clothes of the people which had been soaked with rain, were left completely dry. Of all the thousands there that day, no one has ever contracdicted this story, and hundreds or thousands were personally interviewed about what they saw.

Scientists have offered explanations, but are mostly baffled. Some say the crowd's eyes were playing tricks on them from staring at the sun. Others compare it to events in China, but the conditions and location would not fit a mirage of sorts. All explanations lack something. Further, a miracle can easily have a scientific explanation, but it may be the timing or results that make it miraculous (an environmental phenomenon that just happened to occur that day).

Personally, I see power displayed on a scale only God could pull off - commanding the sun or, perhaps, giving each of the thousands of attendees the same vision. Either way, the scale is grand. Imagine if instead, all the attendees had died of...something. That would be in our history books it would be so huge. And yet, for a large group of people, these events are unknown. Most Protestants can't decide what to make of the events becuase they don't even know they happened.

One final note. Even to Protestants the Pope is an important figure who can't be ignored. Many Protestants sneer at the concept of a pope. And yet, especially under John Paul II, the pope is as important as any world leader. Although I cannot speak for all Protestants, I think we all applaud him when he stands up for the Christian faith and morals. The issues he addresses are those we all face to some extent. We judge him if he says something we consider preposterous.

And so now I see that Catholics and Protestants are united on the subject. While Protestants decided which papal declarations and actions are legitimate, Catholics try to influence the pope. For over 50 years, Catholics around the globe have been begging the popes to perform an act of consecration of Russia which was requested by the Lady of Fatima. This simple request went mostly unheeded until 1984. Subsequently, Communism fell in 1989. Am I saying the pope miraculously cused this - not necessarily.

I guess what I'm stunned by is the deeper meaning and pain that the Cold War must have had to devout Catholics, who have been praying for Russia for decades. A large piece of our history was, for some, a spiritual battle that Protestants don't even know about.

Call it what you will, the spiritual culture of Catholics, with their stories of saints and miracles, their devotions and holy dyas, is rich and deept and connected to all Christians' heritage. It is a shame that Protestants have to miss out on it.