Why I'm Angry

A young man in our lives just moved himself to Texas. He has little or no family support; he's here on his own, trying to get a new start on life.

He drove here in a car he spent a long time earning the money for and fixing up. And within a couple weeks of his arrival, a hit-and-run driver ran a red light and totaled that car. Because he could only afford liability insurance, our young friend just completely lost that car he worked so hard for.

So, he worked more to earn the money for another car, which he bought from a local guy in his home. He later realized that the title of the car only has the man's signature -- his wife was co-owner and needed to sign the title, too. But the man now insists that our friend never paid him; he won't let his wife sign the title until he gets paid for the car again.

Soon the car's registration will run out, and he can't get it legally registered without the title signed. Our friend's only recourse, it seems, is taking the man to small claims court -- which, of course, costs money he doesn't have.

But the immediate issue is getting the car back into his possession. While parked overnight in his apartment complex -- with his parking decal sticker in the window -- the car was towed by the towing company (Bexar Towing, for you locals) that the apartment complex hires to monitor its lots.

After a bunch of rigmarole to get them to give him access to the car (because his proof of ownership was in the car), he showed the towing company employee the parking decal in the window as they walked to the vehicle. Hmm, the guy said. Well, let me talk to my manager and get back to you.

And the next day, they produced a photo from the man who towed the car -- a photo that shows our friend's car with no parking decal. How did this happen, our friend asked, when you yourself saw the decal in the window when you finally gave me access to the car?

Oh, I didn't see a decal, the man says. You must have put that there after I let you in.

(Again, Bexar Towing Company, people. They have an F with the Better Business Bureau . . . many complaints for similar issues . . . they have more complaints than any towing company in the county . . . they were fined $19,000 by the state a couple years ago. In other words, we believe our friend.)

Again, the only apparent recourse is taking them to court. (Unless he wants to pay the $200 plus $20 per day for every day the car has sat in their lot while they gave him the run-around.) And again, going to court costs money the boy doesn't have.

Two observations here. First, this is why so many young men from troubled backgrounds become thugs. They are targeted, taken advantage of, and have no resources to protect themselves or fight back. They quickly learn that to survive, they have to get the "bad guys" (whoever they might be out there) before the bad guys get them.

And secondly, this is why the church needs to be the church. The Biblical admonition is to help widows and orphans, but the principle there is to stand up for those who can't stand up for themselves. Bear each other's burdens. This is a burden our friend can't bear, and luckily a lawyer at our new church home has offered to help him out. (We don't yet know the extent of that help or the cost, but it's a start.)

I'll add a third observation: I'm angry. So angry. Our young friend is trying to be responsible, trying to get his life together, trying to do everything right . . . and he keeps getting screwed over. I can't stand it anymore.

Independent AND Interdependent

Independence. It's been on my mind lately, but not the kind of independence we celebrated this weekend.

I don't remember the article I read that got my mind cranking, but the cranking meshed with other things I've read and with personal experiences with loved ones. It was all about class -- our nation's economic classes and the cultures and values of the different groups.

The middle-to-upper classes, it seems, place a high value on independence. The ability to stand on one's own two feet, to take care of oneself. So they see education as important -- you need a degree to get a good job that will support yourself and your family. Money management is important -- you sacrifice and save money so that when an emergency happens, you have the resources to handle it, and so that when you're old and can't work anymore, you have resources to live on.

The poor, on the other hand -- the poverty class -- seem to place a higher value on interdependence. We take care of each other; we can rely on each other. When you need a place to stay, you can sleep on my couch as long as you need. I can drive you to work tomorrow, or you can borrow my car. Your kids can hang out at my house after school until you get home. I'll help you today because the day will come when I'll need someone to help me.

Of course, human nature being what it is, there are those in both cultures that warp these values into something sinful. There are people of means who become selfish and greedy and isolated in their independence, hoarding their resources to meet not only their needs but their luxurious desires. There are also poor people who take advantage of the generosity of others and become irresponsible, selfish moochers. Selfishness is no respecter of persons.

People from each class often see the sinful in the other and color the whole group with that color -- which results in their moving even further to the extreme of their own end of the spectrum. "See that free-loader? This is why you have to save your money. (And why we need to toughen the welfare system.)" Or conversely: "See that greedy rich man with the huge bank account? Money isn't as important as people are. I'd rather be poor and surrounded by people I love than rich and lonely. Come on; I just got paid -- let's spend it all on a fun weekend together."

We forget that this is not an either-or situation. It's a both-and situation. We need to be both independent and interdependent. They are not mutually exclusive, even though we think they are.

We have things to learn from each other. The poverty class can learn that sometimes, you need to pay attention that the way you help a friend in need is empowering them rather than enabling them. They can learn that sacrificing to save a little at a time not only means they have resources that keep them from needing to rely on others unnecessarily, but also gives them more resources to share. (Everyone "must work, doing something useful with their hands, that they may have something to share with those in need." Eph 4:28)

The upper-middle class can learn that sometimes you endure the inconvenience and the risk and simply give just because there is a need -- no strings attached, no judgments rendered -- and let God sort out the deserving and undeserving. They can learn that it's okay for us to lean on each other. That's how God made humanity: a body with interdependent parts. And they can learn that money is a tool, a tool to be used to build God's kingdom, not our own. (Jesus said, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and all these things will be added unto you." Matt 6:33)

I'm talking big-picture here, so don't yell at me about individual situations that don't fit this characterization. I just find that I'm learning much from those in my life that come from the other end of the spectrum . . . and I hope they're learning from me as well.

Lean On Me

A number of years ago, there was a family in a certain group of friends we were in who was going through some serious struggles. Major illnesses, job loss, hospitalizations, financial setbacks . . . serious struggles. Our group rallied around them in every way, providing emotional, spiritual, and material support as best we could.

Ultimately, there came a point where it was clear that their financial needs were going to continue for a while and were going to be beyond what we friends could help them with. That's when one of the group approached the couple, suggesting that they ought to look into some government assistance until the situation turned around.

They refused. They had no intention of being on welfare, they said. Their friends tried to change their mind – you would not be taking advantage of the system or of anybody. You've paid into the system over the years. And you are exactly the kind of people in exactly the kind of situation that these programs are intended for. Still, they refused.

This is pride, and not the good kind. This is not a demonstration of independence and self-sufficiency – this is a demonstration of foolish stubbornness. A person who refuses the help available when they are in genuine need of help thinks too highly of himself. He thinks he should be above the kind of interdependence that God has designed us to live in.

Yes, you just heard a conservative Republican say that: we are meant to be dependent on each other. The stereotypical self-made lone-ranger American is not a biblical model for living. On the contrary, the model we are given in scripture is that of a body, where each part does its job and subordinates itself to the Head, which is Christ. Arms need feet, and livers need eyeballs, and they all need the Brain . . . which interacts with the world through the other parts. As good as it may feel to folks to be able to say they don't need anyone else when times get tough (or even when times are good), they are distinctly out of the will of God when that is the condition of their heart.

What's more, such an attitude of self-sufficiency will send you straight to hell. Consider what this person is (consciously or subconsciously) saying to God. “Yes, Lord, I hear you telling me that I can't put myself right on my own, that you want to do this for me as a gift of grace. But see, I don't take charity. If I can't do it myself, I'd rather just do without. I'll muddle by as best I can on my own efforts. That's good enough for me. Give all that grace to someone else who needs it more. I'm good. Thanks anyway.”

You're not good. When it comes to your righteousness and salvation and eternal destiny, you're absolutely, positively not good. You're in desperate need of God's intervention, whether you realize it or not. And maybe creating us to be dependent on each other is part of the humbling process that brings us back to Him.

God, teach us that balance of interdependence and personal responsibility in our social realm . . . but teach us how to be child-like and completely dependent on You in every realm.

Transformational Tomatoes

I know that I have friends (and perhaps other readers I'm unaware of) who are very conscious of where they spend their money. Not only are they concerned about getting the most for their dollar for themselves, but they are concerned that their dollars are making a difference. That the companies they support with their business are behaving responsibly in the world.

Allow me to introduce you to my husband's new company: NatureSweet Tomatoes.

NatureSweet makes the small, little tomatoes that you put on salads -- three varieties of them. When I started telling people who hubby was going to be working for, I couldn't believe how many of them said, "Oh, NatureSweet! That's the ONLY kind of tomato I'll buy." They're not the cheapest tomato in the store, but they're really that much better.

They are grown hydroponically, which means the product is more consistent since they aren't dependent on the ever-changing weather for the right conditions to grow. They're unique in another way. I don't know the technical side of this well enough to do it justice with my description, but their particular product is the result of grafting together (a painstaking process done by hand) two different types of tomato plants: one for its strong root system and another for its sweetness.

Really, some consistently tasty tomatoes here. Folks out there eat these things just by themselves, for an afternoon snack (which I would never have considered trying before). But there's more. Let me tell you the behind-the-scenes stories hubby has learned in the last few months, the stuff that isn't necessarily trumpeted to the public.

The guy who owns NatureSweet is a billionaire from previous business ventures. He had a ranch in Mexico and fell in love with the people there. But his heart broke for them because they lived in such poverty and had no hope of changing that where they were.

So, he went and bought this tomato company and turned it into what is now NatureSweet . . . with the specific goal of providing work for the poor in Mexico. They have five facilities in the Guadalajara area. The workers there make two or three times the going rate for agricultural workers in the area (the website states that 82% of their Mexican workers are paid above the living wage). This means that they have money to spend . . . which brings businesses into the communities . . . which results in increased economic stability for the area. (Again, from the website: home ownership for their Mexican employees increased by 20% in 2012.)

What's more, NatureSweet actively invests in adult education programs for their employees -- from primary school classes on up (and that tells you how low a lot of these people start from). These people are empowered. The grip the local drug dealers have on the community is lessened. And the need to leave home and travel north (legally or illegally) to find a way to make money and support the family is alleviated.

And the owner makes no money on this. All of his profits go back into the company to increase sales, build more facilities, employ more people.

All this to say, when you purchase NatureSweet tomatoes at your grocery store, you are not only getting a high quality product, but you are participating in the transformation of lives and communities.

AND . . . when you talk up NatureSweet tomatoes at the restaurants and club stores you frequent ("Are these NatureSweet tomatoes on your salad? Oh, NatureSweet tomatoes are the best. I'd be much more likely to buy a happy meal for my kiddo if you offered NatureSweet tomatoes as a side option . . . "), you also contribute to the economic future of your humble correspondent and her family.  :) 

O-Kandt-a-Care

I was determined not to write about Obamacare again. Really, quite determined. I may still live to regret this post.

But one of my biggest frustrations about the whole situation is the Republicans' inability to come up with a viable alternative. Annoys me to death. Stop rallying us against the ACA, and give us something to rally for. So this weekend, when my husband described to me his ideas for how to reform healthcare, I was intrigued. 

Here's his plan. Call it “O-Kandt-a-care”. (Nah, don't call it that.) Don't get too hung up on numbers and particulars here; it's a broad concept with details negotiable at this point.

It starts with the baseline that government will cover any citizen's medical expenses once they exceed $5,000 in a year -- basically universal catastrophic coverage. Nobody will go into bankruptcy from catastrophic or long-term illness or injury, and nobody will die for lack of healthcare in such situations. The government will also fund basic screenings and annual exams to detect such issues before they reach the catastrophic state.

But everyone – for the most part – will still be responsible for finding that first $5,000 a year to pay for their own healthcare needs. Yeah, some folks may have to stretch a bit some years, do some creative budgeting, but if you know up front to plan for that much in a year, you figure out how to do it. And many people will never spend that much (that's why they opt for these "substandard plans" that Obamacare is eliminating).

For those who genuinely don't have $5,000 a year (and there are many that don't), this is where private charity and the goodwill of the people come in. And yes, I realize many of you simply don't trust the goodwill of the people to step up to the plate, but I believe people WILL when the need is clear and limited. Perhaps low-interest medical loans can be offered to those who need them. But between family, friends, churches, charities, and low-interest loans, people should be able to find means to pay for their medical needs up to $5,000 a year – especially when the government is paying for basic screenings and check-ups. 

(Again, don't get hung up on the number -- it's negotiable. And maybe the amount can be adjusted lower for families with lower incomes – a graduated scale, like with income taxes? That's my input there, not part of hubby's idea.)

This also leaves open the possibility that if someone wants to purchase health insurance that gives them a better deal than this (or get it as a benefit from their employer), they are free to do so. A $5,000 upper limit still makes a company plan a desirable benefit, so companies will still choose to offer them. And by all means, let insurance companies offer whatever plans there is a demand for, like a business should work; not everyone wants to pay the money for all the bells and whistles being required now.

Again, details still need to be worked out here. It's not a perfect plan – no plan ever would be. There will be those who fall through the cracks somewhere – there always will be. But nobody is required to purchase anything (something I still can't believe is constitutional). Insurance companies can function as the market allows. People have to take some personal responsibility for themselves and for their neighbors. There is still a safety net. And best of all: it's SIMPLE. No two-thousand-page document is necessary to explain this. It seems to me that this is a better alternative than what we're ending up with now.

Questions will be directed to my husband and may take a little time to get an answer (he's got a "real" job, after all). And they'd better be nice. We're all friends here.  :)

The Need for Community

Here in San Antonio, we run into a lot more beggars on the streets than we did in Sioux City.  My girls have realized for a long time, as a result of homeschool trips we took while living on the east coast, that big cities have more beggars. My youngest asked me yesterday why that is.

I assume there's probably a very simple, logical, "duh" answer to that question, but I couldn't come up with it at that moment.  We talked about how big cities just have more people overall -- how people who need work will come to big cities where there is more work and stay if they don't find any -- she was satisfied for the moment, but I kept wondering.

I started trying to picture a panhandler in my husband's hometown.  Lindsborg, Kansas: a cute, little,
artsy Swedish community in central Kansas, where some of my in-laws still live.  Population of about 3,500.  If a haggard-looking man showed up downtown holding a sign saying, "Homeless and Hungry . . . Please Help", how would the people there react?

I'm not sure, of course.  A lot of people would probably react like there do here -- either ignore him or quietly slip him a five and walk on.  But from my experience in Lindsborg, I suspect that it wouldn't be too long before somebody like my father-in-law would stop and engage him in conversation. Hey, buddy.  Where you from?  What's your story? What can we do to help you? Or a business-owner might call a police officer to come have that conversation with him.  Eventually, he'd get connected to whatever local agency there was to help him out (probably TACOL, The Associated Churches Of Lindsborg).

But I don't imagine the locals would just allow somebody to continue begging on their streets. Whether from right motive or no, people would have the attitude that this just isn't done in our town. If someone is homeless and hungry in our town, they get taken care of.

Anonymity is required for street-begging to work. That's probably why there are more beggars in big cities -- it's easy to be anonymous. In a small, tight-knit community, you are known and something gets done for you.

The reading that I've done on poverty talks a lot about the effects of community life on long-standing poverty. I suspect that the generational poor in our country would benefit more from genuine community being established with them than from more money being thrown at them.

Thinking . . .

We visited yet another church yesterday -- yet another that I think we're not interested in.  But the sermon on the rich young ruler did prompt some interesting thought and discussion over lunch . . .

. . . on sacrificing.  Jesus asked that man to give up all his wealth.  He didn't ask every rich person he met to give up all his wealth.  But this young man apparently needed to do so because his wealth was what was standing in the way of his following Jesus.  And he went away sad, because he wasn't willing to give it up.  So, if I met Jesus face to face and asked him what I needed to do to inherit eternal life, what would he tell me to give up?  What's the thing standing in my way?
 

. . . on our real desires.  The man came to Jesus asking how to inherit eternal life -- he was looking in the right direction.  He had kept the laws all his life -- he was a good man, as his religious society would define it.  We often think of this dude as arrogant and full of himself, but if he was that arrogant and casual about his religion, he wouldn't have come to Jesus asking for more information.  I think he was sincere in his desire to know and do the right thing.  He just didn't like the answer he was given and wouldn't accept it.  His desire for his own way, a way he liked, was stronger than his desire for righteousness.  His desire for a simple program to follow was stronger than his desire for God.


. . . on forgiveness.  Something in our discussion prompted my eldest to remark, "I don't get it.  People say that when you do awful stuff, you can be forgiven -- it's not going to stand in the way of your getting into heaven.  But then people say that if you continue to sin, you won't get into heaven.  Which is it?"  Good question.  I replied that it's a matter of the heart.

There's Person A, who loves God and believes Jesus' death was on her behalf and is grateful for God's forgiveness.  She accepts Christ as her Lord and genuinely strives to do what He wants her to do.  She messes up sometimes, as we all do, and it grieves her when she does because she wants to please her Lord.  And as she grows in her relationship with God, she also grows in holiness.

Then there's Person B, who loves God and believes Jesus' death was on her behalf and is grateful for God's forgiveness.  In fact, she's very grateful, because she sins all the time and doesn't really want to stop sinning.  Her sin doesn't grieve her; she's more grieved at the idea of having to give up the stuff that she enjoys so much.  Deep down, she doesn't really believe that what God has in mind for her is better than this, so she never really trusts Him enough to let go.  So, she doesn't ever really grow in her relationship with God, but she certainly grows in her hypocrisy.

Person A is forgiven.  Person B might not be. Person B is still her own lord.


. . . on knowing what God wants.  As the discussion continues, my eldest got to the question of, "How are we supposed to know what God wants us to do in every situation?"  A timely question -- one hubby and I have dealt with all summer long with all the little decisions we had to make in the course of this move. 

So I shared with her the conviction I had this summer.  The fact is, there are scads of things that we know perfectly well that God wants us to do.  God wants us to pray.  God wants us to know his Word.  God wants us to forgive those who wrong us.  God wants us to actively love our neighbor.  God wants us to help the poor.  God wants us to be actively involved in a church body.  God wants us to rejoice in Him always. And how many of these things are we doing on a regular basis?  How many of these basic, undeniable things are we blowing off, presuming on God's forgiveness?  And then we're annoyed that He doesn't come through in some mighty way to show us His will about what college to go to, or what house to buy?  I think if we would follow through on the basics -- the stuff we KNOW to do -- then our relationship will be solid enough to hear His voice clearly on the rest.

It's kind of like the dad who is willing to buy his daughter whatever expensive, fancy car she wants -- what car does she want him to buy?  Just say the word!  When really, the daughter couldn't care less about a car.  She wants him to sit and talk to her once in a while. 


As I said.  Interesting thought and discussion.

How Rich People THINK

My final post over this over-generalized but discussion-generating list of things that rich people do.  The items on the list that seemed to me to be the most important:

2. 80% of wealthy are focused on accomplishing some single goal.  Only 12% of the poor do this.

9. 67% of the wealthy write down their goals vs. 17% for poor.

16. 74 % of wealthy teach good daily success habits to their children vs. 1% for poor.

And the key ones to me:

17. 84% of wealthy believe good habits create opportunity luck vs. 4% for poor.

18.  76% of wealthy believe bad habits create detrimental luck vs. 9% for poor.

The majority of wealthy people believe that what they do now makes a difference in their future -- they feel some personal power over their fate.  Apparently very few of the poor believe this.

I remember becoming aware of this when I taught high school.  I spent half of my day with honors students and half of my day in the at-risk student program.  I was always amazed at how similar the two groups could be in actual ability -- the differences in their success rate at school had little to do with intelligence.

Three factors seemed to play into their school failure the most:  1) lack of parental support, 2) an unwillingness or inability to play the "school game", and 3) a lack of real belief that any effort on their part would make a difference in their grades anyway--often because it hadn't seemed to in the past. 

How is it that people come to believe that their position in life is completely a matter of fate, that nothing they do will make a difference?  Well, for some people, it's because they are in situations where there are genuine forces in the "system" that hold them back, no matter how hard they try, and the belief comes legitimately.  I've never contended that there weren't "undeserving poor", people who struggle to get by because of no fault of their own.  And these people need our help.  Many Christians forget that this is a clear Biblical mandate to help the vulnerable.  You can't be a genuine Christian and not do so.

But there are others who could make a life for themselves if they put some effort into it, but they seem to have picked up the fateful thinking of their fellows.  And we all know some of them, too. 

I had a student named Aisha once who wanted to be a doctor.  At least that's what she said.  She seemed to have no other "goals" in life -- other than to graduate from high school. which was a profound enough goal at that point seeing she'd be the first in her family to do so.  But when she talked about being a doctor, even she seemed to think it was nothing but a pipe dream.  She didn't display any of the behaviors that she would need to do to make this dream come about:  working her butt off for excellent grades, taking higher level math classes, looking for college financing and scholarships - or even looking at colleges at all.  She muddled along through life very casually, just hoping that her wish of being a doctor would somehow fall upon her magically.

Now, honestly, I don't know if she could've been a doctor.  But she certainly could have been more than the minimum-wage worker she probably ended up being (or the "fat, poor stay-at-home Mexican mama" her friend Armando teased that she was going to be). But she had picked up the mental mindset of her peers ("success is not a matter of work -- it is a matter of luck or privilege"), and so she went no further.

And maybe God had great plans for her as a fat, poor stay-at-home Mexican mama.  Maybe that's exactly where he wanted her to be -- praying for and nurturing the next generation.  But I hate to think that her options were so limited to her because we were unable to convince her that even if she had to work harder than Suzy Honors-kid in my other class, she could have a very different future if she tried. 

Don't Listen to your Heart

Back to this list.

There was one item here that stood out to me when I read it -- I think because I associated it with a phenomenon I have been discussing with my daughter a lot for the last several months.  A quality I have seen in many of her friends.  I don't know that I specifically connected it with being poor, but more with being immature and unwise . . . although both of those characteristics have also led the affected into financial struggles, from my forty-five years of experience with humanity.  Here's the item:

11. 6% of wealthy say what's on their mind vs. 69% for poor.

Isn't THAT an interesting one!

Again, there's a lot unsaid here that is important.  How do we know they speak their mind?  Is this a self-report?  Because some people like to say they are the type of person who speaks their mind when they really aren't, and vice versa.  And when they say what's on their mind, do they do it respectfully or rudely?  There's a way of stifling your inner thoughts that is neurotic and there's a way of stifling your inner thoughts that shows wisdom.

Nevertheless, when I read this, I was immediately reminded of what I've been cautioning my daughter about regarding many of her friends: they are ruled by their passions.

Now, I know some people see that as a trait to celebrate.  We are taught all of our lives to "listen to your heart". And I'm not advocating living a passionless life.  But to "listen to your heart" in the extreme sense . . . to be led by your selfish desires and impulses . . . to be ruled by your passions and not your brain . . . is absolute foolishness.  It is immature and unwise and, I have no doubt, is highly likely to contribute to a life of financial struggle.

In the teenagers I'm referring to (and usually their parents as well), this has a lot to do with "delaying gratification", an ability that mental health experts usually put in their list of characteristics of mentally healthy people.  It is part of being a grown-up and living a healthy life that you are able to put off until later something you really want and willingly take up something distasteful to you that needs to happen right now.

But it's also about living only for the present.  The List also says that the wealthy are far more likely to have a to-do list and to write down goals.  They are more likely to be thinking ahead and planning for the future. 

And this is also about impulsiveness.  I want this computer game.  It's for sale in front of me.  I have the money for it in my pocket right now.  So, I will buy it.  Forget the fact that I really need a car, and that money needs to go toward it.  I'm not thinking about my future -- I'm not willing to put off the pleasure of playing this game for the sake of improving my life situation with a car, or healthy food, or a college education -- I want the game now, so I'm buying it.

Of course, just to stave off the defenders of the undeserving poor (and I have never said there weren't undeserving poor!), I need to emphasize that not every poor person is ruled by their passions.  But I contend there are far too many people, wealthy and poor, who are.  As I said, this is about maturity and wisdom.  But there's no doubt that a lack of each can pave the way to the poor house.

Who Wants to be Rich Anyway?

I want to talk more about this list I referred to last time (which, by the way, seems to have had its spelling errors cleaned up, thank goodness) . . . but I need to make something clear. In offering this list for discussion, I don't mean to imply a causation relationship in all these items (although I won't speak for the list-maker). Loving to read is not a cause of wealth. But if the statistics are accurate, the two seems to be at least correlated and I'm curious as to why. 

If it's true that dramatically more wealthy people than poor people enjoy reading, why is that? Does a love for reading give you an edge that helps you succeed financially (as I suggest may be possible)? Does a distaste for reading mean you spend more time in other activities that lend themselves less to financially beneficial skills and behavior? Is it as simple as poor readers struggle in school and therefore can't get good jobs? I don't know. I don't think it's as simple as that.

In addition, I don't present this list as a prescriptive or even judgmental thing (again, however, I won't speak for the list-maker). When I said the wealthy and the poor seem to have different mindsets, it doesn't necessarily follow that one is “right” and one is “wrong”. In fact, there are aspects of the “wealthy mindset” (if there is one) that I would say are decidedly unrighteous.

There is, in fact, a case to be made against wealth.  Proverbs says, "Give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, 'Who is the Lord?'  Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God."  Although yes, the Bible shows God offering his people wealth as a reward for their obedience, it is always wealth to be used as a testimony to who He is (in the Old Testament) or to build up a people to build His Kingdom (in the New). Scripture is clear about how money -- either the abundance of it or the extreme lack of it -- can become a snare that pulls us away from God, the only thing we can truly possess in this life.

For my husband and I, money is first and foremost about security.  I'm not going to say we don't enjoy the leisure and luxuries that our comfortable financial state offers us, but that's not what motivates us to earn and save.  My father was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease when I was twelve.  He retired when I was fourteen and was in a nursing home by my first year of marriage when I was twenty-one.  Then he ended up out-living my mother by a year, passing away when I was thirty-two.  He suffered with Alzheimer's for twenty-one years, and during those twenty-one years, my mother used the money he had systematically saved and invested over the years to live on and to pay for his expensive care.  I know the importance of saving for a rainy day.

But for all the wisdom there is in saving money and being prepared for an unknown future, I find that this security we think we've created for ourselves also hinders us spiritually.  It keeps us from ever being in a place where God simply has to come through for us or we are sunk . . . and we therefore don't ever have the faith-building benefits of seeing God comes through for us. 

"If I have put my trust in gold or said to pure gold, 'You are my security,' if I have rejoiced over my great wealth, the fortune my hands had gained... then these also would be sins to be judged, for I would have been unfaithful to God on high." (Job 21)

As I said, the actions of the wealthy are not necessarily those to be emulated.  But then neither are the actions of the poor.  I present this list merely as something to analyze and learn from . . . to learn about the nature of people and how our behaviors and thought processes affect our life situations.

And I'll do more of that analysis next time.  (Still hoping to verify where these stats came from . . . )

What Rich People Do

So, I read the most FASCINATING article the other day:  "20 Things the Rich Do Every Day".  (Personal note: for anyone who actually looks at the list and knows me well -- yes, the misspellings made me crazy.  What reputable person posts something like this online with these kinds of blatant errors?  Is your spellcheck broken, buddy?  But I was able to separate the content from the errors and focus on that.)

I couldn't find the original source of these statistics to verify their accuracy (and I would like to -- I always wonder how anyone "knows" these kinds of things), but if they are accurate, they invite much discussion.  I may spend a few blog posts on this topic.

Because if you've read here for a while, you know I find this topic fascinating.  I have friends who struggle with money on a regular basis who are very wise and intelligent in many areas of their lives . . . but I've seen them make decisions about their money that made no sense to me.  I'm certain there is a mindset behind poverty and one behind wealth that the other simply can't relate to, and understanding each other's mindsets will go a lot further toward ending economic inequities in this country than all the various government policies being touted out there.

Several on this list of twenty seem related to me.  For example:

4. 63% of wealthy listen to audio books during commute to work vs. 5% for poor people. (A lot of things could play into this one -- the nature of one's commute, one's access to audio books and means to play them, etc.)

6. 63% of wealthy parents make their children read 2 or more non-fiction books a month vs. 3% for poor.  (I have always contended that teaching kids to love reading early on is critical.)

10. 88% of wealthy read 30 minutes or more each day for education or career reasons vs. 2% for poor.  (I wonder, though, how many of these wealthy have jobs that require such reading and how many of them are choosing to do so.)

13. 67% of wealthy watch 1 hour or less of TV every day vs. 23% for poor. 

And the kicker for me:

20. 86% of wealthy love to read vs. 26% for poor.

Now, I know people who are quite successful financially who don't enjoy reading.  And I also have very poor friends who are book fanatics.  And as I said, I don't know the source of these statistics.  But it wouldn't surprise me if this is accurate.

However, there is a lot that is NOT said in this statistic that I think is important.  For example, do these people not love to read because they are poor readers (being a poor reader often leads to a lack of education which leads to poverty) or because they just naturally don't have that inclination?  I know that my husband and eldest daughter fall into the latter category; they are both very intelligent and good readers, but they rarely choose to read for pleasure.

Also, what do these people love to read?  Do they love to read fashion magazines, celebrity websites, and romance novels . . . or do they love to read newspapers, histories, and Tolstoy?

In any case, reading is the primary means in our society of communicating information and carrying on a national conversation about important topics, so a lack of desire to read also indicates a lack of involvement in this conversation and a lack of information about . . . well, everything.  And it's easy to see how this could contribute to financial problems.

More to come . . .

Straddling

As I shared recently, the young ‘un and I have been reading in the book of Acts about how the early believers voluntarily sacrificed to help fellow believers who were struggling.  When there was someone in the church who was in need, believers – like Ananias and his wife Sapphira -- would often sell a piece of land or something and bring that money to the apostles to give to those who needed it. 

Only Ananias and Sapphira didn’t bring all of the money from the land they sold.  They held some back for themselves.  They apparently told the apostles that they were giving them all of the money from the sale . . . in other words, they lied.  And the consequence for this?  They were each suddenly and miraculously struck down dead the moment their deception was revealed.

Yep, dead.  Pretty harsh.  If you were reading the Bible to decide if you want to try out this Christianity thing or not, this story would likely give you a good excuse to chuck the idea.  But if you’re someone like me who comes to the story having already concluded that genuine Christianity is the only game in town that makes any sense, then you read this and try to figure out what’s going on here.

Yes, they lied, which was wrong, but all sorts of people lied in the Bible and lie today and don’t get struck down dead.  Plenty of people are selfish with their money, too, and don’t get struck down dead.  I’ve heard it taught that the early church days were a time of precedent-setting, so some things happened then that don’t happen now because the early Christians needed important lessons pounded into their heads clearly to get off on the right foot.  I don’t know that a case can be made for that.  And so the story troubles me . . .

Enter my old buddy Jack – that is, C.S. Lewis.  In his classic Mere Christianity, he writes about Christ’s instructions to us to “Be perfect”:

Some people seem to think this means ‘Unless you are perfect, I will not help you’; and as we cannot be perfect, then, if He meant that, our position is hopeless.  But I do not think He did mean that.  I think He meant ‘The only help I will give is help to become perfect.  You may want something less: but I will give you nothing less.’

We often want something less.  We don’t want to be saints; we just want to be nice, decent folks.  We don’t want to be great; we just want to be comfortable and happy.  We (like Ananias and Sapphira) don’t want to be generous, self-sacrificing, and completely dependent on the Lord; we just want other people to think we are.  The fact is, Jesus is an all-or-nothing kind of King.  Partial submission is no submission at all.  So, because you are lukewarm – neither hot nor cold – I will spit you out of my mouth.

We should remember, too, that scripture doesn’t say Ananias and Sapphira were eternally condemned for their deception – just that their earthly life ended.  As my mother was known to say, there are worse fates than death for a Christian.  For all we know, God may have been sparing them a worse fate if they continued to live in their lukewarmness.  Perhaps God decided that, if these two didn’t want any more of Him than this, then there was no point in their continuing on earth any longer, since our life on earth is all about growing closer to Him and drawing others closer to Him.  Again, if you come to the story assuming that God is loving and just, you assume that God sees something we don't in their hearts . . . or in their future.

The sudden death business aside, what I take away from the Ananias and Sapphira story is that I need to pee or get off the pot.  Either I’m a bondservant of Christ or I’m not.  There’s no half-way – no part-time servanthood.  If I'm dissatisfied with my Christian walk, perhaps it's because straddling the line doesn't cut it.

When the Church Gets Taken Advantage Of

The youngest and I are reading through the book of Acts for our Bible lessons these days.  For those not familiar with scripture, Acts is the book that describes the birth of the church.  It begins with Jesus' ascension and ends with Paul in Rome, under arrest for preaching the gospel.  It's a great study to understand what the church was meant to be and to evaluate how far we've wandered from that.

One of the things that stood out to me: from the very beginning, it is emphasized, many times, that the people who followed Christ "had everything in common".  When someone in the community had a material need, others in the community sold property and brought the money in to the apostles to be distributed to those who needed it. 

I've heard it accused that the early church was a communist institution.  But not so.  Everyone still owned their own property.  Everyone still had a choice about whether or not they gave it up for someone else.  But the people were so full of love for each other, and so committed to and trusting in God and his provision, that they freely gave the material things up. 

Now, here's my question as I read this.  Scripture says that the early believers "enjoyed the favor of all the people" (it was only later when the religious authorities got on their case that everyone turned against them).  So, apparently, the general public was impressed with the character of these early believers.  They probably saw the way they cared for their own and realized that this is exactly what love and charity is supposed to look like, how it is to be practiced.  Presumably, this is partly why the church's numbers increased so dramatically in those early days -- the lives of the "preachers" validated the truth of their "sermons".

But, surely the early church attracted the posers as well.  Surely there were lazy, unscrupulous folks back then, too -- people who would have no qualms about faking a faith in a risen Messiah if that meant rich people would sell their beach house to buy them food.  People who were really good (we all know people like this) at spinning a sob story to make themselves always seem the innocent victim so that they don't have to take responsibility for themselves and their foolish actions or lazy ways.

Surely, someone tried to take advantage of the early church's generosity.  How did they handle that?

There's no record of such an event, but human nature hasn't changed that much over the centuries.  What did they do when someone made a "public profession of faith" and they questioned its veracity?  Did they confront them?  Reject them? Were they always confident in their suspicions, or did they worry about turning someone away that was for real?  Did they welcome them into the group getting distributions of bread and just hope they would eventually come around and legitimately believe? 

It's an important question, because the church today DOES get taken advantage of (as do the state and all non-religious charities as well).  How do we protect against that, and how strenuously do we make that effort?  I think even many political discussions these days are really centered on this issue.

The state's charity efforts are one thing . . . but as far as the church goes, or at least as far as individual believers go, I think we have to decide that if we err, we will err on the side of love and generosity.  We give.  We try to give wisely, but we continue to give.  That is our part.  We are not responsible for how it is received.

Easier said than done, I know.  But that's the state of the heart that we are aiming for, at least.

That Bill They Passed Without Reading

Our one year of “emergency health insurance” we paid for when hubby’s severance package ran out is ending, so he’s been talking to the insurance guy about renewing.  (BTW, I know I have readers who don’t see me face-to-face to ask about the job search, so to satisfy your curiosity and concern .  . . yes, he’s still got possible jobs in the works.  They come – they go.  He interviews – they love him – they decide they can’t fill the position right now – Choice #2 has more retail experience or sales experience or lives locally -- yada yada.  The saga continues.  Prayers are appreciated.)

But back to our health insurance needs.  Here are the new rates quoted to us.

For 6 months of coverage, paid by the month: $270 a month.

For 6 months of coverage, paid in a lump sum: $213 a month.

For 11 months of coverage, paid by the month: $405 a month (no, that’s not a typo).

For 11 months of coverage, paid in a lump sum:  $370 a month.

Although he suspected the reason (and was right), hubby asked the insurance agent why the drastic increase (because there should be a decent discount when you pay for longer coverage, right?  They want to encourage you to buy more insurance, yes?). 

The answer?  Eleven months of coverage will go a month into 2014.  Obamacare is going to kick in in 2014.  Insurance rates will be going up dramatically.  That $405 a month is the average per month cost over eleven months with the increased rate figured in for just the last month.

Sigh.  I have no words.  (Wait, that's a lie.  I have many words -- I'm just declining to share them.)

Capitalism and The Fall

Last summer, I read a book called The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism.  It is heavy reading, I’ll warn you.  Like a college textbook or something -- one of those books I had to mark up as I read to understand it.  I’d recommend it for your reading pleasure, but I suspect few of you would find its reading pleasurable, and then you’d be mad at me. J

In any case, the book makes a case for capitalism, and one of the points it makes is that capitalism assumes the fallenness of man and takes advantage of it.  Other systems, it contends, depend on people being good – either the general population or the particular people who are running things.  But Capitalism assumes that people are going to be selfish – because we are – and fashions things so that my working in my own self-interest ultimately works also in your interest (or, it at least does so as well as any system possibly could).

This sculpture is called "The Fallen Man".  It's more
about war than sin . . . but the image is wonderful
and applies to both concepts, I think.

A brief example: if I start a business selling groceries, my self-interest is to make as much money as I can, to support me and my family and whatever personal obsessions I have that require money.  But if I’m having to compete with other grocery stores to get your business, then the only way I can make that money is if I earn your business.  And the only way I can earn your business is by meeting your needs: offering you good quality groceries at a good price with good service.  I serve my interest by serving your interest.  Obviously, it gets more complicated than that, but that’s the idea.

Recent discussions from past posts of mine have revealed, however, how many friends I have who essentially don’t believe in “the fallenness of man”.  At least, not as the Bible teaches it and not as this defense of capitalism defines it.  These friends believe that if people are sinful, it’s not because they have an inherent sinful nature; it’s because society has screwed them over somehow and made them sinful.  And the solution to “sin”, then, is to re-shape society so it stops screwing people over.

And furthermore, I think that all of my friends who have espoused this belief about the nature of man also happen to be liberals.  In fact, at the moment, I can’t think of ANY Christian liberal friends of mine (and I do have Christian liberal friends) who also hold to traditional Biblical teachings about such things as the fallenness of man.  Surely there are some . . . hmmm . . .

I’ve had hopes for a long time of identifying the basic core differences between liberals and conservatives.  Surely I’m being too optimistic to think that I might have hit upon one . . .

Budgets and Pies

Let's talk budgets.

In our family, I have the responsibility of writing the checks to pay the monthly bills (although I don't actually write many checks anymore -- we pay most things online -- but that's beside the point).  Our biggest check we cut each month is for the mortgage.  And yes, we could certainly have a smaller house and a smaller mortgage payment, but even if we downsized, our mortgage check would still be the largest each month.  A roof over one's head is expensive, period.  And putting a roof over the heads of the family is a basic, primary responsibility that MUST be met.

What I'm getting at is, the fact that our mortgage is the biggest chunk by far out of our monthly bills does not, in and of itself, imply any irresponsible spending on our part.

I bring this up because of a chart posted on FB yesterday by a friend.  It's a pie chart labeled "Discretionary Spending FY 2013", and it shows that military spending constitutes 56.94% of the spending.  That blue military piece of the pie appears to engulf the rest; everything else is a sliver (the next biggest slice is Education at 6.35%).  The unspoken message of this graphic is that our military spending is obscenely out of line because it takes so much of the pie.

And I take serious issue with this message.  Military spending SHOULD take, by far, the biggest chunk of the pie.  Frankly, if we're just talking percentages, I think it should take much more.  Now, I'm not saying there aren't cuts to be made in that department, and if the Republicans are refusing to consider military cuts, that's wrong (I don't know if they are or not -- I'm not following the Fiscal Cliff crisis because my heart simply can't handle that stress right now).

But as I've preached before:  I'm a libertarian-leaning conservative, and I believe there are a few specific, limited duties prescribed for our federal government and of those, the military is one of the most important -- and undoubtedly, the most expensive. There is simply no problem with the relative size of that slice of pie.  If that blue military piece shrinks as a result of upcoming negotiations, I will find THAT to be irresponsible on our government's part.  Reduce the dollar amounts, all of them -- don't just adjust where the money is allocated.  Or if allocation adjustments need to be made, give the largest allocations to the duties specifically prescribed to the federal government in the Constitution, such as the military.

Images are so powerful.  But they can be so deceiving, too.  Let's use our eyes responsibly by engaging our brains as well.  Thank you.

Who's the Obedient One?

A Jewish friend at church in NJ once loaned me a book from her child's Hebrew school, just because I was curious to see it.  I remember a story they used to introduce the theme for one lesson.  Here's the gist of it:

A woman in a great moment of crisis and need wandered into a downtown business office at almost closing time when there were only one woman and one man left working.  With tears, she recounted the troubles she was experiencing and humbly asked if they would be willing to give her some money to help her pull through.  The businesswoman stopped her work and sat beside the distressed woman, holding her hand and listening attentively and compassionately to her story.  The man, however, glanced up from his work with a contemptuous grunt and gave her little heed.

As the two women were tearfully discussing the situation, the man packed his things and, on his way out the door, handed the needy woman a substantial check -- then left without a word.  The businesswoman sat with the woman longer, crying with her and encouraging her -- but soon sent her on her way without giving her any money.

Which person obeyed the law's command to help the poor and needy?  The man, said the book.  You are to give, period.  Your feelings about the matter are of no consequence.

On the one hand, I saw a valid point here.  All the compassion in the world didn't meet that woman's immediate financial needs.  And there are certainly a lot of us who shed literal or figurative tears over the needs of humanity without lifting a finger to alleviate them, even if just to mail a check. On the other hand, if this is an accurate interpretation of the Torah's teaching (and I really wonder if it is....), it is teaching that is altered in the New Testament:

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.  If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.  If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. (1 Corinthians 13)

Your feelings about the matter are important.  Not only does your compassion lift the heart of the one you help, but it shapes your own heart.  God is concerned not only with material poverty but with spiritual poverty -- in the giver and the receiver.  If necessary, He could zap down a pile of cash on the needy woman's kitchen counter to meet her needs.  He chooses instead to have those needs met through another person because THAT meets not only the material needs but also the spiritual needs -- of both people.

I become more convicted every day of the primacy of relationship . . .

When Charity Gets Toxic

Our church's current small group curriculum encourages us to choose a service project to do together.  They call it our "Micah 6:8" project -- an activity to fulfill "what the Lord requires of us: to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with our God."  Our group started talking about the holidays coming up and how there are always service projects associated with that -- the Operation Christmas Child boxes at church, giving Thanksgiving dinners to needy families, etc.

But this brought to mind a story I read in a book recently (Toxic Charity, by Robert Lupton -- excellent, excellent book).  The author moved into an inner-city Atlanta neighborhood where he hoped to have a positive impact.  On Christmas Eve, he was a guest in a family's home when a group of jolly strangers came by laden with gifts for the children of the house -- a church group doing their holiday service project.  The kids were thrilled, the mother was cautiously gracious, and the father . . . the father disappeared out the back door for the rest of the evening.  The man realized while watching the scene that, although this church group had the best of intentions, they had thoroughly shamed this father.

The next year, the author ensured that his home church changed their Christmas gift-giving program.  People donated toys for needy kids, but they were stocked in a "toy pantry" where the parents of those needy kids could come purchase them for nickels on the dollar.  This allowed the fathers of the community the dignity of being able to purchase their own children's Christmas presents.

They also shut down their food pantry and worked with the families who were using it to help them start their own food co-op.  The needy families took ownership of and responsibility for the enterprise themselves and ended up able to provide for their own food needs.

Lupton says, "contrary to popular belief, most mission trips and service projects do not: empower those being served, engender healthy cross-cultural relationships, improve local quality of life, relieve poverty, change the lives of participants, or increase support for long-term mission work.  Contrary to popular belief, most mission trips and service projects do: weaken those being served, foster dishonest relationships, errode recipients' work ethic, and deepen dependency."  One-way giving should be limited to emergency relief situations, he says.  Beyond that, we should focus on rehabilitation and development of families and communities to make them self-supporting again. 

And he emphasizes that this requires long-term involvement and relationships.  Lawrence Mead's book From Prophecy to Charity says something similar.  The chronically poor, Mead says, stay poor because they have become isolated from community and the standards that society expects of us all.  Drawing them back into community is critical.  Lupton's book shows how most churches' attempts at "service" and "missions" and charity these days have very little effect on the lives of those we try to help -- they are all about making the church member feel good about himself because he gave a couple hours this weekend to the poor.  No long-term involvement.  No relationships.

Thus my earlier post concerning the welfare system.  Is it necessary?  Yes, probably.  But we need to give up this notion that increasing government programs for the needy makes us a compassionate society.  It does not.  It makes us a lazy, cold, distant society.  People pontificate all the time about what the welfare system does to the people receiving the money, making them more dependent and all -- I'm just as concerned about what it does to the rest of us.  It allows us to distance ourselves completely from them.  The government is taking care of them.  I don't even have to hear the pitch for donations -- my "donations" are required of me through taxes.

It allows us to go on with our comfortable lives thinking we're somehow indirectly helping people.  When we are not.

Thief Development

Went to bed meditating on an old scripture and woke up with some new insight (new for me, anyway).

Anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something productive with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.  (Eph 4:28)

This is part of the old self/new self contrasting section in Ephesians, and it seems to identify three groups of people.  Working backwards in the passage, the first group is the needy.  These are the people who are not able to meet their own needs through work.  There are several specific types of people put in this category in Biblical times:  orphans (who had no parents to provide for them), widows (who had no husband to provide for them, in a time when few opportunities were available for women to provide for themselves), and the disabled (the lame, blind, diseased and so forth who were not able or allowed to work).

The second group of people here are the workers.  And notice that, of course, this is the expectation, the default -- that you will do something productive with your own hands.  And notice that there is also the expectation, the default, that you will share what you earn from your work with the needy.  This is an instruction given to born-again believers (again, the old self/new self contrast).  Giving to the needy is not optional.

And then there's a third group: the thieves.  They are not workers -- they don't do something productive with their own hands to provide for themselves; they simply take things from those who do.  They are also not the needy -- those unable to provide for themselves and voluntarily supported by those who do.  These words are spoken to believers, and the instruction is that those believers who have been stealing -- who have been getting by on other people's work -- must stop that and start working so they can help the genuinely needy.

Now, here's the political hot button question this implies:  when you look at today's various welfare recipients in America, which category are they in?

The fact is that the majority of them are, in fact, the needy.  They are either unable to work to provide for themselves, or the work they get is not enough to provide for themselves.  But it is also a fact that there are some receiving welfare who are thieves -- they could provide for themselves, but they choose, instead, to simply take what others have earned for their own support.  The basic fault in the welfare system is its real inability to distinguish the needy from the thief -- and its tendency to turn the former into the latter.

In my opinion, the reason the welfare system has this tendency to create thieves is because of how it separates the worker from the needy.  When the giving relationship is close and intimate, it is one that builds up both the giver and the recipient.  The recipient sees someone believing in him enough to sacrifice his own hard-earned wages to give him a hand-up . . . he feels personal responsibility to the giver to use that sacrifice well.  The giver sees the recipient as someone worthy of compassion and not contempt . . . he has a stake in the recipient's well-being . . . and he comes to see his financial resources not as a reward from God for him to indulge in, but as a tool given by God to use in the world. 

I've experienced this relationship myself.  It is the ideal, obviously.  But it is an ideal rendered impossible when giving becomes an impersonal, distant obligation/entitlement relationship as it does in the welfare system.  I'm not going to try to argue that the welfare system should be eliminated (as if that would even be possible now).  But I will argue that any additional effort to meet the needs of the needy (those without healthcare, perhaps?) through an impersonal, distant obligation/entitlement relationship (Obamacare, anyone?) is not the way to go.  The last thing we need is another institutional method for thief-development.

The Cost of a Blood-Letting

The interim health insurance we have until hubby gets another job has a very high deductible.  This means that in the case of regular doctor visits and minor situations, we essentially have no insurance at all.  This means that I am getting a small taste of what it is like for folks who have no health insurance. 

My Pravachol prescription ran out a little while ago (that’s a cholesterol med, if you didn’t know).  My doctor wouldn’t call in a renewal for the prescription because he said I’m due for more bloodwork to check my cholesterol.  Well, maybe so.  But I explained to his office folk our situation and asked if he could extend that prescription a little bit longer, just until we’re covered by someone again.  He graciously called in a 90-day extension.

However, those 90 days are now up, and I’m guessing he’s not going to do that trick for me another time.  So, I called the office again, asking if they could tell me what it would cost to get that bloodwork done.  About $55 for the bloodwork – plus a $9 “letting fee”?  (That may not be what they called it, but that’s the image I got in my head . . . a medieval blood-letting.)  Oh, and then the regular $129 office visit.

Wow. 

I really do like my doctor.  He’s kind, gracious, and attentive.  I genuinely enjoy my visits with him.  But 10 minutes to hear him say, “Yep, the stuff still works,” and have him hand me a signed half-sheet of paper to take to the Target pharmacy – I doubt that’s worth $129.  And frankly, knowing my doctor, I bet he would agree with me. 

If you were following our Panama trip adventures, you read that we each got our teeth cleaned in Boquete for $40.  $120 total.  That $120 would have paid for one cleaning by our dentist (whom we love) here in Sioux City without the insurance coverage.

Yes, folks we need health care reform.  But before my liberal friends start their victory dance, I’ll clarify that I still don’t believe Obamacare is the change we all need.  Obamacare strikes me as trying to kill a fly with a Hummer: it may get the job done, but not without causing a lot of other damage that would be a lot worse.  I just heard a statistic that some 70% of American physicians are considering leaving the profession once Obamacare goes into full force.  Now, granted, that number may be skewed high for political purposes, and most of that 70% wouldn't actually end up leaving anyway.  But if even 20% of them leave, we're screwed.

I give the man credit for forcing the country to deal with the issue – Congress had kept it on the back burner for too long – but this was not the way to do it.  How should we do it?  Sorry, I don’t have that answer.  But I pray we will have the sense to recognize a cure that’s worse than the disease.  In the meantime, I guess I’ll be finding out what my cholesterol is like these days without Pravachol.  I've been wanting to know anyway.