Fiscal Responsibility

This is information gleaned from a writer of Christian Century about the proposed Ryan Budget.

Most of the discussion has been about privatizing Medicare and Medicaid which is a less than stellar idea to begin with. I.  It also includes converting food stamps into a state administered grant; meaning less money for those in need. I. Eligibly in the underfunding Medicare program would also increase from 65 to 67 which ups the insurance costs for everyone.  I.It also eliminates the ability of the federal government to take over failing financial mega-firms and dissolved them in an orderly way.I. Finally in includes and 37% cut in the transportation infrastructure (that includes air control). My perceptive of all this is that it is moral irresponsible.

Even House speaker John Boehner has distanced himself from the GOP budget even after he successfully pushed it through the House.

On a personal note, most all of you know that I am a political and social liberal and pleased to be labeled as such. With that said I also place myself toward the middle left not the extreme. Though that may not be how I am perceived. [It reminds me of when I was in seminary and we were all given a test to see where we stood theologically; almost everyone was convinced the test would show that I was a liberal and I said, no, I am neo-orthodox and the test will likely show that. I further stated that many of them who considered themselves conservative were actually liberal. The test proved my assertions.] Politically and socially I regard myself as a fiscal conservative. Again, in the middle of that stance; meaning we should do what we can afford to do. But I also believe we can afford to do much more than we do. In the current political situation it is simple, raise taxes. If we went back to pre Bush tax breaks, most problems would absolutely disappear. If we went back to pre Reagan tax rates we could start dropping the national debt significantly.

Again, to whom much is given much is required. If we did that much of the financial debate would disappear, then it would amount to setting priorities and both Republicans and Democrats could return to their positions of yesteryear and the extremists would be silenced.

On the Ethics of Control of Free Market Systems

I’d like to share with you some data found in the April 26^th issue of the www.demandsideeconomics.net blog.

In March of 2011 there were 130,738 million payroll jobs in the country.

In January 2000 there were 130,781 million payroll jobs in the country.

Median household income in constant dollars:

   2009 - $49,777

   1997 - $49,307

   1998 – $51,100

All this shows that there hasn’t been much going on for the average American in the time period.

The speaker also tells us that there are 7.25 million fewer jobs than when the recession began in 2007, with 13.5 million Americans unemployed. There are 8.4 million working in part time positions and about 4 million have left the labor force. Of the unemployed, 6.1 million have been unemployed for 6 months or more. [Remember the cartoon I shared about those in poverty in this country a few blogs ago.]

The author’s point is that capital markets are not kind or fair nor have they ever been. They are just markets. Remember when I blogged earlier about Keynesian or demand side economics and the argument for the need of government to play a role in regulated the free enterprise system that can easily cause so much unfairness in our society.

Now if you really believe in the survival of the fittest and that we have no responsibility for the welfare of our brothers and sisters, our current economic philosophy, supply side economics, is just fine. But that is not what my Judeo-Christian morality, or other religious based morality or even humanism teaches. The proper role of government is to ensure the welfare of the common good. As the scripture says, from who much is given much is required.

Currently with the half the wealth o f the country being held by the top 1 tenth on the top 1 percent of the society it is clear not much is being required from those to whom much has been given. In truth is the opposite is true.

We are an incredibly well blessed country, with a lot of wealth and much is required from us. I do not take that to be mean that God loves us more than other countries, instead it just means we have greater responsibilities. But the reality is that not only do we not good care of other countries we are terribly unfair to our own members of society.

This is the message I believe we need to get across to our politicians of both parties. Just to do the right thing .

Chick-fil-A on doing unto others

This is just too good not to pass along. All those folk who really don't think Christian principles are just too idealist for business should take note. The article comes from the Christian Century blog.

Chick-fil-A on doing unto others

Apr 26, 2011 by Lisa Landoe

CEO Dan Cathy of the Chick-fil-A company has a new service model: the Sermon on the Mount.

"Here's the deal," Cathy announced recently at the second annual Imagination Summit in California:

All of us were created in God's image. Because we are created in God's image - [which] is to be treated with honor, dignity, and respect - we desperately in our deepest part of who we are...desire to be treated respectfully... And so any business person that has that insight retools their whole service experience around honor, dignity and respect...and will [have] people tweeting, facebooking...and you can have a cult brand.

Despite the recession, Chick-fil-A has reported double-digit sales increases in the last four years. According to Cathy, the company's business strategy is predicated not on maximizing end profits but on a desire to glorify God by being good stewards of their customers. Whatever else it is, this religious take on business isn't just a hindsight application of the prosperity gospel--for years, Chick-fil-A has been the only national fast-food chain that observes the sabbath.

Still, the faith rhetoric smacks of utilitarianism. "You don't have to be a Christian to work at Chick-fil-A," saidcompany founder S. Truett Cathy (Dan's father) in 2007. "But we ask you to base your business on biblical principles because they work."

In 2002, Dan Cathy admitted that the never-on-Sunday policy, which was implemented back when his dad was also running the Dwarf House diner in Atlanta, soon became "the single best business decision [my father] ever made."

Describing the company's policies in terms of the family's Christian faith sounds like savvy business. But S. Truett Cathy grew up in America's first public-housing project, and he used to work as the (24-hour) Dwarf House's only cook. You can see why he might place a premium on treating people with dignity. By staying closed Sundays and giving everybody the day off, Chick-fil-A franchises miss out on an estimated$500 million of revenue annually.

The company's management employees receive impressive benefits, including access to extensive training and development programs. Headquarters even invites any employee interested in franchise ownership to visit and learn about the company. Employee turnover rate is only 3 percent among staff and unit operators.

These are impressive facts, but they might not be enough to earn Chick-fil-A top marks on labor issues. And earlier this year, a franchise operator's sponsorship of a marriage seminar led to accusations that the company is antigay. (Dan Cathy released a video statement on the matter.) Ethical-food advocates might argue that Chick-fil-A's carbon footprint, animal treatment and nutritional profile make it hard to argue that the company does well by either the environment or human beings.

But Chick-fil-A is ahead of its competitors. Last month, Environmental Leader issued a report lauding the company for piloting green building techniques. And the chain's advertising tactics are commendable: it scores points by amusing its viewers but not by defacing the competition. On the whole, I'd say Chick-fil-A is doing a pretty good job.

Mix Your Religion and Politics with Love and not Hate

There has been circulating on the internet as of late a letter about a health care rip off reported by a Dr. Ciancio that he sent to Rush Limbaugh. Following is that letter:

Dear Mr. Limbaugh,

I was speaking to an emergency room physician this morning. He told me that a woman in her 20's came to the ER with her 8th pregnancy. She stated "my momma told me that I am the breadwinner for the family." He asked her to explain. She said that she can make babies and babies get money for the family. The scam goes like this: The grandma calls the Department of Children and Family Services and states that the unemployed daughter is not capable of caring for these children. DCFS agrees and states that the child or children will need to go to foster care. The grandma then volunteers to be the foster parent, and thus receives a check for $1500 per child per month in Illinois. Total yearly income: $144,000 tax-free, not to mention free healthcare (Medicaid) plus a monthly "Link" card entitling her to free groceries, etc, and a voucher for 250 free cell phone minutes per month. This does not even include WIC and other welfare programs. Indeed, grandma was correct in that her fertile daughter is the "breadwinner" in the family.

I hope you share this story with your listeners so that they know how the ruling class spends their tax dollars.

Also, many thanks for the fine service you provide in educating people about the merits of conservative thinking.

Cheers,

Sebastian J. Ciancio, M.D.
Urologist, Danville Polyclinic, LTD.

It is one of those letters that intended to fire up our righteous indignation as the good tax paying responsible people of this country who are being ripped off by the lazy unproductive members of 

our society. And it works pretty effectively with many of us.

I believe it bears closer scrutiny. It is a rip off? Obviously. Does it cost tax payers money? 

Certainly. Should it be stopped? Absolutely.

Now, imagine you are that are that 20’s young woman who has been told and believes she is the breadwinner of the family. Or imagine you are a grandmother taking care of those babies. Or imagine you are one of those children being raised in such a household.

I’m not sure we can have much empathy for any of those folks because most of us haven’t been raised that way, and we have other opportunities and abilities and know to make a living. Even given the choice of being a party of this rip-off, I don’t think any of us would choose it.

Furthermore, Dr. Ciancio does have offer any solution to this rip-off, scam or problem in our society. All it seems he wants is to have Rush Limbaugh to continue to do what he does well; fan the flames on hatred and condemnation that has become so commonplace in our society.

Should we address this problem by eradicating all social programs that help the needy in our society? Are we to punish the unwed daughters without education and incomes to provide for their families? Should we put in jail grandmothers and mothers who perpetuate such

schemes because they’ve learned they work? Should we lower the number of government workers who have the responsibilities of finding these scans and work to stop them?

We used to call this type of argumentation, “throwing the baby out with the bath water.” Baby is dirty, you wash it but when you’re done washing  you throw it (the baby) out with the rest of the dirty water. Not effective.

Sesastionalizing these malfunctions of the government in antidotal cases such as these also lead us away from the big picture. The real scams that take place by banks the make irresponsible loans, then take out insurance betting that folk will not be able to make their payments and then reaped huge problems and the expense and heartbreak of many. Or the continuing tax incentives for large corporations based upon a now well known false presumption of the trickle down theory (supply side economics). It didn’t work when the Reagan administration began to promote it with huge tax breaks for the wealthy and it doesn’t work now. What it has done is drive up the national debt to remarkable proportions. Just read the numbers.

Senator McCain during his presidential run and loved and still loves to talk about “pork spending”, wasteful spending of the government. But when you put that spending in perspective, odious as it is, it is a pittance compared to the waste and support of the ultra wealthy in this country. To use another metaphor it’s like the person driving their Hummer to the grocery store and feeling righteous for using clipped coupons to buy their groceries.

I would also like for you to pay attention to the comments PK made on my blog spot entitled, What are we talking about if anything. The anger and hate mongering promoting by either of the radical right or left is toxic. It warps our thinking and drives us back to our reptilian minds of flight or fight. It is a time we need to use our higher brain functions to talk reasonably and openly to seek common ground for the common good.

This is the morality I learn from by religious beliefs and is the morality of most religious teachings despite the rantings of the radicals in those fields as well.

Think baby think! I believe God placed us in this world for the purpose of having and nurturing relationships. First we are to love God who created this world of abundance and told us to share it with each other and then to care for our brothers and sisters as he has cared for us by showing love for them. Remember those core ethics as we debate our national and international political issues.

May God truly bless America.

Something to think about

What are we talking about if anything?

I remember the family dinners at my grandparents when I was kid on various holidays. The women would gather in the kitchen and dining room and talk about women stuff; whatever that was. And the guys would gather in the living room and listen to whatever sports event was going on. And they would talk with great knowledge about the players their playing statistics, rules of the games etc. They were absolutely experts on these sports. The exception was my particular family who really didn’t know diddly squat about any of them. It’s like that in family and friend gatherings all over the country. I am absolutely amazed at the knowledge base of most men when it comes to sports knowledge. They read the sports pages religiously and follow the games on TV and radio; veritable encyclopedias of sports information; makes me feel rather stupid. I like watching most sports well enough but I would flunk any sports test around even in the sports I participate, like golf.

Then I got to thinking about the founding fathers of our country. When they all got together, what did they talk about? There weren’t any national sports and I doubt very few local sports. My guess is they talked about the events and interests of the day. For example what John Locke was writing about in term of politics in Europe and the various philosophies and things going on; the critiques of Alexander de Tocqueville on the democratic experience, the economic philosophies of Adam Smith. These discourses along with the mundane things of life we all talk about. And I imagine they talked about religion and the beliefs or lack of them. Most of the founding fathers were deists, not exactly the orthodox religious of the day. My point is they talked about thing of more important and weight in and for society. The lifestyles of those times just naturally led folk to more philosophical thought. And if you read the letters and other writings of those days, they had much better vocabularies and more sophisticated way of phrasing in comparison to now. Their thought processes were more through and thoughtful. Today you have to say everything in 140 on Twitter or 240 on Facebook; rendering and limiting thought processes significantly. Just ask the college professors of today’s era about students ability to write term paper of any length.

Newspaper are a dying media and they write of limited length as well. Magazines have the ability to develop ideas more thoroughly but for every issue of Times, Newsweek, Forbes and the like thousands of People and US and magazines of similar ilk are purchased. And as for the TV and radio media, they talk in such limited sound bites it’s hard to learn much of anything. Then there are the pretend new networks like Fox News and MNBC (refuse to listen either.) We are a post literate nation.

I do feel better about the internet where on my home page I have links to the NY Times, the Huffington Post, Supply Side Economics, Christian Century and various blogs, etc. that I can check and find articles of length and of substance. The trick is figured out what is crap and what is solid info.

The point I am making is that our democracy is suffering from a lack of significant discussion of the greater issues of the day and we have less and less ability to discuss material with civility, and with diligence. The founding fathers were dealing with how to run an emerging country with a brand new radical form of government, important stuff that by nature required a good deal of reflective thought and diligent research and dialogue.

The Book of Khalid: Old Book and Modern Times

For some period of time now I have been reading a book, The Book of Khalid, by Ameen Rihani. It is the 100^th year anniversary of its printing. What makes it unique is that it is the first Arab-American writing in English. He also was the mentor and contemporary of Khalil Gibran.

For me it has been a very slow read because of the richness of the language. It is rather like reading a complicated text in a King James version of the bible after you’re used to a contemporary translation. Also image what the world was like a 100 years ago in New and in the mid-east. The lead character in the story, which likely mirrors Rihani’s experience, appears to be a Christian Arab who uses Allah as God’s name. I rather like that.

The book was also free or nearly so for a kindle from Amazon, thus part of the appeal. It is not a read for the faint of heart but gives a unique look into the American and Lebanese societies of  the time.

Today I read an article in The Christian Century magazine by Paul-Gordon Chandler called Clashes and coalitions. It as about outbreaks of violence between Christians and Muslims in Cario. There was a bit of a Hatfield McCoy part of the story while violence began while their priest begged them to stop. But the violence occurred. The priest said the clash was not between Christians and Muslims (who were not armed) but by pro-Mubarak members of the State Security and members of Mubarak’s National Democratic Party; go figure. Many of both faiths have since joined together to try to stop such violence. I was particularly struck by a picture of a young girl celebrating the Day of National unity, March 11 one month after Muburak’s resignations. She had a cross and a crescent painted on her face.

How things change and stay the same.

The Seder and Singing

Last night, Maundy Thursday, was a wonderful blessed event. It was the first time that Doreen and I had a chance to worship at St John’s on Maundy Thursday since Rev Ferris, Greg, assumed pastoral leadership there. The worship was a wonderfully done Seder Meal. The Passover meal our Jewish brothers and sisters have practiced since escaping from the Egyptians lo those many years ago. It is a meal where each item eaten has a symbolic and historical meaning for those all seated at the table. Questions are asked, generally by the young (but they are hard to come by in modern churches with the average age of 51; but we’re all God’s kids anyway. In the asking of the questions and the responses given, our religious heritage is recalled and remembered and cherished. It was a wonderful spiritual fulfilling experience that I wish to thank Greg and all the others involved for creating it.

We need far more of such events in the exercise of modern Christianity where I feel we are losing the stories and therefore our knowledge and passion for our spiritual history. Some  modern, non-denominational churches, often accent the motivation and marketing  of Christianity, sometimes at the expense of our traditions and mature theology; popularity can easily replace faithful servanthood. As the heads continue to grey in our church, I celebrate bright young pastors like Greg who are bringing younger believers into the life and vitality of the church. Those like him, who keep the stories alive and faith fun and fulfilling.

In a recent issue of Christian Century Barbara Brown Taylor, a wonderful contemporary pastor and Christian education and thinker wrote an article called, And Jesus Sang. (Doreen and I had a chance to meet and learn from her at a seminar on Washington Island several years ago.) She raised an interesting point. Can you think of any point in scripture where it is recorded that Jesus sang or even laughed. (I think he told jokes but then I often see things in scripture that don’t seem apparent to others.) When I think of just how important music is in our worship of God, this observation just seemed awful, terrible.

But last night Greg, while reading the Seder meal words he told that on the night of the Passover (when the Seder is celebrated) after Jesus shared the meal with his friends they sang a hymn and headed out into the night. (This is recorded in both Matthew’s and Mark’s gospels.) The hymn? Who knows, perhaps the Hallel – Psalms 113 through 118. But he sang, and more of our rich tradition is known to us.

Precious in the sight of the Lord

Is the death of his faithful ones.

O Lord, I am your servant;

I am you servant, the child of your serving girl. (Psalm 116. 15-16)

I hope we continue to sing with Jesus.

Operation Monday: from stenosis to no no nanosis

The Monday after Easter, think that’s the 25^th, Doreen gets to spent a restful day in downtown LaCrosse, WI. Perhaps in the late morning or early afternoon (who knows) she will check into the chic and legendary Gunnderson House of Pital. There she will lulled to sleep with the latest in anesthesia for her tranquil time in the laboratory of a young Dr. Frankenstein (perhaps I have the name wrong.) There, the young doctor of much experience in these endeavors will conduct a Laminectomy; not quite as pleasing as Beethoven’s 5^th  Symphony, but hopefully with a longer lasting pleasurable quality. The reason for this sojourn is to correct a spinal stinosis.  Now before you all run off to your medical notebooks this means she has a bone spur pinching a nerve in one of her lower vertebrae. Dr. Kildare (that’s not right either) will go in and whittle away at the extra bone giving the said nerve more room to play about and hopefully Doreen as well. When she wakes up, we’ll go home. That  last line seems a bit anticlimactic doesn’t it.  

At any rate that will be our Monday outing. This was all planned before we left for Florida and could have even been done then, but we all like to wrap our minds around things first. It seems a pretty straight forward process that Dr. Livingstone (nope that’s not it either) has done millions and billions of these procedures. Yesterday when we were making final arrangements for her day out another doctor, I think his name was Igor, talking about ignoring it, starting over, taking another MRI and generally farting around ~ we don’t have the slightest idea what his role at the hospital is or was aside from being irksome. Perhaps he was from Canada where he explained they don’t move so fast, performing turtleeconomies. Dr. Strangelove (nope) then tossed him out of the room. Aside from that Monday will range from 51 to 58 degrees with a 40% change of rain.

The recovery I think goes quickly. She won’t be able to lift more than ten pounds for a few days, (when has she…Hugh!) By the end of the week I expect she’ll be pumping iron at out new gym, and by the end of the month doing handsprings up the hill behind our house. Phones and Skype will be at obeisance in the Drennan household for general palaver.

Dr. Bones…Dr. Rupelstiltskin…Dr. Welby…Dr. Scorsby…Dr. Devorchac…Dr. Scholl…Dr. Pepper…Dr. Ducky…Dr. … oh whatever, think it begins with W.

Christ Has Risen!...Who Cares?

When I was a campus pastor I taught a course in philosophy. One of my students, recently married, really enjoyed the class and knew I was a pastor as well. His wife had been raised in a fundamentalist church which she no longer held any affection for and he had been raised completely outside any religious tradition.

Intrigued by my religious background he came to visit me one day and asked if there were books I could recommend that could help him understand Christianity. I found that a bit of a challenge. Nevertheless, a list was compiled which he and his spouse read and more visits ensued. The upshot of all this was he and his wife joined a church and became active members in. God does move in mysterious ways.

This coming Sunday is Easter Sunday and all types of folk, who normally do not attend church on a regular basis will be in attendance and will hear all about the joy of the resurrection of Jesus. And then I think of my old student and how he might have attended such a service, before his study and may have wondered, “What the hell are they talking about?” I also wonder if regular members of the church also have the same feelings. I remember one congregant of mine, a very faithful attendee, active in the church, telling me he rarely understood a word I said. I was shocked to say the least because I thought I had always worked very hard to explain in plain clear language what I wish to get across.

I am also a lifelong student of the scriptures, of religions in general, philosophy, spirituality and the like. I also think I make a lot of assumptions about the knowledge base of those I talk to that my well be totally erroneous. My guess is that most of church members, let alone non church members, are basically biblically illiterate, and clueless about the majority of the stories of scripture. We also live in a post literate age, meaning folk get most of their information in a non written form. And our conversations are very brief, 140 on Twitter or 240 on Facebook. The idea of writing a page or pages of considered and related thought are hard for many to do. Ask college professors today about the quality of the writing of the students today.

And in the media we talk in sound bites, slogans, and in rather hateful combatative ways. The purpose of debate from my perspective is to discern truth; everyone brings their ideas to the table to be discussed so that a larger truth may emerge for the benefit of all. Debate today has degenerated into yelling matches where one supposedly seeks to win, but really just are flag wavers for folk who have similar view to their own. And we condemn to who have the audacity to change their views based upon new life experience as though they are now liars and flipfloppers.

And so folk will go to church on Easter or another Sunday and essentially feel about the risen Christ, “Who cares?” It won’t put any gas in my tank. Preaching in such conditions is very very difficult, much more difficult in comparison to the days of my youth we practically everybody had a wider religious based than they do not. Now folk may think we are speaking in a secret code of which they are not very interested in.

3 6 3

Remember the good ol days when banking was based on 3 6 3, borrow at three percent, lend at six and be on the golf course by three. (I stole this from transcript 435 Wall Street Rules along with most the rest of this content.)

Question: which bank made money did well during the recession? Goldman Sachs. Why, because the shafted their own clients and deluded congress. I hope you have read recent Security Exchange Committee (SEC) findings recently so you get this ~ loans to people who couldn’t possibly afford them and then bet again them paying the loans. Specifics: SEC suit settled last year was a cost of a half billion in mislead investors in a program labeled Abacus.  Then Goldman Sachs bets against the mortgage markets which gave them a $1.2 billion profit.

All of this continues to support my thesis that the ultra rich have bought the government and a long as the policies began during the Reagan administration (deregulation) continue the money gaps in this country will continue. Anyone recall when he deregulated banking at first the first thing that happened was a S and L (Savings and Loan)  crisis?

And the conservative mantra goes on, “We need less government,” As though they and not special interests are causing our economic woes. We ne need more government overseeing an out of control economy; if that boast the percentage of government workers from 8% to 10% of the working population and they were giving some clout in regulation, we, being the middle and lower classes, would benefit greatly. The fairy tales of the extreme right are just that, fairy tales, only without a moral, or perhaps with an immoral.

The book to read for a good overall picture of this is: The Big Short, by Michael Lewis.

Mac Grump

I know you apple lovers just think Macs are the greatest things since chilled beer. You think we PC users should be back in caves eating raw meat and whacking our spouses over the head and communicating with grunts (humm, that sounds a bit like twittering and facebook.) And, if you read this blog from time to time we got Doreen and brand new spanking Mac with many bells and whistles. I'm here to tell you the bells don't clang and the whistles need to be wetted. It has froze up three times. The modem has all the strength of melted piece of cheese. The key board is tiny and doesn't even have those bumps to tell you where the center keys are and forget a numeric pad (apparently Mac users dis-stain.   numbers). The mouse seems possessed.


Since Doreen does the bookkeeping for our family we bought Quicken for Macs, which effectively removed every helpful tool it possessed and made bringing in data from the PC a super human feat (I did it.) So, I thought perhaps Apple has their own personal finance software. They do (I Bank [why does all apple stuff have I in it?), and the ad bragged it was vastly superior to all that puny PC stuff as all Mac stuff is. I fortunately just got a trial version of for that was what it was, a trail.


Oh well, it's got a great screen, looks pretty, down loads pictures well but doesn't know what to do with them. People tell us we look like we're in Hi Def on Skype (debatable if that is a good thing, yeah wrinkles.).


So, I took an old laptop and Doreen can use if for our financial software unless we spend even more money and made the Mac operate like a PC then we'll likely get viruses again. Oh yeah they insisted on selling us virus software with our Mac.


Grump, grump. Tell me how happy we're going to be in the long run, please. Pretty please with sugar on it. Or one day next week will be smack a Mac day.

Parenting: Goodness as happiness

The title of this blog comes from a woman named Melissa Floer-Bixer(student at Princeton Theological Seminary) which I found on the Christian Century Blog [christiancentury.org/blogs]. She opens her blog with these words: “I spent last night curled around my toddler, bowl in hand, waiting for her to wake and vomit again. She had a miserable case of food poisoning that kept us both in and out of sleep until the morning.”

And then she began to talk about a seminary friend who had asked her to “sell” him on the idea of having children. She then compares her feelings to Richard Weissbourd and education scholar at Harvard.  He writes about the self-esteem movement in parenting and believes that this is now the top value parents want and should to pass on to their children; and there are consequences to this – children’s basic morality. If you cup is filled then you can help your neighbor. There is merit in the thought.

His research shows that most children think that “being happy” is their primary goal; more important than being a good person.  The problem is that self esteem can also lead to arrogance and harm. Whereas having high self esteem and wanting to be happy are good things, it is more important to be a good person.

I think he’s right. Concern about the common good, the idea of looking out for the needs of the entire human family seems to be lost in a good deal of today’s consciousness. And as a result we have all the bickering we here in politics and religion and wherever. That was our heritage that we are in danger of losing in the present time.

I often told my parishioners to quit reading and listening to so much news which is primarily negative and combative and read their scriptures more. Then I thought they would more likely be happy and more productive. Moral character, which includes sacrifice, is a necessary component of maturity. Our society is becoming more and more childish.

I would encourage you to look up the blog mentioned at the beginning of this article, good food for thought.

Weissbourd final quote in her article:

After all, adults in previous generations didn't think that morality came from self-esteem or happiness. They commonly believed in the idea, rooted in the Bible and much of Western literature, that morality came from suffering. Moral character came from making sacrifices, fulfilling difficult obligations.

What's with this white stuff?

When Doreen and I left Florida we absolutely packed the van with lots and lots, even oodles of nice warm weather and brought it home with us. Guess we'll have to take a trailer with us next year. Brrr! Or did someone just return from the arctic?

By the way, the theological definition of that white stuff is frozen angel tingle. You can always tell when theirs been a party in heaven.

Econ: Supply Side vs Demand-Side II

Paul here, I liked your earlier economics post so much I thought it deserved a follow-up. Economics is always a balance of supply and demand. Production and consumption. Capital and Labor. Ultimately the problem with both Demand-Side Economics and Supply-Side Economics is they rely too heavily on just half of the equation. As a result, if carried too far in policy, they each have failure points.

In a healthy fluid economy, production and consumption are in balance enough that the market demands of the consumers are steadily met with production, which in turn feeds compensation and buying power of the consumers as workers.

A) In an economy where forces or policies have become too weighted to the demand-side, consumption demand outweighs investment and production. You get too many dollars chasing too little production -- result: inflation of consumer goods.

B) In an economy where policies are too heavily weighted towards investment and capital, you get too many dollars in the investment world chasing too few productive investments -- result: asset bubbles. Nasdaq 5000. The dot-com bubble of 1999-2000. The real estate bubble of 2006-2007. The commodities bubble of 2008. You can also get corporations sitting on huge cash balances in a recession without a clear idea of how to deploy it into production, because the demand out in the consumer marketplace can'tit anymore.

In case (B), you basically have an economy that has become slow to respond to monetary policy because the wealth distribution has gotten too putzed up, making demand less elastic among the broader consumer base. The Fed cuts interest rates, but it has little effect as it amounts to 'pushing on a string' -- this is a sign that supply-side economics has been pushed to its ultimate limit. It marks the end of an economic 'long cycle'. To reset the clock, demand-side forces need to be enabled to somehow set the trend.

A confounding problem is that the traditional feedbacks are no longer reliable in a global market: the US isn't a closed system, so increasing productive capacity no longer translates into more wages in the consumer base. It may mean increasing wages in China, and unless those wage-earners spend their money on American goods, it does us no good. The next best thing that they do is they buy our bonds so we can borrow the money to maintain our standard of living with low taxes in lieu of rising wages. A dubious bargain, to be sure.

Wordplay

My friend Lloyd sent these to me, one of the few pieces that were funny and printable.


The Washington Post's Mensa Invitational once again invited readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a new definition.

Here are the winners:
 
1. Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period of time.

2 Ignoranus : A person who's both stupid and an asshole.
 
3. Intaxicaton : Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.
 
4. Reintarnation : Coming back to life as a hillbilly.
 
5. Bozone ( n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future

6. Foreploy : Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purpose of getting laid.
 
7. Giraffiti : Vandalism spray-painted very, very high
 
8. Sarchasm : The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
 
9. Inoculatte : To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.
 
10. Osteopornosis : A degenerate disease. (This one got extra credit.)
 
11. Karmageddon : It's like, when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's like, a serious bummer.
 
12. Decafalon (n): The grueling event of getting through the day consuming only things that are good for you.
 
13. Glibido : All talk and no action.
 
14. Dopeler Effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
 
15. Arachnoleptic Fit (n.): The frantic dance performed just after you've accidentally walked through a  spider web.
 
16. Beelzebug (n): Satan in the form of a mosquito, that gets into your bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.
 
17. Caterpallor ( n.): The color you turn after finding half a worm in the fruit you're eating.
 
The Washington Post has also published the winning submissions to its yearly contest, in which readers are asked to supply alternate meanings for common words.
 
And the winners are:
1. Coffee, n. The person upon whom one coughs.
 
2. Flabbergasted, adj. Appalled by discovering how much weight one has gained.
 
3. Abdicate, v. To give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.
 
4. Esplanade, v. To attempt an explanation while drunk.
 
5. Willy-nilly, adj. Impotent.
 
6. Negligent, adj. Absentmindedly answering the door when wearing only a nightgown.
 
7. Lymph, v. To walk with a lisp.
 
8. Gargoyle, n. Olive-flavored mouthwash.
 
9. Flatulence, n. Emergency vehicle that picks up someone who has been run over by a steamroller.
 
10. Balderdash, n. A rapidly receding hairline.  

11. Testicle, n. A humorous question on an exam.
 
12. Rectitude, n. The formal, dignified bearing adopted by proctologists.
 
13. Pokemon, n. A Rastafarian proctologist.

14. Oyster, n. A person who sprinkles his conversation with Yiddishisms.
 
15. Frisbeetarianism, n. The belief that, after death, the soul flies up onto the roof and gets stuck there.

16. Circumvent, n. An opening in the front of boxer shorts worn by Jewish men

The past 48 hours...

As many of you know, I have a new man in my life. His name is Ej. (Edward John) He lives in Nashville and he turned 40 yesterday (Wednesday). Some of his friends contacted me and wanted me to come to Nashville for his birthday even though we were going to his cousins wedding in Ann Arbor this tomorrow (Friday). So on Monday, I found a ticket to fly in and I had his buddy Keith pick me up from the airport. Rewind, I wasn't supposed to get into Nashville until 6:10 p.m. and the party started at 5- so they were going to put a blindfold on Ej and put him on stage at the place where the party was then bring me in. I went to the Milwaukee airport to see if I could get onto the 6:05 a.m. flight into Baltimore and then onto a standby flight into Nashville. They couldn't get me onto the plane. But as I am speaking with the Gate agent, she asked if I wanted to fly out of Midway-Chicago. I'd been there a million and one times and said sure, check it out. She then found me a direct flight from MDW to Nashville at 11:55. I was ready to go, so I headed straight to Chicago. Plus I wanted to avoid as much traffic as possible. I parked, walked in and got through security quite quickly. Gate #2 had a plane boarding and ironically it was to Nashville. I jetted up to the counter and asked them to get me on a standby list. They did and I sat and crossed my fingers. Thank goodness Keith was flexible to pick me up! The door was about to close and they called my name. I got the LAST seat on the 9:35 flight to Nashville. I landed about 10:50 and called Keith. Then the dilemma was that of how to surprise him. So Keith and I both knew that his "big" bosses were going to take him out for lunch. He also had invited Keith for his birthday lunch. So Keith told him that he had a present for Ej at the lunch. (at this point he knew I was going to be there) So we got a couple of Ej's employees involved. One came down by us in the lobby and took me up the freight elevator to the 11th floor. And Keith headed up the regular elevators. Keith headed into Ej's office and pulled him into one of the other guys offices. At this point, I was sneaking around the back side of the building. Universal is the entire 11th floor of a building right downtown Nashville. They put me into Brian Wright's office... this is just some guy that gives people record deals.... and plop me down on the couch. Brian then called down to where all the guys were and asked them to come and listen to a new song. At this point, Ej was starving as he usually eats lunch right at noon and it's almost 12:30 so he's a little bit feeling like - hey it's my birthday...let's go to LUNCH! So I hear them coming, Brian is videotaping this whole thing. Ej rounds the corner and they all yell, HAPPY BIRTHDAY... and he just stares at me. Seriously about 3 seconds of NOTHING... so I get up and he finally processes it and gives me a hug. He says he's never been surprised before. After that we went to lunch, then I went and took a nap and he went back to work. His party started at 5 and there were 200 people who came through the entire night. A friend of Ej's said, there is no other event they've ever seen where competitors all came together to celebrate anything, much less one person. (There were record label people there from every label in Nashville) Inquiring minds... If you are wondering how we met.... six years ago I was in Nashville with some friends and met him and a couple of his friends. It was at the same bar that the party was held at and we were at a booth at the front of the bar. Hank Williams Jr. walked in and sat down with us, he had just recorded "Are you ready for some football!" and had a little Jack Daniels in him.... and was singing to us. That was pretty incredible. Ej then moved to Dallas. And when I was traveling I had a LOT of clients there. So when I would visit we'd go to dinner or go out. I was actually at a dinner with Ashton Sheppard and all the Executives from Universal which was pretty awesome. (Ashton is a newer artist on the Country music scene) Then a few months before I decided I was moving home, about September of 2008 - during CMA week in Nashville, a client wanted me to come and see them. So I flew in and during CMA week all employees of Universal are in town. He took me to see The Randy Rogers Band (one of Sami's favorites) and Billy Currington and then we went out afterwards. Since then, Ej has moved back to Nashville. We've stayed in touch over the years and now have decided to become a couple. It's been great this far! All except the distance... but we went to San Antonio and Sami & Devan went to dinner with us and then we spent some time at their beautiful house. He's been to Milwaukee and met mom, Megan and Bob and the kids. He's also met the majority of my friends here. This weekend we are heading to Ann Arbor, Michigan and will be attending his cousins wedding. His parents will drive down (through Canada) from North Tonawanda, New York (North of Buffalo) So, in my next edition.... I am sure it will be about that. If I can get my hands on the video I will upload that too!

Globall Warming Information

For all those noodnincks (technical term) who think Global warming is just liberal propaganda. 10 myths about global warming, and what the science really says. By John Cook

The reasons for raising doubts about the human causes of global warming, explains Skeptical Science's John Cook, are often political rather than scientific. Cook hears from climate change skeptics that '"it's all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism.' ... However, what is causing global warming is a purely scientific question." Cook tries to remove the politics from the debate by concentrating on the science. Below is Cook's list of the most-used arguments of climate change skeptics, compared to what the science actually says. Myth 1:  "It's the sun." Fact: In the last 35 years of global warming, the energy from the sun has been decreasing while the earth’s temperature has been increasing. Myth 2: "The climate's changed before." Fact: The climate reacts to whatever forces it to change. Humans are now the dominant force causing change. Myth 3: “There is no scientific consensus on climate change."Fact: More than 95 percent of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to climate studies accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities. Myth 4:  "Global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning."Fact: Empirical measurements of the Earth’s heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Myth 5: "Climate models are unreliable." Fact: While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations. Myth 6: "The surface temperature record is unreliable, and affected byartificial heat sources." Fact: The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites. Confidence in climate science depends on the correlation of many sets of these data from many different sources in order to produce conclusive evidence of a global trend. Myth 7: "For the years 1998 to 2005, the Earth’s temperature hasn't increased." Fact: Globally, 2010 was the hottest year on record, tied with 2005. Surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. Due to a strong El Niño climate pattern, 1998 was an unusually hot year. Myth 8:  "An ice age was predicted in the 1970s." Fact: Ice age predictions during the 1970s were predominantly media-based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted global warming due to increasing CO2. Myth 9:  "Antarctica is gaining ice." Fact: Overall, Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate while Antarctic sea ice is growing -- despite a strongly warming southern ocean. Myth 10:  "A rise in carbon dioxide doesn’t precede a rise in temperatures, but lags behind it." Fact: In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: As ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. John Cook, author of "The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism," lives in Queensland, Australia, and maintains the Skeptical Science website (skepticalscience.com), from which this is adapted.

From the Handbook of Religion and Health

To quote: ‘In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with:

[1] Well-being, happiness and life satisfaction

[1] Hope and optimism

[1] Purpose and meaning in life

[1] Higher self-esteem

[1] Adaptation to bereavement

[1] Greater social support and less loneliness

[1] Lower rates of depression and faster

recovery from depression

[1] Lower rates of suicide and fewer positive

attitudes towards suicide

[1] Less anxiety

[1] Less psychosis and fewer psychotic

tendencies

[1] Lower rates of alcohol and drug use and

abuse

[1] Less delinquency and criminal activity

[1] Greater marital stability and satisfaction…

We concluded that, for the vast majority of

people, the apparent benefit of devout

religious belief and practice probably outweigh the risks’.

Macroeconomics: theories underlying political debate

Demand Side Macroeconomics vs. Supply Side Macroeconomics

I decided to take a new tack on the ongoing economic debates currently going on between the political parties (and always has.) You can also look at it as a mini macroeconomics primer.

First, there is a big difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics. We all are used to microeconomics as that is how we run our own lives. We get income, we spend, save, donate etc. that income according to our wishes. Macroeconomics is how countries, governments operate, and the two are definitively not the same, though many would like you to think so.

I’ll start first with the economic theory developed by John Maynard Keynes called Demand Side Economics. I just take it from Wikipedia:

 Keynesianism and Keynesian theory) is a macroeconomic theory based on the ideas of 20th century English economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and therefore advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.^[1] The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936; the interpretations of Keynes are contentious, and several schools of thought claim his legacy.

Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy—predominantly private sector, but with a large role of government and public sector—and served as the economic model during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973), though it lost some influence following the stagflation of the 1970s. The advent of the global financial crisis in 2007 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought. The former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, former President of the United States George W. Bush, President Barack Obama, and other world leaders have used Keynesian economics through government stimulus programs to attempt to assist the economic state of their countries

Next we have Supply Side Economics using the same source.

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as adjusting income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation. According to the theory, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economics are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation.^[1]

Current supply-side economics is primarily concerned with economic growth in general, and does not hold that decreasing taxes increases government revenue. It is true that many early proponents argued that the size of the economic growth would be significant enough that the increased government revenue from a faster growing economy would be sufficient to compensate completely for the short-term costs of a tax cut, and that tax cuts could, in fact, cause overall revenue to increase.^[2] However, in 2003, the Wall Street Journal declared the debate over the ability of supply-side economics to reduce taxes without cost has ended "with a whimper," after extensive modeling performed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) failed to support that possibility.^[3]

The term "supply-side economics" was thought, for some time, to have been coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975, but according to Robert D. Atkinson'sSupply-Side Follies ^[4] [p. 50], the term "supply side" ("supply-side fiscalists") was first used by Herbert Stein, a former economic adviser to President Nixon, in 1976, and only later that year was this term repeated by Jude Wanniski. Its use connotes the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer. Today, supply-side economics is viewed by some as a form of "trickle-down economics"

Current history. In the 70’s during Johnson’s administration the economy was a mess; remember the Vietnam war? The Great Society Programs lead to a good deal of inflation and the Mideast found power in their control of oil (the price of which tripled in 1978.) High priced caused production cut backs, high prices less to less spending; it was called stagflation.

The usual inflation solution was for government to raise interest rates, cut spending and slow down demand. To counter unemployment the government cuts interest rates, increasing demand. Problem was both were going on.

Here comes supply side economics. The government should cut taxes on the wealthy to jump start the economy, the wealthy then would take the new money and invest it, thus new factories creating lower priced good. Wow, inflation and unemployment fixed at the same time. Remember the old saying, if it sounds too good to be true it probably isn’t true.

Nevertheless, Ronald Reagan in 1980 promised to cut taxes, raise military spending and the government could spend and the budget would be balanced. George H.W. Bush called it voodoo economics and it was. In 1982, the first full year for this plan the economy shrank 2% and Reagan created the greatest deficit in history. The deficit was 208 billion by ’83 (in contrast to Carter’s $77 billion.) This continued with Bush approached $300 bill a year in deficits. The national debt in 1980 was a bit below $1 trillion and by the end of ’82 it was $4.35 trillion. There is supply side economics for you.

Clinton reversed supply side economics. He raised taxes on the wealthy and lowered them for the middle on lower classes; every Republican voted against this decision. The economy enjoyed the longest sustained expansion in history creating 22 million jobs (lowest unemployment in 30 years. Economic growth averaged 4% per year vs 2.8% during the Reagan/Bush era. That is Demand Side Economics or Keynesian economics.

Then came George W. Bush who of course returned to supply side economics, lowering taxes on the very rich (“his base” as he called them.) This amounted to $1.6 trillion in tax cuts 45% given to the top 1% of the country. GDP (gross domestic product) grew at 2.8% almost a full percentage behind the previous times. Jobs increased 1.3% vs 8.8%  in earlier upswings. It is a terrible weak recovery.

What the Bush administration did do extremely well was increase debt. Clinton had a $136 billion suplus which Bush turned into a $158 billion deficit in his first year. The national debt was at $5.8 trillion and moved to $12 Trillion in 2009.

Had enough? It seems perfectly clear to me that supply side macroeconomics benefits the ultra rich and the ultra rich only, for most of us it has lowered our standard of living. Keynesian macroeconomics, demand side economics is better for the whole country.

The current budget decreases lie mainly at the expense of the poor and the ultra wealthy will hardly feel a hiccup.

There are certainly better economists around than me, but I have a basic understanding of economics from the college days and a bit of teaching. The above material took relative little time to accumulate if you but do a bit of research.

It seems to me that Obama trying to return to Keynesian/Demand side economics and the Republicans wish to have supply side economics. Most of this gets lost in all the rhetoric of modern sound bites debates.

I hope it helps you a bit in understanding current debates on these important issues.