But Seriously

On Corporate Greed and Government

2012-11-05T20:50:13-06:00

I have more than a few compassionate and caring friends who are upset by injustices related to corporate greed. I think most of them would agree that the bigger the company, the bigger the potential for the company leadership to succumb to corporate greed and take advantage of their employees and even their customers. It is like the old adage, “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Small businesses are rarely the perpetrators of big scandals.

Some of these injustices are major. Movies have been made that chronicle serious illnesses like cancer and black lung that were caused directly or indirectly by corporate neglect. Watch a season of Law and Order and you will see multiple references to corporate greed that leads to horrible misery. Anyone who has lived in an apartment building knows someone who suffered because of a landlord’s neglect. Today, laws govern toy manufacturing to ensure that dangerous materials (like lead paint) don’t make it into the mouths of our children. The federal government has the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to oversee workplaces to make sure that employees are not exposed to hazardous materials while trying to do their jobs.

To this point, we should be able to agree that corporate greed is bad and some government regulation is good, but government is not, in and of itself, the solution to the problem. In a free market society, we consumers have the power to influence corporations with whom we disagree. We have the option to make purchases from other companies. We can shop around and effect change with our spending. If the gas station on the corner is charging too much, we can go to another gas station. If the hamburger stand is unsanitary, we can eat at another restaurant. This is one of the benefits of having laws against monopolies. Competition breeds success.

Some of my friends, however, do not think that the influence of the common man is powerful enough. They seem to think that government intervention is the only way to effect change—or at least the primary way. When they hear or read that I believe that the best government is a small government, and that personal liberty is inextricably tied to personal responsibility, they reply that I am naïve, foolish, and/or greedy. They accuse me of not caring for the poor. They vilify me and tell me I am selfish. They do not just disagree with me, they disagree vehemently.

I don’t understand their cognitive dissonance. If we can agree that larger corporations are ripe for larger scale corruption, why can’t we agree that the largest “corporation” in the world, the U.S. Federal Government, has the potential for the most corruption? The U.S. Federal Government is a monopoly. If we don’t like what it is doing, we can’t simply shop for another government. We are stuck until the next voting cycle. As we have seen over the past 4 years, a lot of money can be wasted. It takes a lot longer to earn 16 trillion dollars than it does to spend it. Is it so hard to imagine that when the U.S. Government gave stimulus money to Solyndra—a green jobs manufacturer that promptly went bankrupt, a large part of that money went toward lining the pockets of Solyndra owners rather than to offsetting production costs or funding research? While I love our troops, can anyone remember a year when the department of defense was not criticized for wasteful spending?

Having worked for the federal government and with state governments (in two different job capacities) I can tell you I have seen corruption, fraud, waste, and abuse first hand. The more layers of government that are involved, the more money you will waste because you not only have to pay the person who does the job, you have to pay at least two layers of supervisors to make sure the person doing the job is doing it correctly and not misusing government funds. This brings to mind the recent GSA scandal and the DOJ porn scandal, as well as wasteful earmarks for research projects like the stimulus funded research into pig stench and the infamous road to nowhere. This is not specific to an individual party or administration, it is a universal truth that applies to government at all levels.

When I say I want smaller government, I don’t want to settle for the current, bloated government to “seek out and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse.” When they do that, they actually waste more money hiring people to look for the people who are wasting money. We need to actually cut spending that does not fall under the constitutional authority of the federal government. Art is good, but we do not need a National Endowment for the Arts. Sesame Street is good, but we do not need a Public Broadcasting Station. Unbelievably, some of my friends get mad that I would suggest we cut these good-but-wasteful programs. Then they tell me I have no respect for senior citizens and wounded veterans. Perhaps we could fund compassionate programs better if we did not have such big bureaucracies overseeing them. A smaller, leaner government is a healthier, less-corrupt government.

(As an aside, I am 100% certain that Big Bird and his friends on Sesame Street—as well as other quality programs—will find a new home on one of the major networks within hours of a PBS shut down.)

The past 4 years have seen the greatest expansion of government in American history. Yes, I am intellectually honest enough to recognize that the previous 8 years come in second place. Both administrations were wrong. Today, 47% of Americans live on government assistance. While many of them have earned it through hard work and long life, many others must be encouraged to seek self-sufficiency while they are young enough and healthy enough to contribute to society.

Tomorrow is election day, and while we can’t be certain if Mitt Romney will expand or shrink the federal government (he promises to shrink it), we can be sure that President Obama will continue to grow the government at the same rate he has been growing it so far. It is not too late to fix our economic woes, but we can only do so if the government shrinks down and lets the private sector generate more income. Tomorrow, when you vote, will you vote for a smaller, more responsible government?

Adoption

2012-10-23T18:23:09-05:00

a·dopt [uh-dopt]
verb (used with object)
1. to choose or take as one's own; make one's own by selection or assent: to adopt a nickname.
2. to take and rear (the child of other parents) as one's own child, specifically by a formal legal act.
3. to take or receive into any kind of new relationship: to adopt a person as a protégé.

On Monday, this week, we completed our first adoption. My wife and I have always had a heart for orphans and we have always talked of having multiple children. While we have many friends who have adopted children (some from overseas, some through private adoption), we chose foster-to-adopt, which means we were taking a child out of the foster care system and into our home. The paths are different, the challenges and experiences are different, but regardless of the path one chooses, there are plenty of children who need homes.

Foster-to-adopt can be risky. You may take in a child who will eventually be reunified with his or her birth parents. Even so, you have to act on faith and give that child the same love that you would give one who is coming to live with you forever. I was amazed to find that the children we took in seemed to come from a different culture. Their understanding of parent involvement, discipline, personal hygiene, and manners was very different from the standards we had set in our home. Of course, children in foster care are coming from homes with challenges. Some of these "challenges" were just horrible. I remember when my son told me he hated cockroaches because, when he lived with his birth family, he used to wake up at night feeling their bites . . .

But with great risk, there is great reward. Aside from doing good for a child in need, and the blessings that our children bring to our family, our state has incentives for families who adopt wards of the state, for example, the adopted child will qualify for free tuition at any state university. Amazingly, I can give a child a college education--if I will just give him a home.

Adoption is not just a legal process, it is also a spiritual process. Just as Marriage is a living picture of Christ's relationship with the body of believers (the church is called his bride) so adoption is a crystal-clear living-picture of God's work of redemption. I didn't say, "perfect picture," I said, "living picture," I am by no means the perfect father. Nevertheless, come. See how life has changed for my new son and you will see how life can change for the believer who is adopted in Christ. The apostle Paul explains that we are adopted through Christ in many verses, but I like Ephesians 1:4-7 " For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves."

My secular friends may scoff and say that I am attributing spiritual meaning to natural things, but I submit that 1. Adoption is not natural or we would not have so many orphans, and 2. The one who is alive in the Spirit has "eyes to see" and "ears to hear" when the Spirit is at work. Our DFPS (Department of Family and Protective Services) caseworker told me that she has repeatedly seen an amazing change at the point of adoption. Even in toddlers too young to understand the process, something changes when the gavel comes down and the judge pronounces the adoption finalized. She told me of a 2 year old girl who (can I be kind?) had "behavioral issues." Even on the day of the adoption, the little girl was wiggling, wriggling, fussing, and screaming. The gavel came down, the girl settled down. Two weeks later, the caseworker got a call from the mom proudly exclaiming that her little girl was happy and at peace ever since the adoption.

If, as I suggest, adoption is a living picture of God's redeeming work on man, then surely anyone or anything who is against man's redemption would be against an adoption. I believe this is true. In foster-to-adopt, we must care for the child for 6 months before we can petition to adopt. In the past 6 months, I have seen repeated attacks on my family members--individually, corporately, at work and school. Our relationships have been strained. Jealousy has arisen between my boys. We have been tempted to delay the adoption for a host of reasons. All, I believe, because there is an entity who is my enemy and he does not like adoption. Once the adoption is consummated, the enemy can not pursue that fight. This isn't theory for me, I experienced it in my own family Monday. While the ride out of town Sunday afternoon had tension, the ride home Monday afternoon was settled. Even my oldest son told me that night that he had peace and was no longer distracted by a discontentment that seem to buzz constantly like noise in the back of his mind. It is just as we are told in James 4:7, "Submit to God, resist the devil and he will flee from you."

My wife and I have submitted to God. Against all worldly wisdom, we took in a child from a troubled home who was roughly the same age as our oldest, with almost the same name as our oldest son. My wife and I have made great effort to show him that a family is a place of love, stability, and protection for children. After months of doing life together, we have turned our family into his "forever family." It doesn't feel any different today, but it is a huge act for him and for the kingdom of God. By faith we chose to stand in the gap for him and change the direction of his life. The road ahead will still have rocks for each of us, but for him, it is so much smoother, it is like walking on pavement.

If you have a heart for orphans, there are a number of ways you can change their lives for the better. Adoption is the most dramatic option. If adoption won't work for you, maybe you would consider foster care. If that is still too much, consider becoming certified to provide respite for foster children--respite care is two weeks or less and it can be a big help to foster parents. You can also influence the life of a child by becoming a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) worker or volunteer. Donating your time to develop a relationship with a child in need will bless that child in ways that your money can not. It will also bless you in ways you can not imagine.

Another Way That CFL Bulbs are Hazardous

2012-08-07T12:24:18-05:00

New research shows an indoor source of lighting could be harmful to your skin: eco-friendly compact fluorescent light bulbs, HealthDay reported.

Scientists from the Garcia Center for Polymers at Engineered Interfaces at Stony Brook University in New York said chipping or cracking in the bulb’s phosphor surface coating allows for ultraviolet rays to escape.

Many bulbs “have cracks in the phosphor coating, probably due to the fact that the coating is brittle and has trouble making the tight bends required to make these bulbs compact," explained the study’s lead author Miriam Rafailovich. "As a result, we observed, by eye, defects in nearly all the bulbs that we studied."

via www.foxnews.com

This is, of course, in addition to the toxic mercury inside the bulbs. Personally, I think that incandescent bulbs are fine. If you don't want to use incandescent bulbs, consider LED lightbulbs.

Loving as God Loves

2012-05-22T18:21:00-05:00

A few days ago, I was thinking about the lofty ideal to love others as God loves us and to see others as God sees us. On our own, it is impossible--like fitting a camel through the eye of a needle. But with God, all things are possible. With God, we can love beyond the capacity of our fist-sized hearts. With God, we can see beyond the capacity of our grape-sized eyes.

My understanding of this concept deepened recently because, about a month ago, I became a foster parent to a little boy whom I plan to adopt. Fostering isn't easy. You cannot necessarily raise a foster child the way you are used to raising your own child because in foster care, you are a co-parent with the state and the state has opinions about how it wants its wards treated. Of course, if we have to abide by state standards for our foster son, we cannot apply a different standard to our first son. We have to re-learn how to parent. Oh, and the state and I agree that we need to respect the privacy of our son. No names will be given while he is in foster care with us and most illustrations will be twisted beyond recognition before they are published here or anywhere else.

Both of our boys are the same age. Of course we have all of the drama you would expect between brothers of a similar age, and we get to add different life experiences, different discipline standards, different hygiene standards, anger issues for a traumatized child (imagine being ripped away from your birth family for whatever reason--children in foster care are traumatized), special medical needs for our new son,a multitude of doctor appointments of every type, school discipline issues . . . well, if you can imagine all of that, you can begin to imagine how much our lives have changed. All of this is wrapped in spiritual warfare because, as I see it, this foster-to-adopt scenario is the ONE human action that most closely resembles what God does for us. That brings me back to my original point.

Sometimes my son (my new son) makes choices that baffle me. Here is an adaptation of an example of a recent incident that did not happen exactly this way:
Me--Why did you take all of your clothes out of your closet and off the hanger?
Him--I am going to pack them up and leave.
Me--I don't want you to leave. Why do you want to leave?
Him--I don't want to go to bed at my bedtime.
Me--Do you want me to call your case worker?
Him--No. I don't want to leave.
Me--Good. Now put your clothes back.
Him--I can't. There are too many.
Me--I bet you wish you never took them down. Put them back a little at a time.
Him--Can I get help?
Me--If you can convince anyone in the house to help you, you may certainly accept their help, but everyone else in the house has chores to do, so I suggest you get started on cleaning up your mess.

At times, he seems to think that it is his mission in life to create a mess for someone else to clean up. Personal responsibility was not emphasized earlier in his life--as it was in my childhood. What seems as clear as daylight to me is completely foreign to him.

My first thought is to recognize how alien his thinking is to my perspective. That thought occurs a lot with me and most of the time, it is not about bedtime or clothes. There are other behaviors we have to overcome and a couple of miracles (real miracles) we are praying about. Anyway, the moment my mind drifts into the arena of "What in the world are you thinking?" I start to realize that this must be how God sees me. Track with me:

I was raised "in the world," not in direct communion with God.
My standards of discipline, hygiene, right and wrong, etc are far different from God's.
I was a spiritual orphan in need of a Heavenly Father.
He called me out of the darkness, and into His marvelous light.
I have to adapt to an eternal life of security, love, and grace that I did not know before him.
I have issues related to my time growing up in the world that I need Him to help me overcome.

Jars of Clay made a song called, "Light Gives Heat" and at one point the lyrics read,

Will you teach us how to love;
To see the things you see;
Walk the road you walk;
Feel the pain that you feel?
At your feet I kneel.
I want to see you shine;
See your light not mine;
'Cause light gives heat.

In raising my new son, I begin to glimpse the way God sees us when we enter His family. When I ask God, "Why does he . . ." and am answered with, "Why do you?" I learned a few years ago that the answer to the question "Why?" is seldom satisfying. It is more often empty, disappointing, and discouraging. In this, I am reminded not to focus as much on what my son is doing or how to control his behavior. Rather, like my Heavenly father, I am to be faithful in giving love and grace; and patiently focus on touching my childs heart. I have determined that if I can reach his heart, I can change his behaviors but if I focus on changing his behaviors, I will only succeed superficially and I may never reach his heart.

We have only been fostering for just more than a month, but we are already seeing signs of trust. I am excited to what God will do in the coming months and years.

Bonobos

2012-03-19T18:44:00-05:00

I bought my first pair of Bonobos pants today. You may have heard of them, they are men's pants cut to fit more comfortably and look more flattering. More comfortable and better looking--we shall see.

Unlike the iPad, Bonobos are made in America by Americans. By all of the accounts I have read, they cost more than department store khakis, but they are well worth it. Plus, you can enjoy the comfort knowing they were not sewn in a sweatshop by orphans or widows.

They should arrive on Thursday and I should be able to give a review on Friday (certainly by Monday). In the meantime, if you are interested in ordering, use this link to save $25.00 off any purchase of $75.00 or more. If you are having trouble with the link, copy this into your browser address bar:

http://curebit.com/x/zMCR3

Update 03/23/12: I really like these pants. I bought bootleggers--khaki pants with a wide boot-cut leg. I like the fit, the feel, and the fabric. Bonobos claim to eliminate the saggy diaper look you find with most men's slacks, and they keep their promise. I like the attention to little details like colored fabric for the pockets, and a quote sewn onto the inside of one back pocket. I can't wait to wash them and wear them again.

Mercury In Your Makeup Can Make You Sick

2012-03-15T18:50:00-05:00

Mercury has been found in some skin creams, antiseptic soaps and lotions that are marketed as skin lighteners and anti-aging treatments, according to a report released by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
. . . Some symptoms of mercury poisoning include tremors, irritability, sudden shyness and memory problems, changes in vision or hearing, depression, and numbness and tingling in hands, feet or around mouth.

The FDA warns consumer to stop use that if words like “mercurous chloride,” “calomel,” “mercuric,” “mercurio,” or “mercury,” appear in the product labeling, and to immediately discard them in a plastic bad or leak proof container. The agency also warned that products labeled in languages other than English should also not be used.

via www.medicaldaily.com

I saw this article while browsing Quipster's blog recently. Mercury poisoning is a serious health issue. Ladies, check your make-up.

Do you know what else has mercury in it? Fluorescent light bulbs. If you use CFL bulbs in your house, be very careful when you dispose of them. If one breaks in your house, follow these clean-up procedures.

A Fluke of a Debate

2012-03-09T15:11:49-06:00

Fluke:
noun
1. an accidental advantage; stroke of good luck: He got the job by a fluke.
2. an accident or chance happening.
3. an accidentally successful stroke, as in billiards.
Origin:
1855–60; of obscure origin; compare dial. fluke a guess

How did Sandra Fluke become the lead story on the news? This woman and her issues are not worthy of reoccuring national headlines. She is eclipsing tragic tornados in Tennesse. She is gathering more news coverage than unrest in the Middle East. She has overtaken the Republican Primaries.

But her ascension to the national stage is no fluke. She is an activist who was carefully picked to interrupt the national dialogue about the Governments active overreach into personal and religious liberty. According to the Family Research Council:

Ever since her testimony about the hardships of buying $9 birth control, this Georgetown law student has become the contraception mandate's standard bearer. After some unfortunate comments from Rush Limbaugh, the debate has shifted away from religious liberty to Ms. Fluke's hurt feelings. It's been convenient controversy for the White House, which may have been at its most vulnerable point in the last three years when it decided that the pursuit of sex is more important than the protection of conscience rights. Once backed into a corner by members from both parties, the Left finally found a victim to rally around--and the media has been all too happy to oblige.

But these distractions, as helpful as they may have been to the President's cause, won't last forever. At its core, this shows the administration's pattern of trampling on religious freedom in its pursuit of a "fundamentally changed" America. What Sandra Fluke has done, in part, is draw attention back to the dangers of ObamaCare, which threatens not only our physical health but our moral well-being. Essentially, the President is demanding that religious people sacrifice their beliefs to benefit someone else's libido. Through this mandate, he suggests that unlimited sexual license is more important than faith.

via www.frc.org

According to Bill O'Reilly, Fluke is a well played political pawn for the Democrats:

So, this whole deal comes back to the White House, at least indirectly. So, let's run down what we know. Sandra Fluke is a former head of the group "Georgetown University Law Students for Reproductive Justice." On February 9th, a group called "The Feminist Majority Foundation" arranged for Sandra to appear at press conference criticizing the Catholic bishops for objecting to President Obama's contraception mandate.

After that, Congressman Elijah Cummings, the former Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, invited Sandra to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee. But she was turned down by the chair, Congressman Darrell Issa, because she had no expertise in the church/state subject matter.

Nevertheless, Ms. Fluke went to the hearing and afterward complained to ABC News that she had been denied. A week later, Nancy Pelosi staged a mock hearing starring Sandra. After which Rush Limbaugh made derogatory comments elevating her to left-wing martyrdom.

via www.foxnews.com

America is being played by the administration and the media. We are being led like sheep to be sheared of our religious and individual liberties. Sandra Fluke is not a crusader for women's rights, she is crusading to have someone else, anyone else, fund her sex habits no matter what the cost to our first amendment freedom of religion.

For more perspective, check out this article by Cathy Ruse of the Family Research Council.

Dad Arrested, Strip-Searched After Daughter Draws a Picture of a Gun in School

2012-03-06T18:35:00-06:00

A Canadian father was arrested and strip-searched Wednesday after his 4-year-old daughter drew a picture of a gun in her kindergarten class.

Ontario dad Jesse Sansone told the Toronto Sun his little girl’s drawing was supposed to be him, getting monsters and bad guys. Her teacher apparently thought differently, and the school contacted child protective services. When Sansone arrived to pick his daughter up, three police officers were waiting to take him into custody.

“I’m picking up my kids and then, next thing you know, I’m locked up,” he told the Waterloo Region Record. “I was in shock. This is completely insane.”

Police questioned Sansone’s daughter and his other children, who gave a “detailed description” of a firearm supposedly located in the house and easily accessible to them, Inspector Kevin Thaler of the Waterloo Regional Police said, according to the Calgary Herald.

“The kids were scared,” Thaler. “It is a 4-year-old that we’re taking the information from, but the fact is that this disclosure was very descriptive and very alarming to the officers investigating this.”

He said the arrest was made “because it was the end of the school day” and officers felt they needed to “secure and locate the firearm.”

via www.theblaze.com

When I speak with concern about government overreach, this is the kind of thing I am talking about.

Not only did the school and police department overreact, they are so far gone in their nanny-state mentality that they can not see where they did wrong. No apologies are offered to Mr. Sansone for being publicly humiliated and detained over a 4 year old's drawing.

The school and police officials had no reason to believe Mr. Sansone was a danger to his family or others; nevertheless, they treated him like a menace to society.

If it weren't for the second amendment to the constitution, this would be happening in America.

Is Milk Really Healthy for You? - Men's Health

2012-03-01T19:07:00-06:00

"Milk is a deadly poison," according to the Dairy Education Board. In fact, if you peruse this special interest group's Web site, notmilk.com, you'll find dozens of articles about the purported evils of this popular beverage. One claim, for example, is that milk from cows contains cancer-causing hormones and dairy industry dollars have kept that fact bottled up. All of which may leave you second-guessing your next sip.

However, as a nutritionist, I've found that most men thrive on milk, whether their goal is to lose fat or build muscle. So to be sure it's safe, I've investigated all the anti-milk claims, sifting through the research while also turning a critical eye to pro-milk propaganda. After all, the only agenda I have is my clients' health. The result: all your milk questions, answered.

via www.menshealth.com

Yesterday it was bad, today it is not bad, tomorrow it will be bad again . . . isn't it funny how science is constantly changing its mind? Nevertheless, I still like to drink milk.

Was the Early Church Communist?

2012-02-24T12:27:22-06:00

When I graduated from college in 1989, it looked like socialism was dead. The Soviet Union-the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics-was in its death throes. In comparison, the American economy was booming, and countries around the world were beginning to liberalize their markets. After a sophomoric flirtation with socialism, I had concluded that capitalism was probably the most workable economic model. I had not resolved my lingering suspicions, however, that capitalism was immoral and that socialism was still the Christian ideal.
                Part of that impression came from biblical passages that seem to suggest as much: "Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common....There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need" (Acts 4:32-35 ESV).
                Many who have read this passage have wondered if the early church was communist and the Christian ideal is communism. After all, this was the first church in Jerusalem. They were "filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly" (Acts 4:31 NIV). If they didn't get it right, who did?
                On the surface, this looks like communism, but that's a misreading. The details and context here are everything.
                First of all, modern communism is based on Marx's theory of class warfare, in which the workers revolt against the capitalists-the owners of the means of production-and forcibly take control of private property. After a while, Marx predicted, the socialist state would wither away and you'd get a communist utopia in which everyone lived in peace, harmony, and preternatural freedom. There's none of this class warfare stuff in the early church in Jerusalem, nor is private property treated as immoral. These Christians are selling their possessions and sharing freely and spontaneously.
                Second, the state is nowhere in sight. No Roman centurions are showing up with soldiers. No government is confiscating property and collectivizing industry. No one is being coerced. The church in Jerusalem was just that-the church, not the state. The church doesn't act like the modern communist state. As Ron Sider notes, "Sharing was voluntary, not compulsory."¹ In fact, sharing by definition is voluntary.