Healthcare is a topic I've written about before, but since it's hot again, I'll see if I can add a bit to my previous thoughts on the subject.
Our favorite fat communist filmmaker, Michael Moore, released a film called "Sicko". I don't need to see it to know it's full of stories about poor people who can't get treated for their maladies, corrupt politicians supporting evil and greedy drug and insurance companies.
He wouldn't even need to make stuff up like he did in Farenheit 911 to be able to convince anybody that the system is broken. I already concede that point - it is broken. But where he runs off the rails is by suggesting that the only solution is to have the government take over.
Let's start at the beginning.
Sometimes we wish for the good old days, where the country doctor with his little black bag made house calls. He treated broken bones and illnesses, administered medication, then was paid in whatever the patients had to offer. If not a few dollars, he might get a couple of chickens.
Today every malady requires a specialist. The General Practitioner is almost a thing of the past. All manner of high-tech devices have been invented that can pinpoint your problem without the need to cut. Thousands of pharmaceuticals have been invented to treat all manner of problems.
All that was made possible by health insurance. Back in the days of 80 percent marginal income tax rates, companies needed to get creative in giving compensation packages to their employees to keep their taxable incomes under that outrageous 80% threshold. So one of the things they came up with was health insurance.
I've been around long enough to have seen the evolution of healthcare firsthand. When I first entered the workforce, my employers provided only "Major Medical" insurance. That meant that if you had to go into the hospital for an expensive surgical procedure, the insurance would pay for it. Otherwise, you paid everything else out of your pocket.
Early in my career I was dirt poor. But I could afford to pay for both the doctor visit and the prescription when I got sick. If I needed a higher level of care and couldn't afford to pay on the spot, the doctor's office would simply set me up on a payment program. The bill would be paid within a few months without a major strain on my small budget.
Then one day my employer came through with this new thing called an HMO. We loved it, because it was almost free. Anything we needed, we could just go to the doctor's office and get it. Our share was $5. When our first child was born, I happily pulled a five-dollar bill out of my wallet to pay my share of the bill.
What happened? Well, when something is free (or almost free), people will use it a lot more. Kid got a sniffle? Take her to the doctor. Pull a muscle playing basketball? Go see the doctor. When it's practically free, why not?
Everybody came to rely on that health insurance, and now most consider it some sort of fundamental human right.
Today, the insurance companies have become the gatekeepers to the healthcare system. They created bureaucracies designed to look over the shoulder of your doctor and decide whether or not they will pay for his recommended treatments. They all have their own unique filing and reporting systems that must be used by the providers in order to get paid. And they are for-profit business entities.
Bigger corporations are "self-insured", which basically means they hire a company called a TPA (Third-Party Administrator) to manage their health plans. As the costs have risen higher and higher, companies are now seeking to cut their healthcare expenses. They cut their expenses by raising the amount they charge their employees for coverage, cutting out selected diseases or accidents they will cover, and by firing or avoiding hiring of anyone that might be a higher risk for health problems.
I'm not sure how smokers or overweight people can find a job these days, because they are openly discriminated against by companies everywhere because they just might end up costing the company one day if they get cancer or heart disease or diabetes or stroke.
So these days we are already solidly entrenched in a government-run insurance system. Most everyone over 65 is under Medicare, and now is also covered under a very poorly conceived prescription drug program run by the Feds. Considered honestly, the elderly need more healthcare than the rest of the population, so it could be fairly stated that the taxes of all working Americans go to pay medical expenses for our retirees.
The other socialized medicine in place is MedicAid, or variations on that program administered by every state. These programs use our tax money to pay for medical treatment for the poor and indigent.
For the rest of us, we can get great health coverage if we work for the right company that provides great health benefits for an affordable price. But if you're out of work, work for a small business that doesn't offer health benefits, or are a small business owner yourself, you are very likely to be uninsured.
Yes there are millions of uninsured Americans, either because they can't afford to buy their own insurance, can't buy insurance even if they can afford it, or simply decided to save the high premiums and take their chances.
Just about everyone will need some sort of surgery or other expensive medical treatments sometime during their lifetime. Some small business owners choose to forego the $1,000 monthly premium for health insurance, knowing that if they have an accident or illness while uninsured, they will be bankrupt. They figure that the odds are higher that their business will fail and they'll be bankrupt anyway, so they take their chances on being uninsured until the business begins to be successful.
Someone who quits their job or gets laid off must be offered COBRA coverage by their employer. Family coverage premiums under COBRA range between $800 and $1200 per month. The average person simply doesn't have that kind of money, especially one who was terminated and hasn't yet found a new job.
I despise the fact that I've been paying outrageous monthly premiums for health insurance that hasn't actually paid for anything yet. Between my high deductible and the restrictions in the plan, it will never pay any of my family's medical bills unless or until a serious injury or illness were to occur.
But I still don't want some government bureaucrat deciding for me what doctor I can see, what drugs I'm allowed, or when I can get a needed surgery. That's what happens when the government runs the system.
If affordable insurance for major medical was available for everyone, nobody would have to go bankrupt if they have an auto accident or get cancer.
Then, if routine medical care and prescription drugs were taken completely out of the insurance system, I think almost everyone would be able to afford their routine doctor visits and prescriptions. Physicians I think would welcome office vist fees of $30 or $40 if they never had to file an insurance claim and wait to get paid. Drug companies would be forced to bring down their prices as well in return for getting cash for every prescription filled. No more bureaucracies, no more restrictions on physician treatment decisions.
It won't happen. Neither will government-controlled socialized medicine. Because the industry likes the status quo and has the money to make sure congress likes it too.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Victory or Defeat
The headline was Senate hands Bush major defeat on Immigration.
I hear news reports on the radio with essentially the same headline.
I don't need to get into a discussion of the shenanigans in the Senate over this bad piece of legislation, but instead just find it rather interesting that its defeat was immediately laid at Bush's feet.
Sure, Bush supports and has done plenty of arm-twisting of the Republican senators to pass it, but it's hardly his bill. It's Kennedy's and McCain's. It's the only thing in recent memory that the Dems were able to agree with Bush about. The problem is that nobody else in the country agrees with either of them.
The characterization in the headlines of this as a major defeat for Bush is so misleading it's laughable. Sensational maybe, but dishonest.
It was killed because a number of senators in both parties received such overwhelmingly negative feedback from their constituents on this poorly conceived and politically motivated legislation that they voted against ending debate.
Those clueless senators, including both of Indiana's out-of-touch guys, Lugar and Bayh, deluded themselves into thinking that they could pass this turkey and their grassroots back home would quickly forget. I don't think so - everybody in Indiana has concluded that Lugar is old, lazy, and out of touch with his home state and needs to be retired. The problem is that he's got another 5 years before anybody has an opportunity to unseat him. That's 5 years he can either use to resurrect his image or bury himself.
Bayh's probably safer, because the fiercely partisan Dems will support him forever because he's attractive and almost always votes with his party leadership. So somebody would have a huge hill to climb to raise enough money to effectively take him on.
That's why I don't give much thought to the presidential race. The fact is that the candidates will be selected by those with enough money to buy them in the early primaries. By the time Indiana has our primary next summer, both parties will have already chosen their presidential candidate. The Dem candidate will be chosen by Soros, Trial Lawyers, and Labor Unions. The GOP candidate will be chosen by Big Business, Insurance, and Drug companies.
Because they provide the money to their favorite candidate. Soros seems to have already picked Hillary, so unless she screws up big time in the next 9 months, she's their candidate. The GOP money seems to like Giuliani, unless Romney can woo the big money or Fred Thompson gets them excited.
The winner will be elected by an ignorant population based on how they look and how they are portrayed by the media. Not on their position on any issues.
Chances of getting somebody who actually works for the rest of us? Approaching zero.
Update: To be fair, I jumped the gun on Bayh. He's voted with his party leadership so regularly I just assumed he would do so on this one. But he didn't - he actually helped sink the cloture on the Immigration bill. Gotta give him credit for being smarter than Indiana's senior senator.
I hear news reports on the radio with essentially the same headline.
I don't need to get into a discussion of the shenanigans in the Senate over this bad piece of legislation, but instead just find it rather interesting that its defeat was immediately laid at Bush's feet.
Sure, Bush supports and has done plenty of arm-twisting of the Republican senators to pass it, but it's hardly his bill. It's Kennedy's and McCain's. It's the only thing in recent memory that the Dems were able to agree with Bush about. The problem is that nobody else in the country agrees with either of them.
The characterization in the headlines of this as a major defeat for Bush is so misleading it's laughable. Sensational maybe, but dishonest.
It was killed because a number of senators in both parties received such overwhelmingly negative feedback from their constituents on this poorly conceived and politically motivated legislation that they voted against ending debate.
Those clueless senators, including both of Indiana's out-of-touch guys, Lugar and Bayh, deluded themselves into thinking that they could pass this turkey and their grassroots back home would quickly forget. I don't think so - everybody in Indiana has concluded that Lugar is old, lazy, and out of touch with his home state and needs to be retired. The problem is that he's got another 5 years before anybody has an opportunity to unseat him. That's 5 years he can either use to resurrect his image or bury himself.
Bayh's probably safer, because the fiercely partisan Dems will support him forever because he's attractive and almost always votes with his party leadership. So somebody would have a huge hill to climb to raise enough money to effectively take him on.
That's why I don't give much thought to the presidential race. The fact is that the candidates will be selected by those with enough money to buy them in the early primaries. By the time Indiana has our primary next summer, both parties will have already chosen their presidential candidate. The Dem candidate will be chosen by Soros, Trial Lawyers, and Labor Unions. The GOP candidate will be chosen by Big Business, Insurance, and Drug companies.
Because they provide the money to their favorite candidate. Soros seems to have already picked Hillary, so unless she screws up big time in the next 9 months, she's their candidate. The GOP money seems to like Giuliani, unless Romney can woo the big money or Fred Thompson gets them excited.
The winner will be elected by an ignorant population based on how they look and how they are portrayed by the media. Not on their position on any issues.
Chances of getting somebody who actually works for the rest of us? Approaching zero.
Update: To be fair, I jumped the gun on Bayh. He's voted with his party leadership so regularly I just assumed he would do so on this one. But he didn't - he actually helped sink the cloture on the Immigration bill. Gotta give him credit for being smarter than Indiana's senior senator.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Tragic Sign of Times
It was disturbing to see the story today of the 15 year old girl who stabbed her Mother's boyfriend to death over an argument about what to watch on television.
The story so far is that the mother and her boyfriend returned home together, where her twin 15-year-old daughters were watching television. The boyfriend wanted to switch to a news program, which triggered an argument that ended with one of the sisters stabbing him to death. When the police arrived and took the young murderess into custody, the officer was physically attacked by her twin sister. So both girls were arrested.
Sure, the first gut reaction would be, "what a brat". Killing someone over an argument about what to watch on television would seem to be the ultimate in spoiled brat behavior.
Probably so. But even with what little facts are available at this point in the story, I'm prepared to suggest that at least equal guilt should be assessed against the girls' mother.
It stretches credibility that even a self-centered and narcissistic teenager would go so far as murder unless there's a lot more than a simple television programming argument. Unless the girl has a serious mental illness, the only reasonable explanation for the extreme response of murder is abuse.
There would have been no argument over the television between the girls and their mother's boyfriend unless he felt some sort of entitlement. I'm guessing he's not just bringing the mother back from a date, but lives in the house. Otherwise, he would have no standing to demand that the channel be changed to what he wanted to watch.
Maybe the boyfriend has been abusive with the girls since he moved in. Perhaps he began beating one of the sisters when she refused to pass him the TV remote and the other sister stabbed him to stop him. Maybe he's been abusing them physically and/or sexually for months or years.
The young murderess must be held responsible for her actions, unless evidence does come out in the case that the boyfriend was stabbed in an act of self-defense. But I think the mother deserves at least equal punishment, whether for allowing her daughters to become such stupendous brats or for failing to protect them from this or maybe a string of abusive boyfriends. Either way, Mom can be presumed guilty of neglect based simply on the information available already.
The saddest part is that live-in boyfriends who may or may not abuse the children is an all-to-common occurrence in today's America. And people like me are vilified for "judging" their lifestyles.
The story so far is that the mother and her boyfriend returned home together, where her twin 15-year-old daughters were watching television. The boyfriend wanted to switch to a news program, which triggered an argument that ended with one of the sisters stabbing him to death. When the police arrived and took the young murderess into custody, the officer was physically attacked by her twin sister. So both girls were arrested.
Sure, the first gut reaction would be, "what a brat". Killing someone over an argument about what to watch on television would seem to be the ultimate in spoiled brat behavior.
Probably so. But even with what little facts are available at this point in the story, I'm prepared to suggest that at least equal guilt should be assessed against the girls' mother.
It stretches credibility that even a self-centered and narcissistic teenager would go so far as murder unless there's a lot more than a simple television programming argument. Unless the girl has a serious mental illness, the only reasonable explanation for the extreme response of murder is abuse.
There would have been no argument over the television between the girls and their mother's boyfriend unless he felt some sort of entitlement. I'm guessing he's not just bringing the mother back from a date, but lives in the house. Otherwise, he would have no standing to demand that the channel be changed to what he wanted to watch.
Maybe the boyfriend has been abusive with the girls since he moved in. Perhaps he began beating one of the sisters when she refused to pass him the TV remote and the other sister stabbed him to stop him. Maybe he's been abusing them physically and/or sexually for months or years.
The young murderess must be held responsible for her actions, unless evidence does come out in the case that the boyfriend was stabbed in an act of self-defense. But I think the mother deserves at least equal punishment, whether for allowing her daughters to become such stupendous brats or for failing to protect them from this or maybe a string of abusive boyfriends. Either way, Mom can be presumed guilty of neglect based simply on the information available already.
The saddest part is that live-in boyfriends who may or may not abuse the children is an all-to-common occurrence in today's America. And people like me are vilified for "judging" their lifestyles.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Radical
Radical is hardly a word I'd use to describe myself, but apparently those in power would use that precise label.
Apparently these things make me a radical.
I think our borders and immigration laws should be enforced. (gasp!)
I believe in freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
I believe that most abortion procedures are barbaric infanticide and are primarily used to help women avoid the inconvenience of raising (or offering for adoption) a child.
I think that if health insurance was eliminated for all but major medical surgery and hospitalization, other doctor and medication fees would become affordable. I also think that the best way to really wreck the healthcare system is to let the government run it.
I think that official recognition of gay marriage is designed to criminalize religious organizations that refuse to stop discriminating against homosexuals.
I think that neither Republicans nor Democrats represent the best interests of the American people who supposedly elected them. Instead, Republicans represent big business and Democrats represent the tyranny of repressive socialism.
I think the energy legislation just passed does nothing to solve the energy or environmental problems of the country. Instead, it enriches biofuel producers, will make trucks and suv's so scarce that the used market for such vehicles will explode, and benefits nobody but congresspersons and their best patrons.
I think the only way to win the war in Iraq, or for that matter, the war on Terror, is to turn the military loose. Ruthless and effective projection of power is the only way to defeat terrorism.
See what I mean? Radical.
I'm right. But right is radical these days.
Apparently these things make me a radical.
I think our borders and immigration laws should be enforced. (gasp!)
I believe in freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
I believe that most abortion procedures are barbaric infanticide and are primarily used to help women avoid the inconvenience of raising (or offering for adoption) a child.
I think that if health insurance was eliminated for all but major medical surgery and hospitalization, other doctor and medication fees would become affordable. I also think that the best way to really wreck the healthcare system is to let the government run it.
I think that official recognition of gay marriage is designed to criminalize religious organizations that refuse to stop discriminating against homosexuals.
I think that neither Republicans nor Democrats represent the best interests of the American people who supposedly elected them. Instead, Republicans represent big business and Democrats represent the tyranny of repressive socialism.
I think the energy legislation just passed does nothing to solve the energy or environmental problems of the country. Instead, it enriches biofuel producers, will make trucks and suv's so scarce that the used market for such vehicles will explode, and benefits nobody but congresspersons and their best patrons.
I think the only way to win the war in Iraq, or for that matter, the war on Terror, is to turn the military loose. Ruthless and effective projection of power is the only way to defeat terrorism.
See what I mean? Radical.
I'm right. But right is radical these days.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
They Merely Reflect Us
The government is corrupt. Lawmakers are in it for themselves, not their consituents and not their country. Anybody paying the slightest attention over the last few years is either angry enough that they want to clean out the whole lot in Washington and start over, or have just given up.
The illegal immigration issue is a great case in point. A perfect storm has put both political parties on the wrong side of this issue for different reasons. Dems love illegals and want to make them citizens as quickly as possible because they mostly vote for Dems. Republicans are beholden to corporate donors who also love illegals because they can hire them at $5 an hour. So they team up on a bill that gives immediate legal status to everybody here illegally, then makes a token effort at beefing up border patrols.
The last time they passed a bill like this, it gave legal status to a huge number of illegals and promised to shore up border and employer enforcement. Then they conveniently forgot about the enforcement part. They passed a bill just over a year ago to build a 700-mile border fence. It's not built, and there seems to be no intention to build it.
A huge majority of people, well over 70% of the citizenry, is outraged. But Congress and the President don't care. They think they can put one over on all of us and get away with it. Maybe they can - we'll soon find out.
Look at any other issue. Healthcare, Social Security, Iraq and the broader Terror War, Trade. On every single issue, you find both political parties wanting to do what's best for those who stuff their campaign chests rather than what makes sense for the country as a whole.
Suppose we elected a congressman from our area who is honest and smart and wants to do the right thing for all of us. He goes to Washington and his first reality check happens when a bill comes up that's being pushed by his party leadership. He knows it's a bad bill, and knows it was designed to satisfy a major donor to the campaigns of his party's leaders. This new congressman is told, "You better vote for this bill, or you can kiss anything you want for your district goodbye."
What will he do?
What will we do?
The illegal immigration issue is a great case in point. A perfect storm has put both political parties on the wrong side of this issue for different reasons. Dems love illegals and want to make them citizens as quickly as possible because they mostly vote for Dems. Republicans are beholden to corporate donors who also love illegals because they can hire them at $5 an hour. So they team up on a bill that gives immediate legal status to everybody here illegally, then makes a token effort at beefing up border patrols.
The last time they passed a bill like this, it gave legal status to a huge number of illegals and promised to shore up border and employer enforcement. Then they conveniently forgot about the enforcement part. They passed a bill just over a year ago to build a 700-mile border fence. It's not built, and there seems to be no intention to build it.
A huge majority of people, well over 70% of the citizenry, is outraged. But Congress and the President don't care. They think they can put one over on all of us and get away with it. Maybe they can - we'll soon find out.
Look at any other issue. Healthcare, Social Security, Iraq and the broader Terror War, Trade. On every single issue, you find both political parties wanting to do what's best for those who stuff their campaign chests rather than what makes sense for the country as a whole.
Suppose we elected a congressman from our area who is honest and smart and wants to do the right thing for all of us. He goes to Washington and his first reality check happens when a bill comes up that's being pushed by his party leadership. He knows it's a bad bill, and knows it was designed to satisfy a major donor to the campaigns of his party's leaders. This new congressman is told, "You better vote for this bill, or you can kiss anything you want for your district goodbye."
What will he do?
What will we do?
Monday, June 18, 2007
Success
How do you define success? What people do you know or know about that you would consider successful? Are you successful?
For myself, I have begun to realize that I've never really sat down and defined the meaning of success in my own life.
If I build my business into a large and profitable venture and become wealthy, is that success?
Or would the sacrifices that would have to be made to achieve that vision of success be too costly, meaning that success in business requires failure in all other aspects of life?
How many people do we look up to as the model for the success we hope to achieve? Business leaders? Politicians? Musicians? Actors? Sports stars?
How many of those so-called success stories have dark personal failures in their lives? Broken marriages, estranged children, addiction problems?
Whenever I read a biography of a famous person, it almost always includes failure. People who achieve great things in their endeavors almost always fail at first, or multiple times. Even when they achieve great success in their field, they often suffer terrible failure in other aspects of their lives. What sets them apart in their field of endeavor is typically a deep desire and the spirit to keep trying despite repeated failure.
I've had several devastating failures. When difficult times come, my first inclination is to give up. Failure gives a horrible feeling of hopelessness and deals a heavy blow to self-confidence. I don't even want to get out of bed in the morning at first, feeling sorry for myself.
Some successes provide an ecstatic feeling for awhile. Such things are fleeting, because life doesn't allow us to dwell on our successes. They are quickly forgotten as we must move on to the next endeavor.
Wealth is nice, but it doesn't mean success. At least not for me.
Success is not a destination, but an unattainable goal. When we die, if others say we made a difference, then maybe we achieved some success. The rest doesn't mean a thing.
For myself, I have begun to realize that I've never really sat down and defined the meaning of success in my own life.
If I build my business into a large and profitable venture and become wealthy, is that success?
Or would the sacrifices that would have to be made to achieve that vision of success be too costly, meaning that success in business requires failure in all other aspects of life?
How many people do we look up to as the model for the success we hope to achieve? Business leaders? Politicians? Musicians? Actors? Sports stars?
How many of those so-called success stories have dark personal failures in their lives? Broken marriages, estranged children, addiction problems?
Whenever I read a biography of a famous person, it almost always includes failure. People who achieve great things in their endeavors almost always fail at first, or multiple times. Even when they achieve great success in their field, they often suffer terrible failure in other aspects of their lives. What sets them apart in their field of endeavor is typically a deep desire and the spirit to keep trying despite repeated failure.
I've had several devastating failures. When difficult times come, my first inclination is to give up. Failure gives a horrible feeling of hopelessness and deals a heavy blow to self-confidence. I don't even want to get out of bed in the morning at first, feeling sorry for myself.
Some successes provide an ecstatic feeling for awhile. Such things are fleeting, because life doesn't allow us to dwell on our successes. They are quickly forgotten as we must move on to the next endeavor.
Wealth is nice, but it doesn't mean success. At least not for me.
Success is not a destination, but an unattainable goal. When we die, if others say we made a difference, then maybe we achieved some success. The rest doesn't mean a thing.
Monday, June 11, 2007
This Says it Better
The following is attributed to Paul Harvey, but the way things bounce around the web these days I can't be sure. I'll assume it's Paul unless I hear otherwise, but for now, this expresses my point of view about as well as anything I've come across.
Paul Harvey says :
I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for
singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin, but I
didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his
theory of evolution.
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered
because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.
So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the
entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and
asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans
going home from the game.
But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue.
Yes, and this is the United States of America and Canada, countries
founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book,
Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what
would you expect-somebody chanting Hare Krishna?
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem , I would expect to hear a
Jewish prayer.
If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim
prayer.
If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone
pray to Buddha.
And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit. When in Rome ...
But what about the atheists is another argument.
What about them?
Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the
collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too
much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit
the concession stand. Call your lawyer!
Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell
thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a
football game is going to shake the world's foundations.
Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our
courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught
us to pray before eating; to pray before we go to sleep.
Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and
their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.
God, help us.
And if that last sentence offends you, well .. just sue me.
The silent majority has been silent too long.. It's time we let that one
or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority don't
care what they want. It is time the majority rules! It's time we tell
them, you don't have to pray; you don't have to say the pledge of
allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that
honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right.. But by
golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are fighting
back . .. and we WILL WIN!
God bless us one and all .. especially those who denounce Him. God
bless America and Canada, despite all their faults. They are still the
greatest nations of all.
God bless our service men and women who are fighting to protect our
right to pray and worship God.
May 2007 be the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as
the foundation of our families and institutions.
Keep looking up.
Paul Harvey says :
I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for
singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin, but I
didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his
theory of evolution.
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered
because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.
So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the
entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and
asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans
going home from the game.
But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue.
Yes, and this is the United States of America and Canada, countries
founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book,
Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what
would you expect-somebody chanting Hare Krishna?
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem , I would expect to hear a
Jewish prayer.
If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim
prayer.
If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone
pray to Buddha.
And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit. When in Rome ...
But what about the atheists is another argument.
What about them?
Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the
collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too
much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit
the concession stand. Call your lawyer!
Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell
thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a
football game is going to shake the world's foundations.
Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our
courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught
us to pray before eating; to pray before we go to sleep.
Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and
their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.
God, help us.
And if that last sentence offends you, well .. just sue me.
The silent majority has been silent too long.. It's time we let that one
or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority don't
care what they want. It is time the majority rules! It's time we tell
them, you don't have to pray; you don't have to say the pledge of
allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that
honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right.. But by
golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are fighting
back . .. and we WILL WIN!
God bless us one and all .. especially those who denounce Him. God
bless America and Canada, despite all their faults. They are still the
greatest nations of all.
God bless our service men and women who are fighting to protect our
right to pray and worship God.
May 2007 be the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as
the foundation of our families and institutions.
Keep looking up.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Vacation Thoughts
The first "real" family vacation in many years, and most likely the last vacation we will all take together just wrapped up. Overall it was enjoyable. I came into the office today to just check email and pay some bills, and discovered things sort of went crazy while I was gone. Funny how that always seems to happen when I go on vacation for a week.
Even though the flights were covered by miles, taking 5 people on vacation is a rather expensive undertaking. Considering the fact that a week of vacation also costs a self-employed individual like myself a week of revenue, it could be said that the true cost of the trip was triple the amount I actually shelled out.
Something I noticed about this vacation was a rather new attitude about vacations in general. I've become rather jaded these days, and the sights, shows, and attractions we visit during the trip aren't particularly exciting to me anymore. When my participation in an activity, go-carting for example, was optional, I was more than happy to save the money and just watch the boys. The fishing trip might have been a bit more enjoyable if we'd caught more and/or bigger fish, but otherwise it was memorable more for how tired I was when we returned.
In the future, an ideal vacation for me might be just a chance to get away from everything and relax. Or there are some places I haven't seen and would like to someday. Most of those are overseas, because I've pretty much covered the continental US. History fascinates me these days, so I'd probably enjoy a vacation that involved visiting ancient sites or digs.
But for now, the important thing about a vacation isn't my own entertainment, but just being with my family. If they have a good time, that's good enough for me.
Now I have to jump back into work with both feet and earn back what was spent. If the activities that inundated me on my return are any indication, that shouldn't be difficult. Stressful for sure, but it looks like I'll be able to work as many hours as my old bones can handle.
Even though the flights were covered by miles, taking 5 people on vacation is a rather expensive undertaking. Considering the fact that a week of vacation also costs a self-employed individual like myself a week of revenue, it could be said that the true cost of the trip was triple the amount I actually shelled out.
Something I noticed about this vacation was a rather new attitude about vacations in general. I've become rather jaded these days, and the sights, shows, and attractions we visit during the trip aren't particularly exciting to me anymore. When my participation in an activity, go-carting for example, was optional, I was more than happy to save the money and just watch the boys. The fishing trip might have been a bit more enjoyable if we'd caught more and/or bigger fish, but otherwise it was memorable more for how tired I was when we returned.
In the future, an ideal vacation for me might be just a chance to get away from everything and relax. Or there are some places I haven't seen and would like to someday. Most of those are overseas, because I've pretty much covered the continental US. History fascinates me these days, so I'd probably enjoy a vacation that involved visiting ancient sites or digs.
But for now, the important thing about a vacation isn't my own entertainment, but just being with my family. If they have a good time, that's good enough for me.
Now I have to jump back into work with both feet and earn back what was spent. If the activities that inundated me on my return are any indication, that shouldn't be difficult. Stressful for sure, but it looks like I'll be able to work as many hours as my old bones can handle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)