Where Does It Begin? How Will It End?

I had to wipe my tears with a crumpled-up napkin I'd found in the glove compartment.  I was driving to the mall so my kids could run off some excess energy at the indoor playground, and my son asked me why I was crying.  When I told him it was because of what I'd heard on the radio, he--quite sensibly--opined that "Maybe we shouldn't listen to this radio station [NPR] any more."  I smiled and told him that would make sense, but Mama had to know what was going on in the world.

And what was going on that made me cry in the car was the news that 20 elementary school children in Newtown, CT were dead, along with six adults from their school, and the shooter.  Since then it's been revealed that the shooter's mother was a teacher at the school, whom he'd also shot and killed at home earlier in the day.

I could only wonder what kind of person would do such a thing.  And what kind of world do we live in that produces such people?  Because this was not an isolated event.  Sure, the fact that it was an elementary school was a new twist, but earlier this week someone shot up a shopping mall in Oregon.  Two weeks ago a young man shot his father with a bow and arrow as he taught class at a community college in Wyoming (after fatally stabbing his father's girlfriend at their home).  A few months ago someone else shot up a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin.  And a month before that, someone else shot up a movie theatre in Colorado.  Why do so many people resort to indiscriminate violence as the solution to their problems?  Why are they so unaware or uncaring of the pain and suffering they'll inflict on people who are in no way responsible for the wrongs committed against them?

Not long after arriving at the mall playground, I saw part of the answer.  Three boys, all the same age or not much younger than the majority of victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School, were running around pretending to shoot everyone with their index fingers.  And laughing as they did it.  When one of them pointed his 'gun' at me and I shook my head 'no,' he yelled, "Bang bang!"  He was about six years old.  I informed him sternly that guns are not toys, and it's not a fun game to pretend to kill people.  His two friends overheard me and came over, pointed their index fingers at me, and opened fire, apparently now with semi-automatic index finger-guns.  Then they ran away, laughing.  The mother of the two boys who came later, who were apparently brothers, was sitting nearby and saw the whole thing.  She was smiling.

A little while later, after the boy who 'shot' me first had left, my son Spencer began playing with the brothers.  Very quickly I found myself having to give him the same lecture I'd given the first boy.  I told him that I understood he was playing with those other boys, but he wasn't allowed to play that game, and if that's all they wanted to do, then he'd have to find someone else to play with.  They began just chasing each other, sans guns.  I would have preferred him not to play with them at all, but he has to learn to pick his own friends, and he was obeying me.  I know this because I was watching.  Closely.  Unlike the other boys' mother.

After a couple of minutes, Spencer came over crying.  One of the brothers had pushed him.  I told him that if he did that, then he wasn't really a friend, and he shouldn't play with him.  But Spencer is forgiving (or at least really enjoys playing with other kids) so he went back.  The boy's mother either didn't know what had happened, or didn't care.  A little while later Spencer was crying again.  This time the boy had pushed him off one of the climbing structures, and Spencer had landed hard on the floor.  The boy's mother pulled him over to her seat and told him to "Go say you're sorry."  The boy refused.  His mother sat him down next to her and told him he couldn't play anymore until he said he was sorry.  I told Spencer that even if he did apologize, I didn't want them playing together anymore.  Spencer agreed.  The other brother came over and invited Spencer to play with "just me."  Spencer went.  The 'pusher' saw Spencer and his brother playing and got up from his seat.  His mother asked, "Are you going to say you're sorry?"  The boy said he was, so she let him go.  He went in the opposite direction of Spencer, clearly with no intention of apologizing.  His mother watched him go, shook her head, then went back to playing with her phone.  I watched the little hooligan make his way around the play yard back to the climbing structure, where his brother and Spencer were playing, now joined by my daughter Naomi.  And then I heard a banshee shriek I know very well.  This boy had now pushed Naomi off the structure, too.

The boy's mother made him stay with her this time, but kept him occupied with snacks while she gave her other son a few more minutes to play.  When it was finally (mercifully) time for them to leave, the boy who hadn't pushed my kids threw a temper tantrum, and only promises of pizza and ice cream (for both of them) could entice him to leave the play area.

That child probably won't grow up to be a mass murderer.  But what did he learn today?  He learned that after you push and hurt other children, you get pizza and ice cream.  He learned that bad behavior, even violent behavior, doesn't result in negative consequences. And he'll remember, when things get difficult when he's older, how much fun it was to run around and pretend to kill people, and how much easier life was back then.

What mothers do matters, but we're not the only ones who influence our children.  Sometimes we do our best to teach them proper behavior and give them plenty of love, attention, and guidance, and they still turn out to do these horrific things.

I'm noticing a trend.  It's too early to begin to speculate about motive regarding the Connecticut shooter, but we do know a few things about him.  He was 20 years old, and has been described as quiet, reserved, and highly intelligent.  He came from a loving home, and had no known criminal record.

The Oregon shooter was 22 years old, and was described by friends as being a really nice guy in high school, popular with the other kids, and having a heart of gold.  School administrators described him as having average talent and earning average grades, with no record of disciplinary issues.  The only trigger anyone can point to is the fact the he had recently broken up with his girlfriend, though he'd seemed to be dealing with that OK.  His dream was to move to Hawaii.

The Wyoming guy was 25, had a Bachelor's degree in Computer Engineering, a Master's degree in Electrical Engineering, and was working a low-end, blue-collar job for a utility.  He lived in a rooming house and was described as shy and socially awkward.  He also had Asperger's Syndrome, which he believed his father 'gave him.'  He had no criminal history.

The Wisconsin shooter was 40, and had a history of behavioral misconduct and affiliations with hate groups.

The Colorado shooter was 24, and had been studying for his Ph.D. in neuroscience until he withdrew from the program after failing his oral exams.  He was described as quiet, responsible, and nerdish, raised in an upscale section of San Diego and once worked at a summer camp for needy children.  He'd never given any indications of problematic behavior until his academic career began to fall apart.

With the exception of the Wisconsin shooter, they were all promising young adults.  Most came from loving homes.  They were all most likely raised to believe that they could accomplish anything they set their minds to, and were encouraged to pursue their dreams, expecting they'd be successful.  Two were well educated, but found that in real life, you don't automatically get on the team just because you showed up at tryouts.  In the adult world you have to work hard, and sometimes hard work isn't enough.  You still have to deal with disappointment, despite your best efforts.  And when things don't go your way, you don't get to throw a temper tantrum and have someone offer you a cookie to stop.  Two specifically targeted a parent.  Only one is still alive today.

As parents, we want to protect our kids, but we also have to teach them how to cope with things not working out the way they want.  In order for them to learn to deal with disappointment, they need to sometimes be disappointed, and that means we have to let them fully experience it.  We can comfort them, but we can't fix it for them.  We have to let them know that some behavior is simply not acceptable, and punish them for it, even if it inconveniences us.  We have to let them know that they must meet certain expectations, and they don't get a prize or a passing grade just for trying.  The world doesn't really care about their self esteem once they're no longer children or teenagers.  Life can be harsh, it can be unfair, and we're doing them a real disservice if we lead them to believe otherwise.  And even when we do all that, we still have to help them navigate through childhood in a culture that expects absolutely nothing of them until they're 18 or 22, at which time they are expected to be fully-functioning adults.

In the days and weeks to come, there will be talk about gun control, increased security in the schools, zero tolerance policies, anything that might better protect us from the monsters who sadly aren't imaginary.  Those are worthy and useful conversations to have.  But what we really need to talk about is a culture that actively discourages children and teenagers from preparing for life as adults.  Take away the guns, and those who want to kill will use knives or bows and arrows.  Increase security at the schools, and the criminals will find ways to get to their targets, and everyone else will become accustomed at a young age to living in a police state.  Let's not waste too much time with the symptoms; we need to address the cause if we're ever going to end this.

All I wanted to do yesterday was hug my kids.  I know I wasn't alone in that.  I want to protect my kids from those horrors.  But I won't turn off the radio, even when it makes me cry, because that's the world we live in, and I have to know what the reality is if I'm going to live in this world, and prepare my kids for it.

The Chicken, the Egg, and the Retail Dilemma

Not only is it old news, but it's practically ancient history by now that several retailers began their Black Friday sales on Thanksgiving evening.  I responded by ignoring the Thanksgiving Day sales with as much enthusiasm as I ignore the Black Friday sales.  Having been forced to participate in a run on Cabbage Patch Kids at Toys R Us with my mother when I was about eight years old, I have a pretty negative reaction to the mob mentality that comes with the cattle-call pursuit of STUFF that is the backbone of doorbuster sales.  Even though the Cabbage Patch Kid was for me, I knew back then that it just wasn't worth it.  Sure, I was glad I got Francis Xavier (who later had a bow tied in his hair and was re-Christened Crystal Something-Or-Other).  But if I'd known that I'd have to stand in line with a couple hundred adults and a (very) few children, then go stampeding with them to the very back of the store, and then witness grown-ups ripping dolls out of each others hands and pushing each other down, I think I would have chosen to do without Francis Xavier/Crystal Something-Or-Other.

Of course, after months of pre-election coverage and weeks of election post mortem, the talk shows on NPR that narrate my errands during the week were trying to fill the election vacuum with discussions about the new trend in Black Friday sales: starting them on Thursday, regardless of the fact that it's still Thanksgiving.  And what struck me was the claim the retailers kept repeating over and over again: We're only trying to give the customers what they want.  If they want to shop on Thanksgiving, then we want to provide them with that opportunity.

With a few notable exceptions, nobody wants to shop on Thanksgiving.  What people do want, what many people need in this crappy economy, are the deals.  And if retailers are only offering the good deals on Thanksgiving, then people are going to shop on Thanksgiving.  Of course, if the retailers wait until their normal week-day opening time on Friday morning to offer the great deals, the customers would happily do their shopping at that time.  But the retailers don't want to wait until 9 or 10 AM Friday morning, because they mistakenly believe that being open an additional 12 hours will beat out their competitors and improve their bottom line. 

Why do I say they 'mistakenly' believe this?  First because people will go for the deals, regardless of when the stores offer them.  Second, because people only have a certain amount of money to spend and shopping to do, and forcing them to get it done earlier means they won't do it later.  The New York Times recently reported that even though sales on Thanksgiving Day were up from last year (most likely because many stores were open more hours on Thursday compared to last year), Black Friday sales were down from 2011.  Overall sales of the weekend (if you can really call the five-day period beginning with Thanksgiving and ending with Cyber Monday a weekend) were up a bit from last year, but the evidence suggests that would have happened anyway.

But the retailers will only look at the improved sales from Thanksgiving, and convince themselves that if people were lining up at the doors at 8 PM, then that means they really want to be shopping at 4 PM, and that's an extra four hours of sales, which means an extra four hours to earn a profit (not that that's why they're doing it--they only want to give the customers what they want, after all).  And since there's zero chance of the economy improving significantly in the next twelve months and plenty of data suggesting it's going to get worse, the shoppers with dutifully show up for the great deals whenever they're offered.  And that will improve next Thanksgiving's sales, which will tell the retailers that the customers really want the stores to open at noon, and, well, you see where this is going.

In the meantime, Black Friday sales and early and mid-December sales will decrease, keeping the overall holiday shopping frenzy reasonably stable, with the modest increases or decreases (based on overall economic health) being spread thinner and thinner over the ever-expanding 'Holiday Season,' further diluting the meaning of the season and reinforcing the idea that our primary purpose in life is to be consumers, not citizens with a heritage to celebrate, a religion to observe, or families to enjoy.

Retailers and shoppers, supply and demand, chickens and their eggs.  Which came first?  In this case, for as long as the retailers have the most sought-after prize (good deals on stuff people want), the retailers make the rules.  Only when we stop behaving according to the retailers' assumption that we're nothing more than consumers can we begin asserting ourselves as people.

Unexpected Teaching Moment: Prejudice

The other night I watched West Side Story with my kids.  I love the movie and haven't seen it in years (over a decade, at least).  My kids really enjoy movies with good music, especially when there's singing and dancing involved.  Especially Spencer.  He's also getting tired of watching and re-watching his usual flicks.  So I saw it as a win-win: Spencer got to see something new, and I got to watch something that wasn't made by Pixar.

Now, let me describe for you what it's like to watch a movie with Spencer.  My son is apparently unable to process a thought silently--he verbalizes his stream of consciousness.  And there's a lot to process when watching a movie (even after he's seen it three dozen times, he still processes it as though he's never seen it before).  He's constantly asking, "What just happened?  Why did he do that?  Why are they walking?  Where are they going?  What's going to happen next?"  And so on.  I usually respond with a steady stream of, "You were watching, you saw what happened.  Just wait, and you'll see.  Watch and you'll find out."  Until I finally resort to, "Just be quiet and watch the movie, Spencer!"

West Side Story started off with the expected questions:  "Is that a playground?"  Yes, Spencer, it's a playground.  "Why are those boys in a playground?"  Because they want to be there.  "Why are they dancing?"  They just are.

And then the questions began to get a little harder.  "What are they doing to that other boy?"  They're letting him know they don't want him there.  "Why not?"  Because they don't like him.  "Why don't they like him?"  And then, before I could come up with a four-year-old appropriate answer to that question, "Who are those boys?"  They're that other boy's friends.  "Are they fighting?  Why are they fighting?"  Because those two groups of boys are enemies.  "Who are the good boys and who are the bad boys?"  Uh, they're all pretty good boys.  "Then why are they fighting?"  Because they don't like people who are different from them.  "Why not?"  Because they just don't.  "Because they're mean?"  They're mean to the people they don't like, and they're nice to the people they do like.  "But why aren't they nice to everybody if they're good boys?"  Umm, some people are like that.  And then, "Why don't they want that girl around?"  Because girls aren't allowed.  "Why not?"

And this was the first ten minutes of a two and a half hour movie.

As exasperated as I was trying to answer these questions, I loved the fact that they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that my son doesn't understand prejudice.  He doesn't understand how people can decide to be mean or nice to someone based on their skin color or accent.  He doesn't understand why someone's gender would make them ineligible to join a certain group.  And when I tried to explain it to him, he gave me a look that clearly said, "Mom, that's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say, and that's saying something!"

And he's absolutely right.  It is stupid.  It's pointless.  It makes no sense.  And it's not a natural part of who we are.  Spencer didn't understand prejudice because he's never been taught prejudice.  He's never been taught to exclude others for arbitrary reasons, and he's never been excluded for arbitrary reasons himself (though I'm sure that day will come).  Children don't hate others until they've been told that they should, and taught how.  It may not be done intentionally, but they are very observant, and they will act the way they see the adults around them acting.  Too many adults don't think about what they're teaching the children who idolize them.

I wanted to introduce my son to one of my favorite musicals.  In doing so, I also began to teach him about the darker side of some human interactions.  He liked the music, even when I sang along.  He liked the dancing.  He thought the girls were pretty (both the Caucasians and the Puerto Ricans).  He didn't like that he had to hug me and pat my arm reassuringly at the end and say, "It's OK; everything's going to be all right" when I was crying hysterically because some people died for some really stupid reasons.  Why couldn't they all just get along?

I think we'll watch Fiddler on the Roof next.  Then I'll get to explain religious persecution to him, as well.  And sing along with more of my favorite showtunes.

10 Rules for Being Politically Obnoxious on Facebook

It’s election season again, and the attacks are in full swing, both among the political professionals and their devoted followers on social media.  However, I’ve noticed a few people on Facebook engaging in posts and comments that are simply unacceptable for the current political and cultural environment.  Now, I realize there is a certain freedom in the online world that’s lacking in real life, however there are rules which must be followed if one is going to successfully destroy all hope for intelligent debate and informed citizenry.

Rule #1:  Ignorance is Power.  If you don’t know all the facts, then they can’t trouble you.  You already know everything you need to know about everything, because you read something someone posted about it once.  As long as you can loosely paraphrase a soundbite that supports your position, you have all the information you need.  It’s a waste of time to research actual statistics, read actual reports, or listen to actual speeches given by the person you don’t want to vote for.  As long as you avoid actual facts, no one can contradict you.

Rule #2:  Choose Your Sources Carefully.  Obviously not everyone is an expert on everything (only a few brilliant souls like myself can claim that).  Therefore you must sometimes find reliable information elsewhere.  Online is best, because if it’s on the web then it must be true (unless it was planted there by the ignorant followers of the other party).  Be sure to seek out bloggers who share your opinions or paid political organizations that specialize in masquerading as grass-roots organizations.  Their newsletters can always be trusted to be completely factual and accurate.  After bloggers and hired guns, entertaining talk show hosts are good sources.  Conservatives should go to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh for information, and liberals should get their news from Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert.  If you must rely on an actual news organization, be sure to choose one with an obvious bias towards your opinions.  Fox News is best for conservatives, and MSNBC is best for liberals, though liberals have more choices due to the liberal bias of the entire mainstream media.  However the more outside sources you consult (liberal or conservative), the more different interpretations you’ll be exposed to.  Pick one or two sources and stick with them exclusively.

Rule #3:  Limit the Debate.  Only one issue matters: the one you care about.  Dismiss any arguments against your preferred candidate that try to change the subject, and drive home the importance of your facts by stating your strongest opinions and then using the words, “END OF DISCUSSION.”  (All caps is very important here—see rule #4.)

Rule #4:  USE ALL CAPS WITH ABANDON.  A generally accepted understanding of online etiquette is that using all capital letters is equivalent to yelling.  Since we’re trying to drown out all opposing opinions, we want to be as loud as possible.  Use all caps to ridicule or deride an argument or the individual who made it (it doesn’t matter which—see rule #5), or to emphasize that you won’t be swayed from your opinion NO MATTER WHAT!!!  (Extra exclamation points also help to increase the volume of your online rant, so feel free to use them excessively, as well.)

Rule #5:  There is No Difference Between a Person and Their Position.  Since a person is completely defined by their political beliefs, we are free to judge people based on their political postings.  If you think someone’s opinion is stupid, then they are stupid, too.  If you think someone’s opinion is immoral, then clearly they are immoral, as well, and you have a moral responsibility to inform the entire online community of their depravity.  Do not humanize people who think differently than you; they’re nothing more than faulty opinions that need to be shot down and made to go away.

Rule #6:  Go Negative.  Anyone with any common sense at all already knows why the person you want to vote for is the only reasonable choice.  Therefore it’s a waste of time to extol the positive attributes of your candidate, and you should only focus on what’s wrong/immoral/evil about the other candidate, his or her entire party, and everyone who supports them.

Rule #7:  Sweeping Generalizations are Always Accurate and Appropriate.  If one person holds any given position, that person’s entire political party and all other supporters must hold that same position.  You are free to assign whatever motives you wish to why they hold that position (the more nefarious the motivation, the easier it is to ridicule it and the person as well—see Rule #5).

Rule #8:  If You’re Losing an Argument, Switch to Another Topic and Pretend You Didn’t.  Sometimes a really annoying online adversary will somehow be able to defend his or her (wrong) position while poking very real holes in your (obviously right) position.  When this happens, change the focus of the debate to something you can win, and pretend it’s the same debate.  This allows you to completely disregard the minor victory your opponent thinks they may have won, and also has the added bonus of annoying your opponent so much that frequently they’ll just shut up and go away.  That means you’ve won.

Rule #9:  Disregard All Information From Sources You Don’t Use Yourself.  This is related to Rule #2, but applies more specifically to any sources cited by someone you’re debating.  Any data or information they bring up from a source that doesn’t align with your preferred bias completely factual and unbiased source is irrelevant and can be dismissed.  Unless they can use your own preferred sources for their information, it’s not worth discussing the matter with them.  (If they can use information from your own sources against you, then you need to tell them how they’ve twisted and misinterpreted the data, are too stupid to understand it, or else change the focus of the argument, as detailed in Rule #8.)

Rule #10:  There are No Human Consequences.  Issues like war, hunger, poverty, health care, mental illness, unemployment, and family values are ideologies to be enforced, and real people aren’t affected by the consequences of these ideologies.  Therefore you should make light of these issues and the people who claim to be harmed by your view of them, because mockery strengthens your argument.  People who disagree with you aren’t really human anyway, and should be mocked, insulted, and demeaned (see Rule #5).

By following these rules, you can help silence those who are seeking intelligent debate.  More and more people will become disillusioned with the political process and simply disengage, leaving the decisions to be made by the loudest and most obnoxious extremists out there.  We’re well on our way down that path already; please do your part to accomplish this important goal.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

Anyone with a Facebook account knows that it's election season.  'Friends' are posting links supporting their favorite candidates, bashing their favorite candidate's opponents, and frequently offending some number of their 'friends' in the process.

That's all fine.  It's part of the democratic process, freedom of speech, etc., and if you don't want to be offended by anyone, you should go hide in a cave somewhere (something which I'm very tempted to do more and more often lately).  But there are two things that I find particularly problematic with many of the posts, links, and the inevitable attached comments.

First is the total lack of awareness that the poster's opinion isn't the only 'correct' one.  People who disagree aren't automatically ignorant, un-American, bigoted, or in any other way mentally deficient.  The lack of civil discourse on both sides is appalling, and is part of the reason why I want to go hide in that cave.

The other problem with many of those posts is the wrong or misleading information that's being put out there.  Everyone wants to look their best, especially if they're running for President, but repeating a lie or half-truth over and over again doesn't make it true, and it's not helpful.

Again, both parties are guilty of this, but a post from a 'friend' just hit my Facebook newsfeed yesterday afternoon, and it's the one that happened to inspire me to write.  It was a graphic from the Facebook page 'Being Conservative' which, according to their 'About' page is a South Carolina LLC.  Their stated mission is to find "5 million fans to stand in opposition to Obama's liberal policies."  (Current fan count is around 2.6 million.)  Their website (www.BeingConservative.com) identifies them as a consulting firm specializing in "us[ing] [their] knowledge and media buying expertise to ... leverage our sophisticated geo-targeting engine built for our larger corporate clients to help our candidates dominate their opponents on Facebook."

So let's not confuse them with some grassroots organization of like-minded citizens earnestly trying to get a conservative candidate more to their liking into the White House; they're a professional consulting firm who is putting this stuff up on Facebook because someone is paying them a lot of money to do so.

Now, on to the graphic in question. Sadly, I can't reproduce it here without the formatting getting all messed up, so here's the pertinent information.  It's a graph entitled "President Obama's Record" and shows the unemployment rate, median income, price of gas per gallon, and national debt as they were when Obama took office compared to 'Now.'  At the bottom it indicates that the sources were BLS, Sentier Research, Dept. of Energy, and Dept. of Treasury.  Here's how those numbers compare:

UNEMPLOYMENT
Jan 2009:  7.8%
Now:  8.3%

MEDIAN INCOME
Jan 2009:  $54,983
Now:  $50,964

GASOLINE / GALLON
Jan 2009:  $1.84
Now:  $3.82

NATIONAL DEBT
Jan 2009:  $10.6T
Now:  $16T

First off, let me state my appreciation for the fact that Being Conservative reported accurate numbers provided by reputable sources.  Too often people will just pull numbers out of the air (we've all heard the one about 98.9% of all statistics being made up on the spot), or they'll see it on some blog somewhere and, since it's online it must be true.  So the numbers as presented by Being Conservative are true and accurate.  Kudos.

But the kudos stop there, because those numbers are also highly misleading.  How are they misleading?  I'm glad you asked.  They're misleading because the whole premise of Being Conservative is that a conservative-leaning President would have better numbers, and that it's Obama's liberal policies that resulted in these admittedly disappointing figures.

Let's compare with George W. Bush's years in the White House to see if that holds true, shall we?  I'm pretty sure he counts as a conservative.

UNEMPLOYMENT
Jan 2001:  4.2%
Jan 2009:  7.8%

Right out of the gate we have a problem.  The liberal President had a .5% increase in unemployment during his time in office, while the conservative President had a 3.5% increase during his tenure.  Don't like that we're comparing Obama's four years with Bush's eight?  OK, we'll assume the unemployment rate would continue on its current trajectory and double the increase to 1% to account for a second term.  That's still less than 1/3 the increase under the last conservative's policies.

MEDIAN INCOME
Jan 2001:  $40,148
Jan 2009:  $47,361

My number for 2009 came from the US Census Bureau, a source not used by Being Conservative.  If the Census Bureau is correct, then median income actually increased during Obama's time in office.  But there's another consideration to be made here, and that's inflation.  The experience of myself and many others I've spoken with is that wages are going down while costs are going up.  This has been happening during the last four years, but it started long before Obama landed in the White House.  Here are the same numbers adjusted for inflation (same source as above):

Jan 2001:  $52,005
Jan 2009:  $50,599

It doesn't look very good for our current liberal President, but it wasn't much better with our previous conservative President, either.

GASOLINE / GALLON
Jan 2001:  $1.51
Jan 2009:  $1.84

Again, things are not always as they seem.  Gas prices are anything but stable, and snapshots of a given day do not give an accurate picture.  For example, have we already forgotten the energy crisis of 2008 that had gas averaging over $4 per gallon and that inspired 'Drill, baby, drill" to become a popular conservative slogan?  Let's look at gas prices averaged over each year.

2001:  $1.46
2002:  $1.38
2003:  $1.60
2004:  $1.90
2005:  $2.31
2006:  $2.61
2007:  $2.84
2008:  $3.30

And then Obama:
2009:  $2.41
2010:  $2.84
2011:  $3.58

Again, the liberal policies aren't great, but the conservative record isn't any better.

And now for the National Debt.  I think we all know how this one's going to look, but let's go there anyway.

NATIONAL DEBT
Jan 2001:  $5.7T
Jan 2009:  $10T

Yup, conservative fiscal policies nearly doubled the national debt.  And turning around the debt is like turning the Titanic; the momentum carries you forward no matter how hard you try to turn the wheel.  But didn't Bush have to contend with momentum in the debt, too?  Let's look at his (liberal) predecessor's record.

Jan 1993:  $4.2T
Jan 2001:  $5.7T

There was a little momentum there, but not nearly enough to account for the increased spending we saw under our last conservative President.

I'm not trying to claim that Obama's a great President.  Personally, I don't think he is.  But Being Conservative is trying to claim that Obama's liberal policies are sending the country in the wrong direction, and implying that a conservative candidate would do better.  When I look at the full story behind their numbers, I don't see a convincing argument.  Could a conservative do a better job?  Quite possibly.  But simply being a conservative isn't enough.  I already know why I shouldn't vote for this particular liberal.  Why should I vote conservative?

Todd Akin and His Mission from God

By now we're all aware of Missouri Congressional Representative and Senate hopeful Todd Akin's inflammatory comment about women rarely becoming pregnant as a result of a 'legitimate' rape.  Several others have already posted (ranted) about the insensitivity, ignorance, and sheer idiocy of that statement, and, since I have nothing new to add to that particular discussion, I'm content to let their words stand in regards to how I feel about the whole thing.

One detail caught my eye, however, that has received much less attention, and I think it needs to be highlighted.  The New York Times ran an article two days ago entitled, "A Politician Whose Faith is Central to His Persistence."  It describes Mr. Akin's Evangelical Christianity, as well as his desire to return America to its "Judeo-Christian roots."

Putting aside for the moment the fact that America has never been a theocracy, nor should it ever be, I personally get interested whenever a politician tries to legislate according to his or her "Christian" values.  What are the Judeo-Christian values that Mr. Akin embraces and believes we should all pattern our lives around?

The best way I could think to answer this question was to look at his voting record.*  I'll confess that I stopped after reviewing the last two years because frankly, the House votes on a lot of bills, and I don't have days to spend on this.  I think his record over the last two years should be sufficient to extrapolate Mr. Akin's values from his votes.

We all know how Mr. Akin feels about abortion, so I'm sure it comes as no surprise that he consistently voted against everything that included any provision for abortion or any support for any entity that might somehow be related to an abortion provider (i.e. if it had Planned Parenthood anywhere in the text of the bill, Mr. Akin voted against it, even if it was for something like breast cancer screening.)  The overreaching aside, I'm willing to consider the rights of the not-yet-born to be a legitimate Christian concern.  Whether those rights are absolute and always override the rights of the mother is still a matter of debate, and something I have absolutely no intention of tackling in this post or on this blog.  But trying to protect those who are unable to defend or even speak for themselves, yeah, I'll agree that that's a value I recognize as Christian.

Except Mr. Akin's concern for the not-yet-born seems to disappear once the mother makes the decision not to abort.  He voted against HR 3470, Infant Mortality Pilot Programs.  What this bill did was identify areas within the United States that had unusually high infant mortality rates, and provide funding for those communities to better support pregnant women and new mothers, to improve the health of mother and child alike, as well as reduce the odds of preventable miscarriage.  Keep in mind that this bill was in no way connected to Obamacare.  Yet Mr. Akin's Christian values didn't inspire him to support these efforts.

He also consistently voted against everything to do with Obamacare, because he doesn't believe the government should be involved with health care at all.  Caring for the sick is not a priority, according to his Christian values.

Mr. Akin voted against H Amdt 1127, which would have repealed indefinite military detention provisions.  People suspected of terrorism can sit in military prisons--without charge and without trial--forever, as far as he's concerned.

Fiscal responsibility is a big concern of Mr. Akin's.  It's also a big concern of mine.  I believe the government is going to have to realize that it can't have everything it wants, and is going to have to make some hard decisions about what it can and can't afford.  So does Mr. Akin.  Let's look at what choices he made, based on his strong faith and desire to legislatively recognize the Creator God.

Despite the deficit, small businesses should be entitled to hefty tax breaks.  Individuals, however, should suck it up and lose the payroll tax holiday, pay more income tax on their social security benefits, have unemployment benefits reduced, and lose all federal assistance to stay in their homes.

The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense should get every penny they asked for, but funding should be reduced for the United Institute of Peace, and food assistance to low-income families and children should be reduced or eliminated.

And federal funding should be prohibited for the financing of presidential elections and National Public Radio, but allowed for NASCAR sponsorship.  (Seriously, H Amdt 92.  I wouldn't dare make something like this up!)

When I think about what a Christian is called to do, I think about Matthew 25:31-40:

31 ‘When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. ³²All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, ³³and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. ³⁴Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; ³⁵for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ³⁶I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” ³⁷Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? ³⁸And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? ³⁹And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” ⁴⁰And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” (NRSV)

To me, that is what a Christian looks like.  Someone who gives food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, and clothes to the naked (social programs to help people make ends meet).  Someone who welcomes the stranger (sane immigration policies).  Someone who takes care of the sick (health care).  Someone who visits those in prison (recognition that even those who wish to do us harm are human beings, and deserving of the respect and courtesy they would never dream of giving us).  Jesus never made a distinction between the 'deserving' poor and the 'undeserving' poor.  Jesus certainly never identified the mark of the righteous as those with the strongest military, but rather emphasized the role of peace in God's kingdom.

I don't have a problem with Todd Akin voting according to his interpretation of Christian values; I have a problem with Todd Akin and others like him defining for the world what Christian values are, and using his warped voting record to do so.

It seems to me that there are two types of Christians in America today: the care-for-the-poor-and-needy-because-that's-what-Jesus-taught-and-did type of Christian, and the you'd-better-live-according-to-a-strict-moral-code-that-I'll-define-for-you-or-else-you're-going-to-burn-in-hell type of Christian.  I'm in the first category, and I'm happy to report that I'm not alone here.  But Todd Akin is in the second category, and he has a lot of company there, too.  Unfortunately, they get all the media attention.  Their voices are louder than ours, so they're defining for everyone who isn't in either category what Christians believe and value.  That is unacceptable.

I'm not suggesting a screaming match, because a) I don't think that would do any good, and b) that kind of infighting would seriously damage the proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ.  But I am asking that some of you other social-justice-oriented Christians make yourself known, and let it be known that the Todd Akins of the world don't speak for all Christians.  There are other voices out there; let yours be heard.

*I used VoteSmart.org to see Mr. Akin's voting history.

The Biblical Definition of Marriage, Part 1: Introduction

Comments made by Dan Cathy, President of Chick-Fil-A, recently brought the debate over gay marriage back to the forefront.  Again.  As usual, most people split into one of two camps: those in support of legalizing same-sex marriage, and those in support of "the biblical definition of marriage," including restricting legal marriage to those who fit that definition.

The term "biblical definition of marriage" is bandied about with great authority, but every time I hear it, I also hear the voice of Inigo Montoya saying, "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."

In popular usage, the "biblical definition of marriage" appears to be shorthand for "marriage between one man and one woman."  That's the definition that some want included in a constitutional amendment addressing the issue.  However there are some who also include the submission of wives to their husbands, the restriction of women to the traditional roles of homemaker and mother, as well as an absolute prohibition of divorce in the "biblical definition of marriage."  In a land of majority two-income households, where more women are graduating from college than men, and where roughly half of all marriages end in divorce, I can't see a whole lot of public support for those aspects of the "biblical definition of marriage."

So what is the actual biblical definition of marriage?

Sadly, when I went to my concordance and looked up "definition of marriage," nothing came up in the entire bible.  Of course the answer's not that easy.  So this can't be answered in a single post, even one of my marathon-length ones.  But it's important.  The issue at stake, as Dan Cathy puts it, is whether or not we're "shak[ing] our fist at [God] and say[ing], 'We know better than you what constitutes a marriage.'"  The issue, simply put, is whether or not we are redefining marriage in direct opposition to how God has defined it.  Therefore, this is the beginning of an ongoing series in which I'm going to explore the bible and see what it really says about marriage.  I don't expect these posts to settle the question once and for all, but I do hope that those of you who read them will think about your own assumptions, and be willing to think critically about what you believe and why.

My intention is not to attack or ridicule those who are earnestly trying to live according to biblical principles.  I myself am a faithful Christian trying to live according to biblical principles.  I'm doing this primarily because I believe there is a lack of knowledge and understanding about the bible, especially among those who use it to justify their own political positions.  Perhaps I'm about to join those ranks, but I'm tired of having a vocal minority define for the world what my faith is.  If we're going to use the bible to defend our positions, let's take a look and see what the bible actually says about those positions.

I welcome you to join the discussion in the comments section.  As always, please keep it civil.

Good vs. Evil

I really didn't want to go here.  I really didn't want to get into the whole Chick-Fil-A thing.  I really wanted to just join Jen Hatmaker in her wonderful-sounding basement, and wait for this whole thing to blow over.

But I can't.  Because I'm tired of all the vitriol and venomous accusations.  And I'm particularly tired of one side (pick whichever one you want--both are equally guilty) assigning motives to the actions of the other.

Chick-Fil-A uses some of its profits to support organizations that oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage.  Personally, I disagree with the aims of those organizations; given the fact that we do not live in a theocracy (nor do I want to, even as a faithful Christian), I cannot see any legitimate reason to deny same-sex couples that right.  The Jim Henson Company also disagrees with the aims of those organizations, and they decided to end their partnership with Chick-Fil-A and donate the proceeds they'd enjoyed from that partnership to GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation).

All of that is fine.  Chick-Fil-A can use their profits as they see fit, and so can the Jim Henson Company.  And both can choose to partner with whomever they want for whatever reasons they want.  Or not to partner.  They have that right.

But the owners of Chick-Fil-A have been described as hateful, evil bigots who only want to deny rights to those who don't believe as they do, and are trying to use their money to establish theocratic rule in this country.  I don't think that's fair, and it certainly isn't supported by facts.

Yes, they hold to a 'biblical' definition of marriage (though that claim itself is dubious, given the fact that there are many definitions of marriage in the bible, many of which are not considered acceptable in this day and age.  But that's a whole other post.)  Yes, they support organizations that work to make their accepted definition of marriage the only legal definition of marriage.  But that's not all they support.

Let's look first at the partnership with the Jim Henson Company.  The Jim Henson Company has never masqueraded as a biblically conservative company.  As they proudly stated on their Facebook page, "The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years."  Their commitment to diversity and inclusiveness was not hidden from Chick-Fil-A, yet Chick-Fil-A still chose to enter into a business partnership with them.  Yes, they stood to benefit financially, but if they were willing to compromise their principles for the sake of profits, then they'd be open on Sundays, so I dismiss that as their primary motivation.  Basically, despite the difference in politics, Chick-Fil-A wanted to be affiliated with the values that the Jim Henson Company stood for.  How does that fit in with their image as hateful, evil bigots out to mold the world into their own narrow conservative image?

I also know that they donate a sizable amount of money to the Public Broadcasting Service.  How do I know this?  Because between the shows my kids watch on PBS they are subjected to a few non-commercial commercials for Chick-Fil-A (as well as Earth's Best Baby Food--since when are there commercials on PBS??!!).  If you haven't watched the children's programming on PBS recently, let me assure you that it's not advocating conservative Christian values to the sippy-cup set.  Those shows advocate the same diversity, inclusiveness, and tolerance that the Jim Henson Company does.  Yet Chick-Fil-A believes enough in their mission to give them lots of money, despite their different politics.

Chick-Fil-A also funds college scholarships, foster homes, summer camp programs, youth leadership programs domestically and abroad, as well as marriage preparation, enrichment, and crisis intervention programs.

I don't agree with everything they choose to do with their profits, but they're clearly not the hate-mongering bigots they're accused of being.

Neither the right nor the left are all good or all evil.  Can we please stop assigning motives that make it easier to dehumanize each other?  If you don't like how Chick-Fil-A spends their money, they by all means exercise your right to boycott.  But don't demonize them, or the people who support them.  They don't deserve it, any more than you do.

Are We Really a Colorblind Society?

My husband has always said that if I ever came home from preaching and announced that my children's sermon went really well, he'd want to know who I was and what I'd done with his wife.  I'm horrible at children's sermons.  Really.  Really.  Horrible.

But I came home from preaching this past Sunday, and announced that my children's sermon went really well.  As promised, he demanded to know who I was and what I'd done with Karen.

I was using the day's passage from Ephesians as my inspiration: Ephesians 2:11-22, to be exact.  It's basically talking about how those who were outside the covenant have been brought in because of Christ, and that all who have been brought together in Christ are now one, with all former hostilities replaced by peace and reconciliation.  A nice passage on unity and equality before God.

I called the kids up to the chancel area where they took their usual seats on the step I fell off of a few weeks ago (yes, it was embarrassing), and then I stood facing them.  I called the assisting minister over to stand next to me, and I asked the kids to name everything they noticed that was different between Gary and me.  They had a bit of an advantage because in deference to the high heat and humidity--and lack of air conditioning--I'd used my pastoral authority to place a temporary ban on albs, so the only 'uniform' in sight was my tabbed clerical blouse.  They noticed that I was wearing a black shirt and his was blue, and they noticed that I was a girl and he was a boy.  They noticed our different shoes, different hair, and even though we both wore glasses, they noticed that our glasses were different styles (that's some pretty decent observation!).

Next I called our two acolytes to come and stand in front of the kids, and asked them what differences they saw between those two, or between any of the four of us.  I was the only girl, the acolytes were younger than me and Gary, they had different hair, and I was the shortest one standing (yes, both acolytes were taller than me).  But none of the kids called out the biggest difference between the two acolytes, the whole reason I'd dragged them (without warning them first) into this demonstration.

No one observed that one had black skin and one had white skin.

I finally named that difference once the kids had run out of observations, then asked what all four of us had in common.  When they couldn't come up with anything, that's when I launched into my lesson about how we're all beloved children of God and all those differences they'd observed don't matter, and that we're all one family in Christ.  Then I prayed a little prayer thanking God for the diversity he'd created, asking for help in seeing everyone as our brothers and sisters, then I sent then back to their seats and went on with my 'real' sermon.

But I was troubled by the fact that no one called out skin color as a difference.  Was it that they truly didn't recognize it as a difference?  Or was it that none of them dared say it, because such a recognition is politically incorrect and socially unacceptable these days?

As much as there's a part of me that wants to believe the former, I can't quite convince myself of that.  In the context of the conversation, there were no value judgments being made.  They were observant enough to notice that the frames of Gary's glasses were metal wire, and mine were black plastic.  Every other conceivable difference was observed.  I just don't believe that the fact that one had the white skin of his northern European ancestors and the other had the black skin of his African birth (yes, he and his family just came to the US about two years ago) escaped those powers of observation.

So that leaves me with the belief that they noticed, but didn't want to say it.  And it wasn't just a bunch of white kids not wanting to point out the sole black kid in their midst; one of the things I really like about this church is that it is fairly diverse.  On that particular morning both acolytes had younger siblings who had come up for the children's sermon, plus there were a couple of other black kids not related to the acolyte, and a few of Asian and Latino heritage.  Caucasian was still the majority, but barely.

Why wouldn't these kids acknowledge racial differences, even in a nonjudgmental, strictly observational way?

I understand that prejudice is taught, and that young children don't respond to racial differences any more than they respond to differences in eye color unless (until) they see others responding differently.  But they do notice.  One woman in my congregation was telling me about her son--when he was much younger--playing in the sandbox with an African American neighbor.  He saw that the boy's skin was much darker than his own, and examined his own feet and legs to see if the sand was turning his skin brown, too.  He wasn't concerned; just curious.  I also understand that frequently when people talk about racial differences, it isn't in a strictly nonjudgmental, observational way.

But is it a good idea to make the subject entirely taboo?

I have trouble believing that pretending something doesn't exist is the way to honor the diversity God created.  Hair, eyes, and skin come in all colors.  People have different experiences and cultural traditions, and sometimes skin color plays a part in those experiences and traditions.  Pretending those differences don't exist and pretending we're all the same dilutes the richness of this creation, and robs us of the opportunity to better understand one another.  Because if we can't ask questions, we're left to make up our own answers, and that can lead to worse prejudices, or at least awkward misunderstandings.

I was never a big fan of Seinfeld, but there was one episode in which Elaine spent the entire show trying to figure out if her new boyfriend was black.  It wasn't that she didn't want to date a black guy; she just wanted to know this part of his story.  She examined every possible 'clue' she could find, and talked about it with all her friends, with one of them (usually George) looking very uncomfortable and declaring, "I don't think we should be talking about this."  The one thing she didn't do was ask her boyfriend.  Here's how it ended.

I would like to live in a society in which race doesn't matter, and I think we can get there (though I also think we still have a long way to go).  But right now we're living in a society in which we pretend race doesn't exist, and I don't think that's a good idea at all.

I'd be very interested to know your thoughts on this.  All opinions are welcome, but as always, please keep it civil.

Christian Families, Motherhood, and Womanhood Series, Part One: Government, Contraception, and the First Amendment

I’ve been spending a lot of time lately reflecting on what it means to be a Christian wife and mother in 21^st century America.  Partly this is because I am a Christian wife and mother in 21^st century America, and partly this is because I’ve been doing a lot of research on the Quiverfull movement for a novel I’m writing.  Watching the political battles unfold in the media have also contributed to this, as once again the candidates’ religious beliefs are being used to condemn, divide, and further alienate much of the electorate who seem to fall on the wrong side of something or the other.

As a result of all this reflecting, I’m going to be sharing several posts on the general subject of Christian families, motherhood, and womanhood, beginning today.  I hope you’ll stick with me, and as always I welcome your comments, whether you agree with my opinions or not, but I do ask you to keep it civil and respectful.  In return, I’m going to put considerable effort into keeping these posts as opinions rather than rants.  So without further ado, here is my Christian Families, Motherhood, and Womanhood Series, Part One:  Government, Contraception, and the First Amendment.

There has been a lot of outrage recently about the Affordable Care Act being managed by Health and Human Services (HHS).  (You can read the original press release announcing specifics of the Act here.)  Specifically the outrage is about the mandate that all employer-sponsored health insurance plans offer FDA-approved contraceptive services without cost-sharing, i.e. free of charge to the women who want them.  The Act does allow a narrow exemption for religious institutions to opt out of the contraceptive mandate, however that exemption did not originally include religious hospitals, universities, or other non-worship specific religious organizations.  At the time of this writing, the Obama Administration has indicated that it intends to recommend a compromise which would extend the exemption to those religious entities, and instead put the onus of free coverage on the insurance companies themselves, requiring them to contract with the covered individuals of exempted employers directly to provide contraceptive services for free.  (You can read the White House Fact Sheet on the compromise here.)

This article published by the National Catholic Register nicely summarizes many of the objections made not just by Catholics, but other Christians and even some Jewish groups.  This quote appears early in the article:  “But all see a major unifier in the mandate’s violation of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion and protection of conscience.”  Some other quotes are:

• “We … call upon HHS Secretary Sebelius and the Obama administration to rescind this unjust ruling and to respect the religious freedom guaranteed all Americans by the First Amendment,” [the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America] stated.
• [The National Association of Evangelicals] noted that freedom of conscience is a “sacred gift from God, not a grant from the state.” It also said, “No government has the right to compel its citizens to violate their conscience. The HHS rules trample on our most cherished freedoms and set a dangerous precedent.”
• The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’s [Matthew] Harrison believes with this “secular assault on those of us who hold traditional Christian values … we have a responsibility to stand up and confess in the face of this opposition. It never has been more the time to stand up than now."

The first problem I see is with the appeal to the First Amendment.  Just as a point of reference, the text of the First Amendment reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  There is no mention in the First Amendment of “protection of conscience.”  In fact, there is quite a bit of precedent in the legal history of the United States that state (or Federal) laws that abide by a “neutral law of general applicability” (i.e. the law uniformly applies to everyone and does not single out a certain religion or religious practice) can interfere with the religious liberty of an individual if there is a compelling state interest.  (For an excellent discussion on this topic, read this summary by Richard S. Myers, Law Professor at Ave Maria School of Law.)  In this case the compelling state interest is equal access to medical care for women regardless of where they work.

In regards to the claim that this mandate violates the free exercise of religion (wording that is explicitly included in the First Amendment), this mandate does not require that women must obtain and use birth control that may be contrary to their faith.  To the Orthodox Bishops, HHS and the Obama Administration do respect the religious freedom of all Americans, including those who choose to refrain from birth control, and those who object to religious controls over their access to birth control.  To the National Association of Evangelicals, the government is not compelling its female citizens to violate their consciences (not-for-profit religious organizations do not qualify as citizens).  And to the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, there is no secular assault on traditional Christian values; there are safeguards, however, to prevent a religious assault on non-Christian women who hold secular values.

I like the compromise that the Administration is recommending, because it achieves the public goal of providing free access to all women regardless of where they work, and it keeps religious organizations completely out of that arrangement.  The objection I’m anticipating to this compromise is the (probably correct) assumption that insurance companies will increase their rates across the board in order to pay for the women who contract directly with the insurance companies, thus making religious organizations pay for these services indirectly.

Yet the truth is that religious organizations pay for these services indirectly anyway, no matter what.  When a Catholic priest fills a prescription for the antibiotic Amoxicillin, he and his insurance company are giving profits to Teva Pharmaceuticals, the company that currently owns Plan B, which is considered by many conservatives to be an abortion-inducing pill.  Neither the Catholic Church nor any other church can dictate to Teva how they choose to use profits earned on products such as innocent antibiotics, nor can religious organizations dictate to insurance companies how those companies are to use the money they receive on insurance premiums, beyond providing the specific services required by their existing contracts.  So the ‘indirect payment’ argument is a nonstarter.

The fact is that while this country does respect the free exercise of religion, that freedom cannot come at the expense of public wellbeing, and at the moment, the availability of free birth control to women who have employer-sponsored health plans is considered necessary to public wellbeing.  (Whether it should be is a whole other debate, and will most likely be covered in a future blog post in this series.)

All that said, I do believe that there were some valid points made in the National Catholic Register article.  In particular I agree with John Stonestreet, national programs director of BreakPoint, a part of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, who said the following: “The language of (HHS Secretary Kathleen) Sebelius’ release treats pregnancy as a disease that needs to be prevented. That’s bad news. Despite different stances we (Catholics and evangelicals and Protestants) have on birth control, that language is unacceptable and opens the door to a whole bunch of evils.”

I agree.  Sebelius’ exact words in the HHS press release were “The Affordable Care Act helps stop health problems before they start.”  That quote came immediately after a list of benefits, ending with “contraception without charging a co-payment, co-insurance or a deductible.”  That combined with the title of the press release—Affordable Care Act Ensures Women Receive Preventive Services at No Additional Cost—leaves little doubt that HHS considers pregnancy a health problem that should be prevented.  Interpreting the language that way is not a stretch; what is a stretch is interpreting it any other way.

Clearly I’m in favor of providing free access to contraceptives, but I strongly oppose characterizing pregnancy as a health problem to be prevented.  Pregnancy may not always be a delightful, mystical bonding experience of a mother and her child (morning sickness, gestational diabetes, excessive swelling, back pain, etc. are all medical issues associated with pregnancy that often need to be addressed proactively), but categorizing pregnancy as a health problem that needs to be prevented is the same as categorizing aerobic exercise as a health problem because it results in increased heart rate.  Both pregnancy and aerobic exercise need to be done carefully and wisely, but neither is a health problem to be prevented.

Does the wording really matter?  Yes.  All words matter.  I teach that to my kids all the time.  If you tell a person that they’re ugly, stupid, and worthless, eventually they’re going to believe it.  If the major health service agency of the United States government characterizes pregnancy as a health problem that needs to be prevented, then that too will enter into the public consciousness.  (In some ways it already has, but again, that’s a whole other blog post.  See why I have to make this a series?)  I don’t mind contraception being part of the Affordable Care Act, but I’d really rather it not be included under ‘preventative’ services.

The other point well taken in the National Catholic Register article is the one made by Nathan Diament of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.  He stated, “Most troubling is the administration’s underlying rationale for its decision, which appears to be a view that if a religious entity is not insular, but engaged with broader society, it loses its ‘religious’ character and liberties. … The administration’s ruling makes the price of such an outward approach the violation of an organization’s religious principles.”  At the core of Christianity, Judaism, and (I believe) Islam is the understanding that the faithful must be actively engaged with the world, particularly in regards to charity.  Retreating into safe, private enclaves and ignoring the needs of your neighbors is simply not an option.  Yet the narrowly defined exemption requires exactly that.  (This is somewhat mitigated by the Administration’s compromise, which came about after the National Catholic Register’s article was written.)

In all, I think there’s overreaching by the Administration, and I think there’s overreaching by religious conservatives.  It’s going to take a lot of hard work and humility on both sides to recognize that the United States of America is not a theocracy, however it does need to respect that fact that it has a lot of people who live by strict religious principles.  Let’s try to figure out a way to respect both the religious and the non-religious, and not fight a Holy War over sexual morality.

Which is another topic I’ll be posting on soon.

Merry Christmas!

Shortly after Thanksgiving, everyone in my house came down sick and stayed that way for several weeks.  Needless to say, that delayed our Christmas preparations.

Christmas shopping wasn't a problem; we don't go overboard with presents for our kids so we already had most of them purchased, with a few clicks online finishing up the job.  But we haven't been able to decorate until now.

Add to that the fact that we've moved so often over the past few years, and we haven't really decorated for Christmas since 2008.  We had a Christmas tree for our son's first Christmas (which, since he was only eight months old, he obviously doesn't remember), but our daughter's never seen one in her own house.  This year we decided to put one up, but we discovered over the weekend that our Christmas tree stand got left behind in one of the four moves we've had since we last used it.

Have you ever tried to find a Christmas tree stand the week before Christmas?  My husband went to several stores to discover that they were sold out, and called even more only to be told the same thing.  When I went out looking, I found more of the same, plus in some cases I had to walk around store employees removing Christmas decorations from the shelves to make room for their next wave of inventory (thankfully they're not yet putting out pink and red heart-shaped objects for Valentine's Day--that'll probably come in about two weeks).

Removing Christmas inventory the week before Christmas?  You know the classic song, "The Twelve Days of Christmas?"  Those twelve days start on December 25 and continue through January 5, the night before Epiphany.  That's the traditional celebration of Christmas, with Advent being the four weeks leading up to Christmas.  I realize that the stores have been selling Christmas since before Halloween, but some of us actually try to celebrate Advent, and keep Christmas for Christmas.  Even if we hadn't been sick, our decorating would have happened only a few days sooner than it did.  So while the stores may be tired of it, some of us are just getting started.

Fortunately the evening was saved by Home Depot.  They had a few tree stands left, so I was able to save my husband from having to try to 'build' something to hold up the tree that was dejectedly sitting on our porch.  Furthermore, the cashier at Home Depot actually wished me a "Merry Christmas."  Not "Happy Holidays," but a real "Merry Christmas."  It was so refreshing to hear!  And then I also got a "Merry Christmas" from the clerk at the store in the mall that sold me a lighted star tree topper (another item that's hard to come by a week before Christmas).

It's common and even expected for Christians and quasi-Christians to lament about the consumerism of Christmas, how early the stores start selling it, and the decline of the religious meaning of the holiday.  We hear so much about how people who aren't religious Christians get offended when wished a "Merry Christmas," insisting instead on "Happy Holidays," which supposedly honors Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanzaa, Conspicuous Consumption Day, and whatever else people choose to celebrate around the end of December.  Now I agree that it's a bit foolish and insensitive for a sales clerk to wish a Merry Christmas to a customer purchasing a menorah, but in the absence of something so obvious, what's wrong with wishing a Merry Christmas to someone who is purchasing Christmas paraphernalia?

Chanukah has always been its own holiday, and should certainly be respected.  Kwanzaa was originally created "as an alternative to Christmas," and Conspicuous Consumption Day is clearly a secular hijacking of the religious holiday.  As such, I think it's perfectly appropriate to wish a "Merry Christmas" to anyone engaging in celebrating Christmas in any way, even if they've appropriated various aspects of the Christmas celebration for a holiday of their own creation.  Does this mean that every purchase between Thanksgiving and Christmas should automatically be met with a "Merry Christmas?"  Not necessarily.  But anyone buying Christmas decorations (trees, ornaments, yard lights, etc.), Christmas cards (any card that doesn't specifically call out Chanukah or Kwanzaa), a ton of toys, or anything featuring snowmen, Santa Claus, Thomas Kinkade artwork, or old-fashioned people skating or riding in horse-drawn sleighs is fair game.

So to the clerks who wished me a "Merry Christmas" last night--thank you!  Please keep up the good work!  You might slightly offend someone who wants to celebrate Christmas without acknowledging its origins as a religious holiday, but you also might bring some joy and hope to a Christian who is trying to remember that Christmas is the celebration of God's breaking into human history by sending his Son to achieve salvation for us all.  It's amazing how just calling the holiday by its right name can go such a long way towards helping with that.

Education, Standardized Tests, and Idiocy

In principle, I'm no fan of standardized tests as the be-all and end-all of measuring academic achievement and predicting future success.  I think they have their place, but at best they can only be one tool among many to gauge whether a student is progressing acceptably in school.  I believe that the current trend of schools 'teaching to the test' in order to 'prove' that they're good schools and thus receive necessary funding is a horrible disservice to students, teachers, and the future of this nation.

But I have to admit that that opinion is largely uninformed.

You see, I went through a Massachusetts public school system before the MCAS was introduced.  I vaguely recall taking something called the California Achievement Test (yes, in Massachusetts) every few years, but those scores were for informational purposes only.  Along with most of my peers I took the SAT as part of my college entrance efforts, and I'm embarrassed to admit that my combined score didn't even break 1000.  But that didn't matter because I was unmotivated, and ended up on the eight-year, work-my-way-through-night-school plan (see previous post), choosing schools more on affordability, geography, and convenience of schedule than prestige or quality.

So standardized tests have not been a significant part of my educational career.

But I read something yesterday that simply appalled me.

Earlier this week the Washington Post had a piece about a school board member in a major district who took the standardized tests for 10th grade math and reading.  It was later revealed that the district was in Florida, and the test in question was the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT).  This board member self-describes as having a bachelor of science degree, two masters degrees, and 15 credits toward a doctorate.  He helps "oversee an organization with 22,000 employees and a $3 billion operations and capital budget, and am able to make sense of complex data related to those responsibilities."  He admits that of the 60 questions in the math section, he didn't know the answer to a single one of them, and was only able to guess correctly on 10 of them.  On the reading section, he scored a mere 62%.  He dismissed the argument that the information would have been fresher in his mind had he currently been in high school, pointing out instead that "A test that can determine a student’s future life chances should surely relate in some practical way to the requirements of life.  I can’t see how that could possibly be true of the test I took."

This seems to be a pretty compelling statement against the usefulness of the FCAT.  But as much as I'm predisposed against standardized testing, I had trouble believing that the test could be that disconnected from reality.  So I took it myself.

I can't say with certainty that I took exactly the same test this highly educated and highly successful school board member did.  But I went to the Florida Department of Education website where I was able to download the test booklets for the 10th grade math and reading tests from 2006.  The math section had 58 questions, and the reading had 45.  I answered (or tried to answer) all 58 of the math, but I disregarded the essay questions on the reading section because I had no way to objectively score them.  The test booklet failed to provide a couple of necessary readings (due to copyright permissions not being available for an electronic format), so I also disregarded the questions based on those.  (I later discovered that the necessary readings were reproduced in the answer booklet--I left them out anyway because I didn't want to risk seeing the correct answers in the course of my reading.)  So in the end I answered the 35 remaining multiple choice questions I could reasonably be expected to answer.

I have no idea how this school board member manages to enjoy the level of success he claims, because I think he must be an idiot.

I hated math in school.  I barely passed Algebra I and II, and only passed Geometry after I had to revisit it in summer school.  I took two accounting classes and one statistics class in college, back about 15 years ago.  Yes, I did deal with numbers in my first career in finance, but that was mostly arithmetic, and I left that field over 12 years ago.  Of the 58 questions in the test, I answered 43 of them correctly.  Very few were wild-ass guesses.  Most of them, if I didn't know the answer immediately, I was able to figure it out with the information provided.

Of the 35 reading questions, I answered 35 of them correctly.

With the exception of some of the geometry, most of the math problems could be solved through simple arithmetic and/or common sense.  Basic observation and problem-solving skills.  Someone like me, who doesn't remember a single formula from high school math and doesn't do unusual amounts of math in work life (I'm a stay-at-home mom of toddlers--we're still working on counting to 20!), was able to score 74%.  The school board member with his $3 billion budget scored 17%.  The skill I employed most frequently in solving these problems was determining what of the information provided was important to figuring out the solution, and what could be disregarded.  I don't care what line of work you're in, that is a necessary skill for functioning as an adult in today's world.

As far as the multiple-choice questions on the reading test are concerned, all you have to do is read the short piece and answer the questions.  There is no assumption that you are intimately familiar with obscure pieces of literature, or even that you know the technical jargon necessary to grammatically deconstruct a sentence.  All you have to do is demonstrate that you understand what you just read, both the content and the intent.  Why does intent matter?  It matters if you want to be able to tell the difference between an opinion piece and an instruction manual.  It matters if you expect to be able to understand the difference between the story of one person's success in entrepreneurship and a boiler-plate business plan.

Granted, I didn't answer the essay questions.  Let's assume I did, and let's assume I missed all four.  That would have dropped my 100% down to 89%.  The school board member, with all his advanced degrees, scored 62%.  He reasons that the test is unfair because “On the FCAT, [the students] are reading material they didn’t choose.  They are given four possible answers and three out of the four are pretty good.  One is the best answer but kids don’t get points for only a pretty good answer.  They get zero points, the same for the absolute wrong answer.  And then they are given an arbitrary time limit.  Those are a number of reasons that I think the test has to be suspect.”

First of all, I challenge his claim that three of the four answers are "pretty good," but let's put that aside for now.  In real life, can we expect that we'll only ever have to read and understand things that we choose to read?  (No, I don't feel like reading the Instruction Booklet for my 1040, so I just won't bother filing my taxes this year.)  In real life, can we expect that 'partial credit' will be given for an answer that's 'pretty good' but not necessarily the 'best'?  (Well, you've read the detailed job description and I've really enjoyed interviewing you.  You missed the mark a little bit on what skills we're looking for, but you were pretty close, so we'll give you this other job, instead.)  In real life, can we expect that we'll be given unlimited time to comprehend a set of instructions or absorb some basic information necessary for what we're doing?  (You need three months to understand the policies laid out in our employee handbook before you start work?  No problem; we'll keep you on full salary while you figure it out!)

I still don't think standardized tests should be given the level of importance they currently enjoy, but if the FCAT is indicative of what's being expected of 10th graders across the country, I think it's doing a pretty good job of measuring how well kids are learning how to learn.  Based on the two tests I took, students aren't being expected to memorize a bunch of trivia that they'll never use in adulthood; they're being expected to filter information, determine its value, and be able to understand written communication.  In adulthood you don't have to know everything, but you do need to know how to find whatever information you need.  And you can't do that if you can't determine what is relevant and what isn't, discern the difference between opinion, bias, and fact, or understand what a paragraph is even saying.

I'm not worried about students taking the FCAT.  I'm worried that we live in a world in which an adult who is unable to pass the FCAT is on the school board, and is able to function as a leader at a company with 22,000 employees and a capital and operating budget of $3 billion.  Are the expectations of functioning--even successful--adulthood really so low?

No wonder this country's in trouble.

What Do the Occupy Wall Street Protesters Want?

There have been a lot of snarky articles written about the Occupy Wall Street protesters (and their clones in cities across the United States), characterizing them as freeloaders, lazy college drop-outs, bored trust fund kids, unemployed people who would rather complain than work, etc.  Most of my research is done online, so I can read the readers' comments on most of the articles about the Occupiers.  Most of those comments are even snarkier than the articles.  A popular way to discredit the protesters is to point out that they don't have a unified message, a platform, or specific goals that can be addressed.

Full disclosure: I am not one of the protesters.  I do not speak for them.  I've not discussed with any of them what their goals or objectives are.  I do support them, and I'm doing so by publicizing what I can about them and, occasionally, dropping off a load of blankets, sleeping bags, and other needed supplies to the Occupy Boston crowd in Dewey Square.

I do not have a profile on the We Are the 99% webpage, but I am the 99%.  And this is why I'm supporting the protesters.

Earlier this week the Congressional Budget Office released a report about income disparity between 1979 and 2007.  The New York Times sums up the report's findings this way:  Between 1979 and 2007, the top 1% of earners saw an increase of 275% in their after-tax incomes.  The next 19% (or the remainder of the top 20%) saw an increase of 65% of after-tax income.  The next 60% saw an increase of just under 40%, and the bottom 20% saw an increase of just 18%.

Remember, we're not talking about overall wealth growth, so the argument that wealth begets wealth doesn't apply here.  This is a strict after-tax income-to-income comparison.  Yes, things like capital gains are included, but that only applies if an asset is sold.  The value of assets that one continues to own such as a house or investment portfolios is not included.  Things like Social Security payments are included in these numbers.

Looking at Table A-1 from the CBO Report, the real dollar increases are as follows (earnings include wages, capital gains, and 'Transfers' such as Social Security, and after federal taxes are deducted):

Someone earning $15,411 in 1979 was earning $18,979 in 2007, an increase of $3,568.
Someone earning $22,851 in 1979 was earning $29,769 in 2007, an increase of $6,918.
Someone earning $30,341 in 1979 was earning $42,202 in 2007, an increase of $11,861.
Someone earning $51,613 in 1979 was earning $81,135 in 2007, an increase of $29,522.
And someone in the top 1%, earning $115,965 in 1979 was earning $252,607 in 2007, an increase of $136,642.

One might argue that the higher-paying jobs increased in complexity more than the lower-paying jobs, thus justifying a greater increase in salary over the years.  That is a valid point.  But consider the following information as well:

• Cost of a new house
• 1979 - $58,100
• 2007 - $308,775
• 431% increase
• Average rent for a two-bedroom apartment
• 1979 - $280
• 2007 - $1,368
• 389% increase
• Cost of a loaf of bread
• 1979 - $.35
• 2007 - $1.25
• 257% increase
• Cost of a gallon of gasoline
• 1979 - $.86
• 2007 - $2.80
• 226% increase
• Cost of a dozen eggs
• 1979 - $.85
• 2007 - $1.75
• 106% increase
• Cost of a gallon of milk
• 1979 - $1.62
• 2007 - $3.27
• 102% increase

Let's take home ownership out of the equation for the moment.  Let's assume someone is paying the average rent, buying 15 gallons of gasoline each week, and is buying one loaf of bread, one dozen eggs, and one gallon of milk each week.  In 1979, that person would be paying $4,112 each year for those necessities, leaving the lowest earners $11,299 for utilities, car payments, other food, etc.  Not luxurious, or even particularly comfortable, but reasonable.  In 2007 those same necessities cost $18,926, leaving the lowest earners only $53 per year for all their other needs.  That's just not right.

While some of the protesters may want perfect income equality, most of us are only trying to have a chance.  We can't do that if incomes are not keeping up with the cost of living.  The Declaration of Independence lists life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the three unalienable rights of [hu]man[ity].  Americans are not guaranteed a comfortable, middle-class lifestyle, and I believe in hard work and personal responsibility.  Safety nets should be in place to prevent starvation and depravity, but not ensure comfort.  But in the last thirty years, hard work and personal responsibility are no longer enough to achieve 'happiness' (or, as I define the term in this context, the 'American Dream').  To list 'pursuit of happiness' as an unalienable right must mean that the achievement of said happiness is possible for ordinary people willing to put in the effort, and right now it's not.

I realize that the world is changing, and we are now in a 'knowledge economy.'  Presumably that means knowledge is the key to success.  The logical course then seems to be to prioritize higher education: i.e. if you want to succeed, go to college and get a degree.  In 1979 the average in-state tuition (including room and board) for a state school was $2,327 for the academic year.  In 2007 that same year's worth of tuition, room, and board cost $13,589, an increase of 484%.  Families in the bottom 99% can't save the money to pay for their kids' college education, and the kids who borrow the money won't earn enough at their non-top-1% jobs to be able to pay those loans back.  The American Dream has become a pipe dream.

What do the Occupy Wall Street protesters want?  They want people to realize what is going on.  They want people to realize that many of us are following the same rules as the much-vaunted 'Greatest Generation' followed, but the game has changed, and following those rules will no longer earn you the comfortable, middle-class lives our grandparents lived.  Following those rules now earns you a house with an underwater mortgage, a job that demands annual pay-cuts while the company is declaring record profits, the risk of having that job taken away from you at any moment, fewer (if any) health and retirement benefits, and ever-growing credit card debt just to keep food on your table.

The protesters are not politicians.  They don't have a platform.  They don't have a neat three-point plan.  They don't have the answers.  And they're not supposed to.  No one elected them to get or keep the country on the right track.  They are protesting the fact that the people who were elected to do so by and large owe their political power to the corporate and special interests who funded their campaigns, and it's those corporate and special interests that they're representing.  The protesters are not trying to 'hurt' banks or corporations or politicians.  They are trying to get banks and corporations and politicians to be accountable for their actions, and if that accountability is interpreted as 'hurt,' then I'd say there's definitely something wrong that needs to be fixed.

There's something wrong when those who are elected to represent the people can only make it to election day with the help of the rich and powerful.

There's something wrong when banks give oversized mortgages to underqualified borrowers, and sell securities backed by those mortgages as good investments, and also sell - as good investments - credit default swaps betting that those mortgages will fail.

There's something wrong when CEOs make decisions that cost thousands of people their jobs, cause millions of people to lose money on investments, and get paid multimillions of dollars as a severance package for a job poorly done.

There's something wrong when banks and corporations make mistakes and receive taxpayer-funded bailouts, but when individuals make mistakes they're told to suck it up, and are accused of being greedy, lazy, and irresponsible.

There's something wrong when interest rates punish those who behave responsibly and live within their means, but reward those who finance their spending and risky investments with other people's money.

And there's something terribly wrong when Americans look at other Americans who are exercising their rights and, more importantly, fulfilling their civic duty to question the actions of their leaders, and call them lazy, stupid, spoiled, freeloaders, etc.

It's a recession when your neighbor loses his job.  It's a depression when you lose yours.  If you're not part of that top 1%, just wait: your depression will come.  The numbers have proven that it's just a matter of time.

You are the 99%, whether you like it or not.