The O-bomb-a Policy

Warning: Rant to follow.

Baker College announced this week that due to Affordable Care Act (ACA) aka Obamacare regulations, they will be required to reclassify their part-time (adjunct) faculty (which is most of its faculty) in a way that limits the number of classes adjuncts will be able to teach. This is no doubt a well intentioned move by bureaucrats to keep employers from classifying large numbers of employees in part-time status so that they can escape the Obamacare requirement to provide health insurance for them. On the surface, it seems harmless. In the real world (a place unfamiliar to Washington bureaucrats) it just means more of us will be forced into lower income brackets.

Washington is also discussing another O-bomb-a attack on citizens to determine whether the President has the Constitutional right to kill American citizens on US soil using drones. OMG! (Sorry. Wasn’t it the Democrats who were so upset with George Bush’s use of drones to assassinate foreign terrorists?) The Senate is examining Attorney General Eric Holder on the policy which he seems to be defending. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is filibustering in Congress to block the confirmation of CIA Director nominee John Brennan because Paul adamantly opposes the administration position on drone use on American soil. May his tribe increase.

I fondly remember Nancy Pelosi’s comment during the original Obamacare debate (debacle?) saying, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it.” Those were the days. Back then we only feared that President Obama and his ilk were trying to take over America. Fear has been replaced with certainty; it is happening. This is the change some people hoped for. Obama has admitted that he wants to rebuild America. Bill Clinton affirmed this during the 2012 campaign. What many people do not realize is that in order to “rebuild” one must first raze the existing structure.

Voters in this country are clearly divided on whether we want the Obama rebuild or not. A la Pelosi’s comment about healthcare, now that we have elected Obama, we are seeing what he really meant by “hope and change.” Barak Obama and the current crop of political progressives hope to reshape America in the pattern of socialist Europe. The rest of us would like to keep the model of America that allowed us to achieve the exceptional success we have. Europe is not currently doing well by any honest appraisal; following their lead is not attractive to those of us who realize that America’s uniqueness has spared us some of the Continent’s pain. Greece (or Spain or even Great Britain) is not an appealing model at present.

I believe the driving force behind Obama’s popularity is a tectonic shift in the American spirit. Something happened in the middle of the last century that fundamentally altered the attitude of millions of Americans. Many things doubtless contributed to this change of heart: the unbridled prosperity immediately after WWII; the breakdown of moral restraint regarding sexuality, drugs and behavior in general; a burgeoning welfare state (this may be effect and cause;) the disappearance of the traditional family unit and its ancillary components; the gradual take-over of media by the political left.

The strength of character that got us through two World Wars and an economic disaster in between is fading from public view. I say “public view” because I think there is still a large conservative cadre in this country; its views are not widely or fairly presented due to media bias. Because the media only reports those things that are complimentary to the Obama administration and its policies, many Americans are fooled by the President’s rhetoric (see Words Have Meaning.) Add to this the human tendency to want something for nothing, and Obama wins re-election by 53%. I hope that this week’s events will stir some of those “five-three-ers” to reconsider their vote for change. Smaller pay checks and armed drones overhead is definitely not the America I hope for.

How to Watch TV (2)

How to Watch TV (2) The second in a series. (Browse titles for other installments.)

Watch less. This may seem like a simplistic suggestion, but it is meant seriously. Too much time in front of the television is not conducive to healthy growth. My introduction to this topic suggested several reasons why a person, particularly a Christian, should consider reducing or at least reevaluating the amount of time spent watching TV. The reasons to go on a TV diet range from effects on one’s physical health to serious modifications to a person’s behavior. This installment will deal with the physical aspects.

First, every human’s available time is limited to twenty-four hours per day. Since most adults have responsibilities which consume large portions of that allotment, controlling the way the remaining time is spent becomes more significant. Immediately after pointing to the Old Testament call to, “Awake, you who sleep,” The Apostle Paul recommends “redeeming the time” because the days are evil. I cannot think of a more apt 21^st century demonstration of what it might mean to “sleep” than what happens to the human mind watching television. Nor can I imagine a more concentrated dose of “evil” than what is presented by most television programming. Paul also admonished believers to “set your minds on things above, not on things on the earth.” What is more earthly than today’s television programming?

What this suggests to me is that being careful to use one’s time wisely would have to include being more intentional about what gets put on the TV screen as well as how much time is spent in front of it. By default, one hour of TV burns one precious hour that could be spent in other more worthwhile pursuits. George Barna’s research from 2011 showed that only 41% of young adults (aged 30-50yrs.) read the Bible outside of church. 60% of this group nonetheless claims to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, 37% claiming to be born again. True, only 35% believe the Bible is totally accurate, but one wonders if that might be in part because they don’t know what it says having not read it regularly.

Besides replacing TV viewing with reading the Bible, one might also read other wholesome literature. If maintaining a reading schedule is difficult, one can enlist the aid of other like-minded souls. I attend a lunch meeting with several friends who have joined in the reading of five books in the last couple years. I am sure neither I nor my buddies would have read those books without the inducement and cordial accountability of our weekly meetings. Even if we don’t discuss the book much some weeks, we have developed meaningful relationships over time; that too bears rewards.

Those who still have children at home or just need more quality time (which TV time is not) with a spouse, might consider the introduction of table games as an alternative. There are many newer games that are not only fun to play, but they also build relationships, stimulate meaningful interaction and broaden one’s knowledge. Even the old standbys like Monopoly, Scrabble or Battleship can be a worthy substitute for that umpteenth crime drama. The downside of this alternative is that one is still sitting on one’s backside.

Probably the best thing a person could do to replace TV from a health standpoint is go for a walk (or a jog if so inclined.) Not everyone is as fortunate as I to live next door to a nature preserve with walking trails aplenty. Many communities are developing safe and attractive places to stretch the legs. Even a trip to the mall can become a work-out session if so chosen. Some even open early for just that purpose. If one is not a morning person, that prime time TV hour could be spent strolling the promenade at the mall instead of learning whodunit for the third time this week.

There are even ways to make the time spent bathed in the photon stream of the TV more profitable. First, though advertisers will hate this suggestion, I recommend pre-recording virtually everything. This allows a one hour drama, for example, to be viewed in about forty-five minutes. Bam! Fifteen minutes “gained.” The other benefit DVR-ing provides is the coordination with one’s schedule. It is not necessary to stay up until 11 pm to catch that favorite show; it can be recorded tonight and watched tomorrow in an earlier time slot. What I am aiming at here is getting to bed earlier so that I can get up early and still be rested. I want to get up early because I have an appointment with a couple free weights and a cup of coffee with my prayer journal.

If recording is not an option, just sitting there like a lump should be avoided; do something. During the commercials (here I go making enemies again,) one can get up and walk. In a multi-level home, the stairs will multiply the work done during the commercial break. A little research will uncover several healthy isometric or free-weight exercises that can be done while watching as well. Something as simple as standing frequently and stretching can rescue TV watching from the list of totally unhealthy activities.

My personal goal is to watch less, as previously recommended. I don’t want to get to my heavenly mansion (where I don’t expect a TV, by the way) and be shown all the heavenly things I could have accomplished on earth if I had not spent so much time glued to the box. My next installment will offer some ways to for believers to apply Jesus’ injunction to “watch and pray” to television watching. Stay tuned.

How to Watch Television (1)

This is intended to be the first in a series.

A recent study by Nielsen analyzed in the New York Daily News reveals that American adults watch 34 hours of television programming weekly. The study shows people over 65 watch 48 hours per week. Since many of those seniors are retired, their number is not hard to believe. But one wonders where young and middle aged adults find five hours per day to sit in front of the tube. Assuming eight hours of work, an eight hour break to sleep, and just three additional hours for commuting, shopping, bathroom breaks and whatever, this statistic means we are spending every free moment of every day in front of the television. Yikes!

I have found myself rationalizing my own TV habits by saying I watch mostly news programming or quasi-educational shows about cars (see Hilariously Content) or hunting or history or food preparation (my wife has converted me into a Food Channel junkie.) I limit my TV dramas to two or three weekly serials simply because I cannot keep up with more than that and maintain my work schedule. Then we usually watch a couple movies together every week, so I can see my hours-per-day average is creeping up there.

I also get a different exposure than what Nielsen numbers might imply. Much (if not most) of my viewing outside the news programming is done through the DVR. This means I skip most of the commercials. (How silly I feel when I hit the FFW button when it is live, though.) Advertising remains a major impact for most viewers.  TV Free America reports that a significant portion of viewing time is devoted to commercials; children see 20,000 ads every year and by age sixty-five will have seen two million TV advertisements. It is unarguable that all that exposure molds our thinking in significant ways.

No discussion of television can ignore the amount of violence which is presented. According to TV Free America, by age eighteen we have witnessed 200,000 acts of violence. I must admit that my limited menu of drama includes only shows depicting crime solvers. Even the news programming I defend as more acceptable presents stories about crime, disaster and war during 53.8% of their air time. Since eighteen minutes of every news “hour” is devoted to advertising, this means I get ONLY 22 minutes of mayhem per hour of news coverage. Again, there can be no doubt this leads to reduced sensitivity to violence.

The effects of television on our society and on each individual cannot be overstated. Everyone has heard the “when I was a kid…” stories ad nauseum. Forgive me, then, but I did spend a major portion of my youth running around outdoors. Overindulgence in television is a large contributor to the obesity epidemic in youth and adults. Rampant materialism is not unrelated to the continual drumming of TV advertisers. Unstable minds will not be made healthier by watching an average of thirty acts of violence every day. This discussion has not even touched on the ubiquitous game consoles attached to those TV’s or the ever-present hand-held devices that appear to be evolving into a new appendage on kids as young as two years old.

Christians must address this issue proactively. While unplugging the television is a real alternative, as drastic as it may sound, there are measures that can be taken to mitigate the ill effects (I almost wrote “evil” effects) of television on our souls. I plan to write a series of posts offering creative ways to rescue our souls from the demon in the box. Stay tuned. In the meantime take a walk, read a book, turn the tube off and go roll in the snow with your kids (grandkids.) The glow of the winter sun (or moon) is far healthier than anything the LCD emits in the living room.

The Right to Bear Crosses

This post may seem out of place under my blog title, but bear with me if you can.

I have just finished reading more than fifty essays on gun control, or more accurately, analyses of articles about gun control. I purposely assigned an article from each side of the issue to give my students the opportunity to agree with one if they chose to do so. Not surprisingly, many of my young scholars were supportive of the position taken by Dr. Erin O’Brien, an academic from Australia, who advocates strict firearm laws as a means to reduce violent crime. She touts the complete ban her country initiated after the 1996 Port Arthur shooting which claimed 35 lives. She offers this as a solution for gun shocked Americans in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre.

What O’Brien fails to mention either by ignorance or thoughtful omission is that even the Australian government now concedes that the confiscation of citizens’ guns has not significantly reduced violent crime. Homicides, rapes, burglaries and other serious crimes remained steady or increase slightly according to a study done in 2003. O’Brien is correct to say that there has not been another mass murder since 1996, but violence against persons has continued to countless multiples of the 35 victims at Port Arthur. In Great Britain, similar gun laws resulted in dramatic increases in violent crime.

Nine out of ten students who read O’Brien simply took her at her word and praised her evidence-backed reasoning; they did not do the fact checking that would have put the lie to her argument. Unfortunately, I suspect a similar ratio would apply to average Americans who are watching the current debate about gun control in this country. Case in point: the Brady Campaign recently gave California its highest grade for gun laws, yet California has a 73% higher murder rate than the average of states which ranked below it. The same report card honored ten states with the “strongest” gun laws when those ten had murder rates 2.2 times higher than the ten states with the “weakest” laws.

There are too many people who have not yet realized there are factions in our most popular media who will twist the facts purposely to advance their agenda. It is true that America has the highest per capita gun ownership and gun violence in the world. However, it is not reported widely that FBI crime data for 2011 shows a significant decline in violent crime for 18 of the last 20 years.  Murder, the most frequently mentioned gun crime, is down 52% in that same period. This has all taken place while private gun ownership has risen concurrently.

My students lost a few points on their essay if they missed O’Brien’s glaring logical flaw. Americans will lose much more if we don’t do our homework in this Constitutional debate. This is a Second Amendment issue which has consequences beyond whether we keep our private guns or not. Tinkering with the Constitution in the manner of the anti-gun lobby is dangerous.

As one of my more insightful students pointed out, the Second Amendment came on the heels of America’s armed rebellion against British tyranny. The right to bear arms was expressly given so that tyrants would think twice about subjecting armed citizens to tyrannical measures. The anti-gun position on the Second Amendment is that “a well regulated militia” refers to government entities like police and armed forces personnel.  One must consider, however, that if only the government has guns, there will be no citizen defense against a tyrannical government. It is often said that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. What if the government becomes the “outlaws?”

And finally, I turn to the WHAMM aspect: the same forces who would alter the Constitutional right to bear arms would also like to rewrite the First Amendment freedom of religion. It is already beginning; preaching certain portions of Scripture is now considered a hate crime in some jurisdictions. If that becomes a precedent, the Supreme Court may one day dictate what can be spoken from our pulpits. Listen to the wisdom of Martin Niemoller who lived in Nazi Germany:

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

Hilariously Content

Today I am taking a vacation from politics and theology.

 

I have recently stumbled upon a delightful show on BBC America called Top Gear. The show is a cross between Myth Busters and the Keystone Kops. The word that seems best to describe the three co-hosts is jovial, and their antics with automobiles would be called irregular if one was being kind. Nonetheless, it is a hoot. Watching the show I regularly end up with pain at the base of my skull from continuous, tear-inducing laughter.  (Is that normal, or just me?)

 

One segment of the show involves brief product reviews of automobiles and related paraphernalia. In keeping with the general irreverent mood, one can expect something more entertaining than what Consumer’s Report might offer to say the least. For example, a recent comparison between the Porsche Boxter and Mercedes Benz SLK55 AMG involved racing through an abandoned village in which members of the British Army were prepared to “ambush” the fleeing driver. Naturally, rather than live ammunition modern electronic “bullets” registered hits on the driver’s vest a la Laser tag. If memory serves, the Benz won by allowing the driver to escape with fewer hits.

This is decidedly not the way most people would choose to test a high priced, high powered open touring car, but that is precisely why Top Gear keeps me coming back. It is my escape into laughter. Yet a recent episode did foster a flight of introspection (no surprise to those who know me.) They test drove the new Bentley Continental GT and compared it to the latest model from Ferrari. Not surprisingly, the Italian job felt like a race car made street worthy – barely street worthy. The Continental, on the other hand, came off like a delicious luxury sedan made race worthy – very worthy. To be wrapped in elegant leather and surrounded by fine wood and polished metal while being propelled down the road at incredible speeds is a dream of mine.

I once spent several hours with an American attempt at the luxury sport sedan (emphasis on sport.) I put a little over 100 miles on a Chrysler 300 SRT-8. With a mere 425 horse power, the Chrysler certainly doesn’t compare directly with the 616 British ponies in the Bentley. Nor did the distinctly American leather seats but plastic everything else show like the burled walnut and polished aluminum from the factory in Crewe. There is something to be said for the hand-built car; it makes an impression. But when I mashed the accelerator in the 300 and heard the subtle, yet purposeful roar and felt my back pressed into the leather as I rocketed to 60 in just 4.6 seconds, I felt the same rush I imagine the Bentley would provide. In fact, had a Bentley been racing alongside, I would have beaten it to 60 by three tenths of a second. (The Bentley carries a full ton more luxury in its curb weight.)

The sticker price on the Chrysler I drove was just over forty; the Bentley would be more than four times that. Given my reduced circumstances and slim prospects for the future, I will never have to decide whether to buy the Bentley or the Chrysler (although a good used 300 might come to live with me someday; that or its country cousin the Dodge Magnum SRT-8.) The point I am finally getting to is that I have lately begun to realize the true value of St. Paul’s remark about being content in whatever state one finds oneself. The 257,000 mile ’99 Durango I currently own is rough and rusty, but it has started and conveyed me to and fro in warmth and safety in the sub freezing snowy weather we have been enduring lately. Neither the Bentley nor the Chrysler would do any more than that. Bentley drivers may laugh at that idea. I laugh at Top Gear and motor on in contentment.

I Got Scammed

I got scammed. I thought I had enough experience to avoid the ovbious rip-offs. I was wrong.

I went to a Global Vacation Network presentation in Grand Rapids that promised a free Android tablet to anyone who attended. I have been to several of these vacation and time-share presentations. All of them have delivered the gift they promised. Global Vacations has not -- yet. I submitted my complaint to the Better Business Bureau, but I am not holding my breath. I did not check with the BBB first (as I should have) to learn that there are 191 complaints against Global Vacation Network for not doing what they promise. Caveat emptor.

Right now some of my readers are wondering how someone as intelligent as I could fall for such a scam. I must tell you that I have been the benefactor of many free gifts from similar operations. After winning a free trip to Cancun (many years ago) I sat in a time-share presentation at my beachfront  hotel and walked out with a free sarape and two free lobster dinners. The lobsters were delicious; the sarape lasted many years before it went to the landfill. I found Cancun to be a bore, but it was a free bore. We later spent two free nights in a fine establishment in Petoskey with free dinner and breakfast compliments of another time-share type outfit. There were other "sit and listen" presentations that netted free gifts.

I also bought a vacation package several years ago at one of these events. It sounded like a truly worthwhile investment at the time. In fact we did get good use from it for a couple years, but then my financial situation deteriorated and I was forced to relinquish my "ownership" in the vacation property I had purchased. I do not recommend this as sound financial practice.

I am baring my soul in this way as a warning to others who may be tempted by offers that sound too good to be true. The old saying is true: if it sounds too good to be true it is. Granted, I stumbled into a few dollars worth of something-for-nothing, but statistically the adage holds true. There is no free lunch. Despite the fact that I signed up for Mr. Steak's free trip to Cancun and won, the vast majority (like everybody but me) who entered that drawing lost. Millions of people who bought lottery tickets in the last multi-million dollar lottery lost every penny.

Something deep in the human soul wants something for nothing. Scam artists traffic on that. Whether it is the Michigan state lottery, the nearest Indian casion or the raffle down at the parish, somebody is betting that there will be plenty of people who will lay down good money for a slight (and very slight) chance to get something for (next to) nothing. Do the math. There is no way a casino or travel company or church can offer a "free gift" without having someone pay for it. If you happen to "win," someone or many someones "lost." That's just the way it works.

This may explain why so many people are confused about what the Gospel of Christ really offers. It sounds too good to be true. We are conditioned to think that we have to pay something or do something to earn anything of value. Life generally teaches us that only hard work is rewarded with cash and benefits, so anything worth having requires work. People typically don't do what I did and go to a presentation offering something for free. Most people are smart enough to recognize the scam.

So what's the WHAMM here? There actually is a "free lunch" in one sense of the word. (It isn't really free because Someone paid for it already, but it is free to the current contestant.) A free ticket to heaven has been bought and paid for by the Saviour of the world. Christ redeemed (literally "bought back") anyone who places trust in him for salvation. Winning the next Powerball will only get you a few million dollars a year for life. Life ends. Gaining eternal life from a relationship with Christ gets an eternity of "free" benefits that never end. And you don't have to sit through a time-share presentation. And the liklihood of getting what was promised is better than with Global Vacation Network.

The Meaning of Football

Vanity, vanity; all is vanity says the Preacher. Was Solomon a proto-existentialist? That old King James translation, vanity, could just as well be rendered “meaningless.” That sounds like Sartre, the father of existentialism: life has no meaning. But the really worthwhile question is whether life has a purpose. Even Sartre recommended the practice of ‘existential psychoanalysis’ that interprets our actions to uncover the fundamental project that unifies our lives.”

I am in a Bible study that is looking at Ecclesiastes, a man’s book for men I suggested. Last week, on the eve of Super Bowl XLVII, one of the bright lads at the table asked if football had any meaning. He may have been trying to justify our hour of conversation which centered more on the big game than the writings of Solomon, but it did get me thinking. Why do men (mostly) get so wrapped up in physical contests? We all know guys for whom sports seem to be the “fundamental project that unifies [their] lives.” It may not have meaning, but it gives purpose.

To have purpose is to have a reason to get out of bed every morning. Purpose can be noble or ignoble, simple or complex. Many people have no greater purpose than to go to work to earn the money necessary to provide food and shelter. Historically, most women sought nothing more than to raise their children. Male or female, few people examine the real purpose in life. Socrates believed that the unexamined life was not worth living. Thoreau thought that “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation,” at least partly because they had no purpose.

Those who would label Solomon an existentialist misread him. True, the first chapters of Ecclesiastes highlight the emptiness of life, but Solomon qualifies his observations as existing “under the sun.” Yet even there, he does observe that life can have purpose. Under the sun, that is, here on earth, man can do no better than to “enjoy his work, because that is his lot.” (3:22) But before that the Preacher had said that there is meaning to be found, not under the sun, but in the purposes of the Creator. “[God] has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done.” (3:11) Man’s meaning is found in God’s purpose.

The old Westminster Catechism asks what the chief end of man is; it answers, “To glorify God and enjoy him forever.” To glorify means to provide a positive image, a good opinion. I like to say it means to make God look good. When we fulfill God’s purpose in our life, glory redounds to him – he is justified in His work (not that he needs man’s justification.) We fulfill God’s purpose by learning to relate properly to him and to all that he has created. This alone gives life both purpose and meaning.

I am not sitting in judgment on those who would type NFL (or NHL or MLB or NBA) in the blank that asks for purpose. I would hope no one would say that the meaning of life is found in one of those. It is fitting that there should be a Super Bowl Sunday, as Solomon said there is a season for everything (unless you are a Lions fan.) The purpose of the original 49’ers was to find gold; the namesake of the Ravens said, “Nevermore.” Maybe there is meaning in that match somewhere.