The Grand Experiment

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is, without argument, the largest single experiment in social engineering ever foisted on an unsuspecting American public.  I don't know whether it will work or not.  My crystal ball is broken at the moment.

Ignoring the great Democrat (government control) versus Republican (free market) debate, it occurs to me that there are probably some pretty good intentions here.

• Everybody has to be insured, which should keep people from showing up at the doctor's office or hospital without any means of paying their bills.
• Pre-existing conditions are covered, which means you don't become un-insurable if you lose your job or get too sick to work.
• Everybody can get insurance - from the corporate CEO to the lawn-care guy.  Even if you're unemployed.  The government will help you pay for it if you can't afford it.

Those are generally expected to be good things.  But, the Law of Unintended Consequences tells us that the more things you change, the worse the result will be.

In the past, uninsured folks simply showed up for health care when they were sick.  The medical providers treated everyone, and knew that some percentage of their services would never be paid. These noncollectable debts could be written off as a business expense, reducing taxes paid.  And, the providers raised their rates to cover those lost debts.

The result was that everyone paid a little bit more to cover those uncollected debts.

If everyone had insurance, this shouldn't happen, right?  The providers would always get paid by the insurance companies.  Therefore, it should eliminate uncollected debts, and reduce the overall cost of health care.

Or, at least that was the argument.

But, the ACA extends health care plans to cover a lot of additional services, as well as pre-existing conditions.  The insurance companies think that will cost more money.  So, everyone's rate goes up instead of down.

There's a lot of yelling right now about these additional services.  I heard a young fellow griping on TV about how he shouldn't be forced to buy a plan that contains maternity coverage.

Actually, that's how we hold costs down in insurance.  It's called shared risk.  

Think of it like this.  Most of the people in the United States don't live in areas where hurricanes are a problem.  If you provide hurricane coverage to everyone in the country, then everyone will pay a few bucks per month.  If you only sell hurricane coverage to those at risk from hurricanes, the coverage will run hundreds or thousands per month.

That's an example of social engineering - forcing folks in Montana to purchase hurricane insurance so that people in Louisiana can afford homeowner's insurance.

But, to extend the analogy, the ACA is sort of like forcing that Montana homeowner to pay for hurricane insurance, tornado insurance, flood insurance and volcano insurance.  After a while, the Montana homeowner is going to get pissed about helping all these other folks buy insurance.

And there are other problems related to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

• How do you make sure that 320 million people are covered by health insurance?
• How do you force 30 million people (or more) to buy insurance?
• How do you help people who are actually losing their current insurance due to the ACA?
• What about people who are seeing their insurance premiums skyrocket due to the ACA?

Right now, the jury is out.  Hopefully, this train won't completely jump the rails right out of the station and Congress will find some way to fix the big problems as they arise.

If implemented sensibly, with some of the more idiotic portions removed, the ACA might actually work.  But, given Congress' proven inability to do their jobs, I have little hope of anything sensible happening in the next five years or so.

Let's hope that we haven't managed to permanently cripple our country's economy in the meantime.

50 Years Later

I remember the day that President Kennedy was assassinated.  They sent us all home from school early.  My teacher was crying.

Years later, I would go down and walk Dealy Plaza at night, pondering the weight of history.  Too many things didn't make sense back then, and they still don't today.  Especially if you stand on that particualar spot in the street, gazing up at the sixth-floor window of the book depository.

Over the years, I talked about it with many people.  One, in particular, I thought provided some very interesting insight.  He was a trained sniper, and not an American citizen.  He called the Warren Report a load of [expletive], pure and simple.

He said that even a trained sharpshooter would have great difficulty making three shots with Oswald's rifle, much less making three accurate shots, in the 6.1 seconds as recorded on the police radios.

It was a single-shot, bolt action rifle.  Oswald would have had to

- Pull the trigger.
- Open the bolt.
- Load the second bullet.
- Close the bolt.
- Cock the rifle.
- Aim the rifle.
- Pull the trigger.
- Open the bolt.
- Load the third bullet.
- Close the bolt.
- Cock the rifle.
- Aim the rifle.
- Pull the trigger.

All in just over six seconds.  This fellow pantomimed the actions as he spoke.  He was obviously right.  Either it was impossible, or Oswald was the bionic man.

But more importantly, he said that a trained shooter (sniper) would NEVER take the shot from that angle.  He said that a sniper always sets up the shot ahead of time and waits for the target to enter the "kill zone".  If possible, they want the target standing still, or travelling directly toward or from their position.  A shooter won't be tracking side-to-side if possible.

The motorcade would have been travelling at about fifteen to twenty miles per hour, and accellerating slowly at the time the shots were taken.  Oswald would have had to either track the movement, or set the shot ahead of the car and wait for it to enter his field of view.  Completely impossible in the allotted timeframe.

This person told me that he has always believed that there were two, or possibly three, trained snipers at Dealy Plaza, and that none would have been above the second floor level, based on the entry and exit wounds.

Truth or fiction?  We'll never know, unless someone invents a time machine.

But, something to think about, from the mouth of a trained shooter with no American axe to grind.

An Inconvenient Math Lesson

I listened to the congressional hearings on the Obamacare web site today.  I was really, really impressed -- by the amount of butt-kissing and outright rudeness displayed by various elected officials, and by the tremendous difficulty in obtaining any real information of value.

I did hear one piece of hard data that caught my attention.  According to Secretary Sebelius, the healthcare.gov site will be able to process up to 17,000 applications per hour.  That's a lot, right?

Uh, not really.

Let's think this through, and do a little basic math.  17,000 x 24 hours = 408,000 per day.

Now, the 2012 Census says we have roughly 313.9 million citizens.  If those citizens aren't covered by a healthcare plan at work, they have to obtain insurance elsewhere - either directly from an insurance company or through the exchanges under healthcare.gov.

For the sake of argument, let's say that 10% of the population has to use healthcare.gov.  That's 31.39 million people.  At the theoretical throughput of 408 thousand per day, it would take about 77 days to get that 31 million people enrolled.

Unfortunately, no computer runs at 100% throughput, 24 hours per day.  Based on my experience, it's more likely to average around 20% because of time zones, night, weekends. etc.  That would mean that it will probably take around 385 days - more than an entire year - to get 31 million people enrolled.

But, what if more than 10% of the populace needs to use healthcare.gov?  If 3 out of 10 people needed to get insurance from an exchange (because they don't have an employer-sponsored group insurance), it would take nearly four years to get all those people enrolled.

Sorry to point this out, folks, but -- as we say down south -- THAT DOG DON'T HUNT!

But, to be fair, I guess I'll have to give them a D+ for effort...<sigh>.  I guess their math skills need some touching up.

Maybe that helps to explain our budget mess?

I Have A Dream

I'm not a black man.  I cannot claim to understand the black experience.  But I do know and have great respect for many people and coworkers of other races.

And I struggle with questions of racism and equality.

I know and have great respect for the fight for equality that raged half a century ago, and echoes still to this day.  Fifty years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King said he longed for a country where people "would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

I, too, long for a such a color-blind society.  But I realize we still have a long way to go.

This became painfully clear to me recently.  I was watching a television show where actors set up a scenario, and the responses of unknowing people are filmed.  The scenario was that an actor got into a parked car and stole several valuable items.  First, they used a shady-looking white guy.  Over and over, people nearby ignored the crime happing only a few feet away.

But when a black actor did the same scenario, police were called on the first occurence.  And again.  And again.  The only possible conclusion is that society is very aware, and suspicious of, black people.

To be fair, this was clearly a "white neighborhood".  The black thief stuck out like tennis shoes at a formal ball.  The white thief just looked shady, but you wouldn't give him a second look if you passed him on the street.

And race sensitivity clearly runs the other direction, too.  When I go into a big meeting, I try to figure out the seniority and authority of people in the room.  I rarely, if ever, become aware of the number of men versus women, or caucasians versus minorities.  My mind just doesn't work that way.

I am told that the analysis is very different for most minorities.  The first thing they notice is how "outnumbered" they are.  I find that to be very, very disturbing.  And I don't know how to fix it.

Hell, I don't even know how to talk about it.

And if we don't talk about it, how can we ever change it?

I do know one thing, however.  I know, to the very fiber of my soul, that we CAN talk about it.  We can be polite and thoughtful.  And we can come to understand each other.

I plead "guilty" to enjoying the luxury of the majority.  It's not intentional.  It's an accident of birth.

But that doesn't mean I'm the enemy.  I'm just a guy.  Who happens to be wearing white skin.

I also believe that too many people have lost the art of civility.  There's no law against being polite, even if you don't like a person or agree with them.

I firmly believe that civility would likely have defused the Treyvon Martin shooting tragedy.  I have no way to know what really happened, but I have serious doubt that a courteous conversation between two strangers would end up in gunfire.

And remember, it's a whole lot easier to understand someone when they AREN'T yelling at you.

Something to think about, anyway.

The UN Small Arms Treaty

Over the Mar 23, 2013 weekend, a bill was passed in the Senate.  You need to be aware, and understand the deeper meanings behind all of this.  The bill that got passed is grandstanding, pure and simple.  More political posturing from the ineffective blowhards that roam the halls of our nation's capital.

Let's start with the rhetoric about the "United Nations Small Arms Treaty."  That's incorrect.  It's really a draft amendment to the UN Arms Trade Treaty, proposed by the Final United Nations Conference on the UN Arms Trade Treaty, 18-28 March 2013.

C'mon, anyone who's ever heard of Google can find this stuff in about ten seconds.  Really.

For those who like to deal in facts (as I do), here's a link to the Arms Trade Treaty amendment text.  Read it for yourself if you want to judge the truth of what I'm about to say.  I'll get back to it in a minute.

First, let's look at the bill that the Senate passed - or at least the Statement of Purpose from that bill.  It says,

To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.  

Pundits have started yammering.  One anonymous source, currently floating around the web in a viral email claims, "The U.N. Small Arms Treaty: which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms.  The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo."

Sorry, boys and girls, but that's an outright lie.  Either the "source" didn't read the amendment, or they read it and decided to lie through their teeth.

First, the treaty deals with commerce between countries, not who owns what within any given country.  Second, it says that the countries have the right to make their own laws, enforce their own laws, and defend themselves.  It does NOT say that every gun owner is to be listed in a national registry.

So - it doesn't have much to do with the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in any way that I can determine, regardless of what the right-wing conspiracy theorists want you to believe.  Oh, by the way, I'm a right-winger most of the time, myself.  But I have this critical weakness - an addiction to truth.

However, I think the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty and the related Amendment is a crock, for several reasons.

• It classifies small arms into the category of "conventional weapons", grouping them with planes, tanks, missiles, artillery, etc.  It makes no distinction between military small arms and civilian small arms.  A pocket .22-caliber "Saturday Nite Special" qualifies as a conventional weapon under this treaty, the same as an FA-18 Super Hornet attack fighter aircraft.
• It also categorizes all ammunition usable by conventional weapons as munitions, under the same governance of this treaty.  Every box of .22-caliber ammunition to be shipped outside the U.S. would fall under this treaty. 
• It says we would have to create a registry of ALL weapons and munitions being sold or transferred outside the country unless we maintained control of those items in international territories.  In other words, every handgun and box of ammunition made in the U.S. and destined for international resale would be registered.  As would every bomb, plane, ship, missile, and piece of artillery.
• It says we have to provide that registry to all other nations.  This is the point where my hair caught fire and I started screaming obscenities.  And then it goes further, to strongly suggest that this registry be made public.  So, they want us to list every conventional weapon and munition that we're selling internationally, and post that list on some globally-accessible website????  Not in this lifetime, Bubba!

And there's more - but you should take the time to read it yourself.  Information is power.  Arm yourself.

Now, let's get to the Senate politics.  Obviously, the Senate SHOULD HAVE voted almost unanimously against the ratification of the treaty and amendment. That's a no-brainer.  But to tie it to Second Amendment rights is disingenuous.  For those who aren't familiar with that word, it's attorney-speak for liar.

Anyone who wanted to ratify the treaty and amendment would be willing to give away a boatload of our national rights and authority when it comes to arms, weapons, munitions, etc.  It has the potential to cripple some of our big defense industries and would just about kill the international trade for any U.S.-based manufacturers of small guns and ammunition.

Fourty-six senators voted against the Senate bill over the weekend.  That could be viewed as an implied vote FOR the U.N. Treaty and amendment.  Or it could mean that they were just pissed off because someone stuck the Second Amendment reference into the bill's Statement of Purpose.  I know that I am (pissed).  Or it might just mean that they didn't read the U.N. treaty and amendment, and don't have a clue what they're voting about.

I tend to believe the latter.

At any rate, in the interest of full disclosure - here are the Senators who voted AGAINST the Senate bill.  Remember, this list infers a vote of support FOR the U.N. Treaty and amendment.

• Baldwin (D-WI)
• Baucus (D-MT)
• Bennet (D-CO)
• Blumenthal (D-CT)
• Boxer (D-CA)
• Brown (D-OH)
• Cantwell (D-WA)
• Cardin (D-MD)
• Carper (D-DE)
• Casey (D-PA)
• Coons (D-DE)
• Cowan (D-MA)
• Durbin (D-IL)
• Feinstein (D-CA)
• Franken (D-MN)
• Gillibrand (D-NY)
• Harkin (D-IA)
• Hirono (D-HI)
• Johnson (D-SD)
• Kaine (D-VA)
• King (I-ME)
• Klobuchar (D-MN)
• Landrieu (D-LA)
• Leahy (D-VT)
• Levin (D-MI)
• McCaskill (D-MO)
• Menendez (D-NJ)
• Merkley (D-OR)
• Mikulski (D-MD)
• Murphy (D-CT)
• Murray (D-WA)
• Nelson (D-FL)
• Reed (D-RI)
• Reid (D-NV)
• Rockefeller (D-WV)
• Sanders (I-VT)
• Schatz (D-HI)
• Schumer (D-NY)
• Shaheen (D-NH)
• Stabenow (D-MI)
• Udall (D-CO)
• Udall (D-NM)
• Warner (D-VA)
• Warren (D-MA)
• Whitehouse (D-RI)
• Wyden (D-OR

Now, for the truth-impaired in the crowd, here's a little test.  To quote from Sesame Street, "Which of these things is not like the others?"

Sorry.  It's a trick question.  ALL of these things ARE THE SAME (with the possible exception on one Independent).  They're all Democrats.

Does this mean that all the Democrats want to give away our sovereign rights, or that they want to hamstring our defense contractors and manufacturers of guns and ammunition?

Or are they just voting against the Republicans?

I tend to believe the latter.

And this gets us down to the real problem in Washington, D.C.  The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is a real, current, pressing international issue.  That's the type of thing that these freaking idiots were HIRED to deal with (by hired, I mean elected).

And they would rather stand on either side of the isle trying their best to piss on each other, rather than dealing with pressing issues of national sovereignty and international commerce.

To say they need to be impeached is an understatement.

To say they'll get re-elected because of their ability to dish out pork and government hand-outs is the sad reality.

I'm afraid we're all screwed, and there's not a damned thing we can do about it.

The Hard Questions

I've become convinced that our elected politicians have only two goals.

1. Get re-elected
2. Get their friends elected and re-elected

Everything they do seems to be aimed at these two goals.  Gone is the day of the "gentleman farmer" who goes to Washington to serve the nation for a few years, then returns home.

The net result is that the hard issues are glossed over, and the hard questions are never asked.

Let's take health care as a specific example.  What's the hard question?

Should full access to health-care be a guaranteed American privilege?

Forget about money for a minute.  If you're an American, do you have an intrinsic right to the best health care?  That's the first question that needs to be asked.

The answer appears to be "yes", because anyone can walk into a hospital to receive health care, whether they have money, insurance, or a job.  The hospital won't turn them away, even if there's no chance the patient can pay for the services provided.

This leads us to the second hard question.

Who pays for health care services provided to the indigent and uninsured?

Right now, the real answer is "everyone else".  The cost of these free (unpaid, uncollectable) services is bult into the cost that everyone else pays.  And, since the uninsured can't usually afford basic preventative medicine, these "gratis" services are often rather expensive.  These expenses are spread out over all the bills that everyone else pays.

If the answer to the first question is "yes", then we have a limited number of possible answers to the second question.

1. Socialize medicine and make it a government service, paid by taxes, with equal access to all citizens.
2. Force everyone to buy insurance, with the government providing insurance to the poor.
3. Soak the rich and hope they don't leave the country in response.
4. Leave the current system and spread the cost over all the middle-class citizens who have insurance.
5. Create a caste system with private hospitals for insured patients and government services for the uninsured.

None of these options are ideal, given human nature.  Any option is probably workable.  Some are not acceptable to the American population.  Nobody wants to pay for freeloaders, but we have a long history of social conscience - taking care of the poor and indigent.

We don't have the guts (or callousness) to say, "No insurance, no service!"

So, any health care solution is going to stink.  It's the nature of the beast.  If we provide health care to everybody, someone has to pay for those services.

We just have to figure out who gets the bill.

I Need Your Collected Stinkbug Wisdom

It's been five long years.  Now we're facing the fifth annual re-emergence of the dreaded Brown Marmorated Stinkbug.  Anyone familiar with this little beast - a pest of near-Biblical proportions - surely understands and commiserates with me.

Over the years, we've each developed our own coping strategies and tactics.  In the spirit of, "I'll show you mine if you show me yours," I'm asking people to send me their personal best advice and lessons learned.  How do YOU deal with these little shield-shaped spawns of Hell?

I'm going to collect and organize the accumulated wisdom of the afflicted, and make it available to all in eBook form.  Here's my deal.  If you send me an email detailing your own hard-won advice in dealing with these little monstrosities - I'll give you a free copy of the eBook when it's done.

So send me your best tips and tricks in email, to 'shilohpubs@yahoo.com'.  Please put the word "stinkbug" in the subject line.

I don't know if we can make a difference, but I already have some really good stuff to put in my eBook.  Maybe it'll help you turn the tide in your own personal war with the little brown buggers.

Liars! Charlatans! Politicians!

But I repeat myself...

All right, I'm officially pissed off at our elected officials who apparently don't have the guts or integrity to do the job they were HIRED to do.  Today's Senate vote on the Manchin-Toomey amendment to the Firearms Act (the "Gun Control Bill") failed.

It needed 60 votes to get past the Senate.  It got 54.  If the Senate was voting the public conscience, it should have gotten 90 votes or more.

To be fair, legislature is complicated and convoluted.  Maybe there's something hidden in the bill that soured the milk.  So, I did the unthinkable.  I ACTUALLY READ THE BILL.

Here's the meat of it.

• There will be NO FEDERAL GUN REGISTRY.  It says this in three separate places.  
• Every sale of a gun (except between family members who reside in the same state) must include an instant background check.
• People who aren't allowed to have guns for various reasons (felons, mental illness, certain other conditions) are required to be listed in a national directory, to support instant checks.

And other than a ton of who-pays-what and penalties for non-compliance, that's pretty much the meat of the bill.  Read it yourself if you think I'm lying.  Anyone who says different, including the blathering talking heads, fear-mongers and paid political pundits - is either a liar or too lazy to check their facts.

Period.

I'll ignore the resulting Presidential diatribe.  But here are some facts for you.

These are the Republicans who voted FOR the bill.

• Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
• Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.)
• Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
• Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)

ALL other Senate Republicans voted against it, joined by these Democrats.

• Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)
• Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska)
• Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.)
• Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
• Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

I don't know what needs to happen to get these sluggards to do the job they were hired to do.  I know that if they were my employees, they wouldn't be working for me for very long.  But, to be fair, they aren't really working for any of us now, are they?

Where's Donald Trump when you need him?

I've been a Republican all my life.  That's more than just a couple of years.  I've never seen a more miserable excuse for an elected government in my lifetime - at least not in these United States.  Congress has become a moral, ethical and international embarrassment - lead by the Senate.

If things don't change, I may not be angry enough to change my party loyalties to Democrat - but I'm ready to do anything and everything in my power to see that the blowhards currently warming Congressional seats are sent packing in the next election.

To quote from Network (1976), "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

Or to quote one of my old bosses, "Quit yer bitchin' and do yer damn job!"

If anyone wants to explain to me why this bill shouldn't have passed - I'm listening.

Anyone?

One Breath Away

Standing in the middle of an Interstate highway, three hours from home on a beautiful summer day, I was directing traffic.  Away from the mangled and scattered remains of a motorcycle.  Away from the body of a young man who only five minutes before had set out to enjoy a ride in the countryside with friends.

Death doesn't ask permission.  It just appears.  One minute, you're here.  The next...

Eternity is always just one breath away.

When I was a young man, I didn't ponder such things nearly as much.  Perhaps it's the increased experience that comes with age.  Perhaps only the ever-increasing realization of my own mortality.

I came face to face with our helplessness in the hands of the grim reaper ten years ago, on a glorious moonlit night, on a horsedrawn sleigh ride.  The horses spooked and bolted.   We lost the driver and found ourselves crashing through the dark and silent Colorado forest - accompanied only by the labored breath of two terrified draft horses and the screams of twelve terrified adults and children.

Helpless.

Fortunately, all the passengers were thrown clear before anyone died.  Scrapes, bruises, broken bones.  But we cheated the reaper.  As the last were being loaded into cars and ambulances for the trip to the medical center (or helicopters for the more serious injuries), I finally realized how close I had come to never seeing my loved ones again.

How precious life is.  How often we waste it on petty bickering and other nonsense.

That few minutes of absolute horror turned out to be a most precious gift.  It changed me.  Made me appreciate the people and blessings that make up my everyday existence.  Made me realize just how transient those blessings can be.

Just one breath away.

Whether it's a heart attack, a drunk driver, or any other of the thousands of chances we take every day - you don't get to choose the time.  Make sure you're ready to go, before the unthinkable happens.  Because, when your clock runs out - there's no more time to settle  your affairs, tell your loved ones how you feel, make your peace with God.

So do it now, and realize how precious and wonderful each new day really is.

The Japanese Samurai philosophy taught it's practitioners to consider themselves already dead, and to realize that each new day was a gift to be used to the maximum benefit - not squandered and wasted.  Some of Japan's most prolific writers, artists and philosophers were Samurai.  Making the most of each new day.

Because eternity is always just one --

Rewriting Religious Freedom

In school they taught us that this country was founded on religious freedom.  You know, that group of misfits and malcontents who wouldn't toe the line and obey the governmental regulations?  What were they called?

Pilgrims?

They had the outrageous belief that this one book, the Bible, ought to come first - even above the law and the official Church of England mandates.  So, they risked everything for the right to serve their God in the way they best saw fit.  And when their heirs created something called The Constitution of the United States, they made sure it had language in there to protect the private practice of religion - even if it wasn't the particular religion that they supported.

Let's take a little history refresher here.  Remember that guy, Thomas Jefferson?  The one who was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?  In 1802 (after the original Constitution was ratified), Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in which he stated, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that the act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof', thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

That phrase in the middle might tweak your memory a bit.  It's from the First Amendment to the Constitution.   The whole point is that government isn't allowed to tell you what you can and can't believe, or how you should worship.  The actual text is Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Now, I'm not the last person to admit that religion has been used as an excuse for a wide litany of social wrongs.  Everything from the Crusades to Segregation to Homophobia has been pegged on religion.  That's  undeniable.  And it's wrong.  I'm a Christian, and the Bible teaches us that God is love.  It also teaches that sin is sin, and there's not a great deal of difference between a little bit and a whole big bunch of sin.  Either will cause spiritual death (separation from God).

As Christians, our job is supposed to be to hate the sin, but love the sinner.  The Bible teaches that we've all sinned, and have fallen short of Glory of God.  And the wages of sin are death.  So, acting in a hateful or divisive manner is not helpful, it's just more sin.  We're all the same, until we accept Jesus' sacrificial gift of salvation.

Dead.

However, there are some things in my Bible that I just haven't been able to erase.  They seem to re-appear any time someone prints a new copy.  Things like the ten commandments and specific warnings against witchcraft, necrophilia, homosexuality, lying, a haughty spirit, pride, and countless other sins.  Sorry, but it's true.  I didn't write it.

But now, our government has decided that some of these things are okay.  And we're not allowed to speak out against them.  That's "hate speech" and it can be a felony.  I could actually go to prison for quoting from my Bible.

The answer, I suppose, is to create a new Modern American Socialist version of the Bible.  We can simply edit out anything that's objectionable.  Heck, if they can take Christ out of Christmas, why can't we just edit Him out of the Bible?  It would be a whole lot easier to deal with religion without all that guilt and sin talk, wouldn't it?  And just think how much smaller and easier the MASB would be to carry around.  You could slip it into a shirt pocket, maybe even reduce it down to a pamphlet.

But what would the message be?  If you stop and think about it, we've already been given the Message by those two sages of the silver screen, Bill and Ted.

BE EXCELLENT TO EACH OTHER!

Makes a great bumper sticker, don't you think?

But does it really take the place of that dusty old tome full of hate speech called The Bible?

Think about it.  What would YOU chop out of the King James or New American Standard, if you were on the MASB editorial board?

And would your life really be the better for it?  How about your eternity?

A Prize Most Deserving

I'm not a social activist.  You're not going to see me marching, holding a sign, conducting a sit-in (remember those?).  I bitch and complain, but I'm a rabble-rouser, not so much a get-out-and-do-er.

But, I want to tell you about someone who is, and has been for most of his 93-year lifetime.  He is, without any doubt or reservation, a true American treasure.

His name is Pete Seeger.  You may have seen him at the last Presidential Inauguration, singing a song written by his old friend and mentor, Woody Guthrie.  A little ditty we all learned in grade school - This Land is Your Land (the original title was God Blessed America for Me, but that's another story).

He was involved in union organizing, war protesting, peace marching, and countless other causes great and small.  From international peace gatherings, to cleaning up the Hudson River, to a thousand benefit concerts to aid this or that cause.  He's written songs that you've probably heard all your life - If I Had A Hammer, Kisses Sweeter Than Wine and Turn, Turn, Turn.  He has an endless repertoire of songs at the ready.  I heard him sit through a jam session for several hours, and he knew EVERY song someone wanted to play.  I've also seen  him enrapture a crowd of several thousand, just one man and a banjo, alone on the stage.

Astonishing as his musical talents may be, they're not the reason that I consider him a true hero.

Over half a century ago, when he was called in front of the House Unamerican Activities Committee (how's that for an oxymoron?), he didn't claim the Fifth Amendment.  And, he didn't sell out his friends and colleagues.  The way that HUAC worked, you either had to admit to being a communist, or you had to name everyone you ever knew who "might be" a communist.  To call it a witch hunt would be far too polite.

When Pete Seeger was called up, he claimed the First Amendment (freedom of speech) and said that Congress didn't even have the right to ask him these questions.  Here's the transcript of his testimony.
Learn about HUAC and read the transcript.  It's IMPORTANT and it is NOT taught in our schools.

What did he get in return?  He was blacklisted, and his musical group, The Weavers was dropped by Decca Records, despite having several chart-topping hits.  He couldn't find a job anywhere.  Nobody would touch him, especially after he was charged with contempt of Congress.

So what did he do?  He rolled up his sleeves, packed up his banjo, and hit the road again - singing about peace and understanding and social justice.  He just about single-handedly started the folk music revival of the late 50's and 60's.  Literally hundreds of musical groups and vocal artists were born from that deep well of social relevance and activism.  From the Kingston Trio to Joan Baez to Peter, Paul and Mary - all owe a deep and lasting gratitude to this one man's courage and legacy.

I could go on for hours and days, but there is one true thing that I can say from the heart.  As I've grown older, had kids, grandchildren, and now great-grandchildren I have become wiser, more jaded, less optimistic.  Even so, there are only two heroes left in my eyes - two people that I aspire to be more like.

Jesus Christ...

...and Pete Seeger

Now - finally - Pete is being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.  I can think of no other living person more deserving of this honor.  If you agree, please cast your vote by visiting THIS LINK.  And pass it on.

Don't sit around and do nothing.  Heaven knows I do enough of that for both of us.  Make a difference.