Basic “math” of how unions are ruining us

The basic math, fairly simply put, is as follows. A company sets a price to sell their products. This price is, hopefully, one that pays all of their expenses and gives a reasonable return to the investors. Competition keeps that return from being exorbitant, keeping prices lower, and also exerts pressure to be more efficient, as lower prices, all other things being equal, bring more business. When a cost goes up, whether it is materials, labor, or investment, the price has to go up, or the business has to stop producing the product(s). (The cost of labor is determined by competition, as are the other costs.) So higher costs either cost consumers/purchasers more money or the opportunity to buy the product.

Introduce unions. Unions do have their uses to prevent *abuse* by companies in some situations. However, when unions coerce the price of labor above a competitive level through the use of force (yes, I mean force...what else do you call picket lines and reprisals against those who cross that line?) then they are essentially either holding up everyone who consumes that good for more money and/or doing harm to the company and society. This is because the company must raise prices, taking money from the consumers, must stop or lower production, or must sacrifice. Assuming that competitive forces have resulted in a price without exorbitant profit, continued such sacrifice will ultimately close the company. (I recently read that business owners are not very good at getting a good enough profit to be successful, even without outside pressure, because they tend to be overly optimistic. Having fallen prey to this myself I believe it.)

Unions are, at this point in history, legalized gangs of thieves and vandals, stealing from and damaging everyone, including themselves!

The Bell: I Know Who I Am

THE BELL

I KNOW WHO I AM

I am God’s child (John 1:12)

I am Christ’s friend (John 15:15)

I am united with the Lord(1 Cor. 6:17)

I am bought with a price(1 Cor. 6:19-20)

I am a saint (set apart for God). (Eph. 1:1)

I am a personal witness of Christ (Acts 1:8)

I am the salt & light of the earth (Matt.5:13-14)

I am a member of the body of Christ(1 Cor 12:27)

I am free forever from condemnation ( Rom.8: 1-2)

I am a citizen of Heaven. I am significant ( Phil.3:20)

I am free from any charge against me (Rom. 8:31-34)

I am a minister of reconciliation for God(2 Cor.5:17-21)

I have access to God through the Holy Spirit (Eph. 2:18)

I am seated with Christ in the heavenly realms (Eph. 2:6)

I cannot be separated from the love of God( Rom.8:35-39)

I am established, anointed, sealed by God (2 Cor.1:21-22)

I am assured all things work together for good (Rom. 8: 28)

I have been chosen and appointed to bear fruit (John 15:16)

I may approach God with freedom and confidence (Eph. 3: 12)

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me (Phil. 4:13)

I am the branch of the true vine, a channel of His life (John 15: 1-5)

I am God’s temple (1 Cor. 3: 16). I am complete in Christ (Col. 2: 10)

I am hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:3). I have been justified (Romans 5:1)

I am God’s co-worker (1 Cor. 3:9; 2 Cor 6:1). I am God’s workmanship(Eph. 2:10)

I am confident that the good works God has begun in me will be perfected (Phil. 1: 5)

I have been redeemed and forgiven (Col. 1:14). I have been adopted as God’s child(Eph 1:5)

I belong to God

Do you know

Who you are!?

(:Keep this bell ringing…pass it on:)

“The LORD bless you and keep you;

The LORD make His face shine up on you

And be gracious to you;

The LORD turn His face toward you

And give you peace.”

Numbers 6:24-26

--Author unknown(:Keep this bell ringing…pass it on:)

April 19, 1995

I was working in the Oklahoma County Assessor’s office as a residential field appraiser. Valuation protests in progress, with some of us each day acting as hearing officers and some of us going out to check on disputed physical characteristics of properties. That day I was setting up appointments and getting ready to go out to check on some properties when there was a loud boom and the building shook.

My first thought was that something had blown up at Tinker Air Force Base, and I looked out the south facing windows there on the fourth floor of the Oklahoma County Annex Building. I then realized that an explosion that big might be a nuke and looking out the windows was not a good idea. Jeff Pennington, my supervisor, came out of his office and yelled for everyone to evacuate the building. All of us in the office—about 20—headed out, and to the stairs, and down. The rest of the building was evacuating, also, through the corridors full of dust drifting down from the ceilings.

We ended up in a parking lot across the street to the west. There we stood around waiting, speculating as to what had happened. Car exploded in the basement garage? (The District Attorney’s office was on the sixth floor and sometimes he got death threats.) No, it was quickly obvious that it was not in our building but somewhere to the north. Gas line explosion? No, gas explosions were softer, not so flat and hard. I don’t remember what else, or exactly how long we were out there, but eventually we were all sent home; the building needed to be checked for structural damage.

It was not until Monday that we were back to work. Besides checking for structural damage, downtown was mostly shut down to keep the streets, cell towers, and phone exchanges clear for rescue efforts. I sat at home the next several days. I had been sick and was still on an anti-biotic, so I was not in a hurry to go anywhere or do anything. I was also glued to the TV praying, along with everyone else that more survivors would be found. Along with the rest of the world, I heard about McVey’s being stopped and arrested.

I don’t when it was that the names of the lost started appearing. One of the four dead across the street from the Murrah Building, in the building containing the Water Resources Board, was someone that I had known from Riverside Church’s College & Career group several years past. She left a son to be raised by her parents. A secret service agent who was killed had sat across from me at my desk two weeks before protesting his property valuation. (I think that I had shown him how his house valuation was in line with sales in the neighborhood.) A friend from church had just entered the building before the bomb exploded. He was waiting for the elevator, and sheltered by the blast by the elevators. Telling about it later he said that it blew him down the corridor but, by the grace of God, he only had a few scratches. Others I knew worked on the rescue effort, and it was something that left its mark on them from then on…as it has on so many others.

I had been in the Murrah Bldg. only once: when I spent a day at MEPS (the Military Entrance Processing Station) being tested, poked, and prodded…when I wasn’t waiting, of course.

Separation of Church and State 01

There can be no separation of Church and State without banning Christians from voting, serving in gov't, or being employed by gov't.

To explain:

1)The Church is not, in its original intent and still truest sense, an organization, especially an organization created by man. The Church is all those who serve God through having faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, when any person who is a disciple of Jesus Christ is a part of the gov't, then that state has become joined with The Church.

2)To be a disciple of Christ is to come to know God. One does not know the Almighty, Loving God without being changed. The longer one knows God and serves Him the more that one will be changed. Those changes will greatly encompass attitudes, thoughts, and beliefs, and the resulting actions. Such a person's voting will reflect the values of God and The Church. If such a person serves in gov't, or works in gov't, then policies and actions will be influenced by The Church.

As long as there are Christians (parts of the Church) involved in The State, then Church and State will not be separate.

Best day of my life

Tonight someone asked me how I am doing on a scale from one to ten, with ten being the best I could be. I answered that I was a three or a four right now, but then qualified that by saying that physically I was probably doing better now than for most of the last eight years, though mentally I am still coming out of a low point. I then briefly mentioned my battles with grief, ADD, depression, and, worst of all, medications, which brought the low point.

A little while ago--it is now about 11:30 PM--I was thinking on that self-assessment. Truthfully, I was feeling apologetic, guilty, for saying something below five, even if it fit. That had me then thinking on what was a ten. Easily the best day of my life so far was the day of Cheryl's and my wedding. Remembering that I was struck in a whole new way by what the Church's wedding day, the day that we are collectively joined with Christ, will be like. What has always been rather abstract and nebulous now has a new reality for me. I think that I can now look forward expectantly to the final best day of my life like I have been looking back to my first wedding day and forward to my next one that God has promised.

Making sex small

In a small way sex is just a physical, fun thing. But when you make sex small you damage the larger part of it.

Human beings are beings with three parts that are intertwined into one. Most things that we do involve all three of these parts to one degree or another, even if only indirectly. When we are tired, for example, our minds become sluggish and our emotions nearer the surface, and it can be harder to interact with our spirit. (A human being's mentality includes, in turn, three parts--intellect, emotions, and will--and I am including all three when referring to the mental.) What we eat affects all of our being. Drugs that we take do the same, some of them even being able to directly affect us spiritually. Coming at this from another direction, actions and thoughts are widely admitted to be affected by the spirit. These things are changed by spiritual experiences. Christians, Hindus, Pagans, and others can all agree that that there is connection between these parts of a human being.

Strength, health, and stability are founded in different parts of a whole being in balance. Strengthen one arm and not the other and you will have trouble lifting and carrying heavier objects, and doing so safely. Strengthen one leg and not the other and running will be difficult; if it is bad enough you will limp! Conversely, damage one limb and the other will not be able to carry the load. When we emphasize any one of our three parts over the others, or ignore one part, then we will not be strong, healthy, or balanced.

Sexual interaction with another is not an exception to these principles. Just as when we reduce eating to fun only--say, eating lots of yummy donuts--we eventually reduce our mental and spiritual capacities, when we reduce sex to being only something that is physically fun we will damage ourselves mentally and spiritually (and possibly physically). By cheapening something so intimate we reduce our ability to be intimate with others mentally and spiritually. By using sex immaturely and irresponsibly we reduce our ability to relate to others maturely and responsibly; life becomes about the short term and not the long term, the shallow and not the deep. By emphasizing the physical at the cost of the mental and spiritual we build up the one and weaken the others.

By making sex small, limiting it to only one place in our lives, we damage and displace the other parts. Imagine that, having heard that the egg yolk is the most important part of the egg for a chicken to develop, you decide to make things easy by just having an egg yolk in order to get a chicken. This way you don't need as much space. You grab a small cup, just big enough for the yolk. Now picture carefully lining up the egg with the cup and pushing it into the cup. Yuck! what a mess! The protective shell is gone and the white, which provides protective cushioning, water, and some nutrients, is all over the place. But, hey, you have the yolk, right? Well, even if that yolk could still, by some miracle, grow into a chicken, it would be a stunted, poorly developed chicken.

Entering into sexual relations quickly, easily, and lightly, limiting them to being fun, cheapens their role in a relationship, and cheapens the entire relationship, making it easy to move on when things get difficult, stealing from you the deepest most satisfying parts of a relationship. Even if you make it through some difficulties, without those deep parts the relationship is still eventually doomed, because there will be more difficulties, the worst of which may be boredom; many relationships whither away from this, rather than suddenly breaking. Many easy, broken relationships undermines self-worth, and from there the chain reaction continues.

Sex should be part of, really an extension of, a deep relationship, one that encompasses will, intellect, and emotion. There needs to be commitment to the other and the relationship, a resolve to stick with it for better and for worse, forsaking all others, and until death parts the two. The intellect needs to be engaged by committing to know each other's character, desires, history, strengths and weaknesses. Emotion, easy to engage at the start, needs to be nurtured and controlled, shaped first toward the other above all else on earth. The spirit needs to be engaged, as well. God needs to be first in the life of both, with both seeking Him together in Word, prayer, worship, and service. Of course in the physical there needs to be commitment to the other, and there sex needs to be just one of many physical interactions. Relationships (interactions with other people) need balance; all things within a relationship should be in their proper place and in balance, taking into account how all a human's parts work together.

Compromise

I have heard it said that one of the things wrong right now in the US is that there is not enough compromise. It is true that compromise sometimes may need to be part of governing a country, but there are many things that can not be compromised on. I'm sure you are familiar with the saying that you can't be a little bit pregnant, right? There are many things like that: either they are or they aren't. Either we follow the Constitution or we don't. Either we allow innocent future taxpayers to be killed or we don't. Either the law applies to all people or it doesn't. And so on. (Now there are, of course, differences in the degree to which one is doing something, but that is another topic.) Further, we can not make up for violating some parts of the Constitution by being especially zealous of others, or violating some people's by protecting others, and we can not make up for killing some babies by feeding others. Either we purpose to act morally or we don't. Morality is a state of heart, not a balance sheet of good and bad actions. This applies to nations as well as individuals.

Peace and love and Battlestar Galactica

NOTE: this entry contains spoilers about the end of Battlestar Galactica.

Over the last week I have watched the last eight episodes of Battlestar Galactica, the TV series that ended March 20. The episodes have been sitting unwatched on my DVR all this time. Partly that has been because I have not been watching all that much TV, having trouble focusing to watch much, but I have stirred myself to watch them in order to clear room on the hard drive. Another reason has been that I missed recording the second of the last ten episodes ("A Disquiet Follows My Soul"). That kind of stalled me out since I hated missing part of the story.

One other thing has been lurking...I felt incomplete. Cheryl and I watched the first two seasons together. It was one of our shows. When the third season started I recorded the episodes but could not watch them for some time because Cheryl was not there to watch them with me. When I finally did watch them it was often difficult; I found myself missing her even more, and talking to her when interesting things happened. There were other shows that could give me some trouble like that--sometimes Criminal Minds, The Closer, Monk, or NCIS (the first two with interesting things that I know she would have liked, the latter two because of character developments that I know we would have discussed, as well as because of characters who had lost a wife)--but none as bad as BSG. BSG had all those interesting plot twists, character developments...and the urgency...the depth and breadth of human experience. To watch it has been like a roller coaster ride. When you ride a great roller coaster with your best friend, when you go back and ride it alone the experience is almost indescribably diminished.

As I have watched these last episodes this week, ending with the last two hours tonight, I have still felt some of that diminishment, but I have been able enjoy them, relish them. Still I have missed Cheryl, but I have not felt so incomplete, so unhealed. And the end...the end with the laughter and the tears...was appropriate in its bittersweetness. The loss and the pain, the fresh start, the surprises, the completion and the open endedness, the love and the happiness. I got Helo and Sharon, Baltar (a Baltar who discovered courage, sacrifice, and love) and Caprica Six, an end to the war, Galactica winning her last fight, and more. I might have preferred a few things different--another miracle for Laura so she and Bill could be together, Lee and Kara together, the ships not destroyed, maybe not have it be our earth and the survivors spread out, but rather someplace new and a continuation of civilization. It was okay, though, it all worked...it was fitting...it was bittersweet. And now it is over, and I can close that chapter, let it go, and move on.

Don't believe everything that you read or hear, Part 1

"Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge says he successfully countered an effort by senior Bush administration officials to raise the nation's terror alert level in the days before the 2004 presidential vote." Ridge says this in his new book. However, the woman who chaired the meeting at which this was said to have happened tells a somewhat different, and more believable, story: Frances Townsend: Tom Ridge has it wrong.

Why do I believe her? First off, as Ms. Townsend points out, raising the threat level probably would have been perceived as political, producing a negative effect, rather than positive, for Bush. People realized this, making it a non-issue for those in the meeting. Someone in the comments to the later news article misunderstands what Townsend said in the interview, saying that she contradicted herself about politics being discussed in the meeting. First she said, "Not only do I not think that it – that politics played any part in it at all – it was never discussed.... There was no discussion of politics whatsoever." Later she says, "not only was there no discussion in those meetings, the discussions on the margins...there was concern if the intelligence supported raising the threat level it might actually be to the detriment of President Bush because people might perceive it being political."This last was incorrectly interpreted as taking place in the meeting in question, but any discussion of politics was between participants in a series of meetings outside of those meetings. If Ridge was right, and there were politics involved in what the threat level was set at, it would have influenced it to be lower, not higher.

Second, I don't see what Ms. Townsend has to gain by disputing this claim by Tom Ridge. Ridge, on the other hand, has a book to sell, and possibly a reputation for independence to support.

Third, I can see a scenario where politics was involved, but politics between departments, not involving the electorate. Or, I could see it as professional caution or paranoia, since the two that wanted to raise the threat level--Ashcroft and Rumsfeld--were quite likely to be blamed if something did happen and the threat level had not been raised.

Fourth, Bush has been blamed for so many things that it is easy to blame him or something and be believed. One of the best ways to be listened to is to blame Bush for something. The press automatically assumes Bush was wrong and the person laying the blame is a hero. And all the brainless ones out there follow right along....

Health-care struggle is about freedom

In Health-care struggle is about freedom Star Parker brings up some worthwhile objections to the socialist leadership and their claims:

...Mr. Obama [has] reduced his opposition to liars.

And why, according to the president, are dissenters supposedly making all this stuff up? Because, he told his audience, they want to "discourage people from meeting … a core ethical and moral obligation ... that we look out for one another … that I am my brother's keeper. …"

So those whose fight for individual freedom are immoral and our moral champions are those who want to extend the heavy hand of government.

Forgive me if sermons about morality are a little hard to swallow from a man who supports partial-birth abortion, who just announced his intent to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

[...]

About 100,000 Americans participate in private, voluntary Christian communities, which take care of their own health care independent of government and insurance companies. They are called health-care sharing ministries.

[...]

These ministries share pooled funds of around $80 million annually to take care of each other, driven only by guidelines of biblical principles to "Bear one another's burden, and thus fulfill the law of Christ."

[...]

Health-care sharing ministries is one particularly beautiful example of how faithful Americans take care of themselves when allowed to be free. But there are many others.

[...]

But, Barack Obama and congressional Democrats have slammed the door on all this. They only want to hear about more government. Not less.

The problem isn't that dissenting Americans are immoral. It's that Democrat leadership has a problem with individual freedom.

Shared via AddThis

It is also ironic that the ones that are often saying that the govt should not legislate morality are now saying that we need socialized medicine because it is the moral thing to do. On top of that, here they are involving religion. It is disgusting how they holler about separation of church and state when the church would interfere with their plans, but when they can use religion to advance their plans there they are. (Why do people let them get away with it?) This time, however, it is appropriate that religious leaders are involved, because this health-care issue involves the issue of freedom of religion.

How is this so? First, as others have mentioned, there is the issue of abortion. God abhors shedding innocent blood (Prov 6:16-19). He hates it so much that a nation that practices this will be judged harshly (Is 59 & Jer 22, for example). If an unborn human being is not an innocent human being, I don't know what is. The socialists claim that abortion will not be a part of there plan, but don't believe it. That claim flies in the face of their own statements in other venues, their reluctance to specifically prohibit it, and the record of their past actions. Anyone who believes that access abortion services should be a right is sooner or later going to make that part of nationalized medicine. Doing so forces on us all the blood-guilt of ending innocent life, and violates one of the core precepts of Christianity and Judaism, if not other religions.

This also violates the principles of our Founding Fathers who, I feel, made pretty clear the order of priority for such things. "Life Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," were not put in that order because it sounded best, but because they must come in that order. Without life there can not be liberty, nor can there be the pursuit of happiness. Without liberty there can not be the pursuit of happiness. So logic supports the order. But I digress.

Second, the Word of God says pure religion is taking care of those in need.

But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. (1 Tim 5:4)

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (James 1:27)

Please pay attention to who is to look after those who are in need. The word "oneself" denotes that individuals are to do these things. While I will not deny that there is a societal onus in the Bible, it is an onus on the individuals of society to choose to act morally. If my ability to choose to act morally is taken away from me, then my ability to practice my religion is taken away from me. If the Federal govt takes my money from me for the purpose of caring for others, and then takes care of them so that they do not have need, then I no longer am able to choose to act in this way and my ability to practice my religion is limited.

Why is it important, though, for people to do this individually? Some reasons:

1. The ultimate purpose of Christianity is for people to be like Christ. Christ cared for others, and did so individually, as well as in groups.
2. Caring for others individually develops compassion, one of God's essential characteristics, and something that He desires to see in us.
3. People are better and more effectively served, cared for, and loved individually and by people who want to do so, rather than just for a paycheck or because they have to.
4. Freedom is an essential value of both Christianity and our Founding Fathers. Freedom is inherently individual. The Soviet Union may have been sovereign, and therefore "free," but no one ever truthfully described the Soviet Union as the "land of the free." The United States, however, where people were individually free could (at least at one time) accurately be described as the "land of the free."
5. Individually caring for others, even in such a way as the health-care sharing ministries, develops relationships, which in turn enriches people. The more connected, internally, any organization (including nations) is the stronger that organization is.

One further way nationalized health-care impinges on my religious liberty is that it reduces my ability to help others. It would do this because of the higher taxes. The more we pay in taxes, the less we have to use to help others. If it is not clear to you that taxes will go up in order to pay for this, then you are either not paying attention, are under-educated (try reading this book: Economics in One Lesson to start off with), or are blind. And this is not just going to individually decrease our ability to help others, it will also decrease our ability as a nation to help others. Because government run help to those in need are inherently less efficient than private organizations (see here for an explanation, or google it), there will be fewer of the same resources going to the people who actually need it.

I agree whole-heartedly with Star Parker that this is a struggle for freedom, and this includes freedom of religion, among others.

Btw, if you have not ever heard of health-care sharing ministries before, maybe you should check them out.

Why the Eighteenth Amendment?

Why does the Eighteenth Amendment exist? And no, I am not referring in any way to the numbering: it is obvious that the next amendment to the U.S. Constitution after the Seventeenth would be the Eighteenth what ever it was about. What I am asking is, why was the prohibition of alcoholic beverages an amendment, making it part of the highest law of the land? Why didn't the temperance folks just get Congress to pass a law prohibiting the manufacture, sale, transportaion, importation, and exportation of alcohol?

Reading several articles about prohibition on the web did not answer this question. I believe, though, that the answer is evident if one reads the U.S. Constitution and thinks about it: Prohibiting the manufacture, sale, transportaion, importation, and exportation of anything was not a power given Congress! It would seem that Congress, recognizing that fact, did the only thing that they could do to satisfy their constituents, which was to propose an amendment to the Constitution granting that power. This was then followed by the legislatures of 36 states ratifying the amendment so that they, too, could satisfy their constituents.

Unfortunately the understanding of the U.S. Constitution on the part of Senators and Congressmen since has gone down hill more and more. This has resulted in Social Security, Medicare, drug restrictions and prohibitions, and many other laws that exceed the authority of the Federal Government. These things should rightfully be the province of the governments of the several states. This includes health care. Our leaders had enough intelligence, wisdom, education, and integrity to do things right in 1917, it is a shame that they do not now.

His Love Never Fails

"Your Love Never Fails" by Chris Quilala of Jesus Culture.

We have been singing this song at church lately. A couple of Sunday mornings ago we were worshipping with this song. I was not doing sound that morning so I was free to worship and listen to God. I was reminded of the father of the prodigal son. If the son had of come home a different time of day, a few days earlier, a week later, or whenever, would the father's greeting have been any different ? If the son came home naked, still with money, with a friend, missing a limb, or some other way different, would the father have been any more or less overjoyed to see him? No! He loved his son. The father in this parable is clearly an archtype of our Father in heaven. The Father's love is true love, that perfect love that casts out fear; that love that is patient, that is kind; that love that does not envy, does not boast, and is not proud; that love that is not rude, is not self-seeking, is not easily angered, and keeps no record of wrongs; that love that does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth and when we come come home; that love that always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres, and never, ever fails. Whether we have been gone in some foreign land, or just for a few minutes 'off the reservation,' He rejoices to see us when we come back to Him, clothing us in righteousness, and giving us His best. God IS Love.

Scripture referred to, quoted, and paraphrased: 1 Cor 13:4-8; 1 John 4:18; Luke 15:11-32.