The Great Cheez Ball Conflict

We watched as a woman walked on the beach towards the water.  She was carrying a plastic bag and heading towards a flock of about a dozen seagulls and other sea birds.  The woman reached into the bag, and then threw a handful of something towards the birds, which the birds eagerly pounced upon and started consuming.  It was Cheez balls.  The woman eventually simply dumped the remaining Cheez balls on the sand, and walked back away from the water, towards the building where she was staying.  The birds ate some of the Cheez balls, but there were still a significant amount of Cheez balls remaining in more or less a pile on the beach, with a bird pecking at the Cheeze balls every now and then.  My thought was that the birds had their fill for the moment.

About three minutes later, another woman who had been walking along the beach came by and stopped at the pile of Cheez balls.  From my vantage point, it appeared as though this woman was doing something with her foot along the lines of putting the Cheez balls into a tighter pile.  But as she continued working with her foot, it became apparent to me that this woman was trying to cover up the Cheez balls with sand. She completed the task in a couple of minutes, leaving what appeared to be a non-descript pile of sand.  She stood next to that sand pile for a couple of minutes, during which time several birds started pecking at that pile.  This woman then walked about 30 feet away from the pile, a little bit towards the water, and began speaking to another person.

A couple of minutes later, the first woman re-appeared on the beach, walking determinedly from the building towards the sand pile.  Woman number 2 started slowly walking away from the person with whom she'd been speaking and towards woman number 1, obviously saying something to woman number 1.  Woman number 1 continued her determined-looking walk towards the sand pile, looked directly at woman number 2 and gave woman number 2 the finger, as well as saying something to woman number 2.  I wish I would have been able to hear what was being said between the two women, but even though I was likely less than 100 feet away, the beautiful sounds of the surf crashing against the sand was all I could hear.

The battle apparently wasn't over.  Woman number 1 had something else in her hand. She threw it towards the birds, and the birds again rushed to get something more to eat.  By now, woman number 2 had her cell phone out and appeared to be taking pitures or videos.  Neither woman touched the other, but it was evident that they were exchanging words.  At one point woman number 1 got a sarcastic-looking smile on her face and waved at the camera.  After about another minute, woman number 1 stomped off back towards the building, and woman number 2 stayed on the beach for a while, talking to other people.

As I am composing this, about 5 hours has passed since the "Great Cheez Ball Conflict," and that little, non-descript sand pile is still there. The only thing that seems to call attention to the pile is the small sea birds that continue to go back and peck at the pile.

And I keep thinking about the fact that within another several hours, the tide will likely move up as high as the sand pile, thereby exposing the Cheez balls once again as the sand gets washed away...

The Selfish Way To Raise Money? Taxes!

Some may wonder if they misread that title.  Can that taxation really be the selfish way to raise money?  How can that be when taxes are supposedly the way to spread the expense among the largest number or people in order to make the amount paid by any one person as low as possible?

On the surface, taxes may seem the most fair and equitable way, but in reality, there is another side to the story.  The truth is that taxation has become the de facto easiest way to fund things.  And I believe it is very likely the most selfish way to fund things.  Here's why.

Say a person or group of people--often absolutely well-intentioned and well-meaning--decide that there is something good for an entity (for the purposes of this writing, please note that the word "entity" can be anything from a village/town/city, to a school district, a county, a state, or even a country). The idea is that the people of the entity would benefit from "whatever it is" (let the reader decide what "whatever it it" is).  That "whatever it is" costs money, and so funding needs to be in place in order for the project to move forward.  So a person or group of people--again, often well-intentioned and well-meaning--decide that since this will be a benefit to the entity as a whole, a tax should be levied so that the "whatever it is" will be paid for by everyone in the entity.

While this may sound fair and right, I really must say that it is not necessarily so.  What if someone from the entity does not think that the "whatever it is" would be such a good idea, or would be something that might be nice, but that the entity could get along without--especially if getting the "whatever it is" would cost the person money for which the person would have a different use such as funding his or her own more important or immediate needs?

So, the levy is put on the ballot, and let's say it passes.  Then taxes are assessed, and the project is (at least theoretically) funded (I won't get into things such as cost overruns here).  The majority of those voting have decided that this "whatever it is" should be paid for by everyone within the entity, in one way or another (through income taxes, property taxes, etc...).

The result?  The majority of those voting will pay what they agreed to pay towards the "whatever it is".  The rest of the people will be forced to pay for the "whatever it is" even though they did not agree with it being funded through the entity.

What if the levy would have failed?  Then the majority of the voters would have decided that the entity could do without the "whatever it is" (at least until the next time, or the time after that, or the time after that, when the people convinced that the entity cannot do without the "whatever it is" have to keep asking the people of the entity to fund it).

But are those the only two options?  Here's what I suggest. If people of an entity are so convinced that the entity needs "whatever it is" but a majority of the voters don't approve a tax for it, then the people who were in favor of funding the "whatever it is" are still free to donate a similar amount of money as they would have been taxed by the entity had the levy passed.  Maybe the "whatever it is" wouldn't be fully funded if only those who supported a levy would donate an amount equivalent to what they would have paid in taxes to fund the "whatever it is", but it wouldn't hurt to get partial funding.  Who knows, perhaps other funding could be derived from other sources, without forcing every person within the entity to contribute to it, whether or not they wanted the "whatever it is."

I have a challenge for people who are planning to support voting for any tax levies: agree to donate the money to the "whatever it is" equivalent to the amount you would have been assessed had the levy passed.

"Can You Please Hold?"

As I was working at the counter of the pro shop at the golf course, two customers walked in and needed me to process their transactions. Just then, the phone rang.  The other two staff people were in a meeting, so I answered the phone while trying to process the transaction of the first customer.  The person on the phone wanted to schedule tee-times.  Then the second phone line into the golf course rang.  I knew that I could only speak on one phone line at a time, so I answered the second line with the golf course name and said, "Can you please hold for a moment?" expecting the normal "Sure," or "OK" that I will usually hear when I have to answer the phone in similar circumstances.  Instead, I heard, "Well, this is [the electric company]*, so I prefer not." Well, since I was not the person who would have to speak with them, I said so, and had to put them on hold anyway.

Ironic, isn't it?  Maybe next time I call [the electric company]* and someone asks me (of course, only after navigating the seemingly endless numbers of recorded prompts in order to actually speak to a real person) if I can hold, I should say, "Well this is one of your customers, so I prefer not."

* text in brackets replaces the name of the actual electric company

Education and Academia

There is a difference between education and Academia. 

Education is the process and art of teaching and learning; Academia is the worshiping of education and educational accomplishments.

We need to focus more on true education and less on trying to attain the goals of Academia.

Presidential Vulgarity

Vulgarity by Presidents is not new. President Truman was lambasted by many for things he said, but often applauded by others for stating his mind (the band Chicago came out with a song in the 1970's called "Harry Truman" which extolled the former President's ways, including that he would "call a spade a spade").  The press even published what were considered by many at the time to be risque photographs of Mr. Truman (during the short time he served as Vice-President) posing at a piano with movie star Lauren Bacall.

Many people were shocked by the vulgarity that went on in President Nixon's White House when the recordings that became part of the Watergate scandal were released. Then it was discovered that President Lyndon Johnson also had recordings from his days in the White House, and his vulgarities were arguably worse. It has been reported that he even displayed his private parts during a White House meeting while declaring that those private parts were something that the communists would never get.

One big difference these days seems to be that anything that President Trump says in meetings somehow gets to the press. Also, he often seems to not care what people say about what he says. He also seems to purposely push the envelope knowing that he'll get reactions--positive reactions from some people and negative ones from other people with the same comments.

Personally, I don't see the need for the vulgarity. I generally do not use it, because I generally don't think it is necessary, and I feel I can express myself just fine without it. I wish the the President of the United States would refrain from that type of language, but the reality is that history shows us that the current President is not the first one who has used it.

A Life-Long Cub Fan's Perspective Half-Way Through The 2017 Season

Just past the half-way point in this season, it's time for some historical perspective.

We should all try to remember that as much as 2016 was a magical year for the Cubs in that they finally won the World Series after a 108-year drought, the regular season was pretty special, too. No Cub team in most Cub fans' lifetimes won as many games as did the 2016 Cubs. So just for a moment, let's take the 2016 season out of the mix.

In 2014, after 82 games, the Cubs were in last place in their division, 13.5 games out of first place.

In 2015, after 83 games (game numbers 82 and 83 were part of a double header, so I'm using the end of the day standings), the Cubs were in third place, 7.5 games out of first in their division.

And in 2015 at that point in the season, Cub fans were generally deliriously happy with the team's prospects of making the playoffs (albeit most likely through a wildcard spot), and even having a chance to go to the World Series.

Now at the same point of the 2017 season, the Cubs are in second place,  just 2.5 games out of first in their division. Winning the division would give them a better shot at advancing in the playoffs than did singe wildcard "play-in" game in 2015, where anything can happen to change the outcome of that lone game.

Yet it seems as though many Cub fans are down about this season. Granted, the 2017 team has not played nearly as well as the 2016 team did, but the truth is that throughout Major League Baseball history, only a very, very small percentage of teams played as well as (i.e., played to a better record than) the 2016 Chicago Cubs.

2016 was a magical season for many reasons. The Cubs got a lot of good breaks. Other then the nearly season-long injury to Kyle Schwarber and the several weeks that Dexter Fowler was out with a mid-season injury, there really was no significant amount of time lost to injury by the key players. Most teams will not have seasons that injury-free, and also will not have a season where a team gets so many other breaks that go predominantly in that team's favor.

So here in 2017, the Cubs have not thus far had the same type of magical season. Simply looking at things injury-wise, we can see that three key players--Jason Heyward, Ben Zobrist, and Kyle Hendricks--have all been on the disabled list at the same time. Three regulars on the DL at once is generally going to be a blow to any ball club.

Breaks have been going against the Cubs more in 2017 than they did in 2016. For instance, while Schwarber's hitting woes and subsequent demotion have been caused by many things, my observation is that many of his problems began when he was victimized numerous times by bad calls on balls and strikes. He has a great batting eye, and a few too many pitches that were actually out of the strike zone were called strikes on him. The natural consequence of this would be for him to lose confidence in his batting eye and expand his strike zone. Then when things start to go wrong because of those consequences, the natural tendency is to start pressing, and that brings about even more bad results.

The 2017 Cubs are not the same team as were the 2016 Cubs. The 2017 Cubs especially miss Fowler, David Ross, and Aroldis Chapman. Albert Almora Jr. and John Jay do not bring as much to the team as Fowler did. The recently departed Miguel Montero did not bring as much to the team as a backup catcher and clubhouse leader as Ross did. Wade Davis does not bring as much spark to the closer's role as Chapman did.

And yet, here the 2017 Cubs stand at just 2.5 games out of the division lead just past the half-way point of the season. I hope that people will take a step back and remember just how special the 2016 season was for the Chicago Cubs, and just how unusual it was for any team--including the Cubs--to do as well during the regular season as did the 2016 Cubs.

Then take time to remember that 2017 is an entirely different season, and had it not been for the magical year of 2016, Cub fans would be very happy to see their team only 2.5 games out of first place at this point in the season, and very hopeful that a division championship (and hopefully a playoff run leading to a World Championship) would be in the offing.

There's still a lot of baseball left to be played in 2017. Let's enjoy it.

Time To Quit The Name-calling

As I write this, as of the most recent information I have heard, Congressman Scalise is still in critical condition after having been shot yesterday.  First and foremost, we should all hope and pray for his recovery.

Some people have begun to call for a gentler tone when it comes to political talk.  A great example is this commentary by Scott Pelley of CBS News:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-scott-pelley-attack-foreseeable-predictable-self-inflicted/

Mr. Pelley makes some very good points.  But part of the problem is that each "side" tends to think that the other "side" is worse.

There's nothing wrong with debating policy, goals, and possible avenues to reach those goals.  In fact, good debate is a positive thing.  However, the reality is that both "sides" are guilty of straying from the merits (and/or lack thereof) of various policies and into the realm of verbal attacks and name-calling against the people who hold opposing views.

Beginning nearly two years ago--well prior to the determination of the nominees for President during the 2016 campaign--I started keeping track for a while of some of the different verbal name-calling that I was seeing on Facebook. I made note of name-calling in posts that might be deemed political, keeping track of when liberals used the name-calling tactic and when conservatives used the name-calling tactic.  Here's what I found:

Conservatives said of liberals:

…This is an evil man

…this idiot

…these creeps

…a distraction from the other traitor

…Libtard

…douchebag

…Dumb A** (edited by me)

…nut case

 Liberals said of conservatives:
…poor dumb SOB’s;

...ignorant white dudes

…a very crafty greedy evil man

…Knuckleheads

…These people are stupid beyond belief

…lunatics

…he’s just so….icky!

…moron…blathering idiot…unelectable turkey…

…angry misanthrope

…idiots

…such a buffoon

…Ludicrous, cheap, uninformed, and sleazy

…F****** sociopath (edited by me)

…this turd

…the idiot

Basically, both "sides" have been guilty.

 I hope that Americans will continue to debate ideas and philosophies.  I also hope that we will cease to resort to name-calling and verbal attacks against those with whom we may disagree.

One Final Slap In The Face

The setting: Xenia, OH -- the intersection of W. Main St. and King St.  I can't begin to count the number of times I've had to stop for a red light at that intersection while driving on Main St. when there was no cross traffic.  It's likely that in years (or perhaps decades) past, there was a legitimate need for a traffic light at that intersection.  But in the five-plus years I have personally been passing King St. on Main St. on a more or less regular basis, very rare has been the time when traffic patterns have warranted a traffic light there.  In fact, I'd said in the past that being stopped by that traffic light almost seemed like an insult.  So several weeks ago, when a road sign was erected stating that the traffic signal would be removed on June 12, 2017, I was very happy to see that sign.

As my schedule developed, it turned out that I had to drive down Main St. and pass through that intersection at about 7:15 on the morning of June 12th. As I was about a block away from King St., the light was green, and I figured that it was still too early in the day for the signal to have been removed.  I also thought that perhaps--just perhaps--I might avoid getting stopped by that light the one final time it would have the opportunity to stop me.

But it was not to be.  The light turned yellow when I was about a half block away from King St., and I had to stop for the light one last time.  The entire time the light was red for me, there was absolutely no cross traffic.  When I saw the light at the next intersection about a block ahead turn green with a left turn arrow--the intersection where I would need to turn left--I may have experienced a very, very, slight temptation to just go through the King St. intersection against the red light, but I had also noticed in my rear view mirror that the vehicle behind mine was being driven by one of the city's finest.  So as I sat at that intersection and waited for that blasted red light at King St. to turn green for me one last time, I also looked at the light a block ahead and hoped that it would stay green long enough for me to get through it once I had my (hopefully) final opportunity to simply sit idle and take in the ambiance of the Main St.-King St. intersection. Finally the light turned green, just a few moments before the light at the next intersection turned yellow, meaning I'd have to wait for about another minute and a half before I could make my left turn.  And as timing would have it, once I turned left, traffic patterns were such that I got stopped at three of the next four traffic lights after I made my turn.

It was one final slap in the face from that unneeded traffic light--one final insult.  I haven't had to drive through that intersection again since yesterday morning; I hope that traffic signal was actually taken down as scheduled yesterday.  I have one final thing to say to it: good riddance. 

Another Terrorist Attack; My Response As A Christian

Another terrorist attack has killed multiple people.  As a Christian, I must decide what I should do.

Of course, I should pray for the victims who are still alive, and pray for their loved ones.  I should pray for the loved ones of those victims who have died.  And yes, I should pray for the terrorists that are still living who aided and abetted this catastrophe.

Some Christians want to simply say, "Yes, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you."  I actually do believe that.  Those are the words of Jesus, as found in the Bible.  I believe them.  As a follower of Jesus, I want to do as He instructs.

If only it was that simple.

I want to follow my Lord's example.  Yet some things aren't cut and dried as to just how I should act and/or respond as a Christian.

I heard a sermon recently--before this most recent terrorist attack--in which the preacher said basically that if we are Christians, we should not wish harm or death to a group of people because of who they are.  While technically I agree, in reality, it's more complicated than that.  Ideally, I want everyone to come to Christ.  I want everyone to know His love, grace, forgiveness, and mercy. 

I also want the terrorists to stop the killing.  And experience tells me that in this world infected and affected by sin, the terrorists won't stop the killing unless their hearts are changed.  Until that time, they will be bent on killing anyone who disagrees with them and their philosophies. 

I pray that I am never in the position of being a victim of violent terrorism.  I pray that my loved ones and other people whom I know aren't victims of violent terrorism.  I pray that people whom I don't know aren't victims of violent terrorism. So I have two end goals.  First and foremost, I should desire that those who espouse the radical Islamist views would turn instead to Jesus Christ.  At the same time, I must love other people--including those who might become potential victims of radical Islamist terrorism.

I remember hearing another sermon by the now late Rev. Ralph Brown not long after the radical Islamist attacks of September 11, 2001.  Rev. Brown said that while it is true that we are to love our enemies and not seek to kill, we can be equally as guilty of killing if we have a way to prevent people from being killed but do nothing to stop it.

The problem in this world that is (I will say it again) infected and affected by sin is that sometimes we are left with no perfect choices.  In fact we can be left with two choices, both of which are less than desirable.  In this case, do I "love my enemies" by "turning the other cheek" and letting them continue to commit terrorist acts against anyone who disagrees with their radical Islamist philosophy--including children?  Or do I stand for protecting the potential victims of radical Islamist terrorism (hopefully even before the terrorists have the opportunity to commit their acts of terrorism) by doing all I can to stop them, even if it means supporting actions that might (or even likely will) result in their deaths, in order to prevent the deaths of even larger numbers of people whom the terrorists are trying to kill?

To my brothers and sisters in Christ who stand for the idealism of turning the other cheek, I honor your decision and your commitment to the ideal.  If that is how the indwelling Holy Spirit is leading you to react to this situation, by all means, please follow as He leads.  The apostle Paul clearly pointed out in the Book of Romans that you will not answer to me or to any other human being, but to God.  Please, follow as He leads you.

However, please understand that I, too, have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in me.  And since I heard Rev. Brown's sermon over a decade and a half ago, I have sensed the Holy Spirit leading me to see the Islamist terrorist situation as one of the many ways in which this world does not function as God originally designed it to function, and that therefore I must support the efforts of those who will do whatever is necessary to stop the terrorists from carrying out their attacks that will kill and injure many people--even if doing whatever is necessary to stop the terrorists results in their deaths.

It's not a perfect solution, but we don't live in a perfect world.  I do not long for the deaths of the terrorists; I long for their terrorist attacks against those with whom they disagree to stop.  I am standing up for the lives and safety of those who would or could be victims of terrorism, hopefully preventing those people from being victims at all.

In my heart, this is my response as a Christian, even if other brothers and sisters in Christ may not have the same response.  My heart is heavy for the Islamic terrorists.  I sincerely hope they will turn to Christ Jesus.  But unless and until they do, I believe that it is a legitimate Christian response to do everything possible to stop them from inuring and killing others.

May God have mercy on us.

A Scam -- Or At Least Something That Seems Fishy

There's something going on with telephones--likely a scam--but there seems to be a new twist.  It seems that someone has figured out how to configure caller ID's or something to be able to make it appear as though the call is coming from a local number--even within the exchange as the phone being called.

In just the past three days, the following numbers with my local exchange have called the phone and have left no message (since I generally don't answer phone calls unless I recognize the number and/or the name on the caller ID):

XXX-2828
XXX-3900
XXX-5952
XXX-5854
XXX-3750

People trying to take advantage of others sure can be creative.  If only they would use their skills for something positive...

Thoughts From A Day On The Job

As a part time job, one day a week I drive vehicles for a car dealership's service department.  On any given day during this job, I might find myself in about a 50 mile (or slightly more) radius in just about any direction from the dealership.  On my most recent day working there, I was struck particularly by two unrelated thoughts.

The first one (chronologically speaking) had to do with my having the opportunity to a drive into a town through which I often drove until about a decade or so ago, but through which I have very rarely driven since that time.  I was surprised to see how little the town had changed.  Many of the homes and most of the businesses looked much the same--although some new businesses occupied the old buildings of former businesses.  What struck me most, however, was that here I was driving through a pretty much blue-collar community, and the newest and most impressive buildings (even though some of them are likely at least 20 years old) were all government buildings--from local town government, to the public library, to the public schools.  My main thought was that it seems odd that the various government entities were able to get its citizenry to fund government buildings that were far newer and more extravagantly built than nearly every other home or business in the town.

My second thought falls under the category of "Things That Make You Shake Your Head." It was a rainy day.  A customer asked us to pick up their vehicle from over 20 miles away, have the needed maintenance done, and have the car detailed--inside and out.  Understand that picking up a vehicle from 20 miles away means that we have to deliver it back that same 20 miles later.  On a rainy day.  After the vehicle had been detailed.  When I dropped the car off, the customer complained that I had parked the vehicle in the same spot where it had been parked when I had picked it up earlier in the day.  Why?  Because the vehicle had been detailed and there was a puddle where the car had been parked--because it had been raining much of the day.  Never mind that the vehicle had just been driven more than 20 miles on roads where it had been raining most of the day--roads that had puddles on them and where water was being splashed by other vehicles.  Never mind that the vehicle was parked outside when I picked it up from the customer earlier in the day, and that there didn't appear to be any place to park the car except outside in the gravel driveway that had a puddle in it because it had been raining much of the day.  Oh, and never mind that the weather forecast was calling for rain for the rest of the day, overnight, and much of the next day.    I guess that the car detailing was a waste of money for the customer because there was a puddle where I parked it--the same place it had been parked when I picked it up when it was raining earlier in the day.

So I guess that this one-day-per-week part-time job of driving cars throughout the area gives my mind time to think and consider things--even things that make me shake my head.

ACA Discussion -- Based On A Friend's Question

A friend of mine recently started a discussion topic asking for people to post their opinions about the ACA (Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare).  His "ground rules" included the following: "The object is to understand each other better....I expect disagreement, but would be deeply disappointed by "disagreeability". Respectfully challenging sources is fine; challenging integrity, intelligence, veracity, or spelling(!) is shameful."  

I personally would ask that the same ground rules be followed with this Blog post, which is basically the same response I made to my friend in his discussion topic.  The response (and the main part of this Blog post) is as follows:

The biggest problem with the ACA is that it's addressing the wrong problems. The main problem isn't that enough people don't have health insurance, the main problem is that health care should not be as expensive as it is. Health insurance is basically totally over-used in this country. Insurance should be used only in unusual circumstances--much like auto or home insurance. I've heard it said before (and very much agree) that if we used auto insurance the way we use health insurance, we'd be paying for oil changes with auto insurance.

Here's an example of health care costs being too expensive...

On 10/4/16, I went to have my semi-annual CBC (Complete Blood Count) done that had been ordered by my primary care physician. This is a matter of course, with most of my counts historically being within normal (or near normal) ranges. The billed price: $2,439.00.

But that is not how much was paid. That was the amount billed to the insurance company. The insurance paid $93.27, and due to the contract between the insurance company and the provider, the provider wrote off $2,291.43, leaving me to pay a balance of $54.30. Right there is a MAJOR part of the problem: There should not be charges to anyone showing $2,439.00 when payment in full (from all sources) is $147.57.

Everything medical shouldn't have to be sent through an insurance company. When I moved to Ohio in 1984, I would still go to a family doctor, and would pay cash (or check--just no insurance involved) for the office visit. The amount charged was $25. Based on the U.S. inflation calculator -- https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm -- the equivalent of $25.00 in 1984 dollars would have been $57.75 in 2016. But a couple of years ago (having NOTHING to do with the ACA, but rather with the insurance offered through my wife's employer) we had to change family physicians to someone who was in our insurance's "network" because we now pay a "co-pay" of $20 for an office visit to the family physician, but we would have had to pay about $135 for an office visit to the out-of-network provider. $57.75 for an office visit in 2016 would represent a 131% increase over 32 years (from 1984 to 2016). But the $135 in 2016 compared to the $25 in 1984 is an increase of 440%. Medical costs are just too high, and a significant part of the reason has to do with overuse of health insurance.

I have too many issues with the ACA to be able to enumerate them all here. The biggest ones are the MANDATES. The federal government should not be able to mandate that people purchase coverage, or that employers provide coverage to full-time employees--AND define full-time as (I think) about 30 hours per week. I have been working "part time" at a golf course for the past 5 years (generally seasonally, about April-October). This is a small business, and the owner has to make sure that part-time employees don't work more than 30 hours per week. So that means that people have actually lost work hours since before the implementation of the ACA.

There are a few aspects of the ACA that have the POTENTIAL to be good. One is the elimination of lifetime maximum payments from the insurance companies. Actually, there's really nothing negative about that provision.

Another potentially positive aspect of the ACA is the part about not being able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. That should be something that remains, but it also needs to be amended so that people don't take abuse it (such as by electing to not pay for any health insurance until a condition is found, and only then purchasing insurance).

A third potentially positive aspect of the ACA is for people to be on their parents' health insurance through age 26. But rather than being MANDATED that this MUST be the case, it should be an OPTION along the lines that the insurance cannot automatically drop a person's coverage until age 26, but that the insured can choose whether or not to have that person covered through the policy.I could go on, but I think I've written a book already. By the way, for the record, this is written by someone who has worked in the medical field, and who has immediate relatives who work in the health care field as well.

Disagreeing Disagreeably

Whatever happened to things such as common courtesy and respect for others?  I fully understand that there have always been people who have little or no regard for other people--especially for those people with whom they disagree.  I also know that this has long been the case when it comes to political disagreements.  But it seems as though there has been a sharp increase in the disregard for common courtesy and respect for others over the past several years--and especially over the past year or so.

It doesn't help when the nation's leaders (or leaders-to-be) engage in name-calling.  Just this morning I saw a quote purported to be from the President-Elect of the United States that called a member of the United States Senate a clown.  Name calling is almost never helpful in solving problems or in ironing out disagreements. 

I have made no secret of the fact that I have disagreed with many of the policies and viewpoints of the current President of the United States, but I have striven to make it a point to be respectful of him.  When writing things about him--even when I have written about him regarding areas where the two of us disagree--I have made it my practice to refer to him as President Obama.  Before he was elected, my practice was to refer to him in my writings as Senator Obama.  Likewise, during the 2016 election season, I generally made it a practice to refer to Secretary Clinton.  I do have to admit that I am not perfect, however; I'm pretty sure that in casual conversations I likely referred to her at times as "Hillary."  But at least that is her given name, and I do not recall having called her names.

I will continue to strive to make sure that when I disagree with people to not resort to name calling.  I hope that by my writing this blog post today, I may influence other people to consider the things I've said, and perhaps make it a point to also refrain from name calling.  Instead, I hope that people will consider treating others with common courtesy and respect.

Some Thoughts As A Christ-Follower

I believe that one of the challenges that we face as Christians is figuring out on what issues we should speak up and speak out about, and what issues we just need to more or less "let be." Personally, the older I get, the more I am convinced that Christianity is NOT primarily about restoring this world and the creation to its original state, but rather about seeing people reconciled to the Father through Jesus Christ. I realize that those two things are not mutually exclusive; rather, they are deeply intertwined. However (and I'll admit, I see this differently than do many Christians), we as Christians are not going to right the world's wrongs. This world has been infected and affected by sin since the Fall as recorded in Genesis 3, and it won't be restored until Christ returns. In fact, I see Scripture telling us that not only will the world not be restored until that time, but that it will get worse and worse UNTIL that time. And as long as we are in this world (or until Jesus returns--whichever comes first), our efforts at trying to establish the Kingdom of God in this world through human governments and through laws and decrees will be efforts in futility. We must seek to have people's HEARTS changed through the IMPUTED (not just imparted) holiness of Jesus Christ first and foremost. And then, when enough people experience that gift of Grace from God through surrendering their lives to Him and living as He leads, perhaps we will be able to make efforts at bringing small parts of society more in line with God's ways. But as long as we live in this world infected and affected by sin, our efforts will be akin to what Paul spoke of (albeit in a different context, but nonetheless in a way I believe to be applicable here) of seeing in a mirror dimly, knowing that one day (which I believe won't be until after Christ returns) we shall see fully--even as we are fully known. 

Until then, worldly governments and rulers will come and go--none of whom or which will be anywhere near perfect--and each one of us who has surrendered to Christ must follow as led by the Holy Spirit, knowing that we will ultimately stand or fall not to a denomination, but to Christ. 

May the Peace of Jesus Christ be yours.

I'm Not Rejoicing

My Facebook feed has rarely been filled with more political vitriol from some people, while being filled with what I'd term almost political jubilation by others.  Yes, "elections have consequences" (as President Obama has said in the past).  But not since the Presidential election of 2000 have I seen and heard of so many people trying to see if the results of the election can be overturned.  For the record, the election in 2000 was a totally different story, as only a very small number of votes cast in one state would have changed the outcome of the election in the electoral college.  But this year it's different.  Based on the election rules laid out in the United States Constitution, it certainly appears as though Donald Trump should easily win the vote of the electoral college when the vote is officially taken later this month.

Yet there are people who are now hounding electoral college electors to not vote for Donald Trump, even though they have been chosen to do that very thing.  We have a third (or actually fourth, when based on the number of votes received) party candidate demanding recounts in two states--despite the fact that the candidate has absolutely no chance of winning in either of those states.  In fact, even if the recounts should somehow show the very, very highly unlikely scenario that Hillary Clinton actually had more votes than Donald Trump in each of those states, Donald Trump would still have won more than the majority of electors in the electoral college. 

The bottom line is that there are many, many people in this nation who are just absolutely aghast at the idea of Donald J. Trump becoming the President of the United States.  It is highly likely that his election occurred despite a very large percentage of people having an unfavorable view of him.

But the truth is that despite a very large percentage of people having an unfavorable view of him, he won in large part because in the end, enough people had an unfavorable view of Hillary Clinton.

What seems to have been lost in the aftermath of this election is the fact that the vast majority of the people in this country did not want either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton to be elected President.  However, because of the rules and laws of how the President of the United States is elected, a large percentage of people voted for Donald Trump, not because they wanted him to be the President, but because they did not want Hillary Clinton to be the President (just as there was a large percentage of people who voted for Hillary Clinton primarily because they did not want Donald Trump to be the President).

In one of my previous blog posts (http://peteshodgepodge.blogspot.com/2016/11/a-choice-i-dont-want-to-make.html) I stated that I was in the camp of those people who would reluctantly vote for Donald Trump, because I thought a Hillary Clinton presidency would be even worse.

Make no mistake about it--I own up to having voted for Donald Trump.  But I also am not rejoicing that he won the election.  Instead, I am relieved that Hillary Clinton did not win the election.  However, as I said in the previously alluded to blog post, I voted for Donald Trump "grudgingly," while knowing that a Trump Presidency would be no panacea, but rather the lesser of two negatives.

There are many things that concern me about a Donald Trump presidency; it certainly will not be a panacea.  In some ways, it might be downright bad. But do you know what? Elections have consequences.  Instead of rejoicing that one person lost, or trying to find ways to intimidate electors of the electoral college, or complaining over everything that Donald Trump does that goes against what people who voted against him anyway don't like, I have an idea: Let's pray for Donald Trump.  Let's pray for the United States of America, and let's pray that the world will end up being a better place during Donald Trump's presidency--not because Donald Trump won the election, but because we rely on a Holy, and Merciful God who is truly the one in charge of all people and all governments. 

What Just Happened?

As I begin writing this, it is the morning of November 9, 2016--the morning after the Election Day on which Donald Trump was elected President of the United States.  24 hours ago, many people—myself included—fully expected that the winner of the election would be Hillary Clinton. 

What just happened?

For one thing, I fully believe that Mr. Trump won because he received a significant number of votes from people who simply did not want Secretary Clinton to be elected.  Conversely, many of the people who voted for Secretary Clinton simply did not want Mr. Trump to be elected.  In the end, there were likely more of the former than of the latter.

But that’s only part of it.  The more I’ve looked at it and seen the breakdown of some of the exit polling, I believe that this was in large part a revolt of the “common” people against (to use a term I’ve heard to describe it) the “elite” in America.  I’m not sure that “elite” is the best word to use, but it seems to be the word of the day.  What is the word “elite” being used to describe?  Let me take a shot at explaining it.

In general, they are in many cases viewed (especially by the so-called "common folks") in certain ways:  they have attained formal higher-education degrees; they are philosophical; they are altruistic; they believe they know what is best—even for other people; they give off the impression that they think they are better than those people who are less educated; they tend to view things through the lens that the world is stacked against the poor and disenfranchised, and believe it is their duty to stand up for these people and give these people a hand up (often by giving them special status in society to make sure that they are not discriminated against). And those are just some of the ways the so-called "common folks" tend to view the so-called "elite."

The bottom line is that in the view of many, these “elites” are viewed as the self-proclaimed “experts” regarding the ways things “should” be.   Oftentimes, the people whom many consider to be the “elite” act in condescending ways towards “the common people.”  To me, one of the greatest examples of this type of condescension was illustrated in a television ad a few years ago for LED lighting.  The deep-voiced spokesman on the ad talked about incandescent light bulbs having been great in their time, but that they’d now outlived their usefulness.  The key phrase in the commercial was, “Nostalgia is dumb.”*

That commercial is very emblematic of the attitude many “common folks” tend to think the “elites” have towards them.  Herman Cain wrote a book with a title that sums up this attitude—They Think We’re Stupid.

In my opinion, the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States has been due in large part to many, many people in essence saying to the “elites,” “Don’t tell us what to do.”

* = see this URL: http://www.mnn.com/your-home/at-home/blogs/nostalgia-is-dumb-cree-launches-led-promoting-tv-spots