Gun Control and Violence in our Society - Solutions for the problem?

Before I proceed, I want to state I own guns. Almost all are from where people died and left them to me. None are suitable for self defense in my opinion. 12 gauge shotguns are too unwieldy in a home and the two pistols I have are either too small a caliber (25) or too large (44 that would blow holes though my house and the one next door). That said, I would like to comment on the current debate. I will say up front, I do not have the solution (does anybody?) but instead I offer points to seriously consider if one is truly intent on solving the problem and not just spewing emotional rhetoric as so many do.

For as long as anybody can remember, there have been debates about gun control and the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. With the ever increasing violence in our society and the looming presidential elections, the debate has intensified.

But the question to be resolved is not about how to interpret the 2nd Amendment. (The latest debate seems to focus on the comma and the definition of militia and how far in scope it goes. But that is not the primary issue, here or in our society.)

First we must decide on what is the problem. 

The problem is not guns in themselves. As many gun advocates point out, people can also use knives, explosives, bats, and a variety of other weapons to inflict their goals. Guns are simply a popular choice as they are easy to carry and conceal and are capable of inflict great harm easily.

The real issue today is how do we eliminate the violence that has become more and more prevalent throughout our society these days?  (This morning's news has a report about 4 teens in Calif plotting to go in and shot people). If we took away all the guns, there would still be violence, simply in a different form. So far there have been two primary schools of thought.

1. Eliminate the guns or 
2. Do something about the people plotting the violence. 

Concerning option 1, I will not drag up surveys and data and as everybody knows, "Figures lie and liars figure". I will not enter the 2nd Amendment debate except to say I don't think too many sane people would have everybody walking the streets with a pistol on their belt and a rifle slung over their shoulder. How many would truly feel safe in that environment. 

On the other hand, this country has always allowed private citizens to own guns for recreation (hunting and practice shooting among other things) and for self defense.

Ownership of a gun or any other weapon requires the person be trained and skilled in its use and ready and willing to use it for its intended purpose. If you want to shoot skeet or hunt deer, you need to know how to use your weapon, including being aware of what lies beyond the tree line and not shooting and striking things out of sight. A friend of my step-fther was shot on the same day President Kennedy was killed because as the friend moved through the brush with his rifle out in front of him, somebody else saw the brush move and opened fire. Lots of surgery with rods and screws to replace the damage to his arms.

If one has a weapon for self-defense, they must not only know how to operate it but they must be willing to use it without hesitation once the intruder is confirmed as a threat. To stand there trembling and saying I have a gun will not do it.

Concerning option 2, this is the more challenging task as in my opinion, it tackles the real problem but poses a significant risk to the rights of any and all citizens as much as much if not more than option 1 of gun control.

When we see guns or any other weapon misused for violence, it generally takes one of two forms. One form is personal violence against an individual. Two people get into a fight and one pulls out a gun and fires. It is it not a pre-planned action but rather a spur of the moment action. There is also the planned action such as a crime (bank robbery for example) or the murder of somebody for various reasons. But these are still not acts of mass violence or terrorism.

The second form of weapon misuse is when it is a well thought out plan (OK, a well thought out plan wouldn't do it at all but you know what I mean I hope) to inflict pain, suffering, and death or a large group of people. In some cases the perpetrator believes they have been slighted or offended by the group while in other cases, the perpetrator has reasons that nobody will every understand or grasp.

Most people will agree that those who go into public places are to put it colloquially, not playing with a full deck. The problem is the person, not the tool they choose to implement their plans. So the solution is simple, let's either lock up all mentally unstable people or at the minimum, ban them from owning weapons of any kind.

How to prevent people from owning weapons of any kind would be a challenge, again probably met strongly by 2nd Amendment supports who are always on the alert for any perceived threat. (not all are) But if we could have a way to prevent mentally unstable people from having weapons of any kind, the question become how do we identify them?

Notice I use the term mentally unstable. I chose that term as some people are mentally challenged due to a wide variety of reasons and I do not want them included in this. Instead I use the term mentally unstable to denote people who are perhaps delusional, perhaps temporarily or maybe permanently. And that in itself leads us directly to the heart of the matter, How Do We Identify These People and What do We do While Preserving Their Rights?

A quick personal story illustrating yesterday and today. Back before I was born (perhaps shortly after) people could be placed in mental institutions for unethical, immoral, and illegal reasons. With enough money and lies, anybody could be placed in a mental institution. I tell the following because everybody connected is long gone. My Great-grandmother had two daughters. The one that was not my grandmother place my great-granmother in a mental institution (Milledgeville,Ga) to gain access to her assets. I met her once when I was young and to be honest I don't remember anything kooky about her. Most in the family felt it was done for the money involved. And sadly that was not an isolated case. Many were placed in institutions either to gain control of their finances or to get them out of the way as they were an inconvenience.

Today, there are safeguards to prevent this. (but not fool-proof). When my mother developed Alzheimers, I eventually had to make myself her legal guardian to manage her affairs. (Powers of attourneys are a weak document). With the history of my great-grandmother and the fact fact it was my mother, I was very reluctant to take that step but ultimately it became necessary. Under Georgia law, I had to account for literally every penny I spent. I had to turn in reports periodically. The sad thing was I could not give my children a Christmas or birthday gift from Nana as everything had to go for her care, as it should have. Someday I may tell of my story of dealing with my mother's Alzheimers but that is for another day. My point here is that today, people 's right to due process in determining if they are mentally competent to make their own decisions is an arduous process that is set up to ensure people's rights are not taken away. 

And that is that the heart of the problem. One part is how do we identify people who should not have weapons and the second part is what do we do about it?

How do we as a society distinguish between somebody who is temporarily upset over the events of life verses those who are seriously disturbed and need help. How often have each of us said something similar to, "I could just kill that so and so"? 

How do we distinguish between the temporarily moderately upset "normal" person and the truly disturbed? For that matter , how do we identify those who are short term in need of assistance and not qualified to be in control of a weapon and those who are upset but pose no threat to others?

For all those who stand so staunchly in support of the individual's rights but be a part of the solution that protects the rights of all.

Should we take guns away from everybody? No. Should we temporarily take them away from some? Perhaps but under what conditions and terms. Should be take weapons away from some permanently? Perhaps.

But the question is not what to do with guns. Guns are not the problem. A broken glass bottle can easily become a weapon. The question is how do we protect the general population form the actions of a minority without depriving people of their rights and affording everybody due process?

In the back of my mind is the warning concerning terrorists, "Be observant and call somebody if you suspect something." I am a photographer and quite a few photographers have been harassed because they took a photograph of something that an over zealous security guard thought was a violation of the Homeland Dense Act. Be alert, report anything suspicious. Well, a couple of you look a little suspicious and there are days my wife looks at me!! Seriously, we cannot afford to turn our nation into a paranoid group of people always looking at the other as in "What's wrong with you? Should I report you today?" If that is the eventual outcome, then the terrorists have won.

So what is the answer? I honestly don't know but I will stand firm to protect the rights of everybody and will say we cannot throw a few under the bus and sacrifice their rights. I would hope somebody will come up with a third way to tackle the problem besides the gun or restraining the individual. Perhaps the long term solution is education. The same way we need to tackle the problem of gang violence and other social ills, we need to address the issues are an early age (very early but again that's for another day). Parents, schools, churches, and all others that impact young people's lives need to become involved.

I hope in this blog, I have at least encouraged people to take a moment and seriously step away from the political rhetoric and liberal vs conservative debate and to ponder the best course of action for all people to ensure the safety of all while protecting the rights of all.

Would Raleigh charge Jesus $1600 a weekend to feed the multitudes and heal the lame?

Looks that way. 

^{37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40} “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Matt 25:37-40 

BACKGROUND: Saturday August 24, the several groups of church and other people gathered as they had done for the past 6 + years to feed the homeless in Raleigh. Stuff like sausage and biscuits.  They technically do not meet in Moore Square (a public park in downtown Raleigh) but they stand on the sidewalk. They clean up their mess and know they cannot block or impede the flow of people on the sidewalk. (Do you have any idea now many people are on the sidewalk of downtown Raleigh at 9AM Saturday and Sunday? Take off your shoes to count) 

Suddenly the police show up and tell the people that they cannot hand out the food. They turned to one worker and told them that if they handed the homeless people that food, they would be arrested! NO they did not tell them to be gone in an hour! NO, they did not tell them to finish and not come back again! No, they told the workers if they handed them the food they would be arrested right then. So the hungry looked on while the food was taken away! 

They say they have to have a permit (although technically they were not in the park but on the public sidewalk). which will cost $800 a day for $1600 for the weekend!!!! The workers were told not to bother to apply as it would not be approved. 

Link : http://lovewins.info/2013/08/feeding-homeless-apparently-illegal-in-raleigh-nc/

Then the story hit the social media and people began sending the story to the local news media and also somehow the Mayor heard about it. "... The Raleigh police stood down after Mayor Nancy McFarlane and numerous Council members intervened today with Police Chief Deck-Brown and Acting City Manager Perry James. ... Until the committee has a chance to gather information, Chief Deck-Brown and the city administration have agreed to let the various groups continue to distribute food without being hassled or threatened with arrest, McFarlane said."

OH REALLY??? Keep Reading. 

" On Sunday, the group moved to a private parking lot across the street from Moore Square, but police also asked them to leave that area.

"We had lots of volunteers and lots of hungry people and nowhere to go," Pratt said." 

http://www.wral.com/nonprofit-says-it-was-threatened-with-arrest-for-feeding-raleigh-homeless/12815894/

WAIT A MINUTE! The police ran them off of PRIVATE PROPERTY??? 

Now the Mayor and City officials naturally have no idea how this got started or who is responsible. And even though they said it could continue temporarily until they got a hold of things, the police, having no respect for the Mayor or anybody else, proceeded to run them off PRIVATE PROPERTY!!! 

LATEST NEWS as of 8/28/13 "The Raleigh City Council's Law and Public Safety Committee will convene Wednesday for a special meeting." 

And Where We Stand Now  - "A spokeswoman for the city parks department declined to comment Monday, as did Raleigh Police Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown who referred all questions to Perry.

He declined to comment further on Monday and referred questions to Mayor Nancy McFarlane.

She also was unavailable for comment Monday but said Sunday that she hopes the parks department and the groups can resolve the situation." 

I.E. I'm not talking, talk to her. I'm not talking either, talk to him. Can't find him or her, everybody suddenly unavailable. 

What's Really Going On any homeless poor people , then there isn't a problem. Obviously Raleigh took option 2. Unfortuneately for Raleigh, the focial media picked up on it, which spread to the local news and then to the national news and now to CNN. 

The goal is not to care for the poor and help them make their lives better. The goal is to hide them And Where We Stand Now  - "A spokeswoman for the city parks department declined to comment Monday, as did Raleigh Police Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown who referred all questions to Perry.

He declined to comment further on Monday and referred questions to Mayor Nancy McFarlane.

She also was unavailable for comment Monday but said Sunday that she hopes the parks department and the groups can resolve the situation." 

I.E. I'm not talking, talk to her. I'm not talking either, talk to him. Can't find him or her, everybody suddenly unavailable. 

What's Really Going On any homeless poor people , then there isn't a problem. Obviously Raleigh took option 2. Unfortuneately for Raleigh, the focial media picked up on it, which spread to the local news and then to the national news and now to CNN. 

The goal is not to care for the poor and help them make their lives better. The goal is to hide them so there is not problem.

 The Affordable Health Care Act

I have tried to avoid this one as I strive to stay out of the emotion filled political issues and instead look at other issues like my last post on Medicare but as I finished writing that one, I received some information in the mail from Blue Cross that I felt had to be commented upon.

I received a package entitled “Health Care Reform is Coming”. It does on to state - Health care Reform will be different for everybody. (I thought it was going to equalize everybody.) So here it is. (I am adding my comments in a different color so you can tell the difference between what they said and what I say)”

Some of the benefits already existed, so new or expanded benefits are listed in bold:

• Ambulatory Patient Services
• Emergency Services
• Hospitalization
• Maternity and newborn care not automatically covered.
• Increased benefits for mental health and substance use disorder services including behavioral health treatment.
• Prescription drugs.
• Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.
• Laboratory services.
• Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management.
• Pediatric services including oral and vision care.

< So if I am not insane (hope not), just born or a child (hah), or expecting a child (blow my brains out at this point in life), then I really don't get anything. >

Additionally, all new health care compliant plans now have an annual cap on out of pocket expenses (estimated $6350 for single and $12,700 for family).

< Oh joy! $12,700 is all I will have to spend out of pocket AFTER I pay for the premiums! With premiums close to $1000 a month now and $12,700 out of pocket I won't have to worry about house payments or groceries anymore! Get real who can afford $24,00 a year in insurance premiums AND out of pocket expenses? I thought this was the Affordable Heath care Act, not the Run Them into Bankruptcy Act. More on money and premiums and money in a moment. >

Terms defined:

Federal Poverty Level (FPL) – A measure of income level (by family size) that determines eligibility for premium tax credits. For example, a family of four that makes less than $94,200 a year may be eligible for help.

< Moment is here. $94,200 is poverty level for a family for four!!??? It that is poverty I am buried in poverty. The news reported the other day that the average (not median) income in this country is approximately $55,000 a year. That means before taxes half the people in this country earn less than $55,000. After taxes that means half this country has a take home of about $38,500. now subtract the $12,000 on insurance premiums and the $12,700 in out of pocket expenses and you have about $13,800 to live on (food, gas at $4/gal, house note or rent, etc.). If you make less than the average income as half the country does, then you have serious problems. >

Premium Tax Credits – These will be made available to low and middle-income Americans and applied to health insurance premiums. Cost Sharing Reductions will limit a plan's maximum out-of-pocket costs.

< If poverty for a family of four is $94,200 a year, then what on earth is low to middle income? Low must be $100,000 - $150,000 and middle income must be $150,000 - $250,000 a year. Nice to know they will be helped also. Does anybody know the Great Recession is still impacting so many Americans? We cannot afford this! >

What Are My Options?

One of the things you will need to do is determine if you have a grandfathered plan (which refers to health insurance plans that were in effect prior to March 23, 2010).

< So if you changed jobs or got a new plan after that date, you will be forced to change with no options! >

If you have a grandfathered plan:

You have flexibility. If you like your current plan you can stay with it. For many people, this will be the best course of action because it may be the least expensive option.

< Key words here: Least expensive option. Meaning the new Affordable Health Care Act will cost more than anything we have now. I thought this initiative was to help people have insurance that could not afford it. This sounds like if you can't afford it now, you really won't be able to afford it later!! >

You may still qualify for a premium tax credit that can be applied to health insurance premiums; however, premium tax credits cannot be applied to your current grandfathered plan. It may be in your best interest financially to stay with your grandfathered plan.

< In other words, it is going to be really expensive. The tax credits will NOT begin to cover the additional cost and you better stay with the grandfathered plan. BUT WAIT, what about those that did not have their existing plan on March 23, 2010? What if you moved or got a new job or some other way had a life change that moved you to a new plan? Buckle up, here it comes! >

Once you leave a grandfathered plan, you cannot go back to it!

< Oh, so if your children grow up and move out or you get a new job, you have no choice, you will be forced to move to this new insurance coverage!! >

If you do not have a grandfathered plan:

We will automatically move you to a 2014 BCBS health care reform compliant plan that most closely matches your current plan. Your new plan will look a lot like what you have today. You always have the option to change this plan during the annual open enrollment period.

< Really? Really? When is the last time your insurance plan or anybody else changed you to a new plan or anything that was better for you? I had a friend that had a computer replaced under warranty with the assurance that it would be as good as or better than the one it replaced but they got no say so in what it would be like. Well, let's just say they would up buying a new computer as it was so unusable. Among other things it was supposed to be for a female to carry to class. They had a 15 inch laptop and got a 17 inch thing that weighed 10 pounds (literally 9.6). The point is if you believe you insurance company is going to move you to a plan that will cost about the same and have the same basic coverage, I have property in the Florida swamps to sell you and a bridge in Brooklyn also. >

< My Bottom Line: It appears one of the largest financial disasters this country has ever experienced is about to happen. This will be so much more than the dot com bust in 2000 or the housing bust, or the Great Recession. I don't want to sound like a fear monger as I typically heat that but when I look at the numbers ($94,200 poverty line, $12,000 for health care premiums currently with significant increase to happen according to the insurance companies, and $12,700 out of pocket expenses, I don't see how the working class will survive. I suggest you get you application in now for government housing, food stamps, and welfare. The line forms to the rear, don't get caught short. >  

** Update: The news reports that the government has allowed business a one year exemption to the Affordable Health Care Act. If business have a one year exemption, why can't individuals get a one year exemption? (or more). If businesses don't have to provide the coverage the plan requires, does that mean that the employees will now have to buy it out of pocket like so many others? This doesn’t help matters, it only puts more of a burden on the people.

The Act has already hurt so many people by encouraging companies to limit their workers to 30 hours a week or less. If you don't believe this, go talk to anybody that has tried to get a job or has gotten one in the last few years. Odds are they are at 30 hours a week or less. 

Medicare and the Donut Hole

And Now a Word about Medicare and the Donut Hole 

For those of you approaching 60 +, here is something you need to know about. This comes from one of my readers down south in North Carolina (how do you people stand it down there with all that humidity?) They work at firm in conjunction with a pharmaceutical firm and they submitted this for my consideration and it is something we all should now about in life (what this blog is about - Thoughts on life of whatever nature)

For those of you approaching that age where Medicare may become part of your life, you need to know about the Donut Hole. Insurance for Medicare (Like AARP) Part D has four levels. Deductible, Initial, Coverage Gap (the Donut Hole), and Catastrophic. (I am not going into Part B etc as that is not the focus today). This discussion ONLY covers Prescription Drugs, not any other medical coverage.

Phase 1 Deductible - When you start using Medicare Part D , the Deductible Phase is exactly what it sounds like, you have a deductible to meet. Some plans do not charge a deductible. Easy enough.

Phase 2 Initial - When you meet your deductible (assuming you had one) you enter the Initial Phase. At that point you simply pay the copay. The copay depends upon whether the prescription is Brand or Generic and its Tier. No need to explain Brand vs. Generic but a word about Tiers. Tiers are levels that the insurance company sets. Simple relatively inexpensive drugs are Tier 1. Higher tier drugs such as 2, 3, and 4 are more expensive. You don't want to know about Tier 5 and 6, really, some plans don't even cover them.

Phase 3 The Coverage Gap ( aka The Donut Hole) - BUT as you go along, at some point you will look down and notice that the copay for that prescription suddenly jumped anticlimactically – as in doubled!! You walk up to the pharmacist and want to know WHAT HAPPENED? Why is my copay doubled? (My source deals with these calls all the time from insurance members and pharmacists trying to confirm the Donut Hole) . The Pharmacist makes a call (to somebody like my reader) and they look up your information and confirm it to the Pharmacist and they tell you you are in the Coverage Gap or Donut hole. WHAT THE #%^ is that??

The Coverage Gap (Don't ask why it is called the Donut Hole as nobody seems to know but the terms is widely know throughout the industry.) is when the amount of money spent by you AND the insurance plan reaches $2970.00 for 2013) The amount of money BOTH of you have spent is called your TDE or Total Drug Expenditure. It is IMPORTANT to note, it is the Total of what you AND the insurance company have spent for your prescriptions for the year to date.

When you reach that point, you pay approximately half the cost of the drug. That is how my reader and Pharmacists have a hint you are in the Donut Hole, the copay doubled from what it was.

4. Catastrophic Phase - The next and last Phase is the Catastrophic Phase. This means you finances are a catastrophe and you are just about broke from prescription bills. When you get into the Catastrophic Phase you pay 5% of the Cost of Approved cost of the medicine with a minimum usually of $2.65 for generic and $6.65 for Brand name medicine. Sound good right? Well, some medicines cost $6500 for a three month supply so your copay is still $325 or more. He tells me one drug not covered yet by insurance costs $1500 for a three month supply!!

IMPORTANT (as in the point of all this) So how do you get from the Coverage Gap (Donut Hole) to Catastrophic with the lower copays? (You aren't going to like this.) You get out of the Donut Hole when your TROOP (Total Out OF Pocket) expenses reach $4970 (for 2013). Sounds Ok, $4970 - $2950 = HOLD ON!!! BAD MATH!!. You go into the Donut Hole based upon your TDE which is BOTH your money and the Insurance Plan's money. BUT getting OUT is based SOLEY upon YOUR Money! So when your TDE reaches say $3000, you are in the Donut Hole but your Troop at that moment may only be $450.00 WAIT you mean all that TDE doesn’t count?? That's right. Only YOUR money spent counts. This means you have a long way to go until YOU SPEND $4970 OUT OF YOUR POCKET!! (You may now put the nitro pill under your tongue).

The reader reports people reaching the Donut Hole will start ordering their medicine based not upon what they do but upon cost. I.E. they buy several inexpensive ones but don't buy the expensive ones like heart medicine until next month or later. (Dumb but sometimes all one can do). They report one lady told them that a customer said that when they reach the Donut Hole, it is like playing Russian Roulette ordering which prescription to get each month.

So what can you do about all this? First, simply knowing what will happen helps. Second when you go to get a Medicare Supplement, ask about coverage in the Donut Hole (You may want to say Coverage Gap as Insurance agents are not as familiar with the term. They just sell it).

One tip my reader gives us. Your Medicare resets every year on January first. This means that toward the end of the year, like in November through December, you want don't want to order refills that extend over into January other than a few days IF you are in the Coverage Gap. Coverage Gap people can order a 60 day supply on November 1 or a 30 day supply on December 1. This minimizes the impact of the Coverage Gap on you pocket. In January you will have to meet your deducible if you have one but almost anything beats the Coverage Gap.

At that point, Good Luck.

Marriage – The Government – The Future.

Well, I meant to get this written before the Supreme Court Ruled but time hasn't permitted lately but that doesn’t mean it hasn't been on my mind. Also I hope people will think about what I write and not just respond with inflammatory and emotional rhetoric.

As we undergo the media hoopla, some important things we need to remember. As the Christian community bemoans the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, they must remember that the church actually does not control the right to marry people. Marriage is authorized by the government. For you married folks out there, remember back at the end of the ceremony when the minister or officiant said something to the effect, “By the authority vested in me by the state of ******, I now pronounce you man and wife. The government authorizes your marriage. Remember the key elements to a marriage are (!) both parties say “I Do”, (2) the Officiant says “You are”, and (3) THE LICENSE IS SIGNED AND RECORDED IN THE COURTHOUSE.

The state / federal government (actually the state more than the federal) sanctions marriage as well as divorce. Proof that the government controls marriage is shown by the fact only the state can authorize a divorce. People are divorced in court, not in church. Also the government controls who can perform the ceremony. This is shown in the marriage of X-Men / Star Trek Next Generation's Patrick Stewart. The officiant at the ceremony will be Ian McKellan ( X-Men / Hobbit - Gandalf) From Time Entertainment "McKellen won’t need to add “Father” before his “Sir”: although many people who perform weddings for friends do so by becoming ministers through the Universal Life Church, that step is unnecessary in Massachusetts, where McKellen said the wedding would take place. The Bay State offers a “one day marriage designation” that, for $25 and a character reference, allows any friend or family member of the couple to legally perform a wedding.” (http://entertainment.time.com/2013/03/19/sir-ian-mckellen-to-marry-sir-patrick-stewart-no-not-like-that/)

Other evidence of the fact marriage is controlled by the government and not the church, Justice of the Peace' perform marriage ceremonies and they are not ordained church people.

One important thing about he Supreme Court ruling is that it does not ram gay marriage down the church's throat so to speak. Churches have the right to decide within their denominational structure if they will or will not perform the ceremony. The Federal government cannot actually force state to do as much as we think. Remember when the federal government made the speed limit 55 mph (who can forget?) Some states wanted to keep the speed limit at 70 mph. The response from the Federal government was basically to the effect, We can't make you set the speed limit at 55 mph but if you don't we will withdraw all federal highway funding. Federal funding is like an addictive drug that once the state is “hooked on and can't live without, then the federal government can demand their way or threaten to withdraw the money the state can't function without. This is why the federal government cannot demand churches marry gay people (despite what some emotional people have said.). The only leverage the government has to exert its will upon the churches is via the tax exemption (and the threat to remove it) on church property and operations and that is at the state level.

Some church denominations will decide for the entire denomination. Other denominations will allow each church to decide although the denomination will exert “influence and pressure” on the individual churches to follow along with their views. (Again like the government, they can “withdraw support” and other things to exert their will.

One side note concerning church weddings. There is no outline for a Biblical church wedding. Nowhere in the Bible does it outline how a wedding is performed or the words to use. Ministers have books reflecting the wording used within their denomination but the Bible itself does not tell us the words to use. God seems to be more concerned about people taking marriage seriously more than how we do it. Examining passages such as Genesis 11:29 and 24:67 show marriage but not how. Apparently they were married according to the local custom of the time. I do not want to get into the issues of early Bible times with men having multiple wives, that is best left for another time, but the issue is, God intended marriage in whatever form to be taken seriously. Sad to say, some, many of those bemoaning gay marriage are not in line in their own lives in terms of marriage. I guess you are a literalist until it become inconvenient to your own situation, then the its ok to bend the rules. But I digress so that is all I will say, reflect on it.

Another side issue to marriage and the church. Ever wonder why so many people are not getting married in churches anymore? Increasingly couples are having ceremonies performed at other venues. In addition to not having a church minister perform the ceremony, people are getting married in other venues such as restaurants, barns etc. It is amazing the number of entrepreneurs that have constructed theme sites dedicated to weddings. I have witnessed church almost torn apart because the granddaughter of a long standing member of the church wanted to play a lovely country song at their wedding. (It was very nice and appropriate in my opinion). But the powers that be committee ruled no secular music or songs could be played. (Amazing fact – there is no such thing as Christian music, it is the words that define it, not the music.) Funny thing is so many churches allow “The Wedding Song” by Peter Stookey (of Peter, Paul, and Mary fame) even though it is secular. It is a secular song with definite religious wording. In fact it is difficult to actually define church music. The nearest I could find to defining church music is it must be found in the church hymnal. (Which one doesn't seem to matter.)

My Bottom Line – If I was licensed, ordained, had the permit from Massachusetts, or whatever, would I perform a gay marriage? No. Sorry but that is my choice. I have gay friends who I think the world of but if I was a officiant, for now I would not do the ceremony, I hope everyone can accept that as both sides need to have understanding of the other. I do exhort the Christian community that is so upset about gay marriage to reexamine their role in this world. Their task is not to condemn others but to help others in relationship to God through Christ and the Holy Spirit.

The Future - ?

Even now as I watch the news, conflicting reports about the impact on California's Proposition 8 abound but the future is clear. As the number of states grows, the number of problems will grow in terms of people who are married in one state and not married when they move to another state. Eventually it will go to the courts and inevitably, like it or not, marriages recognized in one state will be recognized in all states.

The issue of gay marriage is a civil matter to be determined by the courts, not by the churches. The government cannot force the churches to perform gay marriages but the church has no say on if gay marriages can be performed. It is not their jurisdiction. Years ago when most weddings were done in a church, except for a few Justice of the Peace ceremonies, most people considered marriage ceremonies the domain of the church. Now we see that weddings are the domain of the government.

I hope this post will generate some honest discussion and not glib same old cliques.

Aren't All People Created Equally with the Same Rights?

(Caveat - Readers of this blog know that the author is non-partisan and follows neither party but the nature of this travesty of justice lies along political party lines as all too much does these days. Do not interpret this post and support for one party of the other. the focus is on American Rights for all equally)

Once again politics rears its ugly head to trample on the people. Our Constitution / Bill of Rights guarantees that we all have certain rights. Nowhere does it say that some people have more rights than others. All Americans are considered to be created equal. Yet now in the 21st century, we have our political system deciding who has more rights and who shouldn't have as much. And the group under scrutiny today is "American Women"!!! Yes, after all that has been done to secure the rights of women, we appear to be doing back to square one.

Of the three groups of women mentioned in the discussion, the media may choose to focus on the lesbian and illegal immigrants (Believe me they will) but the actual discussion point of the issue is the most American women of all, the Native American Indians!!

BACKGROUND: The issue under discussion is the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. It became law and has been reauthorized every time with no issues. (I admit to not realizing these Acts had to be reauthorized every five years. That is part of the problem, enacting them gets attention but letting them disappear like the last year of production of the American Motors Pacer gets no attention).
     The focus of the Act is to protect women from household / family  / domestic violence. It also equips law agencies with the means to fight the abuse that occurs. The abuse continues but not at the levels previously known.

THE PROBLEM: In 2012, re-authorization of the bill passed the Senate 68-31, with 8 Republicans included; surprising in today's partisan politics environment. The only change of significance is that it  now includes protection of women who are gay, illegal immigrants, or American Indians living on tribal jurisdictions. That last group - NATIVE AMERICAN WOMEN (you know the Americans who were here before the white man came and took it all away) is the sticking point.
   The problem is the re-authorization now includes new protections for Native American women and the House Republicans object. The House striped provisions from the bill that wind up turning the clock back on women's rights. As expected, politics increased the level on squabbling when the White House refused to sign the House version. Reports are that despite efforts to resolve the issues, a deal could not be reached. A deal had to be made to ensure the rights of American Women?? A Deal ahd to be made to ensure people's right??? You have to be kidding!! Eric Cantor seems to be one of the  Republican leaders fighting for his party's views.

SPECIFICS: The three new provisions provide more protection for those from the LGBT community, immigrants who may or may not be in this country illegally, and for women on American Indian Reservations. The facts are that women on American Indian Reservations are more more often the victim of domestic violence than those not on the reservations. I.E, they are easier vitims because they lack protection and thus make easier targets. The problem is that the Indian tribal court system are not allowed to hear these cases which often involve non-Native American people. The Senate would finally allow that to happen, the Republicans do not want to allow it. The House Republicans will not publicly discuss their specific reason but it appears that the fear is that if the tribal courts jurisdiction is allowed to be expanded, then bigger issues will come forth. If tribal jurisdiction is allowed to expand to address the issue of white men who attack a woman on the reservation, there might be no limit to how far the authority could expand.

MY COMMENTS: As I see it, the issue boils down to a simple question of do all people in this country deserve equal protection? Especially women on Native American Reservations? I don't recall the US Constitution saying We the certain people who have the power..., I thought it said We the PEOPLE ... When you think about it doesn't this go beyond even American law? Don't all people as human beings have certain rights whether their government choose to grant them or not. America stands on a belief in God and many are Christians and should that Christianity support the rights of women. Apparently not according to the house Republicans. For whatever reasons that they have yet to publicly state, the House does not want to ensure the rights of women on Native American Reservations.

By the way - As I researched this, and I encourage you to do the same, it appears that we are not simply talking about Native American women but ANY woman that happens to be on an American Indian Reservation. So if some white woman (or any other non-Native America woman) is visiting the reservation, she lacks the protection that others enjoy. Interesting.

Please support getting this back on track and the expanded version approved. Please do not let the word "Democrat" or "Republican" have any part of your thinking. I don't care what you think of John Boehner or Nancy Pelosi. Instead Stand up for what is right for a change and support the equal protection of all. This isn't about politics, it's about people's rights.


Here are links to official transcripts of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights for those that are interested.

U.S. Constitution  -  http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Bill of Rights   -  http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

May We Continue to Boldly Go Someday

And as the last Space Shuttle is wheeled to its final storage, so the dream of President Kennedy and the nation, for manned exploration of space comes to an end. I feel for the employees of NASA and all the subcontractors who have spent their lives building this program only to see it end with no real plan for the future. They gave us so much more than travel to space, they gave us hope and dreams of a future. How many of us didn't at some point drink Tang and hope to be an astronaut also? Hopefully some future generation will revive the program.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/02/final-10-mile-trek-for-space-shuttle-atlantis/1676727/

What It Will Take to Restore Health to Our Economy

(SPOILER ALERT - This does not involve any political discussion so if you are looking for politics, keep looking elsewhere as there is none here today! Otherwise I hope you enjoy the discussion on the economy and at least find it thought provoking).

In America's economic system, money spent is what fuels our economy. Money spent creates demand which in turn creates jobs which creates money and thus the cycle goes on. If the cycle is interrupted, as it is in a recession, for whatever reason, then the cycle reverses itself. Fewer jobs mean less money and less money spent means less jobs and fewer jobs mean less money and ... you get the idea.  Ok, enough of basic economic thought.

An important fact in our economic system is that we have three primary sources of money in our economic system: (1) the Consumer, (2) Businesses, and (3) The Government. A quick look at these three sources of income.

(1) The Consumer - that's you and me. We the people are the ultimate source of all spending. When we don't spend, businesses don't have money to spend. When we don't spend, government tax income is significantly reduced. In the past, it is the consumer that has helped keep the economy afloat. A look back at economic history will show instances when the consumer spending is credited with keeping the economy going when other aspects were faltering.

(2) Business - Big or small business, business is business. Business spending for materials and supplies creates jobs for those manufacturers. Spending by businesses is an important part of our economy, at least in the past it has been. Of late, businesses more and more,as we all know, are sending jobs overseas. the issues is that businesses do not care about america or any other country. Businesses are apolitical. Businesses function to please their stockholders and ensure their own survival. Businesses truly have no interest in economic recovery other than how it affects their own business.

(3) The Government - Our government, unlike many others, exists to provide for the well being of its people. Sounds easy but go watch the move "Bruce Almighty". There is a scene where God's fill-in (Jim Carey) discovers he can't please everybody, one person prays for no rain when they go on a picnic while another person prays for rain for their crops in a drought. You get the idea. Likewise, it is virtually impossible for the government to please everybody at any given moment. We are a vast cross section of humanity with a wide variety of beliefs and values - and that is part of what makes this country great.

     The government collects money from the people and redistributes it via various channels of programs ranging from the military to highway funding or funding for various education programs. The government also has the unique power to create money which can be a dangerous thing. Witness the rise of Adolf hitler prior to WWII. Germany was undergoing inflation such as we can only imagine, the price of bread was changing so fast daily that signs were never current. The problem was the government was "solving the problem" by printing more money. The faster they printed money, the faster inflation rose because each day, the Mark was worth less and less. (The more there is of something, the less valuable it has).  America's Federal Reserve system regulates the amount of money supply through interest rates and other means. This power to regulate money is not a direct cause and effect power as the Fed can raise interest rates but if consumers and businesses continue to borrow money at even higher rates, the desired effect of the Fed is not realized.

**** 

So let's discuss what it will take to get the 2012 economy turned around. It was consumer spending that helped alleviate the initial impact of the 2007 -2009 (?) recession. Consumers spent on credit. And business liked it. Businesses today often make a better profit off their credit card operations than they do their merchandise. think about the last time you went to a store and the sales associate offered you a credit card. One major retailer charges 26.99% on their credit card!! No wonder they want customers to get one. They don't have to ship or handle returns on credit cards, only collect the  money each month. (By the way, don't get mad at the poor clerks, they are only trying to keep their jobs and meet insane quotas the companies have laid out). Credit cards are great profit makers.

But as the value of homes dramatically declined, and jobs were either lost or became insecure, consumer spending slackened. People looked at those credit card charges and wisely decided to pull in on their spending. And so one of the three main sources of spending in this country dried up. And it will remain dried up until people have worthwhile jobs, not the part time, no benefit jobs far too many are stuck with today. Far too many people have jobs with no vacation, no health insurance, or any other of the benefits we have enjoyed during previous periods of prosperity.

****

So with no consumer spending, where is the economic stimulus going to come from? Ah-ha you say, business, business, big business will fuel it with their spending. First this runs contrary to previous recoveries as small businesses have led the way out as individuals / entrepreneurs and small companies take chances and start up. Individuals tired of trading their time and lives for the companies money decide to do something they have a passion for and start new companies creating new jobs.

But still, won't big business with all that money be a significant factor in the economic recovery? Sadly no. If there is any evidence of it, nobody has seen it to date. Large corporations are sitting on vast sums of cash and are unwilling to spend it. During discussion of the Federal Deficit Limit this past spring, it was announced that Apple Corporation (no longer named Apple Computer) has more cash than the United States Government! Are they spending that money on crating jobs and prosperity in this country, the country they were founded in and are headquartered in? NO! They spend their money in third world countries hiring people to work in conditions this country would not allow. Some say people in this country are not willing to take certain jobs. Perhaps true to a degree but many jobs have been sent overseas because they could not exist in this country.

Again businesses really don't care about economic recovery other than the impact it makes to their bottom line and the stockholders. Currently they are not spending to acquire skilled employees and train them but instead are shipping our jobs overseas to be conducted in substandard conditions to allow for more profit. That said, is there any reason to believe that there will be any sudden generosity or outpouring of patriotism and thus spending at the business level to create jobs and prosperity in this country?

****

NOTE: When we export out jobs overseas, we import their poverty. Don't believe it? Think about how many times you have called a company on the phone only to have somebody from India answer. Look at the improvement in their economy while ours gets worse every day.

NOTE: When businesses lay off their employees, they are also laying off their customers. A corollary to this is that when businesses refuse to hire full time employees, they are stifling their customer base. How many retailers currently have employees that do not qualify for a credit card with the company because of the amount hey are paid? I know of many people with good credit ratings who cannot qualify for a company credit card because their pay is so low.

**** 

So if the consumer is exhausted and broke, thus unable to contribute significantly any longer to the economic recovery and business are unwilling to spend and hire (at least in this country).  Where is the spending for economic recovery coming from? The only option left - The Government. While some consider the government an evil thing, it is still necessary for the well being of the people. And it is government spending that will have to lead us in this recovery just as it has so many times. A quick look back at economic history will show that major economic recoveries tend to occur due to government spending. Look at the Great Depression, many economists agree that FDR's programs helped maintain the economy and kept it from degenerating even more but the major cause of economic recovery from the Great Depression was WWII and the government spending on planes, tanks, and bullets that created jobs and prosperity.

 The opposite side is seen in our withdrawal from the Vietnam war. President Nixon had stated that withdrawal from the war would have a economic impact on our country and it did. As we withdrew from the war, the early 70's recession started. Just at the war ended in approximately 1973, the recession was nearing its peak. And just like today, the recovery was slow in coming even after the recession "officially ended".

Back to the positive side of government spending and recovery. The United States had its greatest increase in the National Debt under President Ronal Reagan (1981 - 1989) Under President Reagan, the debt increased 189%!! What were the causes of such a huge debt increase? Basically, Government spending. President Reagan spent money, especially on the military, building it up. We stared at eh Russians eyeball to eyeball and they blinked. President Reagan gave his famous statement, " Gorbachev, tear that wall down!" and the Soviet Union did. Why? Because we out spent them plain and simply. We spent more on our military and we flat out spent them to the point they were broke and could not sustain their posture anymore.

Unfortunately that type of spending is unsustainable by any government and we too had to back down and significantly reduce our spending with the resultant recession once again. Go ask President Bush about the economy. A popular phrase during his administration was "Its the economy Stupid!" In the end President Bush had been dealt a bad hand to start with. We had to back off on our government spending and the took over just as it began. Forces far beyond Republican and Democratic policies and plans acted to once again put our country into a recession or significant economic downturn.

****

SO what does this mean for us today? To Summarize, the consumer is drained financially and emotionally. Business are not willing to spend to create jobs and recovery (at least for the moment). So the burden is upon the government to spend to create jobs. But the danger is they cannot spend too freely or they run the risk of fueling inflation again. It is a delicate balance of spending without sending inflation rates through the ceiling. Also complicating the issue is that we are a world wide economy more than ever before. Witness how events in Greece and Spain among other countries have had significant impact in this country.

So when you hear people bad mouthing the government and how e have to cut government spending, realize that cutting government spending is exactly what is not needed at the current moment. In the short term we have to have increased government spending to fuel job creation but it must be carefully monitored to prevent fueling inflation. In the long term, government spending must be decreased as we cannot maintain continued growth of the national debt. But it has to be done slowly. We got into this mess over a long period of years. It is naive to think we will get out of it quickly. It will not happen in the next administration of even the one beyond that but it must be done. And so we are left in a situation akin to having a snake pop up in your car while crossing a bridge. You want to put one foot on the gas to hurry up and get off the bridge so you can get out of the car and you have one foot on the brake as you need to stop now! The days ahead require sound economic judgement in our leadership. We need increased government spending for now but decreased government spending in the long term future.

A Continuing discussion of the Economy.

The other day I commented about the economy and I wanted to continue that discussion. For those that missed the article (July 18th) here are some figures concerning unemployment.

"A word about job creation for those that don't appreciate the numbers. It is generally acknowledged that it takes between 200,000 and 250,000 new jobs EVERY MONTH to offset immigration and graduates entering the work force. A quarter of a million new jobs every month JUST TO BREAK EVEN! So when the news reports that last month the economy grew by 115,000 jobs, we are falling further and further behind. It takes 225,000 new jobs to break even and even more to recover those who lost jobs and graduates of the 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 classes. (Yes, I could have simply said 2008 - 2012 but I wanted to list them for the effect of how long a time frame we have to recover.) I can only guess what the new jobs figure would have to be to recover those lost people within the next two years while more new graduates continue to enter the economy but it is a safe bet that we won't hit anything close to the required numbers for a long time. "

One thing I failed to mention in that discussion is that the number of graduates is about to skyrocket as many college graduates are "hidden out" in graduate school working on Master's and PhD's hoping the economy will somehow be miraculously better when hey get out in two or three years. But many of those are not having to get out of school and enter the job market anyway and the economy simply cannot take the impact at the current time with the current conditions. 

Now some further analysis of the economy. The question is, how are people surviving? The answer, They Aren't! 

Retirement Savings raided by 35% of laid off workers. 
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/story/2012-07-18/401k-retirement-loan-withdrawals/56280996/1

"Making matters worse, many who have lost their jobs have defaulted on 401(k) loans, causing taxes and penalties to further deplete their retirement savings. .... Displaced workers in their 40s and 50s have median household retirement savings of only $2,300, the Transamerica study says. .... 
For example, if a displaced worker defaults on a loan of $6,542, it would drain $9,934 from his retirement savings, because of taxes and penalties, Singer's report says." 

Their advice to go back to school or move to another less expensive city is meant well but they obviously are not in the same boat and those the article discusses. For a worker 50 - 60 years old, four years of school puts them at 55 - 65 and many firms are not hiring people that age. Yes there are laws against age discrimination but that hasn't helped anybody yet, there always seems to be "another official reason." 

Even if they are fired, they most likely will be in a low paying job as all to many have discovered. To many skilled experienced workers are relegated to entry level jobs even though their life experiences more than qualify them for better position. 

Also, consider the issue that no matter what job they get, after raiding their savings for whatever time to survive, they will most likely not be able to recover that lost savings and as a result will be force to continue working long after. Our economic business model is built upon older workers retiring and spending their savings enjoying life and as they leave those jobs, room is made for people to be promoted and the younger people to enter the work force. Now we are faced with the harsh reality of older workers continuing to work well pas their 65th birthday in lower paying jobs making it difficult if not impossible to "retire". As they stay in those lower paying jobs longer, they effectively block younger people from moving into the workforce. 

One issue I see the author fails to mention is how many people who are not laid off or "unemployed" but are in the great mass of people who are "significantly under employed" are also raiding their savings to make it another month. Too many people are "off the radar" in unemployment figures but are existing in low paying part time jobs that do not pay sufficient wages to live on. Don't say, "They just have to live within their means." Too many jobs now are Part TIme with wither no health or other benefits or benefits that are entirely inadequate. But for now lets focus on making that living. Typical job at a major retail store chain - Store Manager and a hand full of Supervisors are Full time, everybody else is Part-Time paid approximately $8 and hour and allowed to work only 24 hours a week.   $8/HR for 24 hours a week!!! Let's see that works out to $192 a week BEFORE Taxes! Of course taxes will be low as they make so little. That comes to $9984 a year! Try living on that without dipping into savings! Try living like that for long dipping into savings! Unless you have accumulated a very nice savings account, most people are looking at a bleak future. 

The solution? For now, if you are in a management level position, take a long hard look at what you are paying people and remember one important thing, the workers you pay are also you customers. If your workers can't qualify for a store credit card at your store because of what you pay them, what does that say about what you pay them. Could survive on what you pay your workers? Probably not. 

We need to start paying people a decent wage and quit exporting our jobs overseas. Whenever we export a job, we import that countries' poverty.