A Short Letter to Every Generation

Dear Every-Generation-In-the-History-of-the-World,

When you sit back and observe the generations that follow you, you may often feel sad that they are not what you hoped and expected they would become. Remember this: it was your generation who both taught and failed to teach them everything.

Professional Athletes Make Too Much Money!

I have been a huge sports fan all my life. I have also been a defender of many aspects of sports, especially in the professional realm. However, there is one thing about which I have shifted my view in the past few years...

People often complain that athletes make soooo much money. The retort goes something like this: "There is obviously someone willing to pay them that amount of money, so there is nothing inherently wrong with it." This is the exact statement I am wont to make on a regular basis. However, there is one enormous flaw in this argument when dealing with professional sports.

Stadiums are built with tax-payer money.

This is an example of socialism. Or fascism. Depending on how you look at it. Either way, it is soooo wrong. Let us take a moment to consider what would happen if teams had to pony up the money for the stadium from which they reap huge financial benefit. Perhaps it should be a moment of silence...for the athletes who would be making somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-70% of their current salaries.

There would be other issues as well, but clearly the average salary of a MLB player, for example, would no longer be $4 million (!). Instead, that money would be redistributed to everyone within a certain geographical area in the only moral way that can happen: refraining from stealing in the first place.

I am flabbergasted that the same person would both complain that athletes make so much money compared with - wait for it - teachers, and yet support the idea that taxes should help to pay for the stadium. Do you have any idea how much these things cost? Take the recent Marlins Park in Miami. Here is an article explaining the current and eventual cost of the stadium, and the fact that the owner of the team contributed less than 20% of the cost!!!

Or consider the 49ers' $1.2 billion Levi's Stadium in San Francisco. $850,000,000 came from the "City Stadium Authority" (taxes), while the rest was paid for by a hotel tax, redevelopment funds (read: more taxes), and the NFL itself (thank goodness!).

If you really don't think athletes should make what they do, you are 100% correct. Much of the money they make is, by every truthful measure, STOLEN from everybody else.

MY WIFE AND HER OX...How God's Law Would Have Handled September 18th, 2008

On September 18th, 2008, eight days after Leanora Elise Shockey was born, Lauren experienced Postpartum Psychosis and severely injured Nora. The doctors told me Nora probably would not make it, and the courts proceeded to charge Lauren with a felony and several misdemeanors.

There were plenty of anonymous comments in the articles surrounding the incident which called for Lauren's head. However, almost everyone who knows Lauren at all understands that Nora's injuries were entirely a result of Lauren's psychotic state, over which she had absolutely no control.

The problem is, secular courts do not handle these cases very well. After all, there is public outrage and future elections to consider. District Attorneys run their campaigns based on how many convictions they have gotten, not on whether or not justice was actually served. Judges are elected by that same public who, on the whole, knows nothing of Postpartum Psychosis.

Furthermore, Bucks County has had exactly one (1) case in its history where the defendant was granted a verdict of "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity", that is to say, the only verdict that would have averted a felony record for my wife. Due to the extremely long odds, we had little choice but to plead "Guilty but Mentally Ill" in order to hopefully - and, as it turned out, successfully - avoid jail time. Therefore, Lauren is a felon, which has serious and lasting ramifications, especially as a result of the Patriot Act.

In spite of all this, I do find peace in God's sovereignty as laid out in Romans 8 and elsewhere. I am also deeply grateful to God that our situation did not turn out even worse than it did.

So what does God's Word have to say about what happened on September 18th? Exodus 21:28-29 (ESV) reads thus:

When an ox gores a man or woman to death, the ox shall be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.

I posit that Lauren's psychotic state is the ox, and Lauren and I are the owners of the ox.

Not everything about this application of the passage fits perfectly. First, Lauren's ox cannot be stoned, nor should it be, as Nora survived (and is a wonderful daughter!). Second, if Lauren were to have another psychotic episode in which she injured or killed someone, a secular government should not have the authority to carry out capital punishment. However, the rest fits very well...

Prior to this incident, Lauren and I had zero knowledge of Postpartum Psychosis - somewhat amazing, given Lauren's zeal for research and desire to learn EVERYTHING! We also had zero knowledge of anything in Lauren that could possibly lead to any sort of psychotic state. That is to say, the "ox" - her psychotic state - had not been accustomed to "gore" in the past, and we, as its owners, had never been warned to "keep it in".

Now that Lauren and I have been made aware of this ox, and that it is accustomed to violence, we would be fully liable were she to injure someone during Postpartum Psychosis a second time.

We must, then, consider the treatment of Lauren in the first incident as compared with what God's Law commands. God's Law demands justice. Man's laws seek vengeance, and have little to do with justice at all.. If God's Law had been applied, Lauren would have been fully exonerated, while she and I would have been put on notice.

'Notice', in this case, does not mean surveillance, supervision, nor any other Nanny conditions the government loves to employ. Instead, it simply means that Lauren and I would have had to pay in full with our own bodies should any incident like this ever happen again. This solution is simple and just, and completely hands-off should a second incident never occur. GOD'S LAW DEALS WITH WHAT HAPPENS, NOT WITH WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN.

Unfortunately, our society - and its government - is not interested in justice. In the first place, government jobs are maintained PRECISELY BY mishandling cases like this, and they therefore have a vested interest in mishandling them - District Attorneys, social workers, counselors, psychiatrists, and probation officers, all of whom have made tons of money from us and the taxpayers thanks to the "Guilty but Mentally Ill" plea (alongside countless others' pleas).

Unfortunately, most US citizens, even most fellow Christians, believe in trusting our government, in spite of passages like the Apostle Paul's warning to Christians in I Corinthians 6 to avoid the courts of unbelievers in disputes between believers.

God's Law has made provision for us in every way. If we would be willing to search out His Word for answers instead of turning to the fallen logic and special interests of man-made laws, we would finally be pursuing justice here on earth as it is in heaven. I am not suggesting I see God's Law as becoming the law of the land any time soon, nor do I know exactly what that would look like. However, I am making an earnest plea to my fellow Christians to turn to God's Word for truth and justice before bowing to these United States of America and their extremely fallible Constitution as canon.

Were Lauren's case handled properly, as God laid out in Exodus, justice would have been done.

Can You Define "Government"?

Most people consider taxes to be not only justified, but necessary*. My question is this: Are you comfortable with the idea of taxes, yet uncomfortable with someone who mugs you on the street and takes your wallet? Before you scoff at such a comparison, consider the following scenario:

There are 7 people on a deserted island. A meeting is called, and 5 of them decide 20% of everyone's yearly farming output must be put into a collective pot where it will be given to whoever needs it that year. What should be done?

1. The property of the other 2 can be taken from them by force; or

2. The vote can be annulled, as not all were in favor.

Most would agree that in the above scenario, the property of the '2' should not be taken by force - that would be stealing. But what if there are 100 people, and 51 vote to "tax" everyone 20%? What about 1,000,000 people with a 51% vote? At what point is taking property by force OK? At what point do we cease to call it stealing and replace it with the word, "tax"?

IT IS ALWAYS STEALING. I have heard people say that when the 'government' does it, it is no longer stealing. But as I have explained, a 'government' is merely the group of people who are able to enforce their laws over everyone else. Another way of saying this is to define government as "The Group of People with a Monopoly on the Legal Use of Violence".

So, this group of people has now gained the power to take any amount of money from anyone within borders they have set, AND YOU'RE OK WITH THAT?

*This is based mainly on utilitarianism, or on misguided interpretations of Bible passages (Mt 22, Rom 13). The theological arguments have been dealt with here, here, here, here, here, here, and in many other places.

Jesus Said, "Share"!

Not every Christian parent uses this phrase, but just about every Christian parent I know forces their children to share in this same spirit. This will not teach Christian charity.

Scenario #1. "Johnny, you have 20 legos and Toby doesn't have any. You need to share with him. If you don't, I won't let you play with any legos (or some other punishment)."

Scenario #2. (Without letting Toby hear, if possible) "Johnny, you have 20 legos and Toby doesn't have any. It would be wonderful if you could find it in your heart to share yours with Toby. He might be very grateful, and he'll enjoy playing with you much more if you are able to do that." There are, of course, many other benefits to giving to others, so the parent has many options from which to choose.

In which situation is Johnny more likely to learn Christian charity? I'm sure you have guessed from the context that this is Scenario #2.

In which situation has the parent maintained control? Scenario #1. Unfortunately, control over your children, while helpful in the moment on most occasions, does little to train their character. In fact, it leads to resentfulness, among other less-than-savory character traits.

I. The Effects of Scenario #1...

...on Johnny

If Johnny has ownership of the legos, taking them from him to give to Toby is not just. It is STEALING. Yep, I just accused parents in Scenario #1 of stealing from their own children. You just taught your child that stealing is OK, as long as it evens out the quantitative ownership. Wow. Is that the message you want to send to your children?

Secondly, Scenario #1 will likely lead Johnny to a state of self-preservation. The parent obviously has no respect for his property, so Johnny is now going to focus his energy on making sure he has a way of maintaining ownership of his toys. Instead of learning Christian charity, Johnny has now learned the importance of protecting the interests of Self*.

Thirdly, Johnny now resents Toby. Toby represents an entity whose existence leads to fewer toys.

Finally (for now), if the parent habitually takes the decision-making responsibility away from Johnny, he will have difficulty in life once he is in a position where he must actually make his own decisions. He hasn't been able to practice!

...on Toby

Toby has just learned that the mere fact that he has less entitles him to other people's property.

Secondly, Toby will learn not to be content with what he already has, however little that may be.

Thirdly, Toby will not see Johnny as a caring person who, out of the goodness of his heart, has shared his things. Instead, because Johnny has more, he must give some up or be punished. Johnny therefore represents an entity from whom stuff can be extracted as long as the proper authority is present.

II. The Effects of Scenario #2...

...on Johnny

God has taught us to take care of those in need, so the right decision for Johnny is to share his toys with Toby. It is very possible that in Scenario #2, Johnny will fail to make the right decision. There are innumerable benefits to making the right decision, and many negative consequences to making the wrong decision, and it is the parents' job is to help Johnny to become aware of them. This should be done in a matter-of-fact manner, simply laying out the possibilities.

By giving Johnny the power to make his own decision, you have left the door open for him to learn what it means to be charitable. This will take different amounts of time for different children, but when given time, with proper (read: not coercive or manipulative) guidance, the child will have the best chance to learn Christian virtue.

...on Toby

Toby will learn all the opposite lessons from what he learned in Scenario #1. He is much more likely to learn to be content with what he has.

Conclusion

Some of the time, when parents force their children to share, it is because they are afraid of what other parents will think of them if they don't. However, showing children the way instead of forcing them will develop the good character you so greatly desire them to learn. They will also trust you more and look to the interests of others instead of just their own.

*The interests of self I am referring to here are short-term. Long-term interest (earthly and heavenly) is always best served by obeying God's commands.

The Deterioration of Childhood Safety

80 years ago, parents felt comfortable letting their children play outside, even if they were not in the immediate vicinity. There wasn't grave danger lurking around every corner, and if, somehow, the kids got lost, neighbors, or friendly neighborhood peace officers would simply help the lost children find their way home to grateful, relieved parents.

40 years ago, parents began feeling unsafe allowing their kids play outside unsupervised. There was always a danger of kidnappers, bullies, or any sort of stranger just waiting to enact terror on children. "My, how society has changed," parents and onlookers would sadly remark.

These days, the danger is twofold. Things are not really any safer than they were 40 years ago, so parents have to be more vigilant than they were 80 years ago. But there now is another danger, almost as terrifying as the kidnapper, and far more ubiquitous...neighborhood tattletales, and their friends, Law Enforcement.

Should you somehow lose sight of your children for 5 minutes, there is a real chance that when someone notices them alone, they will immediately call Law Enforcement. Here are the consequences...

1. Your children may or may not be returned to you. 

2. You may be arrested for being a negligent guardian.

3. If arrested, you will have to post bail, usually in the thousands of dollars, which you may or may not get back at a later date.

4. Your state's version of Child Protective Services will most likely be an intrusion in your life and privacy for weeks or months to come.

5. This will include an inspection to make sure your children have a 'safe' environment on a daily basis.

6. This will also include an interrogation into the acceptability of your parenting in the eyes of the State.

Yet, after all this, our children are taught ad nauseam by parents, teachers, athletes, politicians, even pastors and Sunday School teachers, about our "Hero Policemen and Women", and their great service to society in keeping us safe. This madness must stop.

Victimless Crime and Punishment

The problem with victimless crimes is that no restitution can be made. If you steal something, repay it five-fold. If you damage something, repay two-fold. In fact, God's Word contains His own rules for how to repay damages. Gary DeMar's article outlines this very well.

This is a far superior system to the prison system for endless reasons, not the least of which is actual rehabilitation of the perpetrator. One of the most important differences, though, is the way in which self-inflicted injuries are handled.

Firstly, I cannot steal from myself. Secondly, I cannot make restitution if I kill myself. So, how do we approach things like doing drugs? What restitution can be made if, on my own property, I smoke marijuana, snort crack, shoot-up heroine, etc.? The answer, obviously, is none at all. I have in no way damaged anyone's property, hence the title, "Victimless Crimes".

"But," some might say, "what if you go and hurt someone or damage property because you are impaired by these drugs?" God's Word deals with that just as clearly. MAKE RESTITUTION. I think I'm sensing a pattern here. No jail. The only public resources used (read: taxes) would be those used to determine how much restitution must be made and enforcement of the restitution.

Amazingly, or not so amazingly, God's Word does a wonderful job of clearing up the whole War on Drugs issue. IT IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME. If government has a role, it is to protect private property rights. That's it.

"But," some might say, "when people get hooked on drugs, they ruin families and other relationships!" You're right. That does happen. Are you seriously suggesting that it is the government's job to fix that for you? Furthermore, do you really think the government will do a better job of that than friends, family, and perhaps the Church? Yikes!

Furthermore, were drugs perfectly legal, the whole addiction scene would be entirely different, but that is an article for another day. In fact, it's been written many times already by Mark Thornton.

If you are able to view crimes from the perspective of the necessary restitution, you may able to understand the drug problem in a new light. And you might be able to use the phrase, Victimless Crimes, without a hint of sarcasm.

Parenting Public Service Announcement

Don't EVER roll your eyes at your children if there is even a .00001% chance anyone other than your spouse will see you. This can be literal or figurative - I'm afraid the latter is easier to justify, harder to control, and even more insidious than the former. I occasionally feel the urge to do one or the other, as it lets other people know that I know my child is not behaving properly, but it is a TERRIBLE thing to do to your child.

On one hand, it is a form of gossip (Prov 6:19b; James 3), and you are completely throwing your child under the bus. Unless the observer of said act has an amazingly strong filter, and can ignore this immaturity on the parent's part, the public perception of the child can only deteriorate. That is AWFUL, and can have lasting effect, and most definitely will have mounting effect as the parental behavior continues over time.

On the other hand, IT IS OUR JOB AS PARENTS TO HELP OUR CHILDREN TO BEHAVE PROPERLY. Once a child has done something, this issue CANNOT be fixed in the moment. Don't even try. It is possible, even likely, we have failed up to that point, but there is hope! OWN IT. Jot it down, either with a writing utensil, or in your head (if you will remember later), and talk to your spouse about how to help your child learn the best way to respond to that type of situation next time.

You, your spouse, your child, and those who interact with you, your spouse, and your child, will all be MUCH better off, both in the moment, and in the long run!

Dear Christian, Why Are You Turning to the State to Define Marriage?

The current debate over how our government defines marriage is wrong from almost every angle. Christians are wrong. Homosexuals are wrong. (I'm sure there are exceptions, but as of yet I have not found one.) If both sides of this issue could understand what the actual issues are, there could be peace in our time.

The United States has been officially defining marriage for a relatively short period of time, mainly since the Civil War. Marriage licenses have been used by the State to tell people who is and who is not allowed to marry. Originally, it was to keep whites and blacks from marrying, but also homosexuals, and even people whom the State decided would not produce good enough children. This movement (including all 3 of the above categories) of course, is called Eugenics. It is pure evil, and was made infamous especially by the Nazis, who desired to create the ultimate race. This alone should give everyone pause.

BUT WHO CARES WHICH MARRIAGES ARE LICENSED BY THE STATE?

1. A marriage license grants you certain tax exemptions.

The real issue here is taxes, not homosexuality, or any other kind of union that is rejected by the State. Because the State is pilfering, everyone wants to try to keep as much of their wealth as possible out of the hands of the State (except for those who are voluntarily donating to the State because they don't believe they are taxed enough...anyone else hear crickets?). Taxes are legalized theft. The Supreme Court of the United States even agreed on this point concerning Federal Taxes, until they later changed their minds.

2. People discriminate against homosexuals until the State forces them not to.

The private property paradigm mandates that a property owner has authority to administer the use of that property in any way, so long as it does not infringe on someone else. Refusing to allow someone onto my property is NOT infringing on his private property rights. Forcing me to allow someone onto my property IS MOST DEFINITELY infringing on my private property rights. This is not a pro- or anti-homosexual issue at all. It simply requires an understanding of private property. For example: If a store owner refuses to let me into his store because I am a Christian, he should legally be allowed to do so. Furthermore, he should not legally have to provide a reason to anyone.

3. What is taught to our children in public schools?

Public schools encapsulate the idea of legalized theft as well as any other institution. "You over there must give me your money to pay for that child over there, or I will take your house from you." That is the problem. If no money were stolen to pay for anyone's education, there would no longer be these enormous fights over "what they're teaching kids these days". Everyone would simply choose for themselves what is best for their family.

4. Who should be allowed to have/adopt/raise children?

This is definitely the most difficult question, but it is still a question of State power. The State should not be the one who has adoption agencies - just as a reminder, it needs to steal from people in order to maintain them. Each individual private agency would have jurisdiction over who can and cannot adopt children over whom they currently have guardianship. There are other issues here about why there are so many foster children, which could entail a million other articles, so I digress.

CONCLUSION

The State should have nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. The definition of marriage and marriage licensing is an issue to those who are excluded because of other underlying State abuses. These are the things which we should discuss. Christians would do much better at loving people who do not follow the dictates of the Bible if they fought State abuse instead of trying to use government to get people to follow God's laws.

Vengeance is Not For You

Leviticus 19:18

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people,

but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

Deuteronomy 32:35

"Vengeance is mine, and recompense,

for the time when their foot shall slip;

for the day of their calamity is at hand,

and their doom comes swiftly."

Romans 12:19

"Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written,

'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'"

Citizens of the United States of America would do well to heed these passages from the inspired Word of God. Little of our justice system is about justice; most is about vengeance.

What is the knee-jerk response when Americans watch a news report of this or that alleged crime? "Get him! The simplest explanation is the most likely! Take him off the streets! He belongs in jail!" Rarely does the news-watcher stop to think that the report might be incomplete, inaccurate or, perhaps even biased and slanted against the alleged perpetrator. One only has to look at the comment section of any article concerning arrests and investigations to see that this is the case.

Perhaps there is more - much more! - to the story than is being, or may ever be, reported. Our love of open-and-shut TV crime dramas has contributed to our completely warped sense of "innocent until proven guilty". In fact, when it comes to alleged child abuse and government property seizures, the accused is now legally guilty until proven innocent. EVERYBODY MUST SLOW DOWN. Seeing a report of an arrest, or even a conviction, is misleading.

Most of the time, those accused are advised to plead guilty in order to avoid the possibility of much longer, much more terrible sentences. In fact, convictions are all the District Attorneys actually care about, not the sentencing itself. Today, it is very dangerous to actually fight a legal accusation by the government. Think about it: the government (the DA) is accusing you, and you have to prove to the government (the judge) that you are innocent. If convicted, you face possible maximum sentencing which can and does completely ruin lives. Pleading guilty avoids very expensive trials and lessens very, very expensive (in financial and other ways) jail time.

Therefore, a conviction does not necessarily mean guilt. Furthermore, our country has both the highest per capita prison population in the world, and THE HIGHEST TOTAL PRISON POPULATION IN THE WORLD. Holy freaking crap. Why is this? In large part because of the aforementioned guilty-pleading situation. But also because of the enormous amount of non-violent drug offenders. Thanks to these drug laws, the non-violent drug offenders often end up becoming violent crime offenders as well.

So, instead of jumping to the conclusion that anyone who has been accused of a crime is quite obviously the worst person in the world, take a second to think about the situation first, and what type of canvas our wonderful government has provided on which these situations have been painted.

Finally, remember that even if a person has committed a crime, is actually proven guilty (how often does that happen?), and is convicted, our job is not to enact vengeance!!! The prison system currently is basically one long spanking for adults. How about dealing with the actual problem?

For example: a 16-year old boy steals $50 worth of merchandise from a convenience store, physically hurting no one. Let's have him pay the store back $200. If he cannot do so, he is now a forced employee of the store until his debt is paid. Or what if someone is drunk and drives his car into the front of a person's house? Assess the damage, and that person loses control of his finances until he pays back the damage in full - all the damage, whatever that may be.

Wait a minute. I think I have heard of something like this before...it's coming to me...I got it - it's from the Bible! Exodus 22 has very specific laws for restitution. There is no jail. There is no punishment. There is restitution. The victim is not only restored, but actually benefits from the situation. The thief now has real incentive not to steal in the future. The government no longer has incentive to make more laws, because it doesn't actually benefit from crimes being committed. A side note here - it's not good when the government benefits from crimes being committed.

Once again, God makes the best laws. Humans suck at it. Between Deuteronomy, Romans, and Exodus, the Bible has a much better plan for how to deal with crimes than our draconian and completely corrupt US government. Don't feed the beast by buying into the idea that we need to get that guy who allegedly just committed a crime. Use a filter for the information you are receiving, and have mercy on the people who have (or may not have!) just done something really stupid.

Look for justice, not vengeance. Even though our awful government will completely screw up the situation, you'll at least know how it should be handled, and your personal understanding and application of justice, wisdom, and mercy will be through the roof. It may even help you in your dealings with your children or other homo sapiens.

Learning versus Good Grades

Scenario: It takes a student 9 hours to master the required material for a test, but as often happens, but only 3 are available. How should he approach those 3 hours?

Option #1: Do a general overview of the material, hitting on as many main points as possible.

Option #2: Pick a small amount of the material, and gain a mastery of it, neglecting all else.

Choosing option #1 leads to a better grade on the test in most cases, but usually nothing is retained, so no actual learning has happened. Option #2 leads to actual learning, but most likely a poorer grade on the test.

Therefore, the student must choose between learning and a good grade! Obviously, it is ideal to have enough time to master everything. However, this scenario instructs us not only how to use limited time, but also how learning should be approached generally.

One of the best commentaries on home-schooling is that the student doesn't move on from material until he has achieved an 'A', or better yet: mastery. Classrooms render this ideal virtually impossible to achieve for every student (generally, by no fault of the teacher).

Parents of institutionally schooled children (public or private) must take from this that it is their responsibility to educate their children. The institution is inherently incapable of doing so.

Stop Taking Risks

There is a phrase I have heard...

"The greatest risk is not taking one."

The problem with this phrase is an epidemic. Logic is a lost art. Let me explain.

1. The point of this phrase is that taking risks is a good thing.

2. The phrase states that the greatest risk is to not take any risks at all.

3. If taking risks is good, you could* say taking great risks is very good.

4. "The greatest risk is not taking one."

5. Therefore, the phrase is instructing the listener not to take risks.

But wait, I thought the first point was that the phrase is instructing us to take risks! True. The phrase contradicts itself.

*The idea of taking risks being good does not necessitate that great risks are very good, but the implication is certainly there.

The Winston Churchill Fallacy

"You make a living by what you get; you make a life by what you give."

- attributed to Winston Churchill.

It is true that you make a life by what you give, but it is a gross error to say you make a living by what you get.

The truth is, you make a living by what you give. The people who pay you value your work more than the money they trade for it. What you get is simply the reward for what you have given.

Should Daydreaming While Driving Be Illegal?

Since 48 out of 50 states have banned texting while driving, should it also be illegal to...

clean sunglasses?

pick things up off of the floor?

eat?

drink non-alcoholic beverages?

do makeup?

change clothes?

dance violently?

read a book?

answer difficult math questions?

close your eyes?

look at gps?

make out?

memorize a speech?

look at a passenger?

yell at your kids in the back seat?

daydream?

clean the rear-view mirror?

write?

stretch your back?

be extremely emotional?

shave?

(Feel free to continue my list in the comments.)

Driving is a dangerous activity. Anything that distracts a driver from the act of driving has the potential to cause an accident. The longer that distraction lasts and the busier a road is, the more likely an accident is to occur.

Unfortunately, we don't have a crystal ball that will tell us who is going to cause an accident. All we can do is look at what may have distracted a driver who already caused the accident.

Reading is much more distracting than texting. What if you need to familiarize yourself with a few pages from a book while driving? You can make sure to look down for only 2-3 seconds at a time, and always check the road before doing so, but it wouldn't be an easy task.

On the other hand, reading a text is much less time-consuming. I have heard it said that it takes a minimum of 5 seconds of looking away from the road to text. That is a lie. Sending a text is not easy, but if you have the key locations memorized, you barely need to look down at all.

I wouldn't recommend texting while driving as a rule, but I also wouldn't recommend any of the other things mentioned in the above list. Should they all be banned?

Remember the potentialities of passed laws before advocating for them.

Instead...

If we stop mandating auto insurance and hold the instigator of the accident liable, we would no longer need to worry about outlawing potential causes of accidents. People would be responsible for the consequences of their driving instead of  worrying-about-whether-or-not-the-thing-they-are-doing-is-included-in-the-list-of-illegal-driving-activities.

If every driver had to pony up for damage caused, whether monetary or physical, driving safety would become a much more highly regarded aspiration.

In addition to more liberty and fewer police-citizen encounters, the roads would actually be safer.

When is it OK to Argue?

The first question we have to ask is, What is the highest good? To bring glory to God, and share His Word with others. Volumes have already been written to show how to do these two things, so I will leave that to them for the moment. Suffice it to say that all things must fit under these two huge umbrella concepts.

Some people are more inclined to argue than others, due in large part to the individual's comfort level with conflict. Your counterpart's comfort level with conflict is one of the most important considerations as to when arguing is OK. Consider the exhortation from God's Word to count others as more significant than yourself, and to look to others' interests (Philippians 2:4,3).

Truth is underrated. Remember that helpful phrase: "All truth is God's truth"? It's true. All truths can be monumentally important, given certain contexts.

Example 1: Two people sometimes argue about trivialities like what the exact lyrics to a song written 30 years ago are. However, if knowing the correct answer wins $10,000...

Example 2: If a certain fact is very important to Bob, and he beats Mike over the head with it, Bob is now rejecting Philippians 2:3. However, Mike is also rejecting this passage if he trivializes what Bob believes to be very important.

Example 3: Bob believes that when families do not vaccinate, they put other children at great risk. Mike believes vaccinating children puts them at unnecessary risk. John isn't sure about the risks/benefits of vaccinating, but he believes that mandating vaccinations puts everybody's liberty at great risk.

Example 4: Bob believes people around the world are better off by bringing Democracy to their countries, but Mike believes those same people are better off left to private means of help. This is a matter of life and death in most cases.

We could go on to list hundreds, even thousands of important issues about which people argue. To suggest that people should "stop arguing" is simplistic to the point of foolishness. Many of the people who discuss these things are doing so because they believe they are protecting their families. There is not much that is more important than that. (Whether or not they are protecting their families is another truth to seek!)

When I was growing up, my mother would often point out to me that relationships are more important than being right. There is profound truth in that phrase, and I need to heed the truth of it. However, there is also a substantial flaw. Relationships are more important than making sure the other person always knows where he/she is wrong, but relationships are not more important than truth.

I Corinthians 13 states that a lack of love renders all wisdom, knowledge, spiritual gifts, and even great sacrifice and faith, virtually useless.* When we disagree with someone, this should be our first consideration, and it should spill into every moment of out thoughts.

It would be a mistake, however, to think that this replaces truth.

*It is the person who possesses the gifts listed in the first three verses, but who lacks love, who is nothing. Paul does not say that it is the gifts themselves, nor even the use of them, that is worthless, even when love is absent.

Wages, Charity, or Theft?

A pepper company began in the US, but has since moved to Mexico. This company now pays its employees a paltry $.50/hour, but each employee is free to work or not work as he pleases. Even assuming the previous employees from the US made only minimum wage, it is obvious the company will save piles of money by paying workers not 'protected' by such a law. Businesses make decisions with one purpose in mind: profits. Are the Mexican employees being treated unfairly? What is a fair wage?

Businessmen hire the individuals who bring the most profit to the company. If Mike nets the company $100/week, and Bob nets $125/week, all other things being equal, it would be quite foolish to hire Mike. On the side of the coin, laborers will also look for the job that brings in the most income, all other things being equal. Assuming again the Mexican employees are not being coerced, they have judged that their lives are better off working for the pepper company than they otherwise would be. No one is claiming the company has reached sainthood, but the fact is the standard of living for the people's lives whom they employ is improved, at least in the opinions of the employees. Both the company and employees benefit - however little - from the exchange.

How could someone, upon seeing these destitute conditions in which the employees lives, continue to pay such a low wage and be considered anything but heartless and cruel? If the company decides that the employees need more and then provides it - without providing any present or future benefit to the company - this is no longer a wage. Here enters a different form of payment: charity. Even if it is given in the form of 'higher wages', it is no such thing. As soon as pay is based on felt or actual need, irrespective of the company's bottom line, we have crossed over from 'wage' into 'charity'.

A wage is the smallest pay for which the employee is willing to work. An increase can only be considered a wage increase if it is voluntary, and is believed to be in the company's best interest. A good definition of 'wage' must include the notion of added value to the company. That is why the company will always pay an employee as little as possible, rightly so.

God's Word teaches that it is our obligation to help those in need when able. Unfortunately, charity has been severely and tragically tarnished by the travesty of forcibly taking from one person to give to someone else. This crosses over from charity into theft.

So now wages, charity, and theft abide, these three; but the greatest thing is to avoid confusing them.

College Students Owe Themselves, Not Professors

The beautiful thing about free exchange is that both parties are better off following the transaction. Value is subjective, but all that really matters is the opinion of those doing the exchanging. When I buy a TV, I clearly prefer it to the money I forked over, and the seller prefers to have the money. So what is the customer's obligation, and what is the merchant's? The customer must pay the merchant. End of story. The merchant, however, must provide a product that meets the customer's expectations. If he doesn't, he loses business.

This is certainly not a new idea by any stretch, but it is a foreign concept to the entire college scene. The college student is the customer and the teacher is the merchant. Therefore, once the teacher gets paid, the student has no further obligation in the transaction. The teacher, on the other hand, is now obligated to provide the product for which the student has paid.

Having been and around college my whole life - as a child of a professor, student, and now adjunct faculty myself - I have observed a role reversal. Students are constantly made to feel as though they owe something to the professor. When a paper hasn't been completed on time, or even when a student doesn't do as well on a test as he 'should' have, the student issues apologies, feeling guilty for not having 'pleased' the professor. Professors do look better when students learn and do well, but it is not the student's responsibility to make this happen!

What would college look like if students and teachers were forced to deal with economic reality?

According to the College Board, the average cost of tuition and fees for the 2013-2014 school year was $30,094 at private colleges, $8,893 for state residents at public colleges, and $22,203 for out-of-state residents attending public universities. [1] If we use the example of $20,000 tuition ($10,000/semester) and an average of 16 credits per semester, that comes to $625 per credit. Assuming 40 hours of class time per semester for a 3-credit course, that comes to $46.88 per hour of class. Imagine how different things would be if, after signing a contract for a semester of classes, the students handed the professor $47 cash every time he walked into class.

Given a 13-week semester and 16 credits, that's about $770/week - Ouch! Students would be a lot more concerned about getting good value:

1. The onus to work hard would be on the students - they'd be much more diligent.

2. Students would not re-up unless the product continued to pay dividends for them.

3. The professor would know his livelihood depended on producing every semester.

4. Students wouldn't be apologizing to professors for not showing up/doing work.

5. The idea that students are wasting professors' time would be flushed down the toilet (you've been paid, handsomely!).

Some people may not view all of these consequences as positive, but I can guarantee there would be much more learning, and much less time and money wasted. In the short run, that would hurt colleges and professors, perhaps tremendously, but in the long run, productive activity is good for everyone. After all, creating a product is about serving the customer, not the merchant.

1. http://www.collegedata.com/cs/content/content_payarticle_tmpl.jhtml?articleId=10064

Stop Giving Vaccines All the Credit!

Has there ever been a more telling graph on the usefulness of certain vaccines?

Source: http://blog.drbrownstein.com/should-mickey-and-minnie-mouse-be-vaccinated/

This reminds me of the graph which reveals the usefulness of OSHA...

Is What You Do Valuable?

How do you know if what you do is valuable? The problem is, value is subjective. What one person finds valuable, someone else views as worthless. You could answer the question by saying that as long as you believe in what you are doing, block out everything else. But does that pay the bills?

There is a much easier answer. Is someone willing to pay out of his or her own pocket for that thing you do? Yes? Then 'that thing you do' provides exactly that much value to that person. This is called the Free Market. If you are able to make a living based on individuals willingly giving you money for what you do, you can be 100% certain as to how much value your actions have.

The Grade School Test as a Learning Tool

The most obvious benefit of a test is the incentive it provides for studying; few of us are as self-motivated as we'd like to be. This incentive includes proving to one's self the extent of learning already achieved, but also to peers, teachers, and parents alike. Also, the test result is usually applied to a grade, which is used for various things, though its usefulness is a question for another essay. The other benefit of the test to the learning process is in letting the teacher know whether the student is ready to move on to the next unit, or to what extent the student needs continued study.

The Scenario

A teacher tells a class of 20 students that a test on the current unit will be administered in two weeks. The amount of time students need in order to master the material for this test will vary greatly. Assuming diligent work from each student, the students will fit into one of three categories: A) two weeks is the exact amount of time needed to master the material, B) two weeks is not enough time, C) two weeks is more time than necessary. (Lack of diligent work only exacerbates the problem of testing even further, and will not be explored here.)

The Consequences

The vast majority of Group B students and their parents accept what they see as their fate: the time to study that material is over, and it will never be mastered. If the student and parents wish to overcome this damaging scenario, they must continue to study the material while the teacher and class moves on to the next unit. Therefore, the student and his/her parent must choose either to fail to master the material, or accept the possibility of falling farther and farther behind.

Most teachers, perhaps without even realizing it, set the test date far enough away that almost all the students fit into Group C. For Group C students, the material will be mastered, but there will be extra time to be filled. Parents, then, will need to step in and provide other useful activities or material for the student to study while they await test day. Otherwise, the interim will be wasted, not to mention the boredom experienced by the student (or worse). As for Group A students, we are lucky if there is even one that fits into this category.

What is the Purpose of a Test?

There is another huge problem with test administering in an institutional setting. The most important purpose of a test is to find out what the student has and has not yet mastered, so that following the test, the teacher is able to tutor accordingly. However, in what institutional setting does this happen? It is no fault of the teacher; he/she simply cannot take the time to spend with each student necessary to bring mastery to the fore.

If the student attends institutional school (public or private), parents must be deeply involved through time and other resources in order to make the best of this unfortunate situation. This will not fully maximize the time lost, but will redeem much of the adverse circumstances. Other arguments aside, home-schooling solves this problem completely if the parents are on their game. Either way, parents, not institutions, are the foundation of a child's education.

Conclusion

Much of life is making the most of less-than-ideal circumstances, but the first step is realizing that such is the case. Test-administering can be very helpful, and should not be abandoned. On the other hand, if parents and teachers fail to recognize the true benefits of testing, the test becomes a virtually useless tool in the process of learning, and can even harm the long-term success of the student.