Buy Local! Unless You Support the FDA

I hear the cry, "buy local!" all the time. I sympathize with that cry. Our family shops at Aldi because of the low prices - we'd love to buy local (especially raw milk!) if it fit into our budget. Those who would like to see people buy local must seek the one thing that would lead directly to its implementation... abolish the Food and Drug Administration.

What if there were no FDA? How would that affect your food shopping?

You would either research the food you buy, or look for an agency you trust who does the research for you, or both. It is not easy to research a company located hundreds of miles away, not to mention a different continent entirely. People are willing to buy products from distant companies they have never investigated, directly or indirectly, because they trust the product approved by the FDA. Therefore, a lack of any sort of FDA would lead directly to more local food shopping.

Because FDA approval is required, big and small businesses have to be approved. For a large business, these costs are no big deal, but for a small business, they can mean the difference between staying afloat or going under. FDA approval (among hundreds of other regulations) is superfluous when it comes to local businesses you can (and probably do) research yourself, simply leading to much higher costs, and therefore, fewer local businesses.

Now, if those businesses never exist, who is subsidized by their lack of existence and therefore less competition? Larger businesses. Ever wonder who lobbies for regulations? Larger businesses. So, who enjoys the existence of and lobbies for the continuation of the FDA? Larger businesses.

Getting rid of these regulations would lead to lower prices on local food. Higher prices is the primary reason more people haven't jumped on the "buy local" bandwagon. There are countless other reasons to abolish the FDA, but if you would like people to buy local, you MUST be counted among the opponents of the existence of the FDA.

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.