In the past few weeks two separate, yet undoubtedly related events have brought me some supreme chuckles (laughter, not the candy.) The first is the White House deciding to commission a group of people to figure out why we have a federal budget deficit and what we can do about it. If you can't see the humor in this, then you might hurt yourself. The government, the people in charge of making the decisions for the most powerful nation in the world, need a special commission to point out that when you spend more than you bring in it leads to a deficit. Boy I am so glad these guys are in charge. But here's the rub. Pretty good chance the commission won't come to the conclusion that spending more than you bring in is the problem.
Let me offer a simple solution for our federal budget deficit. Pass a law that until the deficit is gone, the federal budget for the next year must be less than 99% of the previous years revenue. Now, that doesn't get rid of all the old debt. Nor does it determine the means for reaching that number (could be budget cuts, tax increases, whatever). It is simply the first step. It would be like cutting up the credit cards as a first step in getting your own personal finances in shape. But the government would almost never do something this simple because it would be too easy to track when the government didn't stick with it.
The second event was an article I read in the January 12 edition of Time. The point of the article is that with the economic problems that have gripped America, it has become obvious that many Americans do not understand personal finances. The article asks how we can educate our children so they do not make some of the same stupid financial mistakes of the previous generation? The answer: The government is sending out new curriculum to be used in our schools. (This is when you must fall down, lay on the ground, and laugh til it hurts.) The government, massively in debt, unable to stick to a budget, and proposing new expensive legislation in the midst of a "financial crisis", wants to teach children how to handle their money!
No matter where you stand politically, the way our national government has dealt with our money for many years goes beyond ridiculous. Yes, many families are in dire straits because of stupid financial decisions. Only, they don't have the luxury of raising taxes or borrowing from China. The gall of the government believing it is in any position to give financial advice. It is a drowning man claiming to be an expert swimmer.
Post Script: In the article about children needing financial education the word "parents" was never mentioned.
March 15, 2010
March 9, 2010
Revival Series
In early January I began a series of sermons on revival. Unfortunately, not all of them were recorded as we were still in the midst of working on sound equipment at the new building. But over the next week or two I will post all that were recorded.
I have received great response to this series. This makes me a little wary of putting it on the web. This series was not meant simply to be listened to. Rather it is something I was asking people at church to participate in. It is that participation, much more than the sermons, that has led to numerous personal revivals. So let us give credit where credit is due. God and people do the work together. I am just a pencil in God's hand.
Revival 01.10.10_Damon Parker.mp3
February 20, 2010
Tawdry Tiger
Over the past few weeks several people have asked me what I think about the whole Tiger Woods drama. Most, I think, were asking me as a sports fan. A couple, I believe, asked me as a minister who thinks about such things. I want to write about it from both perspectives.
As a sports fan you must somewhat suspend your disbelief. It's like going to a movie about aliens invading the earth. Even though we have zero proof of life on a distant world, you choose to believe for a couple of hours to enjoy the movie. Same goes for sports. If you root for a favorite team, inevitably they will employ an idiot. So what do you do? Only root for teams with players whose morals fit you? You would have to give up sports.
However, golf is different. It's an individual sport. Rather than rooting for laundry you actually must root for a person. But how many people root for a person based on who they really are? Maybe if your cousin plays professional golf. Otherwise, you are rooting for people you really don't know. So you can root against Tiger because of what you now know about him, but you risk rooting for other players who may be involved in the same kind of stuff, you just don't know it.
But there is obviously more to this than sports. This scandal says something about our strange relationship with sex in this country. Here are just a few things I think it might show us.
1. Most of America seems to have no idea what to think about sex. We live in a country that sells sex left and right. There is a massive industry feeding people's bizarre interest in the sex lives of the rich and famous. Girls in swimsuits sell beer. And cars. And hot wings. Yet, we all act utterly offended when someone famous cheats on their wife. Why? They are just fitting into the mass marketing culture of which they are a vital part.
2. Our double standards are incredible. I heard a famous sports writer say that the demographic that Tiger and golf must win back is women. He stated simply that women are the group most offended by Tiger's behavior. Again, why? I understand being upset that Tiger cheated on his wife. In fact he did it numerous times. All with women! Sure Tiger betrayed a woman. 15 women also betrayed her. Is he a louse? Absolutely. But let's not pretend this is a male issue. It always takes two to tango.
3. There is actually way more to this than sex. While Tiger may in fact be a sex addict, his conduct is very similar to something we have seen over the past several years involving athletes, movie stars and politicians. Those with power or especially wealth and talent, are treated like they can do no wrong. Young athletes with amazing potential are given millions of dollars before they accomplish anything. People glob onto them hoping to cash in on this wealth and fame. When that athlete or movie star does something untoward, those around them do not confront them. You don't take a shot at the golden goose. So these people get used to having whatever they want. No one tells them no. The rules don't apply to them. So, why would getting married suddenly make them accept the rules. The time when we develop integrity isn't just when we are a child. It is those years when we first hold a job, or have to make our way in the world on our own. If during that time the rules don't apply, you develop the notion that the rules will never apply. Perhaps rather than looking jealously on those who achieve wealth and fame at an early age, we should remember the massive risk to the soul and spirit that comes with that territory.
As a sports fan you must somewhat suspend your disbelief. It's like going to a movie about aliens invading the earth. Even though we have zero proof of life on a distant world, you choose to believe for a couple of hours to enjoy the movie. Same goes for sports. If you root for a favorite team, inevitably they will employ an idiot. So what do you do? Only root for teams with players whose morals fit you? You would have to give up sports.
However, golf is different. It's an individual sport. Rather than rooting for laundry you actually must root for a person. But how many people root for a person based on who they really are? Maybe if your cousin plays professional golf. Otherwise, you are rooting for people you really don't know. So you can root against Tiger because of what you now know about him, but you risk rooting for other players who may be involved in the same kind of stuff, you just don't know it.
But there is obviously more to this than sports. This scandal says something about our strange relationship with sex in this country. Here are just a few things I think it might show us.
1. Most of America seems to have no idea what to think about sex. We live in a country that sells sex left and right. There is a massive industry feeding people's bizarre interest in the sex lives of the rich and famous. Girls in swimsuits sell beer. And cars. And hot wings. Yet, we all act utterly offended when someone famous cheats on their wife. Why? They are just fitting into the mass marketing culture of which they are a vital part.
2. Our double standards are incredible. I heard a famous sports writer say that the demographic that Tiger and golf must win back is women. He stated simply that women are the group most offended by Tiger's behavior. Again, why? I understand being upset that Tiger cheated on his wife. In fact he did it numerous times. All with women! Sure Tiger betrayed a woman. 15 women also betrayed her. Is he a louse? Absolutely. But let's not pretend this is a male issue. It always takes two to tango.
3. There is actually way more to this than sex. While Tiger may in fact be a sex addict, his conduct is very similar to something we have seen over the past several years involving athletes, movie stars and politicians. Those with power or especially wealth and talent, are treated like they can do no wrong. Young athletes with amazing potential are given millions of dollars before they accomplish anything. People glob onto them hoping to cash in on this wealth and fame. When that athlete or movie star does something untoward, those around them do not confront them. You don't take a shot at the golden goose. So these people get used to having whatever they want. No one tells them no. The rules don't apply to them. So, why would getting married suddenly make them accept the rules. The time when we develop integrity isn't just when we are a child. It is those years when we first hold a job, or have to make our way in the world on our own. If during that time the rules don't apply, you develop the notion that the rules will never apply. Perhaps rather than looking jealously on those who achieve wealth and fame at an early age, we should remember the massive risk to the soul and spirit that comes with that territory.
January 21, 2010
January 18, 2010
Kids Say the Darndest Things
With five kids in the house (four who are talking, and that pretty much non-stop) I am constantly bombarded with odd requests, regaled with stories that go nowhere, and questioned like I am the lead suspect in a mass killing. It is overwhelming some days.
But every once in awhile it pays off with either a moment of amazing grace or absolute hilarity.
Logan (our four year old) was bent over our three month old daughter Savannah. As she cooed and looked up at him he said, "Hey Savannah. Do you see me?" Then as she turned to look at him he screeched at her, "Look into the eye of the tiger!"
As a fan of both Rocky and Survivor (the musical group) I couldn't be more proud.
But every once in awhile it pays off with either a moment of amazing grace or absolute hilarity.
Logan (our four year old) was bent over our three month old daughter Savannah. As she cooed and looked up at him he said, "Hey Savannah. Do you see me?" Then as she turned to look at him he screeched at her, "Look into the eye of the tiger!"
As a fan of both Rocky and Survivor (the musical group) I couldn't be more proud.
January 14, 2010
January 12, 2010
Lunacy of Language (part 1)
I care about words. It's part of my job and who I am. I wouldn't be preaching if I didn't think that just the right word, delivered in the right way, at just the right time, can make a gigantic difference in someones life. So I pay attention to words and how we use them.
Which is why I am continually frustrated by how those in governmental authority use words. Words seem to no longer mean much beyond the political/rhetorical possibilities they provide. It is not that those in power or seeking power lie (although they sometimes do). It is that they are allowed to bend language to their own ends and are rarely called on the carpet for it. Somewhere Daniel Webster is weeping.
So let me start with a simple example: "Too big to fail." Read this from the New York times in 2008: “Some institutions really are too big to fail, and that’s the way it is,” said Douglas W. Elmendorf, a former Treasury and Federal Reserve Board economist who is now at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
This phrase has been used over the past year and a half by economists and politicians from various political leanings. In that parlance it means that some companies are so vital to the U.S. economy that they cannot be allowed to go under. For instance GM is just too big and important to allow it to crumble, so we must spend billions of dollars in taxpayer money to make sure it survives.
First, look at the language. It logically makes no sense. Can something honestly be "too big to fail". Does a fourth grade teacher turn in her grades and say, "You know, Jimmy didn't do the work, and he can't read, but he's just so large I can't fail him." If this were an actual truth, then there would be no show like "The Biggest Loser." Being big would be the goal in life. But logically we know this makes no sense. So the politicians and economists begin with an illogical statement. But it doesn't end there.
Once the illogical grammar is accepted, then the real insanity can begin as the phrase can now be used as "reasoning" for all sorts of stupidity. So a car company is "too big to fail". Using that logic means that if any business gets large enough, it doesn't have to worry about turning a profit, producing quality goods, or satisfying customers. It simply needs to be really big.
If "too big to fail" is true, then even if today I invent a means of beaming people from one place to another (think Star Trek) and pull it off in a way that is affordable for everyone, we would still need to support GM. Think of all the companies and businesses that have disappeared over time because something better came along. Imagine if we kept dragging them with us because they are "too big to fail." We would still have companies producing stagecoaches, milkmen running around every morning, and blacksmith shoppes.
And what about all the companies that are not too big to fail. Imagine trying to compete with a business that is much larger, has more resources, and can't lose. You could make a better product that people wanted more and was cheaper. All the "too big to fail" company would need to do is drop their price so low and drive you out of the market. They can do it because even if they lose so much money they should be bankrupt, the government will save them.
So in reality, "too big to fail" makes no sense. And that should be obvious. So it must be rhetoric to cover up the true motive for wanting to bail out these companies.
Why not just tell the truth? "We are afraid of the backlash of this many unionized workers losing their jobs," might be what some politicians are thinking. Or perhaps they just feel real sympathy for all the families who would be effected by the massive job losses that would come from the demise of a large company like GM.
Who knows what the real motives are. And we will never know as long as we allow those in authority to use this kind of language. Just give us the straight dope please.
Which is why I am continually frustrated by how those in governmental authority use words. Words seem to no longer mean much beyond the political/rhetorical possibilities they provide. It is not that those in power or seeking power lie (although they sometimes do). It is that they are allowed to bend language to their own ends and are rarely called on the carpet for it. Somewhere Daniel Webster is weeping.
So let me start with a simple example: "Too big to fail." Read this from the New York times in 2008: “Some institutions really are too big to fail, and that’s the way it is,” said Douglas W. Elmendorf, a former Treasury and Federal Reserve Board economist who is now at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
This phrase has been used over the past year and a half by economists and politicians from various political leanings. In that parlance it means that some companies are so vital to the U.S. economy that they cannot be allowed to go under. For instance GM is just too big and important to allow it to crumble, so we must spend billions of dollars in taxpayer money to make sure it survives.
First, look at the language. It logically makes no sense. Can something honestly be "too big to fail". Does a fourth grade teacher turn in her grades and say, "You know, Jimmy didn't do the work, and he can't read, but he's just so large I can't fail him." If this were an actual truth, then there would be no show like "The Biggest Loser." Being big would be the goal in life. But logically we know this makes no sense. So the politicians and economists begin with an illogical statement. But it doesn't end there.
Once the illogical grammar is accepted, then the real insanity can begin as the phrase can now be used as "reasoning" for all sorts of stupidity. So a car company is "too big to fail". Using that logic means that if any business gets large enough, it doesn't have to worry about turning a profit, producing quality goods, or satisfying customers. It simply needs to be really big.
If "too big to fail" is true, then even if today I invent a means of beaming people from one place to another (think Star Trek) and pull it off in a way that is affordable for everyone, we would still need to support GM. Think of all the companies and businesses that have disappeared over time because something better came along. Imagine if we kept dragging them with us because they are "too big to fail." We would still have companies producing stagecoaches, milkmen running around every morning, and blacksmith shoppes.
And what about all the companies that are not too big to fail. Imagine trying to compete with a business that is much larger, has more resources, and can't lose. You could make a better product that people wanted more and was cheaper. All the "too big to fail" company would need to do is drop their price so low and drive you out of the market. They can do it because even if they lose so much money they should be bankrupt, the government will save them.
So in reality, "too big to fail" makes no sense. And that should be obvious. So it must be rhetoric to cover up the true motive for wanting to bail out these companies.
Why not just tell the truth? "We are afraid of the backlash of this many unionized workers losing their jobs," might be what some politicians are thinking. Or perhaps they just feel real sympathy for all the families who would be effected by the massive job losses that would come from the demise of a large company like GM.
Who knows what the real motives are. And we will never know as long as we allow those in authority to use this kind of language. Just give us the straight dope please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
