A couple of weeks before we got the phone call saying we had been chosen by a birth mom, Amanda and I made the difficult decision to try to find our dog Bailey a new home. Many of you have kept track of our adventures with Bailey. If you haven't, check out my other posts and this will make a lot more sense to you. When this decision was made, we had absolutely no idea what was about to happen on the adoption front. Anyway, we contacted a brittany rescue organization (who shall remain nameless) to help us find a home for Bailey.
As it turns out, the birth mom that chose us was due November 16 giving us right at 1 month to prepare. That's when our world got turned upside down. Not only did we need to find Bailey a new home, but we needed to do so pretty much immediately. For those of you who know Bailey, you understand this. She's not mean but is very energetic and could easily hurt an infant without intending to.
So, I contacted the rescue organization to let them know we would be welcoming a baby into our home shortly and we needed to find Bailey a home very quickly. Seems reasonable, right? You would think the rescue organization would be happy for us and that they would put in some extra effort to help us find a home for Bailey, right? WRONG! I received an email from the person I was working with basically condemning me for choosing to adopt a baby if that meant we would no longer be able to care for Bailey. Here is a short excerpt from that email:
I am sorry you are in a position that sets Bailey up for losing on this one. There is tremendous responsibility that goes along with caring for and loving a dog... it does not end with the beginning of a new adventure no matter how "inconvenient" the dog becomes.
I just about blew a gasket! How dare this person spit upon our decision to care for and raise a child by elevating the value of our dog above a human!
I spent the next couple of days fuming and dreaming up everything I wanted to say to this person to set the record straight. I even typed out a vicious email in response and thankfully sought Amanda's advice on whether to send it before I actually sent it. During that time I cooled down and decided sending the email was not the Christ-like thing to do.
Also during this time, it dawned on me that I do something very similar to God all the time. Jesus offered me salvation through His death and resurrection and I accepted this free gift of mercy and grace. However, I continue to snub God through my sin. Though I continually spit upon the gift God has given me and the sacrifice of His Son to pay my debt, He still loves me and shows me grace. He doesn't sit up in heaven dreaming up ways to punish me for my less than graceful actions toward Him.
The rescue organization's attitude toward me was less than graceful, but it helped me have a deeper understanding of God's grace toward me. In that light, I'm kind of glad it happened. I love how God can take the good and the bad and teach us about His character.
And for those of you who are curious, I did send an email to the rescue organization politely telling them I no longer desired to work with them and that we would find Bailey a home ourselves. We did so in less than 2 weeks.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Capitalism and the Opinion Police
Recently rumors have been swirling about Rush Limbaugh joining a group of investors interested in buying the St. Louis Rams NFL franchise. Rush quickly confirmed his desire to take part ownership and also confirmed that he was to be a limited partner in the venture (no responsibilities in the day to day activities/decision-making). So it's not like he would be the face of the St. Louis Rams like Jerry Jones is the face of the Dallas Cowboys.
As soon as the rumors started, everyone from Chad Ochocinco to Sheila Jackson Lee to the head of the NFL Players Union began expressing their opinion that Rush should not be allowed to buy into an NFL franchise because he is a divisive personality who has made some racially motivated comments. Since when has a person's desire to invest in a private enterprise been subject to the approval of people who have absolutely no interest involved?
Most of the objections are coming from comments Rush made regarding Donovan McNabb during his brief tenure with ESPN. Most people have construed his comment as a stab against McNabb because he's one of a few black quarterbacks in the NFL. I don't have the exact quote, but the gist of it was that Rush felt McNabb was a very overrated QB who was being overly hyped by the media who only wanted to see a black QB succeed in the NFL. I heard the comment when it was made and it never crossed my mind that Rush meant McNabb was overrated because he was black. He genuinely thinks McNabb is overrated as an NFL QB and his comment was aimed more at a fawning media who, Rush felt, had over-committed to the desired success of McNabb rather than taking an unbiased stance. Rush said that he thought all the media hype focused on McNabb was because he was black.
Did you catch the difference there? Rush never said McNabb was not a good QB because he's black. Rush never said he hoped McNabb didn't succeed because he's black. What he said was he thought the media was overplaying the situation because McNabb is black. His comment was meant to slam the media, not McNabb. And if I remember correctly, after everyone blew up about this and ESPN even fired him over it, Rush repeatedly explained that he had nothing against McNabb personally and that McNabb himself was not at all responsible for all the hype. It was the media blowing everything out of proportion. And honestly, is anyone really going to debate that the media has a tendency to blow things out of proportion?
So recently I saw a headline that Rush has been dropped from the group of investors wishing to buy the Rams. My question is, when did it become the business of the general public to decide who is or is not worthy of buying into a private enterprise? What would happen if Michael Moore tried to buy into an NFL franchise? That guy hates capitalism even though he's made millions because of capitalism. Everyone involved in the NFL--owners, players, union reps, etc.--are capitalistic. They sign contracts and make business deals for the sole purpose of making more money. Since Moore is fundamentally against capitalism, would he be railroaded the same way Rush was? I doubt it. Is Michael Moore any less polarizing of a public figure than Rush is? No.
Or how about this scenario. Should people who think tobacco products are harmful and bad be prohibited from buying stock in Phillip Morris? Should loyal patrons of Lowe's Home Improvement stores be prohibited from buying stock in Home Depot? Of course not. Free speech is a two-edged sword giving people the right to have opinions even if others disagree with those opinions. I don't agree with a single thing Michael Moore, Barack Obama or Sheila Jackson Lee believe or say, but I wouldn't have the slightest problem if any of them, in their individual capacity, wanted to buy into a private venture. Why? Because that's their decision and my like or dislike of their values and opinions is wholly irrelevant.
I'm so sick and tired of tolerance of opinion being a one-way street. If Rush wants to buy the St. Louis Rams, he should be allowed to do so if he is able to offer the best deal to the current owners and the current owners want to sell it to him. Everyone who doesn't think Rush should own the Rams should shut up and try to outbid Rush to keep him from doing it. That's how capitalism works.
As soon as the rumors started, everyone from Chad Ochocinco to Sheila Jackson Lee to the head of the NFL Players Union began expressing their opinion that Rush should not be allowed to buy into an NFL franchise because he is a divisive personality who has made some racially motivated comments. Since when has a person's desire to invest in a private enterprise been subject to the approval of people who have absolutely no interest involved?
Most of the objections are coming from comments Rush made regarding Donovan McNabb during his brief tenure with ESPN. Most people have construed his comment as a stab against McNabb because he's one of a few black quarterbacks in the NFL. I don't have the exact quote, but the gist of it was that Rush felt McNabb was a very overrated QB who was being overly hyped by the media who only wanted to see a black QB succeed in the NFL. I heard the comment when it was made and it never crossed my mind that Rush meant McNabb was overrated because he was black. He genuinely thinks McNabb is overrated as an NFL QB and his comment was aimed more at a fawning media who, Rush felt, had over-committed to the desired success of McNabb rather than taking an unbiased stance. Rush said that he thought all the media hype focused on McNabb was because he was black.
Did you catch the difference there? Rush never said McNabb was not a good QB because he's black. Rush never said he hoped McNabb didn't succeed because he's black. What he said was he thought the media was overplaying the situation because McNabb is black. His comment was meant to slam the media, not McNabb. And if I remember correctly, after everyone blew up about this and ESPN even fired him over it, Rush repeatedly explained that he had nothing against McNabb personally and that McNabb himself was not at all responsible for all the hype. It was the media blowing everything out of proportion. And honestly, is anyone really going to debate that the media has a tendency to blow things out of proportion?
So recently I saw a headline that Rush has been dropped from the group of investors wishing to buy the Rams. My question is, when did it become the business of the general public to decide who is or is not worthy of buying into a private enterprise? What would happen if Michael Moore tried to buy into an NFL franchise? That guy hates capitalism even though he's made millions because of capitalism. Everyone involved in the NFL--owners, players, union reps, etc.--are capitalistic. They sign contracts and make business deals for the sole purpose of making more money. Since Moore is fundamentally against capitalism, would he be railroaded the same way Rush was? I doubt it. Is Michael Moore any less polarizing of a public figure than Rush is? No.
Or how about this scenario. Should people who think tobacco products are harmful and bad be prohibited from buying stock in Phillip Morris? Should loyal patrons of Lowe's Home Improvement stores be prohibited from buying stock in Home Depot? Of course not. Free speech is a two-edged sword giving people the right to have opinions even if others disagree with those opinions. I don't agree with a single thing Michael Moore, Barack Obama or Sheila Jackson Lee believe or say, but I wouldn't have the slightest problem if any of them, in their individual capacity, wanted to buy into a private venture. Why? Because that's their decision and my like or dislike of their values and opinions is wholly irrelevant.
I'm so sick and tired of tolerance of opinion being a one-way street. If Rush wants to buy the St. Louis Rams, he should be allowed to do so if he is able to offer the best deal to the current owners and the current owners want to sell it to him. Everyone who doesn't think Rush should own the Rams should shut up and try to outbid Rush to keep him from doing it. That's how capitalism works.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Reality Check: Money Does NOT Grow on Trees
We've all seen numbers like billion and trillion thrown around recently and unless you own a billion or trillion dollars, the reality of it probably doesn't set in. I saw a graphic not long ago that puts these numbers in perspective and I couldn't remember if I had posted it anywhere. In case I didn't, I'm doing it now.
Pagetutor.com, using Google Sketchup, created a graphic showing the progression from a $100 bill to $1 trillion. Eye opening to say the least. As a follow up, Pagetutor created a graphic showing the size of the US debt ($11 trillion when the graphic was created).
I tried posting the graphics themselves, but they are too big to fit on my blog, so you'll just have to click on the links to see them for yourselves.
Now that I've gotten your attention, let's get to work.
The US economy, measured in terms of gross domestic product, was worth about $14.4 trillion in 2008. GDP is a basic measure of a country's economic performance and is the market value of all final goods and services made within the borders of a nation in a year.
In July of this year, the US national debt was measured at $11.6 trillion. So, logically you might assume the US has a net worth of $2.8 trillion, except that you'd be wrong.
If you are alive and breathing, you are well aware of the debate over reforming the health care system. As most of you know, the US already has government run health care in place for certain portions of the population, namely Medicare and Medicaid. And everyone has heard that these programs are in the hole. What you may not know is by how much these programs are in the hole.
According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, the 2009 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the unfunded liability of Medicare has reached more than $89 trillion in today's dollars! The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits that have been promised to current and future retirees and what will be collected in dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums. I wish Pagetutor.com had a graphic for this, but I couldn't find one. Just take the $11 trillion graphic above and multiply it by 8 in your mind.
The question is, if the government has run Medicare into the ground to the tune of $11 trillion in unfunded promises, should we trust the government with health care for all? I think the answer is pretty clear.
Pagetutor.com, using Google Sketchup, created a graphic showing the progression from a $100 bill to $1 trillion. Eye opening to say the least. As a follow up, Pagetutor created a graphic showing the size of the US debt ($11 trillion when the graphic was created).
I tried posting the graphics themselves, but they are too big to fit on my blog, so you'll just have to click on the links to see them for yourselves.
Now that I've gotten your attention, let's get to work.
The US economy, measured in terms of gross domestic product, was worth about $14.4 trillion in 2008. GDP is a basic measure of a country's economic performance and is the market value of all final goods and services made within the borders of a nation in a year.
In July of this year, the US national debt was measured at $11.6 trillion. So, logically you might assume the US has a net worth of $2.8 trillion, except that you'd be wrong.
If you are alive and breathing, you are well aware of the debate over reforming the health care system. As most of you know, the US already has government run health care in place for certain portions of the population, namely Medicare and Medicaid. And everyone has heard that these programs are in the hole. What you may not know is by how much these programs are in the hole.
According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, the 2009 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the unfunded liability of Medicare has reached more than $89 trillion in today's dollars! The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits that have been promised to current and future retirees and what will be collected in dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums. I wish Pagetutor.com had a graphic for this, but I couldn't find one. Just take the $11 trillion graphic above and multiply it by 8 in your mind.
The question is, if the government has run Medicare into the ground to the tune of $11 trillion in unfunded promises, should we trust the government with health care for all? I think the answer is pretty clear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
