Gaston Interrupted

The Virtue of Windfall Profits

2006-08-28T20:19:00.000-05:00

There has been much written about corporate responsibility as of late. And with good reason, as we have watched the collapse of several large corporations over the past few years due to poor management, deception and outright thievery.

As I was driving home, a gentleman who is running for a local city council seat was being interviewed. He was talking about the various reasons he had chose to seek a seat on our local city council. One of the last reasons he gave was his desire to bring back corporate responsibility. In making his case for the need for corporate responsibility he stated the following:

And should I run, I will ensure that grossly disproportionate corporate
profits, such as those by the oil and gas industry are reigned in. Profits
of that magnitude are nothing short of sinful.

I am sure that there is a part of this that is simply campaign rhetoric...If for no other reason than this guy, should he be elected, will probably not be able to do much against the oil and gas industry from his dusty chair in a local City Council hall. However, I wholeheartedly disagree with his association of large profits with sinfulness. If we look at the role of a corporation, and take an honest look, it's sole purpose is to create value for its shareholders in perpetuity. There's a value for value exchange between the management of a company and its owners (shareholders). In exchange for capital and liquidity, the company strives to provide a return. To say that doing this well, or exceptionally well is sinful doesn't make sense. It's like saying that a running back ran too much and should have held back to let someone else run a little bit, or to save energy for some other purpose other than winning a football game.

In an ideal world, corporations have only one responsibility. To provide sustainable returns to its owners. It is a steward of their money and their investment. Corporations are only responsible for ancillary things outside of their business (ie: environment, wages, benefits) in so far as it impacts their responsibility to make money for their shareholders on a recurring and sustainable basis. The only sin a corporation can make (if it were possible for a non-person entity to sin) is to not provide a return to its shareholders. Windfall profits are not a sin, but rather a virtue (if once again and entity can possess such qualities). The reason I point out entity is that hopefully, shareholders as individuals will distribute their wealth as they see fit. Some for philanthropy, some to simply enjoy their money. But the responsibility is on the individual owner, not the corporation.

One can argue corporate excesses on its executives, but once again, as shareholders the owners have the ability to help regulate it. One can say that profits are unfairly divided up to executives before they are distributed, but once again, a corporation that does this will not have the opportunity to continue to provide sustainable results as its shareholders, in theory, will diminish and seek stronger returns with less cost elsewhere.

I'm not an economist, just an average joe. But I think that windfall profits, if achieved within the framework of honest work and a little bit of luck is to be expected, if not anticipated from the owners of the company. Those owners, in turn, have the right to pursue a sinful or virtuous use of their returns.

A Sign Of The Times

2006-08-04T21:02:00.000-05:00

While driving tonight, I heard an interesting advertisement from one of the national home builders in our area. It essentially says that you can buy a home from them with a $1 downpayment. The fine print says that you have to put a binder down with the contract but it is fully refunded less $1 at closing.

This is the same company that two years ago offered several models, would only allow you to choose between 3 exterior paint combinations, a handful of upgrades and no interior painting. Essentially, they were saying , "If you don't like the home like this, that's ok because there are 8 people lined up behind you who will take it as is.

I'm thinking the $1 "online special" is a sign that the time are a'changin'. The market is shifting in favor of the buyer, and hopefully the homebuilders socked away the last few years of profit to get them through the coming months where they are going to have to move some inventory and get it off their books.

I'm guessing that these guys, since they own the mortgage company, figure they can offset some of the real estate losses or anticipated losses through their financing divisions.

It isn't that I'm a doom and gloomer on real estate. In fact, I think some people are having knee jerk reactions to the market. If you buy real estate at a fair price, and can afford to hold on to it, your money is probably as safe there as in any other investment over a long period of time. But, the builder's aren't going to be able to keep pumping out the houses in our area like they have been over the past several years. People are going to be laid off. Contractors are going to be hunting down work. And the cost and time period for the consumer are going to be reduced.

Overall, it isn't a bad thing. They've had quite a few years of plenty, and hopefully have planned for decreased margins. For homebuyers, it's a great time to be house shopping.

The Naked Truth

2006-08-03T10:24:00.000-05:00

I found out something new about myself this morning: I do not like shaking hands with a naked man. Some of you may have already known this about yourself. For me, it wasn't that I thought I might like it, but that I never realized how much I would dislike it. Quite frankly, it's a very uncomfortable experience.

I worked out early this morning, and on my way into the gym chatted with a gentleman as we were walking into the locker room. At the conclusion of my workout, I went through my normal steam room, shave, shower and dress routine. Every morning there are guys finishing up their workouts and getting dressed for work. Nobody is really clothed. It's not a big deal, it's a locker room. However, the gentleman with whom I'd chatted with in the parking lot had a locker right next to me. As I was tying my necktie, I hear "By the way, I didn't introduce myself...I'm John Doe". I turn to introduce myself and find that John Doe is stark naked holding out his hand. I'll be honest, I actually thought, at the moment I realized he was unclothed and holding out his hand, that I might be able to keep turning and pretend I didn't hear him. But I had already made eye contact.

And that's the most uncomfortable part about shaking the hand of a naked man. You absolutely must continue to make eye contact. You will notice in a locker room that nobody has very serious, eye to eye conversations. This is a general defense mechanism in men. It says: "Listen buddy, we can chat for a bit about general stuff...but let's be honest, most of us are unclothed, I'm not going to look at you while I talk to you." Instead, we look into our lockers and talk over our shoulders. The offer of a handshake is a egregious departure from the generally understood and unspoken norms of locker room talk. I don't hold it against him though. He was simply being friendly. And he taught me a very valuable lesson about myself. In general, I am uncomfortable shaking the hand of a naked man.

Paying Close Attention

2006-08-01T13:52:00.000-05:00

I have been known to have things slip past me on a pretty regular basis. My wife handles a lot of things around our house, and sometimes I like to "help" her by suggesting she look into something, or call someone about something. Normally this backfires as it did today.

My email to Amber:

Amber,

The guy I had lunch with today is XXX XXXXX. He owns XX XXXXX
Insurance agency. I was telling him about our homeowners insurance issues,
and also told him we had our auto insurance with XXXX. He said he would
be willing to bet quite a bit of money that YYYYY would beat XXXXX in price on
our auto insurance. Thought I'd let you know....in case you wanted to
price compare them.

Amber's response to me:
Thanks honey... That was done months ago. We don't have XXXXX
anymore.

Yeah....nothing gets past me.

Elevator Etiquette

2006-07-31T16:29:00.000-05:00

I work in a fairly large building comprised of 4 floors. There are four other companies in the building alongside of us, and we all share various floors throughout. I typically take the stairs. However, when my hands are full, I'll ride the elevator to the second floor two or three times a day. My lifes experience with elevators is limited at best, but I have come to dread these rides as exercises in awkwardness. So I've devised a few simply tips for elevator riding:

If you are the first person to board the elevator, please assume the role of the driver. Verbally ask your fellow riders "What floor please?" A gruff head nod is not an acceptable way to ask other riders what floor they need.
If you are the self designated floor chooser, do not simply choose your desired floor then look at the ceiling as if no one else is on board with you.
Don't talk on your cell phone in the elevator. It's confusing to the rest of us, and normally breaks a very awkward, self imposed silence.
Do not laugh at a voicemail or a text mail in the elevator. If you do, do not be offended if I check my fly - just to make sure...
In a mirrored elevator, only look up or down. Otherwise, you will inevitably be caught and perceived as staring at someone. I have found that people do not like to make eye contact on elevators. Additionally, yet equally important, people do not like to be stared at in general.
If you are a non-smoker, and find yourself crammed into an elevator with smokers returning from a smoke break....do NOT cough. It is impossible to escape the nasty looks in a mirrored elevator.
Do not pass gas in an elevator
If you break suggestion #7, then ride the elevator to the top floor. First of all, you should suffer alongside everyone else. Secondly, everyone will assume that the first person to get off was the culprit.

Congratulations to The Molehill

2006-07-31T11:06:00.000-05:00

My buddies Kevin and Tom just had one of their products, TICK, featured as one of the screens around town on the Signal vs. Noise blog. Kevin and Tom are both incredibly bright and have a way of finding pretty simple solutions to make work easier. Congratulations guys!

Conflict Resolution

2006-07-31T10:54:00.000-05:00

Here's an interesting question: Why does it seem that the U.S. is at the center of negotiations in most of the current, major International Conflicts? The North Koreans effectively said they would not negotiate unless the U.S. was at the table. Iran's president sent an open letter to President Bush. And in the Mideast right now, Secretary Rice appears to be front and center.

Does anyone think this is an accurate perception, or simply a perception colored by news that is created and distributed in the U.S. and as such, rightly focuses on the U.S. role in these events. Or, is there in reality, an expectation of the International community at large, that the United States should play a major role in the resolution of international conflicts? If so, why is this?

The Hope of Tomorrow

2006-07-28T13:37:00.000-05:00

The idea of this blog is to provide a forum for me to express my ideas, opinions and general musings. My goal is not to create a place for a reader to come to find interesting articles that I've linked to. However, when I read something that has an impact, I don't want my foolish pride to stop me from posting it.

Here's a great article done by ESPN's Chad Ford. He's a columnist for ESPN and also a professor of International Conflict Resolution for Brigham Young University - Hawaii. He spent some time following a program where basketball is used as a forum for interaction between young Jews and Palestinians in Israel. What hit me most is how much our kids will impact tomorrow. And how much the joy of youthfulness can be used as a common denominator and a bridge between what can, at times, feel like an impassable chasm.

For the article, click here

What Is A Proportionate Response?

2006-07-27T16:11:00.000-05:00

"The truth is, let me say this clearly, we didn't even expect (this)response.... that (Israel) would exploit this operation for this big war against us," said Komati. He said Hezbollah had expected "the usual, limited response" from Israel to the July 12 cross-border raid, in which three Israelis were killed.
- From breitbart.com (see full article here)

With the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, I seem to be hearing a repetition of the same sound bite from various leaders of other countries. The gist of it is that Israel's response has been disproportionate. It's hard to tell simply from the television what the impact of Israel's efforts to weed out Hezbollah have been on the average Lebanese citizen. But even if the impact is not quite fair to them, I think that's Israel's entire point. Not to hurt your average, go easy citizen, but to incent them to take control of things in their southern region. It's collective punishment in a sense. I remember collective punishment as someone hiding chalk in middle school, and the teacher forbidding to release us to the joys of recess until the culprit came forward. Normally, the culprit would eventually give in before we had to give him/her up. I always thought they did this out of a sense of the greater good. But that is a very childish example. For a very grown up and well thought out description of collective punishment, specifically as it relates to the current conflict that seems to be filling our screens each night, see this post from Messrs Posner and Becker.

Getting back to the idea of a disproportionate response. I think this idea is at best ludicrous and at worst, completely ineffectual. The whole idea of a disproportionate response is to bring swift resolution to an issue. A proportionate response is, by its very nature, a catalyst for slow, continual escalation. In the case of Israel, let's say that, as a proportionate response to the kidnapping of two of its soldiers, it kidnapped two Hezbollah terrorists. Then, Hezbollah in return kidnapped 3 more and Israel followed suit. Or in the case of rockets (which seem to have a history of leaving southern Lebanon and landing in Northern Israel), let's say for every rocket fired (randomly I might add), Israel fired one back. The point is that there is no end game here...just a slow escalation. The United States dropped the atomic bomb on two islands, not because it wanted to wipe out cities in one blow, but because it believed that this action would but a definitive end to a conflict that would have lasted years at the cost of many more lives. The atomic bomb was the ultimate disproportionate response, but depending on which side of history you end up on, it effectively stopped a war that appeared would not have ended short of an invasion of the Japanese mainland (which would have cost an incalculable amount of death on both sides of the conflict).

Now someone may say "Wait a minute...Israel is attacking Lebanon and Lebanon did not kidnap its soldiers!" I understand the distinction very well. But I do not agree that it is an appropriate one to use in this case.

The Lebanese government has been asked time and time again to reign in these guys who are taking pot shots at Israel. The U.N. has some sort of observation post (observing what I don't know, but it certainly hasn't seemed very effective). With rockets and cross border raids still occurring, one can draw several conclusions:
Lebanon does not have the strength to reign in Hezbollah
Lebanon does not want to reign in Hezbollah
Lebanon sanctions the actions of Hezbollah

I'm not a Middle East expert by any stretch (I'm not much of an expert at anything). But from what I've read, Lebanon appears to be a fairly moderate country within the Arab world. In some respects, it seems to be quite modern. So I doubt very much that the government, which probably depends on its overall blended moderation for survival, actually sanctions the actions of Hezbollah. Which leaves only two options: It either lacks the strength of force to stop Hezbollah or it lacks the willpower/desire.

So what option does this leave Israel? Remember, this is a country that is surrounded by people who do not like it. Not because of policy, but because of who they are. There is no other option but disproportionate brute strength. Collective punishment with the hopes that the negative incentives do not, in the end, outweigh the desired results.

As an interesting exercise, replace Israel and Lebanon with the United States and Mexico. If there were a rouge group within Mexico who routinely FIRED ROCKETS into Texas, or attacked U.S. Border Patrol what should we do? We should ask the Mexican Government to round them up....right? And if we followed this step, but rockets kept falling, what should we then do? Fire a few rockets back? If you were to put the U.S. and Mexico in this situation, the peso would quickly be replaced with crisp dollar bills. There's no way we'd stand for it. And we shouldn't. Our citizens should not have to worry about being attacked within our own borders. Our Border Patrol should not have to worry about being shot at within our own borders. And Israel should be able to use collective punishment with the hopes of putting a very quick, and permanent end to Hezbollah attacking its citizens. And Lebanon, when it is all over, should be thanking them for doing what they either didn't want to do, or couldn't do.

Now, if I were Israel, when this were all over, I'd offer to pay to repair the damage to areas that weren't necessarily controlled by Hezbollah. I'd tell the Lebanese people...."We are good and decent neighbors. You do not ever have to worry about us instigating attacks on you. But keep your own citizenry in line. Play by generally accepted rules. If you do not do this, if you refuse to stand up then we will do it for you once again."

I'm Back

2006-07-21T13:32:00.000-05:00

So it's been a while. Actually, from what I can tell, it's been since late 2005 since I've last taken the time to post to this blog. I don't think anyone missed me, as I am not sure many people read this (if any at all). But a buddy of mine, Kevin Finn, has recently encouraged me to start blogging a little every now and again - when I find something to say.

By the way, Kevin just launched TICK a time tracking/budgeting web application (from Molehill) that's getting some pretty impressive reviews.

Anyway, while I have not necessarily been posting online, I have continued to keep my notebook full of my opinions (as no one else will bear them) and I will, over time, begin to start posting them again. In fact, over the next month, my committment is two posts a week. "Wow...that's a lot Gaston!!!" Yeah, I'm that committed.

T.O. - What goes around.....

2005-12-07T09:29:00.000-05:00

“The Eagles told Terrell, the arbitrator, and the media that Terrell would be paid for the balance of this year when he returned from his suspension, and now they are instead withholding his pay,” Richard Berthelsen, the union’s general counsel, said in a statement. “We therefore filed this grievance both for his protection and that of players generally, who deserve to have their CBA and their contracts enforced as written.”
I am glad Mr. Berthelsen is looking out for Terrell Owen's interests, and in doing so, ensuring players in the NFL rest comfortably in the thoughts that their contracts are indeed valid and enforceable.
I like Terrell Owens....or more aptly put, I like to watch Terrell Owens play football. And I especially enjoy his touchdown celebrations. It's the equivalent of enjoying the ads during the Superbowl almost as much as the game itself.
But does this seem a bit hypocritical to anyone else? Or am I simply missing something. How many times do we hear about a guy sitting out training camp, or part of the season because he wants to renegotiate his contract (the same contracts which Mr. Berthelsen wants to ensure are enforceable and valid)? And sometimes, it is a guy who a team has treated well, respected etc. He simply wants more money. That of course, is the beauty of a free market - he can use these tactics to negotiate (honor and possibly ethics aside).
I guess what I'm asking here is whether the Eagles are doing something totally out of line with the precedent players have established by sitting out? The assumption being that valid and enforceable contracts work both ways (protecting the owner and the player). Do owners have no recourse in dealing with a player that they believe is having a negative impact on their organization - while a player has a host of options including simply refusing to play?
It seems to me that the Eagles are playing a card that most NFL owners have had dealt them by players repeatedly. It may not be honorable, but it seems to be consistent.

Say Cheese

2005-10-25T12:28:00.000-05:00

Delay Turns Himself In For Booking

Ok, I'm sure some Politico did research to figure out the best pose for DeLay to strike for his booking picture. But someone should have reminded both the Politico and Rep. DeLay that this picture was the offiicial record of him being put on trial for CONSPIRACY and MONEY LAUNDERING. I have no idea if he's guilty or not, if its legit or a political witch hunt. The truth is probably somewhere in between. However, what I do know is this: when I see an elected official who represents citizens of these great United States of America, having his picture taken for booking, I would rather see him somber than looking like a all too pleased frat boy who just got booked for mooning a school bus full of cheerleaders.

In short....wipe that smile off your face. You're officially on trial!

The Battle of Hypocrisy

2005-09-02T08:16:00.000-05:00

I can sometimes be a cynic. This is ironic, because those who know me best, know that I am also capable of a great level of hyperactivity in the pursuit of what some would consider lofty ideals. So I guess that I have to admit that I am capable of both highs and lows.

There is no where that my cynicism comes out more than in dealing with the church. And by "the church", I mean the organized body of believers falling into some hierarchical structure. This should not be confused with "the church" as the body or brotherhood of believers. This too is ironic, because I love the church, both the organization as well as the collective group of believers. I believe that the church and its message of faith offers the most compelling world view to reconcile a all-knowing, all powerful God of grace dealing with a fallen world that has more than its fair share of pain and suffering. But more importantly, I believe that its message is the best message for hope and change to believers and unbelievers alike. There are so many things the church (as an organization) does well. Last week, with the Katrina disaster, the Southern Baptist Convention was the second relief organization mobilized to help people. The only group to be ready before them was the Red Cross. Churches of all denominations and affiliations are mobilizing to help a city in need. This is just one example of the church's role on a national scale. But equally important are churches across the country whose gyms are open on Monday nights for kids basketball leagues. Ladies in a fellowship hall making blankets for a new born baby, or first time parents (as ours did for us when our son was born). Both provide a small example of how church's play a social role in local, grassroots communities. I could, and probably should, list the many virtues of the church as an organization. But the list would be long and overwhelming, which I guess is good when you're listing virtues.

So why, you ask, do I have a tendency towards cynicism of the church? If I am honest, I'll have to admit that I don't know exactly. Much of it may stem from a tendency to buck authority. My wife gets on to me all the time for this. And when she does, and I try to nail down my problem, one thing comes to mind. Sometimes I struggle with feeling like we're hypocrites, or at least have a battle of hypocrisy raging in our midst. I've never fully felt justified in this attitude, seeming like it only identifies a problem that has been around for years. How does a group of people, preach faith and hope on one side, while struggling with the falleness and desperation within themselves. It's not that I don't think we should teach faith and hope. As a point of fact, we are CALLED to preach it. I am just not sure we always do it with the humility it requires. I guess my point is this, we are by our very nature hypocrites. And one of the areas we must continue to fight this dueling nature, is by calling what is wrong, wrong and what is right, right, even if it conflicts with other believers. In other words, we must be as hard on ourselves if not harder, than we could ever be on someone else. The point is that someone who accepts the Gospel has a new standard that they are called to. Those who reject the Gospel have no obligation to that standard. Sometimes, we treat them as though they do while excusing ourselves under the blanket of grace. This is not always the case and the exceptions to this outnumber the norm 10 to 1. However, the exceptions tend to get all of the attention.

Os Guinness has recently written a new book and does a much better job on reconciling hypocrisy with the call to proclaim truth, even from fallen mouths. Some of his thoughts are as follows:

Among Guinness many good points was that many who observed the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and concluded that these attacks were truly
evil were quick to make excuses for the Abu Ghraib prison abuses. These, too, he contended, were evil, and we ought not equivocate in saying so. We must recognize, Guinness said, that we are just as capable of evil as those--terrorists, Nazis, communists--whose atrocities we are quick to denounce.

What of this hypocrisy, though? Does it render us unqualified to identify and respond to evil? Does it render the very concept of evil incoherent? Not so, says, Guinness. Indeed, those nations, he argued, that aspire to virtue (e.g., the United States and Great Britain) are far more susceptible to hypocrisy than a nation like France that is much more equivocal on the issue. But this fact does not make us unqualified to judge evil, nor does it render the notion of evil incoherent; rather, it is a warning that those who would seek to combat evil are in greater danger of doing evil themselves than those content to ignore it. This calls for vigilance, but not abandonment of the quest for virtue.

In country-boy speak, I think what Guiness is trying to say is that we should call a spade a spade - no matter which side of the Gospel it belongs to. We must recognize that it is only grace that saves us from our hypocrisy, and only grace that calls us to seek out truth. And that the call for truth is much louder if it comes from the mouth of one who has been humbled at the thought that even a small blunder makes them unworthy in the face of a righteous God, who has, in His infinite goodness seen fit to show us grace that overflows.

And I guess that if I follow this logic, which seems reasonable, then I owe the church a big apology...for my cynicism, for my skpticism and for my hypocrisy.

Tragedy, Pain and Repentance

2005-09-02T07:07:00.000-05:00

One of my best friends called me the other day with some ideas about how we might be able to help some of the folks in New Orleans. He has family there, and some of the stories that they have shared rival any tragedy I've ever heard. During our discussion, we talked about tragedy and repentance. How it is always a call to repent before a holy God, for believers and non-believers alike. While my mind struggled to comprehend the pain and struggle that Katrina has brought on the people of Louisiana and Mississippi, I can't seem to find the words. So I will direct you to a great article by John Piper after the tsunami last year. His basic premise is this:

The point of every deadly calamity is this: Repent. Let our hearts be broken that God means so little to us. Grieve that he is a whipping boy to be blamed for pain, but not praised for pleasure. Lament that he makes headlines only when man mocks his power, but no headlines for ten thousand days of wrath withheld. Let us rend our hearts that we love life more than we love Jesus Christ. Let us cast ourselves on the mercy of our Maker. He offers it through the death and resurrection of his Son.

This is the point of all pleasure and all pain. Pleasure says: God is like this, only
better; don't make an idol out of me. I only point. Pain says: What sin
deserves is like this, only worse; don't take offense at me. I am a merciful
warning.

For the full article, click here

Para-church and Church Response

2005-08-30T09:56:00.000-05:00

Several days ago I made a post asking why there was not a public, Christian call to accountability for Pat Robertson. Not because of what he said, but because he at his best was misleading and at his worst, lied regarding what he said.

Weblog at Christianity Today shared my frustrations. However, he took the time to research what faith-based organizations, Church's and para-church organizations had to say in response to Pat. I read them and found myself pleasantly surprised.

You can read Weblog's post here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/134/33.0.html

Facts, Figures and Stats - Oh My

2005-08-24T16:11:00.000-05:00

My wife and I attend a great little church (that's growing so as not to be so little anymore). And we have some great friends there, people who love God and love each other. We have enjoyed our Sunday School class ever since it started. We branched off from an older class with another couple (that's right, there were 4 of us) and have watched it grow to 15 couples or more (give or take the Summertime travels or holiday trips).

The class has recently started a study of current events. To be honest, I hate the idea, but I am one for being "spot on" (as my friend Dave Ditges would say )with the will of the group. And the will of the group somehow landed on "pass the book of James and proceed directly to current events".

The discussion that we have been involved in have been interesting at best and downright frustrating at worst. I have even volunteered for nursery duty until this lesson plan runs its course - but have not successfully landed a spot. Our Sunday School teacher has done an incredible job of trying to fulfill the impossible task of keeping us on track (and I have not helped much at all). But let's be honest, talking about Homosexual Marriage and Abortion are not things that are going to engender a progression of spiritual growth and peace.

There are two things that get under my skin a bit in the class discussions. The first is that the conversation is generally a lot of WE vs. THEM. And to be quite honest, it's hard to not get a feeling of superiority, myself included. It's much the same way my buddies and I talk about the good old Florida Gators, the SEC golden child and greatest football team the the world compared to the pagan, cheating, shoe stealing Florida State Seminoles. The second thing that bothers me is the litany of statistics that are thrown out in the class. The idea is that we should be educated about what's going on in particular cultural or social movements. But to be honest, I do not trust the sources on either side to tell me what's going on. It's not to say that they are not well-intentioned, but rather that both sides have an agenda that will typically slip into their statistics. But even if there was no agenda, and even if the statistics are 100% unbiased, what good exactly will they do me. Let's say that, for some reason, I wanted to enter into a debate on the issue of a woman's right to choose at the watercooler one fine Monday morning. What good are statistics going to do me? Do I really think they are going to change someone's mind? If they do, my hankering is that they probably were not very well grounded in their beliefs in the first place. The reason is that any statistic that reinforces my position, is also going to reinforce the position of someone who takes the complete opposite stance as me.

My wife, God love her, is like every other sports fan in Georgia. They root for the bulldogs, because their families root for the Bulldogs. Make fun of the Falcons unless they're in contention and watch the Braves on Sunday afternoons because that's what you do between church services. I, on the other hand, am a Florida Gator fan. Now, I may tell my wife that the University of Florida is going to stomp Georgia this year because Urban Meyer, as a coach at Utah, ran the ball 68% of the time. My wife, will quickly tell me that Georgia will beat Florida precisely because Urban Meyer, as a coach at Utah, ran the ball 68% of the time. Our end result doesn't change the fact that Urban Meyer may have run the ball 68% of the time, but the fact that Urban Meyer ran the ball 68% of the time gives us different conclusions as to an anticipated outcome. In hindsight, this may not be a very good example, but I hope it illustrates a small point.

Statistics aren't going to change peoples mind when it comes to an issue that is close to the heart. Statistics are neutral. And people don't like to be wrong. So they use them to support, in general, a pre-conceived position. It's simply human nature. What people do like is to be loved, to be cared about, to feel important. And statistics can't give someone these things. But people can. And there's not a gathering of people more called and more indebted to give people these things than Christians. I guess what I'm trying to say is that when it comes to current events, I don't care so much about statistics, although I don't want to minimize their value. What I care about is what role are we playing in the conversation. Is the debate about proving ourselves right. Is it a debate at all really? When Jesus met the woman at the well, he didn't discuss the predicted outcome for a woman who has lived with many men. He didn't talk about the propensity for this woman to be poor, unwed, unloved and all the other things that this world so quickly offers to people. He gave her love. And love without qualification. She left feeling cared for, not better equipped to debate. She left with a sense of worth, not statistics.

There are a lot of ways we can influence the world around us. And we have organized so well in so many of those ways. Raised inconceivable amounts of money to fight for issues that we care about. I'd just like to see us put in half the effort to make the people we're trying to convince that they are worth something, loved by somebody and cared for beyond their wildest imaginations. I'd like to see us organize to bring hope to the hopeless.

Which Way Is It Pat?

2005-08-24T15:07:00.000-05:00

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go
ahead and do it,"

"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP [Associated Press], but that happens all the time," Robertson said on "
"Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement,"

By most definitions, I am a conservative under the generally accepted description. I generally vote for Republicans, tend to identify with so-called conservative philosophies more than so-called liberal philosophies, drive an SUV, eat red meat and attend church and Sunday School on Sundays (It should be noted that I do like Volvo's, have 2 Yoga DVD's and right about now am thinking that a hybrid vehicle isn't such a bad idea). This having been said and the air now cleared, let me be very clear on one thing. Pat Robertson doesn't speak for me. Neither do Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Tom Delay, Bill Frist or President Bush. My pastor doesn't speak for me, neither does my Sunday School teacher. The only person who speaks for me, other than myself, is my wife.....and she tends to do so without permission (but she does a better job than me - so why try to stop her). None of these guys speak for me, but sometime, if not a lot of times, when they speak, I agree with them.

I am trying to make a point here: People like me are generally considered to be "evangelical conservatives". And I won't argue the point that this is a very broad stroke with the brush. But I guess I am conservative and that I do strive towards evangelicalism, if by evangelical you mean "of or relating to the group in the church that stresses personal conversion and salvation by faith". But there are others who fall into this brush stroke, that I am not necessarily comfortable with. Pat Robertson being one of them. But more importantly, I do not like the idea of people viewing this guy as a "spokesperson" of "evangelical conservatives" (that's a lot of quotation marks).

I am trying to make the point that I can be a Republican without rubber stamping the Republican party line. In fact, I'm probably a better Republican by questioning the party line, poking holes at it and trying to figure out what is right and what is wrong. And while I'll generally agree with the broad philosophies, I do not have to agree with how they play out in policy.

Which brings me back to my boy Pat Robertson, purported voice of evangelicals, but equally important, creator of the Age Defying Pancake. As I mentioned earlier, I can occasionally agree with things that Pat Robertson says without always believing Pat Robertson is right. Equally if not more importantly, I can disagree with Pat Robertson without fear of the wrath of God. Pat Robertson has no more mandate from God than I do, the difference between the two of us is that he has a T.V. show while I have an old keyboard and a digital camera that sometimes works. The beauty of this country is that it is free. Which means that short of yelling fire in a movie theater, anyone can say anything they want. Freedom does not necessarily guarantee brilliance or even something as remote a concept as accuracy. Rather, it guarantees opportunity. And Pat seems to take advantage of this opportunity on a regular basis. I say this to say that because I like freedom, I don't have a problem with what Pat said. I don't agree with him, but hey, I don't agree with everyone all the time. That doesn't mean that I can't agree with them some of the time.

The beef I have with my old boy Pat is this: Pat Robertson lied, or at his best was a very confused old man (which couldn't be the case if he's eating his age defying pancakes). Pat made a statement, broadcast on television. Then Pat denied that he made the statement, saying instead he was mis-quoted or misinterpreted. Then Pat apologized for the alleged misinterpreted statement, saying that the misinterpreted statement was wrong. If you read his press release apology, or as CBN's website calls it, his clarification of his position, it's an interesting point. I said something I shouldn't have, but in doing so, I have brought attention to a problem that has been largely ignored. In other words, the ends justifies the means, at least a little bit. Here's the point: Pat may or may not be right or wrong in regards to assassinating this guy. It doesn't really matter if he's right or wrong - he can say whatever he wants. But here's an idea: Either stand behind it, or apologize unequivocally. Anything else is a disservice to those of us who are, by no reason of our own making, associated with him. His press release is a poor apology in that it still excuses something he says is wrong. It's a contradiction. And if it were someone like Ted Kennedy who said this, "Christian Evangelicals" would be all over him.

So maybe it isn't only Pat who is wrong, but us for allowing him to "speak for us" or at least, be identified with us. We tend to take it easy on folks who believe in God in the same way we do, even when they do something that dishonors that belief. Several months ago I read an interview with the head of the Christian Coalition. The interviewer was asking him his thoughts on the investigations into Tom Delay's political dealings. The head of the Christian Coalition made a statement that went something like this: Tom DeLay has been a friend of the family and conservative values in Washington. We stand behind him 100% and believe this to be a witch hunt of sorts. Now, I have looked for the article so that I can use quotes, but couldn't find it. You'll have to take my word on its accuracy. The point is that a group, strongly affiliated with Christians, jumped to this guys defense whether he be right or wrong. I would have much rather had this guy say something like this: Tom DeLay has been a vocal proponent for the values that we share. We are certainly grateful for that and will continue to work with him. If he is in fact guilty of the alleged charges, then he, like all public officials, should be held accountable. It just seems to me that we hop on people we disagree with much more readily than we hold those, whose standards we share, responsible when they are out of line.

Let me be clear one last time: I don't have a problem with what Pat said in so far as he has the right to say it. My problem is (1) people associate him with Christians in politics and that's embarrassing for someone like me who is (a) a Christian and (b) likes politics. And (2) Pat didn't have the backbone to just say, my bad....shouldn't have said it.....I'm sorry. And finally, my last problem is that someone should have come out, from a Christian perspective, and demand that Pat Robertson stop hiding behind some liberal media boogeyman when he says something stupid. Someone should have said: He doesn't speak for me!