Name that movie II

I had a number of my favorite movie quotes rolling around in my head at work today. That, coupled with my pledge to return to carefree, happy days of blogging following the "pariah" series has led me to believe it is time for a second "Name that Movie" quiz. You know the drill...

#1 - Oh, I forgot. You were sick the day they taught law at law school.

#2 - Look, it's not in my nature to be mysterious. But I can't talk about it and I can't talk about why.

#3 - "Hey, Frisbee, far out!" "What was the meaning of that?" "It was right in front of him."

#4 - "Try not to sing anything that reminds them they're in prison." "You think they forgot?"

#5 - "You could be crippled for the rest of your life." "I was crippled for the rest of my life. I got better. He made me better. Hell, you made me better"

#6 - " You know it's funny what a young man recollects? 'Cause I don't remember bein' born. I don't recall what I got for my first Christmas and I don't know when I went on my first outdoor picnic. But I do remember the first time I heard the sweetest voice in the wide world. "

#7 - "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid"

Okay, that's enough for this time.

Why I'm a political pariah - Wrapping it all up

Okay, so when I said "tomorrow", what I really meant was "next week". I need to get this done so I can go back to the carefree, happy days of blogging I used to know.


Anyhow, when I last wrote, I said that the aim of both Christian right and left to "legislate God's kingdom to earth" was flawed on its face, and self-defeating. Let me expand on this point. Laws are designed to modify behavior, and while I don't go as far as some of my like-minded political brethren, you have to acknowledge that law is generally coercive. However, laws are powerless to change hearts, which is the true shift needed to effect the kind of kingdom that both Christian left and right seek. The New Testament screams it loud and clear - the Old Testament law was powerless to eliminate sin. Why then, should we suppose that human laws would be any more successful than God's law was with these particular aims?

Laws treat symptoms, and leave the disease running around unchecked. As noble as the Christian left's ideal of creating more financial equity is, taking from the rich and giving to the poor does not address the human problem of greed. In fact, in my opinion, it compounds the problem, because in my experience, when you take something from someone that they don't want to give up, they just cling tighter to the rest of their stuff. And the right's desire to legislate certain personal moral issues (prayer in public schools, etc) is also self-defeating, because forcing someone to do something they have no desire to do on their own is more likely to push them away than draw them towards it.

While I don't think the church should completely shy away from the political discussion, I have to admit I often look around and see politics as something of a red herring (much like communism - a cookie to the person who gets that reference) that the enemy uses to distract the church from its real mission. Let me flesh this out a bit. The example I come back to most often on this is abortion. Let me be completely clear before I start - I am against abortion, or at least abortion as birth control. I absolutely think it should be illegal. All of that being said, there's something I often wonder. I wonder what the abortion rate in this country would look like if the Church and its members had spent all the time, money, effort, etc that have gone into the political quest (which to date has been fruitless) to re-criminalize abortion and instead used it to minister to teenage mothers, to sponsor and promote adoptions, and to generally care for those who find themselves in the situation of an unplanned pregnancy. Let me be equally clear - I know there are plenty of people who do this, and many who do so along with their efforts in the political arena. However, it's undeniable that a lot of Christian resources have gone into the political fight. What would that look like? I can only speculate, but I have to think abortion would be viewed differently in this country. I can almost guarantee one thing however, and that's that "evangelicals" who oppose abortion would be viewed in a much different light. The end result of all our strivings in the political arena has largely been a kick to the air, wasted resources, and the creation of a very negative caricature of people of faith who oppose abortion. The same can be said of the Christian left - what if the money, time, and effort devoted to pursuing the cause of the poor in the political realm was spent actually caring for the poor (again, of course there are people who do this, and who do both).

I will say, however, that I have a special concern about the aim of the left towards government wealth redistribution. While I believe that the church in Acts where there were no needy people is the ideal, I have to also note two things. #1 - The government certainly had no part in making that happen, and #2 - it wasn't even a mandate with in the church, it was something the people chose to pursue. Remember Ananias and Sapphria? The story makes it clear that their sin was not in holding money back for themselves, but in lying about it to gain favor from the people. With that being said, I have to come back to the "two kingdom" piece. Creating a bigger government with higher taxes by definition takes resources from God's kingdom and hands them over to man's kingdom. I have no problem with the church coming alongside the government and working with it where our interests align, but I have a serious hesitation towards willingly handing over our resources to them for those purposes. A secular government has no mandate to maintain the priorities of the church for which those resources were given, and isn't likely to give them back if those priorities change. Jesus told his followers to feed and clothe the poor, and I just don't see that He had in mind for us to abdicate that responsibility to the government.

"Give to Caeser what is Caeser's, and to God what is God's". Well, in today's world, we have a say in just how much Caeser demands. To me, it just seems right that, as citizen's of God's kingdom, we should elect to have Caeser demand as little as possible, so that we have more left over to give to God.

Why I'm a politcal pariah - Kingdom Confusion

Disclaimer: Up until now, I've used the terms left and right to refer generally to those sides of the politcal spectrum, as traditionally defined, and as a whole. As I begin to land this plane, I'm turning my focus specifically to Christian politics. So, when I use the terms left and right, there will be an implied "Christian" in front of them, to make that distinct. I suppose I could just right that everywhere, and it would probably take less time than this disclaimer has taken, but that's just not how I roll.

Disclaimer #2: I'm fully aware that there will be some generalizations within the contents of this post.

So, reaching back, I discussed the two kingdom idea - that we as Christians are citizens of God's kingdom, as well as whatever earthly kingdom they happen to dwell in. I also stated that we are supposed to be citizens of God's kingdom first, and of our earthly kingdom second. However, as I also mentioned, since Biblical times, government has developed and evolved to the point where in many countries, everyday, ordinary people (and by extension, everyday, ordinary Christians) have a level of participation and influence in their earthly kingdom in a way that was just not a Biblical reality.

One result of this, at least as I see it, has been what I will dubb "Kingdom Confusion" - that is, a blurring of the lines between God's kingdom and man's kingdom, which comes about as people of faith are given the opportunity to express their ideals and beliefs via their vote. This phenomenon did not exist in Biblical times. God's kingdom and man's kingdom were either clearly one (as with the nation of Israel in much of the Old Testament), or clearly and obviously distinct (as with the Roman Empire in the New Testament).

What kingdom confusion really winds up being at its core is Christians trying to set up their earthly kingdom in the pattern of the heavenly one, or at least their picture of it. (As I've learned recently, one of the somewhat frustrating things about Jesus was that for all that he talked about the kingdom, he never clearly defined it, but that's an aside). That's a noble idea, at least on its face. The problem with it, however, is that, as I said, the kingdom of God isn't exactly well spelled out in Scripture, and as such, as humans, we have a pretty hard time agreeing on what the kingdom should look like. And unfortunately, rather than really examining the Scriptures and carving our own path, we have, for the most part, allowed ourselves to be forced into one of the two traditional sides, left and right, based on our view of Scripture.

The right tends to focus on setting up God's kingdom from a perspective of personal and individual responsibility, its signature issues being more those of personal morality. The left, on the other hand, tends to look at setting up God's kingdom from a perspective of collective responsibility, the signature issues being those of equality and provision for the poor.

I said "the problem" earlier, but there's really at least 2 problems, and the second problem is actually much more significant. The second problem is that, as I see it, trying to legislate God's kingdom to earth via the mechanisms of a secular government is a task that is flawed on its face, and self-defeating, in my opinion. This is an opinion I shall cover in more detail tomorrow (cross your fingers) in what should be my final post (keep them crossed) on this subject.

Checking back in

This "Why I'm a Politcal Pariah" series has been the slowest developing set of posts ever, and I apologize for that. To be honest, I'm a bit surprised I got two installments done last week. You see, lately, it seems like whenever the climate starts to change in the spring and fall, my sinuses go crazy, and I woke up on Monday all clogged up and not feeling very good at all. I fought through it, fortunately mainly only had to go to work and then come home with little planned in the evenings for most of the week, and so was able to squeeze out a few blog entries. By the time I was mostly feeling better, it was Thursday and I needed to set myself to cleaning the house and making other preparations for the visit of my cousins from California on Saturday afternoon. They have 6 kids (7th on the way), the oldest being like 13 or 14, youngest being 2 1/2, so there were preparations. It was a relatively short visit, and it was a beautiful day so we were able to take advantage of the playground and pavilion adjacent to my development. Poor Chaser went absolutely bonkers while being kept in his crate with all the people running around the house, however.

I spent most of last evening just chilling out, and then was captivated by sports this afternoon (primarily the Ryder Cup, which I blogged about over on Peanut Vendors, but also the Phillies playing to bolster their playoff hopes, and Week 3 of the NFL. It was actually a very nice weekend as a followup to a week of feeling under the weather. A few things to do, but overall very calm and relaxing.

I have every intention of wrapping up my "pariah" postings with one or two more posts early this week. We'll see how it goes. I am going somewhere with this, trust me!

Some clarification

I think I ran around in circles a bit, and also dwelt only on a "left" issue in my last post, so I wanted to make an effort to say things a bit more simply.

What will follow is a series of statement pairs. The first statement in each pair is a moral judgment, the second a political view that corresponds to it:

"I believe everyone should have access to basic healthcare" and "I believe that the government should provide basic health care for everyone"
"I believe everyone should worship and pray to the Christian God" and "I believe that the government should sponsor worship and prayer at public schools and other government functions and facilities"
"I believe those who have been blessed with wealth should give to those less fortunate" and "I believe the government should tax those who have been blessed with wealth and give that money to the less fortunate"
"I believe that children shouldn't be exposed to violent television and video games " and "I believe the government should make sure children don't have access to violent TV programs and video games"

I hope you can see how, while the 2nd statement is always one that can follow from the first, none of the political views are mandated by the moral judgment. The 2nd statements are solutions someone might favor for the moral problem, and you can favor a different solution without starting from a different moral judgment.

Why I'm a political pariah - Moral vs. political issues

One of my pet peeves is how often political issues are framed as moral issues. I also believe this is one of the reasons why politics is so divisive even within the church. One would assume (though this is not always the case) that Christians should share a relatively similar moral base, so when our politics differ, it can be a significant barrier, because we assume this points to some massive gap in morality. However, political issues and moral issues are not the same thing, at least not by definition, and therefore two people with very similar moral fibers can arrive at different political conclusions. It happens, all the time.

Before I go much further, let me be clear that some political issues are, in fact, moral issues. The best examples I can come up with would be those of crime and punishment (capital punishment being the most noteworthy), abortion, and war. These sorts of issues, not surprisingly, fall around the most basis function of government - to protect the lives of it's citizens.

Many other political issues, however, are not, in fact, moral issues, but rather, they are debates about how to best solve moral questions - or better yet - what the role of government is in dealing with these moral issues. So, on these issues, what you generally wind with is two sides grasping for a moral high ground (which doesn't exist if there's not a moral question at stake), and serving to make the issue that much more heated and divisive.

The best example I can use to make the distinction is on issues of social programs and welfare. The moral question at issue is that of our collective responsibility to deal with poverty and help the poor. The political issues all stem from questions regarding what the government's role in helping the poor is. A person with a deep personal concern and a heart for the poor can easily be found on either side of the spectrum on these issues - the difference is not in their concern for the moral problem, but in their view on what the best solution is. That's not, however, how the issue is allowed to be framed. The debate is often allowed to drift to being about IF we're going to care for the poor, not how. Nothing frustrates me more than to hear someone say they are starting to "lean left" on social issues, when upon further review all they are really saying is that they've become more concerned about the plight of the poor and disaffected. Now, none of this is to say that there aren't people who are against welfare and social programs and actually DON'T have any concern for the poor, but your political stance on this issue just isn't enough information define your moral view.

This is why I'm not a fan of terms like "compassionate conservatism" - the qualifier suggests rather strongly that conservatism on its own is somehow devoid of compassion. It just plays into prior negative stereotypes, and further frames debate as a moral one rather than a political one.

You can hold a belief regarding a moral issue without believing it's the government's role to enforce said belief - it's not inconsistent. I think, in general, we'd find political debate much less rancorous if we did a better job of making these kind of distinctions.

It's not my fault!

Seriously, I wasn't being a tease by promising a new post in my "Why I'm a political pariah" series for yesterday. I came home yesterday having run my thoughts over in my head on the bus ride home, all kinds of prepared. I got home, took care of the dog, sat down at the computer all ready to type, and there was no internet. That's right, once again, I didn't have service. And, as I found out today, it was once again the result of idiots who were doing utility work and dug indiscriminately, cutting my line somewhere. Unlike last time, the severed cable was not left poking up above the ground, so we don't know where it was cut. The Verizon tech ran a temporary line across the yard, which will keep me functioning until they can get out here and bury a new permanent line. So, I should be good to go, at least until the mowers come...

Look for the new "pariah" post later this evening.

Why I'm a politcal pariah - The Bible and politics

Wow, it took me a while to come back this one. I guess when I'm dealing with heavier material, I can more easily find an excuse to not to blog.

Anyhow, I think one of the reasons that the question of faith and politics is so difficult for the modern day church is that politics as we know them today really didn't exist in Biblical times. I mean, yes, there were governments, and I'm sure that people had ideas and strong opinions about them (see how the Jews in Jesus' time viewed tax collectors, for instance), but the idea that the average person could have a direct (or a strong indirect, if you what to nitpick) voice in the government would have been a foreign concept to Biblical audiances. Think about it - the prevailing forms of government we see in the Bible were: a familial/tribal system, a theocracy led at various times by chosen priest/prophets/judges, a monarchy, and various forms of empires and other occupying forces. So, there's some variety there, but one common theme - if you were an individual outside the ruling class and wanted something to change, you basically had two choices: plead your case to the ruling class and hope they listend, or start an armed rebellion. You couldn't just rally public support to bring about a peacable change in the government, at least not in general.

These facts make it pretty clear why, at least as I read Scripture, human government is something that is presented as a reality that must be dealt with, but not something in which people are exhorted to be an active voice for change. I don't think that's necessarily because we as followers of Christ aren't supposed to have such a voice, but such a concept just didn't make sense in the political landscape. That's why, especially in the New Testament, after earthly government had clearly passed into the realm of humans, you see Jesus, and later Paul, focusing on how we are to live with each other, inside and out of the church, and leaving the government as an entity that is there with a purpose, but ultimately outside of our specter of influence. "Give to Caeser what is Caeser's" and "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men" are the kind of statements that characterize the New Testament message about human government - a reality to be acknowledged and a construct in which we have to operate within.

None of this is particularly to support one view of the Christian's responsibility for involvement in modern democratic governments, but only to say that I don't believe the Bible lays out a clear picture of what the church/state relationship should look like in the modern era. One thing that is clear, however, is that we are to be citizens of God's kingdom first, and whatever earthly kingdom we live in second.

More tomorrow, I hope.

Why I'm a political pariah - Introduction

I'm going to apologize up front in the event that this post ends up being rambling, or incoherent, or both, or whatever. There's also a good chance I may be inadvertantly starting a series of posts, because I may not be able to contain all this in one post. However, I'm about to inflict you with some mullings and musings that have been rattling around in my head for the last several weeks, and also scattered across a number of conversations in that time, and I feel the need to write about them to try and bring them all together. We shall see if I succeed.

It's interesting to me that, despite my largely successful efforts to shield myself from the onslaught of the election (I watched all of 5 minutes of either convention, and that was primarily by accident), I've spent a relatively significant amount of time evaluating my personal politics in the last number of weeks, primarily on a foundational level more so than an issue by issue level. It's probable that one of the main causes for this was an upcoming series of messages at my church, entitled "When Kingdoms Collide: A Closer Look at Faith and Politics" That series began last night, and despite some trepidation on my part, I was very pleased with it's beginnings, as it seems we're really going to be looking at what it means to be citizen's of God's kingdom first, while still living in an earthly kingdom as well. I've been conditioned to worry about such topics in church, simply because too often they became a soapbox for the politic leanings of the pastor or denomination, which "of course" are the leanings that all people of true faith should have. As I'm sure I'll get to at some point today, tomorrow, or whenever, I think the idea that "true Christians" should all fall along a similar political line is ridiculous, and extremely.

If you've been on this blog for a while, you know that I'm a pariah politically. By that, I mean I'm a registered 3rd party, and that party happens to be Libertarian. That's right, I'm a card carrying (okay, not really, who carries their voter registration card around?) nutjob! I used to be a fairly traditional member of the "religious right", and like so many, believed (though I probably never would have said it) that that's where all "true Christians" should find themselves. I have voted in two presidential elections in my life time, and voted for George W. Bush both times, the first time enthusiastically, the second time much less so. The years since the last presidential election left me disillusioned with the Republican Party in particular, but really more so with the political process as a whole. That left me diving for the Libertarian way of thinking. I figure, since I can't stand any of these guys, why not advocate for there to be less of them, and for them to have less control over my life, and my money. In the message on Sunday, the question was asked as to whether our political leanings were based more in our personal preferences, or in our faith and how we read Scripture - more on my thoughts on this question itself to come in a future post. I'll be flatly honest, as I made my shift from mainline evangelical voter to the right fringe of the political spectrum, I didn't really give anything much more thought than my frustration with the norm and the appealing nature of less government involvement in my life.

That began to change about 9 months ago or so, at an event our young adult group held for a discussion of, what else, faith and politics. I'm still not really sure why I even went to that thing, except that I had nothing else going on that particular night. Anyhow, it ended up being myself and a few other Libertarian leaning thinkers explaining ourselves to several folks, including the guy in charge, who definitely fell to the left of us (though I can't say they were classic liberals). I thought overall it was a healthy exchange of ideas, maybe a little heated a times, but still good. I think I blogged about it here, but I'm too lazy to go look. Regardless of all that, the one thing that really impressed me about the leader was that, whether I agreed with his views or not, he was clearly looking to Scripture for guidance and wasn't willing to overlook certain things just for convenience. And what concerned me was that, while I had a lot of the practical rhetoric worked, I really couldn't come back strongly and discuss my political worldview in the context of my faith,or at least I couldn't do it very well.

So, bit by bit, little by little, I've been asking those questions ever since - not from the perspective of "what should Christians believe about politics?" but from the perspective of whether my politics and my faith are consistent. I think I've finally got some answers, and so that's what I'm going to attempt to lay out here over however many posts it takes me. And with that, we've reached the end of post one!

On Wii elbow

So, thus far I haven't done a good job of keeping to my commitment to keep posting regular after the arrive of my Wii. Oh well. Anyhow, as you might have guessed, the Wii did arrive safely on Saturday (and in related news, the accessory they told me they weren't going to be able to send me actually showed up Friday, without being charged to my credit card - I'm reporting this and hoping that Radio Shack rewards my honesty).

Saturday was actually about the perfect day for the Wii to show up. With Tropical Storm Hanna in town for most of the day, I didn't feel the least bit guilty about staying at home and playing with my new toy. In fact, I probably got considerably more activity in with the Wii than I would have without the Wii. Although, I might have finished cleaning the house... The delivery guy came nice and early, so by about 10 am I had the system set up and was dancing around my basement playing the Wii versions of tennis, bowling, baseball, etc. I also mixed in some air driving with Mario Kart Wii. Feeling like I needed a shower after a couple of hours of video games was a new experience for me, to say the least.

When I got up the next morning, I discovered something that I hadn't anticipated, but probably should have. My right forearm was sore, from the shoulder down to the elbow. The various motions involved in Wii Sports, when repeated extensively without warmup by an arm that isn't in any kind of condition for them (softball season ended several weeks ago) is clearly capable of producing effects not unlike those produced by the real sports themselves. I had heard of tennis elbow, but before Sunday morning, the idea of Wii elbow had not crossed my mind. Of course, since the Wii has been around for close to 2 years now, I was not the first one to coin this term, and a quick Google search gave me all kinds of insight into my mallady.

Undeterred, I have continued to spend time honing my various virtual skills, all while favoring my first real video game injury. What can I say, I'm a glutton for punishment - at least punishment of this variety!

It's coming...

So, in addition to not ultimately preventing me from forgeting my mother's birthday, last Thursday's family get together is also going to wind up having been a very costly venture. Why is that you ask? Well, we were at my sister's house, and they have a Wii. After dinner, we got involved in a friendly game of Mario Kart on the Wii. Even though I was terrible at it as a first time, it was a ton of fun, and it served to remind me just how much I liked the Wii.

I had long ago (like a year or more) decided that if I was to get one of the new generation gaming consoles, it would be a Wii. The other systems have just gotten too complicated and involved, and the few times I'd encountered the Wii, I'd really enjoyed the simplicity of it, and the fact that it actually involved some real activity. However, I held off on a purchase because a) I didn't really have the money at the time anyhow, and b) at that time, they were ridiculously scarce. You either had to stake out stores for them, pay through the teeth for them on eBay or some other similar site, or buy these ridiculously expensive bundles online that gave you stuff you really didn't want. None of those options particularly appealed to me, so I waited. And after Thursday night's experience, I evaluated my finances and figured I could probably have a nice little splurge here.

These days, they are still relatively scarce, and best I can tell you're still not very likely to find one in a store around here unless you go on a Sunday morning, when the new shipments come in. They are also still difficult, but not impossible to find in stores online, especially if you aren't interested in the massive bundles. And actually, by Friday night, I had a located an HDTV that I thought I could swing that was all set to buy instead anyhow. However, when I went in to Circuit City to buy it on Saturday, I had massive second thoughts. (As an aside: Circuit City folks, here's a hint. I don't care if this is Penn State country and you have employees and customers who'd like to see the game in the store - if the Big Ten Network has a pretty questionable picture from the source you use, it's probably best not to have it showing on a bunch of TVs you'd like to sell). So, I returned home empty handed and set my sights back on the Wii. And lo and behold, I found a site (Radio Shack) that had the base console package in-stock. I ordered it, and waited. I got the order confirmation, it said the items had been located in stock, and I waited some more. Now, it was a Saturday afternoon when I ordered, with Labor Day on Monday, so I wasn't expecting the thing to ship before Tuesday. And it didn't, but when I hadn't gotten a shipping notification by the time I went to bed last night, I was becoming concerned that perhaps this thing wasn't actually in stock, and I had wasted several days of my search.

However, lo and behold, when I woke up this morning, I had the shipping notification. A moment of panic followed however, when I saw a second e-mail that started off with something like "We are sorry to inform you that..." NOOOOOOOOO! Fortunately, upon further inspection, the e-mail indicated that they were out of stock on an accessory that I had purchased, but the Wii itself was on the way. If FedEx's tracking system isn't lying to me, I should have it on Saturday. I'll try to keep up with the blogging after its arrival, but no promises :-)

I'm a terrible son

Okay, so that's not really true, and I know that my mother doesn't think that, even a little bit.

However, I did forget my her birthday, which was yesterday. And worse than that, it wasn't like I woke up this morning and realized it. Mom called me this afternoon and dropped a massive hint over the phone, causing me to slap myself on the forehead and start falling all over myself with apologies. Fortunately, my mother is not one who tends to get all bent out of shape over these things, though that probably makes me feel worse about having forgotten, really. There are mothers in this world who would not have called me today and let me off the hook right away, but would rather have waited until I either remembered, or until we talked about something else and would have been all irritated until either I realized my mistake, or until they couldn't contain themselves and scolded me.

This is actually a rarity for me, and I'm pretty sure I exceed the normal expectations for male children in this particular area. (Maybe I'm still living off some of the brownie points I got a couple years ago when I remembered to call on Mom and Dad's 30th anniversary and my sister forgot) The thing is, I knew this was going to happen this year, and didn't take appropriate measures to deal with the situation.

Mom's birthday is almost invariably the one I come closest to forgetting. And that's got nothing to do with anything other than the fact that there are much more clear warning signs around the birthdays of my Dad and my sister. Dad's birthday is right after the New Year. My sister's birthday is right before Valentine's Day. Mom's birthday, on the other hand, is in a rather blah time of the year. It's right around Labor Day, but it can be before, after, or on it because unlike the other holidays, Labor Day moves. And really, unlike Christmas/New Year's and Valentine's Day, Labor Day isn't a "season" that perks up your attention. It's a nice 3 day weekend, but you don't really think about Labor Day outside of the actual weekend.

Anyhow, as typical, I had gotten pretty darn close to Mom's birthday without having realized how close it was. I was thrown a potential lifeline last Thursday, however, when we had a family get together for a belated celebration of my brother-in-law's birthday. (You know what family, I'm not sure I actually even know Tim's actual birthday, so someone should give me the date so I can start working it into my mental calendar. It'll take a few years I'm sure) Mom's birthday came up in conversation and I was like "Oh, yeah, that's coming up." But, rather than put some reminders in place when I got home that night, I just went to bed. I still think I would have been okay, had Labor Day not been the day before, or had I (as is often the case) not had other Labor Day plans and either gone to see the family again, or just had a relaxing day. As it was, I was busy all day on Monday, didn't get home until very late, went right to bed, got up yesterday, went to work, came home, rushed off to a meeting, got home from that around 9:30 and was in bed by like 10, all without a second thought as to the date and what it meant.

So Mom, even though I already told you this on the phone, once again, I'm sorry, and I hope you had a great birthday.

On the lure of the lottery

Wow, it's been a while. I wonder if I even remember how to do this...

Anyhow, I've been kicking this one around in my head for a while, and now the time has come to finally blog about it.

When I changed offices, I wound up sitting behind the woman that handles the lottery pool at my new office. If you've never encountered an office lottery pool, these are the folks that put money every week to buy a bunch of lottery tickets, with the hope that one day, one of those tickets will hit the big jackpot and they will all split the winnings. Sitting where I sit, I'm quite often a witness as people come by and drop of their money and have their various conversations, about what the jackpot is this week, what the cash value is, what each person's share would be, whether it would be enough to quit their jobs or not. I don't know if this is standard lottery pool procedure, but it wouldn't surprise me in anyway to know that it is.

Now, I have to make a couple things clear - I'm not opposed to gambling, at least responsible gambling. I have a regular poker game that I'm a semi-regular at. We play relatively small stakes, and have fun hanging out. Really, responsible gambling is no different than any other form of entertainment, with the exception of the fact that there's zero chance of you getting your movie or amusement park admission back. However, and I apologize upfront if anyone who reads this participates in a lottery pool on a regular basis, continual lottery play on a serious level just seems to me to be a less than brilliant idea. I guess if you're just throwing in the odd dollar a week for a single Powerball ticket, it's not a big deal, but that's not what many of these people are doing. I know this because a) I see some of the transactions, and b) because a group of them that play a certain game all won over $200 a piece shortly after I started over there, which they all put right back into their balance for buying future tickets, and they are all well back into having paying on a weekly basis. I think the one guy said he was good for 7-8 weeks after that win. That means he's putting at least $25 a week towards the lottery. And you here folks talk about needing more for retirement. I'd love to see the numbers on what even a relatively conservative investment of $25 a week could net you by retirement time. One things for sure, it's WAY more than your expected return from buying the lottery tickets every week. That's the thing about the lottery - the only way for someone who plays week in and week out to come out ahead is to catch that lightning in a bottle and get the big payday. Chances are these folks will wind up having almost literally flushed hundreds and even thousands of dollars down the toilet by the time they hit retirement (and some probably will continue to do so afterwards).

It strikes me as one of the problems with our society and money that so many people are willing to constantly throw a sure thing (money in the hand) at a pipe dream (a big lottery payday). However, I do enjoy the comic relief that some of their vocalized daydreams provide me.