ThomStratton.com

We went to a family reunion over the weekend, and one of the activities was a raft trip down the Provo River. Mind you, these are not rapids, and they let drinkers on inner-tubes float this river, so this was not all that dangerous. Even so, we had enough to do just steering to keep us busy so that it wasn’t a lazy float down a limping river. My neice’s husband has some experience as a river guide, which was interesting to see in practice. I’ve known for years he’s a good guy, but watching him in action boosted my estimations of him.

For starters, though we were all assured this was about as tame a river as they come, he didn’t take that for granted. The road to the launch point ran along much of the river we would raft, and he was watching carefully, doing his best to memorize the layout of the river, the potential areas to watch out for, and so on. No one got on the raft without a life jacket. As we got in the raft he gave us a rundown of safety instructions, what commands he would be giving, and how we were to respond to them. As soon as we launched we practiced maneuvering.

As the trip progressed it became evident that, while this river was ideal for tubing and indeed rather calm, there could still be unexpected hazards that, while perhaps not dangerous to us, could damage the raft. He immediately assigned people up front to keep watch for hazards. He acknowledged their warnings, even if he’d seen the hazard himself already.

There was one particular hazard he was especially concerned about. Near the bottom there was a bridge over the river, with pylons spaced not much wider than our raft. As we got close to it he began talking to other rafters to see what they knew about it, what their experiences had been. We decided to go for it, but for whatever reason (wimpy paddlers like me, most likely) we missed our mark and nearly got hung up on a pylon. Our captain leaped from the boat (it was shallow enough he could easily stand) and physically pushed the boat back into the channel. We slid through the gap, safe and sound. He knew what to do and acted while the rest of us were still trying to figure out what could be done.

One aspect of piloting a raft that I found interesting was that whenever we needed to steer our guide would instruct us to row. In hindsight it made perfect sense, but in an un-powered craft drifting with the river about all you can do is rotate. You cannot change your course. If you want to change your course you need to be going either faster or slower than the river. I’m sure there’s a life-lesson in that, but I’ll leave it for you to find. We sped up frequently in order to get into the right position on the river.

The other point that interested me was that many times when approaching a bend in the river he would have us adjust our facing well before we reached it. Part of the reason, I think, was because the river would change our direction, but not our facing. We’d change direction, but instead of facing down river we’d be facing the bank. By changing our facing in advance we would ensure our facing the right way.

The other reason, I believe, was the potential for sudden course changes. If we came around the bend and saw hazards ahead suddenly it would be much harder to avoid them if we first had to turn, and then row out of the way. By facing us down river in advance it increased our ability to respond to and avoid threats.

Most of the hazards, as I said, were only to the raft, not us. We all had life vests, and most of us could have stood up in the water and had our heads above the surface. Had our raft sunk we likely would have been fine. But there’s always that element of unpredictability with water, boats, and people (and kids). I’m quite happy our guide took even a placid river seriously and did his best to avoid trouble rather than just letting us bounce and bump our way down the river.

My respect for my neice’s husband increased on that trip. I’d trust him with my family on the water before I’d trust myself. I appreciate a guy who would rather take things more seriously than needed than not seriously enough. It’s harder to measure, but I often prefer to measure life by the avoidable problems that never happened.

There’s a meme-pic circulating right now quoting Jimmy Carter, which essentially says that you can’t object to tax dollars going to help the poor and still claim Christian values.

Really? I’m all ears. Please show the book, chapter and verse where it says “Render unto Caesar so that Caesar may help the poor.” You can claim Christ’s backing on a great many things, but you will be hard pressed to provide evidence that Christ ever advocated something so indirect and poorly-executed as governmentalized charity. Can you even call it charity if someone takes money from you and then decides how they want to help the poor with it, putting some in their own pocket along the way. It’s not charity if it’s mandatory.

On a very high level Mr. Carter is correct. If you are truly a Christian you can’t object to helping the poor. But to say that in order to be Christian you must support the government using your tax dollars to help the poor is really, really a stretch. If you can’t think of at least a few reasons why the government might not be your first choice for distributing charity your faith in government is approaching religious zealotry levels, and you really need to take a much harder look at government in general, and ours in particular.

Let’s say there’s a poor person that needs help. Let’s call him Joe, and let’s say that $20 is going to really to help him out right now. What would be the best way to help Joe?:

A) Give Joe $20.
B) Give the United Way $20 to help Joe.
C) Give a church $20 to help Joe.
D) Pay $20 more in taxes to help Joe.

Giving $20 directly to Joe is the most efficient way, obviously. Give it to a charity or even a church and there’s a chance not the full $20 will reach Joe, although that church or charity may have a greater range than you do. If you don’t know Joe personally or know that he needs the help you can’t help Joe at all. And Joe may have an easier time asking a faceless organization for money than someone he knows.

The same could be said for the government as other organizations. They also have the reach to ensure money gets to wherever it is needed. It may even exceed the reach of other organizations. But how much of that $20 gets to Joe? If you just pay $20 more in taxes you’ll be lucky if Joe sees $5. According to this Washington Post info-graph, 13% of taxes go to safety net programs, 21% goes to Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP, and 20% goes to Social Security. So depending on how you want to define what kind of help Joe needs, he may get only $2.60 of that $20. If he’s a hungry, sick senior citizen he may get as much as $11.20.

But let’s not forget those percentages likely include the cost all the government workers and facilities to implement those programs. The chart didn’t include any separate line items for government payrolls. Now how much do we think Joe’s really getting? You may think it’s acceptable to pay nearly 10 times as much in taxes, or $200 to make sure Joe gets his $20, but what if the government takes another $10 off the top as it’s delivery fee?

Do you get a warm-fuzzy feeling spending $400 to make sure Joe gets $10?

More importantly, what part of my Christian values should tell me 5% efficiency is a great way to help Joe? I don’t know about yours, but mine don’t. My Christian values tell me that if I can’t give the money directly to Joe myself, the next best thing I can do is go to my church with that $20. I can’t vouch for all, but I know that my church (and I know because I’ve been responsible for my congregation’s finances in the past), when I give $20 to help out someone in need, will make sure all $20 goes to help out people in need.

There are no administration costs, because there is exactly one person between me and Joe, and he is a volunteer. What’s more, he knows Joe’s situation specifically. If Joe needs that money for medical bills he can make sure it goes toward his medical bills. If Joe needs it to help pay his utilities it will go toward his utilities. If he needs food, he’ll get at least that much in food. Yes, there are some rules in which they have to operate, but they have much more flexibility than a government program often does. Joe doesn’t have to worry about how to use food stamps for car repairs.

If I happen to live in an area where the contributions are in excess of the local need, that money remains ear-marked for the poor, but gets pulled up to a higher level where it becomes available for areas where the need outweighs the contributions. If any personnel are paid to administrate this, their pay comes out of completely separate contributions and funds. The money dedicated to the poor remains 100% committed to that purpose. It’s sacred money.

So please tell me how it is un-Christian of me to prefer to help the poor by giving to my church instead of paying more taxes? Ideally I would know Joe well enough to know Joe’s needs myself and give that money directly to Joe, but as a backup, I still would prefer my church to the government as the intermediary. Call me funny, but I’d prefer that Joe get $20, not $2.60, or even $11.20. I could help eight “Joe’s” for what it costs me to pay the government to help just one.

But that’s not the only reason why otherwise charitable people might still not want the government as their intermediary. There is always room to disagree over just what really helps the poor. Governments, by nature, are bureaucratic entities. Nothing can get done without first writing a bunch of rules about it first. Ever try to write rules that cover every possible circumstance? Either you are too broad or you are too detailed. What works well in one corner of the country may work terribly in another.

For example, suppose we want to help keep the poor warm in winter, so we set up a program to give poor people $200 per month through the winter to help pay their utility bills. Except that will probably be too much in Florida or Texas (or Hawaii), too little in Alaska, and of no help whatsoever to someone living in their car or on the street. And some people will complain (and not without cause) that just handing them the money doesn’t ensure they don’t squander it on non-essentials.

So if you tweak the program to balance it between the states where it costs more to heat a home and the states where it costs less, and pay the utilitiy companies directly instead, then what? What about the guy in Minnesota who, to save money, bought a small house with a wood stove. He can cut his own wood for free, but needs a truck to haul it, and occasional repairs on his chainsaw. This program can’t help him, even though he’s trying to require as little help as possible.

My church could have found him someone with a truck to help out for next to nothing, paid for his chainsaw repairs, arranged a bunch of teenagers to help him stack it, and commended him for his self-sufficiency. While they were there they might have been able to notice if he needed some additional food to make sure he’s okay should a storm keep him shut in for a few days, or if he has some other needs they might not have known about. There’s little chance the government could be that flexible and that specific.

Let’s get one thing straight: I’m not opposed to my tax dollars going to help the poor. But if I question how they use it, what’s wrong with that? Aren’t we supposed to hold our government accountable for how it uses our tax money? If not, why did so many people get upset about $2000 toilet seats for the military? If we’re going to have them use part of our taxes to help people, shouldn’t we be checking to see if they’re really helping those people? Fire-n-Forget Charity is not really charity. It’s an open invitation to fraud. If you trust the government implicitly you’re not paying attention: the only difference in White House occupancy, usually, is which party’s friends get the graft.

So ideally, at least in my view, we best live up to our Christian values by helping the poor ourselves. We won’t always get it perfect, but we’ll certainly be able to tailor our help to meet the need much better than government can. And, because we can’t be everywhere, we give part of our charity to the most efficient organization we can find to reach out to others.

In some instances that may very well be the government. There is little chance my parents or any of their charitable friends could have provided the institutional-level care my sister required during her life spent in a near-vegetative state. Even if they could have provided the money they couldn’t have provided the care. Nor would it have been as efficient to duplicate hundreds of similar care situations across the state as it would be to fund one facility sufficient to cover the same need.

We need government involved in charitable activities. But we need to build a society, first and foremost, where people, not institutions, take on the bulk of the responsibility for caring for one another. Paying taxes helps, but it’s far too impersonal, and far too inefficient. It’s also not as rewarding. You’ll never get the same satisfaction from helping some nameless face across the country as you will reaching out to your next door neighbor and helping them in specific, meaningful ways. Even just giving some money to the guy at the gas station who asks me to help him out of a tough situation feels better than writing out my tax check. Who gets a surge of satisfaction looking at their paystub and noticing the federal withholding line?

Christ paid his taxes. But how many times did he tell someone who came to him “Hey, I paid taxes. Go ask the Romans for help”? He likely wouldn’t have complained if the Romans did use part of the taxes funds to help the poor (and some Romans were well known for their charity to the Jews). Very little that he did or taught was concerned with the government. He came to teach individuals how to live. And he told individuals to help the poor. His commandments to all of us were much more personal than “give to a faceless entity and hope they do the right thing with it.” His goal was to make government charity unnecessary by having each of us step up to help each other directly.

So you can rightly argue that Christians are failing in that regard. But to claim we don’t live up to our values by refusing to abdicate responsibility for the poor to the government is disingenuous. If paying taxes were all that Christians were doing to help the poor, you could be right in criticizing them for objecting to how the government helps the poor. If you abdicate that responsibility to the government you have little standing to complain.

But criticizing Christians for complaining that they could do a much better job with that part of their taxes the government devotes to helping the poor may very well be off the mark. Who are you to question their Christianity for feeling upset that Joe’s got $2.60 in his pocket instead of $20? Why would Jimmy Carter claim the government is the ideal charitable mechanism, if that’s indeed what he’s suggesting (or, the Internet being what it is, if that’s even what he said)?

Such criticism is similar to claiming that you can’t complain about tax dollars going to fund the military and still claim to value peace. A strong military is only one possible mechanism for peace and, however necessary, not the most ideal one.

I won’t say that “Government is not the answer.” As with the “War is not the answer” trope, that really depends on the question. But when it comes to truly effective charity and caring for the poor, government is far from the best answer. There are certain things governments are good at, and we should fund them to do those things, but when it comes to helping the people around us who need help, we are the answer. And based on his own personal example with Habitat For Humanity and other organizations, I think Jimmy Carter and I can agree on that.

I’m not entirely sure if there are any “good guys” in the whole Egypt political situation, but I’ve nonetheless been impressed with the Egyptian military. Whether they truly believe in their role as protectors of the people, or they’re at least smart enough to appear as though they do. This is twice now they’ve stepped in to recognize the public vote of “no confidence” in the ruling government and forcing elections. I don’t know the situation well enough to say they haven’t done their share of meddling in the elections they call for and help ensure, but seriously, how often do we see a military back the people over the entity that pays their paychecks?

Perhaps that’s the problem. Maybe the government hasn’t been paying their checks.

But usually the military props up the unpopular ruler, not gives them a deadline to step down in response to the people. It appears that the military there is doing a pretty good job of trying to uphold rule of law while honoring the will of the people. They haven’t attempted to wrest control of the country for themselves (perhaps that’s a statement on the state of the nation–they don’t want a mess that big!). They’ve simply stepped forward and said, “Enough is enough. The people are upset, and will only be placated by your removal. You will therefore respect their wishes and step down while we choose someone else.”

Meanwhile, the people themselves are showing amazing solidarity. I’ve been seeing headlines lauding the largest protests in the world. Granted, that may only be because they feel they can trust their military to protect them from the government, but it’s telling nonetheless. They may not agree on what shape the change should take, and it may take them a few tries to get it right, but they are coming together in unprecedented numbers.

It’s exciting to see–from a safe distance–but it seems apt to salute the people of Egypt on the day we celebrate our own revolution. I wish them luck and hope they can find a better road forward.

My family recently returned from a trip to Finland to visit my wife’s family. They returned bearing weaponry. During their last few days there they visited a Finnish castle and the nearby Renaissance Faire. The boys picked up medieval replica knives, and they all picked out a long knife for me. What did my daughter get? A throwing ax.

I’m not surprised. I know my daughter. She gets excited over weaponry. She climbs trees. She writes fantasy stories with violent aspects that surprise even me. She loves hiking. She also is devoted to a video blog on how to braid hair. She sews, and creates adorable animal figurines from clay. She loves Taylor Swift. She can “girlie” with the best of them, but only for so long.

While my wife and I still believe there is a difference in gender roles, we only take it as a guide, not the law. When our daughter has shown interest in “girlie” things, we’ve encouraged her. When she’s shown interest in “boy-ie” things we’ve encouraged that. In short, we encourage Emma to be Emma. We want her exposed to certain things, naturally, but if she’s not interested there’s little point trying to push her. We care more about what traits, talents and interests she can develop. We have little interest in trading one mold for another to try and force her into. 

Besides, I know darn well she didn’t really want a hand ax.

She would have prefered an archery bow or a full-size sword, but they wouldn’t have fit in her suitcase.

Eric Snowden is going to be a household name for some time yet. The US Government has all but guaranteed that now. The man who released information on the NSA’s controversial data mining of cell phone conversations and fled the country is technically a traitor, but the government seems bent on turning him into a folk hero.

Personally I don’t see what the fuss is about. The program didn’t originate with Obama, though he promised to shut it down–and evidently changed his mind. We’ve known about it for some time. Snowden’s reminding us of it has changed nothing, really. The only real change is how the government is attempting to deal with it.

Remember when the Obama administration pledged to be the most transparent administration in history? Remember when they vowed to protect whistleblowers? So do a lot of other people, who now find themselves scratching their heads over the administration’s determination to get the guy who told us what we already knew. Their attempts to date have alternated between The Evil Empire and The Keystone Cops.

Obviously the rest of the world is having a great laugh at our expense. Russia is flaunting our extradition requests, refusing to accept that Snowden has done anything worthy of arrest. Even countries we have good relations with seem to be dragging their feet to help, and laughing at our impotence. Snowden turns up in Hong Kong and leaves again without anyone stopping him. He turns up in Russia and sends reporters on a wild good chase to Cuba, thinking he’s on a plane there. Now we can only assume he’s in Russia, but does anyone really know?

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but about the only possible explanation here besides that our government is horrifically clueless is that the government is playing out this farce on purpose. They certainly have a lot of things they would prefer we not pay attention to right now. What better distraction than an international game of cat and mouse–it’s a Hollywood screenwriter’s dream come true! And Americans, as a rule, love watching the harmless rebel stick it to the over-reacting, incompetent Suits. Is there anyone besides government officials and hoping he’ll get caught and stand trial?

I don’t know what to make of the guy, frankly. I’m afraid I don’t want to look into it deeply enough to form an opinion. But I do see what’s going on. Americans love a folk hero. The government seems to be dead set on turning Snowden into one.

I don’t know why, but my brain is wired for movie quotes. If there is a movie quote to fit a situation I’ll probably find it. For example, our new Chief Risk Officer has hired consultants specializing in IT project implementation to come in and assist with a major system roll-out this fall. I’m on that project, and yesterday my boss’ boss came by with the consultants to introduce them around. The first thing that came to mind was a line from “Return of the Jedi”:

You may dispense with the pleasantries, Commander. I’m here to put you back on schedule.

I’m not sure how our consultant would take being compared to Darth Vader, so I kept it to myself. But that’s how my mind works. One of my proudest accomplishments has been the slow corruption of my wife to do the same.

The use of film quotes, however, is a tricky art. It only works if people know the quotes you apply. Not everything is as universal as you might think. But you usually can’t go too far wrong with a “Princess Bride” quote, so long as it’s in a group setting. There’s a good chance at least a few people in any group will know the movie. Star Wars is far safer than one might think, though you have to stick to the classic lines. My line above, for example, would probably only be recognizable to those toward the more geeky end of the spectrum.

A good movie quote, especially when you offer up an obscure one, can build instant rapport with those who recognize it. You become part of an elite group–those who have seen a movie and liked it enough to have lines stick in your head. Or, for that matter, you don’t even have to have seen the movie, so long as you know the line and can apply it effectively. I’ve never seen “Better Off Dead”, but I’m quite familiar with the line, “I want my two dollars!” You learn such things from hanging around with other movie-quoters.

Then, of course, there are the “party games”. Or perhaps they should more appropriately be called “It’s late, we’re tired, and anything is funny at the moment” games. A source of endless entertainment for some friends and me is the “Pants” meme. Take a movie quote, strike me down with all of your anger, and– no, wait. Take a movie quote and replace a key word with the word “pants.” For example, our quote above again:

You may dispense with the pants, Commander. I’m here to put you back on schedule.

Trust me, after midnight on a Friday after a long week this will keep you entertained for…a long time. Star Wars, for example, is full of possibilities:

I find your lack of pants disturbing…

Judge me by my pants do you? And well you should not!

I don’t know where you get your pants, laser-brain.

Slimy?! Mudhole?! My pants this is!

Luke: I see…a city in the clouds.  Yoda: Hmmm…pants you have there.

Darth: Obi-Wan never told you what happened to your pants.    Luke: He told me enough! He told me you killed [them].     Darth: No. I am your pants!

You get the idea. It works with any movie, really. Like Lord of the Rings:

By nightfall these pants will be crawling with orcs!

Pants, you fools!

I don’t think he knows about pants, Pip.

If you think this is totally daft–good for you! Stay away! Stay far away! If this is already starting to corrupt your brain and setting you to work thinking of quotes to twist, then feel free to leave some in the comments!