I remember my brother was nice to me when I was little. When he got a bicycle and I was too young to get one, he would ride me double before he rode off on his own, and then again when he came home from riding around the neighborhood. When Mom let him go downtown, but said he had to take me with him, he wasn't mad. He even bought me a ring at Woolworth's. When some neighborhood girls were picking on me, and Mom said I had to fight back or get a whipping, he took on the biggest girl even though she was bigger than him! And he scared away the others, and even yelled at our mom (no one ever yelled at Mom).
I remember my brother was smart. Before I started school, he said 'you're not going to embarrass me by going to school ignorant. You're going to learn to read and write and count before you go. And he taught me. I don't know how much time he spent doing it, but I do remember being eager, almost hungry, to learn. I don't think any other teacher in the world could have done better. My desire for knowledge grew out of my desire to make my brother happy, and I will always be thankful to him for it. Years later, when being smart was equivalent to being unpopular, I never considered slacking to fit in. Thank you, brother.
I remember my brother could be mean. He would boss me around, hit me sometimes (never very hard), yell at me, change the radio station if a song came on that I liked, tell me scary stories and hide my toys. When I was four years old he convinced me that every day was my birthday and Mom didn't love me because she didn't buy me a birthday present. I learned quickly how to take orders, how to fight back when I'd had enough, how to not be intimidated by yelling, how to pick my battles, how not to indulge fear unnecessarily, how to take better care of my things, and that I shouldn't believe everything I hear. Thanks again, bro.
I remember my brother broke my heart. He told me never to contact him again, and then he stopped speaking to me. I had decided to move away, and he didn't want me to go. I could understand his wanting me to stay. He couldn't understand why I had to go. That was 25 years ago. I just found out he's dying. If he were conscious, I would try to go and talk to him one more time, but he isn't. He's gone, and he's to be taken off life support this week. I can't go because he isn't there. I don't know who that man is or what his life has been the last 25 years. I can only pray that he's at peace, and not in pain anymore. And pray that he knows, somehow, that I will always remember my brother.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Saturday, April 23, 2011
How To Fix Stuff (Part Two - Welfare)
I think the majority of people who have an opinion on the matter would agree that the welfare system needs an overhaul. The problem seems to be that, as with most other government-run programs, the powers that be cannot or will not agree as to what needs to be done and how to go about it. I'd like to first give some information about what's happening now (as I see it), then a summary of what needs to happen (again, as I see it).
What's happening now:
I tried to find some information on how much money is being spent on welfare programs currently. I now have a new appreciation for the phrase 'looking for a needle in a haystack'. Every time I thought I was close to finding the needle, I just found another haystack. Maybe if I didn't have a job and could devote more time to research....oh, well. Here's what I did find http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofs/data/2009/table_a1_2009.html
I confess I didn't take a lot of time studying that report. Seeing the twenty-plus billion dollar figure at the bottom made me a little sick. I decided to back up and take a look at what's happening closer to home, to reduce the problem to a level I can more readily comprehend.
I personally have known families who have lived on welfare benefits from generation to generation, women who have had numerous children and subsequently increased the amount of 'assistance' they receive, people who display no shame for the fact that they do nothing to affect change for their present situation or for the future of their children. The government would have us believe that there are rules and limitations to the amount and duration of assistance available, but the fact is that the people who have been raised on welfare know the loopholes and know how to manipulate the system. If one can have a higher standard of living on welfare than would be available if they got a job, what motivation is there to change? I do not mean to suggest that everyone who receives welfare falls into this group, but in my personal experience, there are far more of this type than those who use the current system as a stepping stone to improve their situation.
What needs to happen:
Again, keeping it on the personal level, I believe that every person receiving welfare benefits needs to be required to participate in a complete home economics course. For those who would ask 'where's the money for that coming from?', remember that there's over twenty billion in the pot already. I'm no accountant, but I'm sure we can find the funding somewhere. I'm talking about a program that teaches everything from budgeting to sewing. If I'm going to give a person money to live on, I'll feel a lot better about it if I know they're making an effort to live on less. A complete home economics course would include teaching about nutrition, proper food storage and preparation, gardening, canning, etc.
Every government housing project needs to include a community garden in which all residents are required to participate. Those with real disabilities who cannot physically participate should be assigned tasks that are within their range of abilities. I understand that some people are severely disabled. Under the revised system, there would be funds to provide for those individuals.
Some states are working on requiring mandatory drug-testing for people who receive government assistance, and I think it's a fabulous idea that should be put into practice nation-wide. Most employers require you to pass a drug screen to be eligible for employment, so it doesn't make sense that it's easier to get welfare than to get a job. People who fail can have the option of participating in a rehab program, with benefits to be reinstated upon successful completion, and continued benefits contingent on passing future tests.
Every individual receiving benefits who is able to do so should be required to attend vocational classes or some type of program with an eye toward increasing their marketability and expanding their job choices. They should be allowed to change programs if they find they are not suited to the one they're in, but quitting altogether would result in loss of benefits.
The amount of benefits awarded should never equal more than the current federal minimum wage. This sounds harsh, and I often hear people say you can't live on minimum wage, but the idea here is to make getting a job preferable to living on welfare. And I say that if you provide good home economics education, people can live on minimum wage. Maybe not the rock-star, designer clothes, new cell-phone kind of lifestyle they seem to think they're entitled to, but they can live. And maybe, just maybe, if you force people to work for what they get, they will be more inclined to put forth effort to improve their lot in life.
How about requiring an accounting of how benefits are used from month to month? I personally have a budget in place and can tell you where every dime of my money goes. If I can do this while working full-time, surely someone who doesn't have a job can manage. I believe one of the reasons so many people take advantage of welfare is that it's just so easy to do. Make it harder, and more people will decide they'd rather just go get a job.
For all those people who want to start screaming about violating civil rights, I say this: the government may be the distributor of welfare benefits, but it is not the source of the funds. The working, tax paying citizens of this nation are the source of the funds. I don't give cash to beggars. I'll buy them food if they want (they usually don't), but I can't feel good about just handing money to someone who has obviously already made some really bad choices, and then expecting them to make good choices with that money. So if a person has already proven that they're not capable of managing things on their own, doesn't it make sense to provide guidance and monitoring along with the funds? I'm not talking about violating anyone's 'rights'. I'm talking about providing services that will help recipients acquire the skills they need to move forward.
This is a summary only, and doesn't include the countless details that would need to be set forth in a complete overhaul of the system. But I think it would be an excellent start. One detail I would like to mention is this: I believe no parent should be allowed to receive welfare benefits for a child they are abusing or neglecting. People on welfare are assigned caseworkers, and part of their job should be home visits and interviews with every member of the family. If a caseworker has too many cases to be able to do this effectively, hire and train more caseworkers (more jobs = fewer people on welfare...hmmm)! Child abuse and neglect are rampant in welfare families, and the cycle needs to be broken. I can't be the only person who has seen a family where the children aren't getting proper care, don't have decent clothes, are obviously mistreated and/or not properly supervised, but thanks to welfare the parents have their beer or cigarettes or tattoos or smart phones or whatever.
What's happening now:
I tried to find some information on how much money is being spent on welfare programs currently. I now have a new appreciation for the phrase 'looking for a needle in a haystack'. Every time I thought I was close to finding the needle, I just found another haystack. Maybe if I didn't have a job and could devote more time to research....oh, well. Here's what I did find http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofs/data/2009/table_a1_2009.html
I confess I didn't take a lot of time studying that report. Seeing the twenty-plus billion dollar figure at the bottom made me a little sick. I decided to back up and take a look at what's happening closer to home, to reduce the problem to a level I can more readily comprehend.
I personally have known families who have lived on welfare benefits from generation to generation, women who have had numerous children and subsequently increased the amount of 'assistance' they receive, people who display no shame for the fact that they do nothing to affect change for their present situation or for the future of their children. The government would have us believe that there are rules and limitations to the amount and duration of assistance available, but the fact is that the people who have been raised on welfare know the loopholes and know how to manipulate the system. If one can have a higher standard of living on welfare than would be available if they got a job, what motivation is there to change? I do not mean to suggest that everyone who receives welfare falls into this group, but in my personal experience, there are far more of this type than those who use the current system as a stepping stone to improve their situation.
What needs to happen:
Again, keeping it on the personal level, I believe that every person receiving welfare benefits needs to be required to participate in a complete home economics course. For those who would ask 'where's the money for that coming from?', remember that there's over twenty billion in the pot already. I'm no accountant, but I'm sure we can find the funding somewhere. I'm talking about a program that teaches everything from budgeting to sewing. If I'm going to give a person money to live on, I'll feel a lot better about it if I know they're making an effort to live on less. A complete home economics course would include teaching about nutrition, proper food storage and preparation, gardening, canning, etc.
Every government housing project needs to include a community garden in which all residents are required to participate. Those with real disabilities who cannot physically participate should be assigned tasks that are within their range of abilities. I understand that some people are severely disabled. Under the revised system, there would be funds to provide for those individuals.
Some states are working on requiring mandatory drug-testing for people who receive government assistance, and I think it's a fabulous idea that should be put into practice nation-wide. Most employers require you to pass a drug screen to be eligible for employment, so it doesn't make sense that it's easier to get welfare than to get a job. People who fail can have the option of participating in a rehab program, with benefits to be reinstated upon successful completion, and continued benefits contingent on passing future tests.
Every individual receiving benefits who is able to do so should be required to attend vocational classes or some type of program with an eye toward increasing their marketability and expanding their job choices. They should be allowed to change programs if they find they are not suited to the one they're in, but quitting altogether would result in loss of benefits.
The amount of benefits awarded should never equal more than the current federal minimum wage. This sounds harsh, and I often hear people say you can't live on minimum wage, but the idea here is to make getting a job preferable to living on welfare. And I say that if you provide good home economics education, people can live on minimum wage. Maybe not the rock-star, designer clothes, new cell-phone kind of lifestyle they seem to think they're entitled to, but they can live. And maybe, just maybe, if you force people to work for what they get, they will be more inclined to put forth effort to improve their lot in life.
How about requiring an accounting of how benefits are used from month to month? I personally have a budget in place and can tell you where every dime of my money goes. If I can do this while working full-time, surely someone who doesn't have a job can manage. I believe one of the reasons so many people take advantage of welfare is that it's just so easy to do. Make it harder, and more people will decide they'd rather just go get a job.
For all those people who want to start screaming about violating civil rights, I say this: the government may be the distributor of welfare benefits, but it is not the source of the funds. The working, tax paying citizens of this nation are the source of the funds. I don't give cash to beggars. I'll buy them food if they want (they usually don't), but I can't feel good about just handing money to someone who has obviously already made some really bad choices, and then expecting them to make good choices with that money. So if a person has already proven that they're not capable of managing things on their own, doesn't it make sense to provide guidance and monitoring along with the funds? I'm not talking about violating anyone's 'rights'. I'm talking about providing services that will help recipients acquire the skills they need to move forward.
This is a summary only, and doesn't include the countless details that would need to be set forth in a complete overhaul of the system. But I think it would be an excellent start. One detail I would like to mention is this: I believe no parent should be allowed to receive welfare benefits for a child they are abusing or neglecting. People on welfare are assigned caseworkers, and part of their job should be home visits and interviews with every member of the family. If a caseworker has too many cases to be able to do this effectively, hire and train more caseworkers (more jobs = fewer people on welfare...hmmm)! Child abuse and neglect are rampant in welfare families, and the cycle needs to be broken. I can't be the only person who has seen a family where the children aren't getting proper care, don't have decent clothes, are obviously mistreated and/or not properly supervised, but thanks to welfare the parents have their beer or cigarettes or tattoos or smart phones or whatever.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Christian?
I stopped calling myself a Christian some time ago, not because my beliefs about God and Jesus changed, but because I did not want to be associated with the majority of so-called 'Christian' religions as they currently exist. You see, as I understand it, to be Christian is to strive to be Christ-like. I have been to a lot of churches in my lifetime, and I have yet to encounter one which consistently demonstrates or fosters Christ-like behavior.
I want to make clear that I do not think myself spiritually or intellectually superior. I have read the bible and other religious literature, I enjoy studying the histories of various religions and talking to people of similar and different faiths at every opportunity, in an effort to gain better understanding of who God is.
I think one of the biggest problems I have with organized Christian religions is that, in the interest of proselytizing, they blatantly misrepresent God. Prospective 'new' Christians are led to believe that, once they join the club, they will be miraculously freed from all pain and suffering, they will instantly be able to hear God's voice, and everything will be sunshine and roses. There are even some organizations that make every effort to convince you that your financial prosperity is contingent upon your inclusion in their ranks.
So you sign up, and wait expectantly for God to show up and start fixing everything from your bank account to your halitosis. And guess what? You get disappointed. And you get confused. And you get angry. And because you were so certain that you were buying into an organization that represented God, you feel it is God himself who has deceived you.
It is among my dearest hopes that anyone seeking to know God should, at first, stay away from organized religion in any form. Always remember that organized religion is a business, with a material interest in increasing its tithe-paying membership. If you have come as far as to believe that God exists, and that He made you, remember that he gave you the gifts of a brain and free will. Think and reflect, study the religious literature that appeals to your sensibilities, meditate and pray, talk to people you know and trust, whose opinions and intellect you admire. Know that not all churches are bad, and that not all those who call themselves by the same name adhere to the same principles. Pray for the ability to discern where (or whether) you need to belong.
If you choose Christianity, study the bible with emphasis on the words of Christ Himself. You will find yourself introduced to a much more accurate description of the mind and nature of God. Nowhere does He suggest that you should expect God to act as your personal genie, regardless of what any church representative might try to get you to believe. "He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust."
I want to make clear that I do not think myself spiritually or intellectually superior. I have read the bible and other religious literature, I enjoy studying the histories of various religions and talking to people of similar and different faiths at every opportunity, in an effort to gain better understanding of who God is.
I think one of the biggest problems I have with organized Christian religions is that, in the interest of proselytizing, they blatantly misrepresent God. Prospective 'new' Christians are led to believe that, once they join the club, they will be miraculously freed from all pain and suffering, they will instantly be able to hear God's voice, and everything will be sunshine and roses. There are even some organizations that make every effort to convince you that your financial prosperity is contingent upon your inclusion in their ranks.
So you sign up, and wait expectantly for God to show up and start fixing everything from your bank account to your halitosis. And guess what? You get disappointed. And you get confused. And you get angry. And because you were so certain that you were buying into an organization that represented God, you feel it is God himself who has deceived you.
It is among my dearest hopes that anyone seeking to know God should, at first, stay away from organized religion in any form. Always remember that organized religion is a business, with a material interest in increasing its tithe-paying membership. If you have come as far as to believe that God exists, and that He made you, remember that he gave you the gifts of a brain and free will. Think and reflect, study the religious literature that appeals to your sensibilities, meditate and pray, talk to people you know and trust, whose opinions and intellect you admire. Know that not all churches are bad, and that not all those who call themselves by the same name adhere to the same principles. Pray for the ability to discern where (or whether) you need to belong.
If you choose Christianity, study the bible with emphasis on the words of Christ Himself. You will find yourself introduced to a much more accurate description of the mind and nature of God. Nowhere does He suggest that you should expect God to act as your personal genie, regardless of what any church representative might try to get you to believe. "He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)