A Non-espresso Latte?

I recently ordered a latte at a coffee shop. Those who know me best know that I enjoy coffee. In fact, I enjoy high-quality coffee-- especially when it is prepared with high technical and artistic standards. The latte I ordered was a house specialty. It contained their own special brew of steamed milk and flavoring syrups. I received my cup and sat down at a table. I took a couple sips and noticed nothing out of the ordinary.  The girl who had prepared my cup then found me and informed me that she had forgotten to put the espresso in my drink. She apologized, took my cup, added the needed espresso, and returned my cup to me. How could I, a self-proclaimed coffee aficionado, not notice that there was no actual coffee in my drink?

The thought then occurred to me that the reason I did not recognize the lack of coffee was because of all of the "extras" that had been added. If I had ordered a simple coffee with nothing else to go with it I would have immediately been able to see the problem. Even if I had only ordered a simple latte (espresso with steamed milk) I would have easily seen the lack of the vital ingredient. While the "extras" add to my latte they also, in one sense, take away. I am left unable to appreciate the actual coffee.

This recent event at a local cafe (along with a couple articles mailed to me by my father) prompted me to ponder the implications of modernistic church worship. The average church today either holds multiple services that cater to a variety of worship styles, or actively attempts to incorporate multiple styles into a single worship service. I am not attempting to argue for or against styles and modalities. I simply wonder what, if any, ripples will result from this stylistic explosion in modern worship.

These modern worship services are packed with "extras".  These extras are meant to add to our worship experience. Whether we are talking about modern musical styles, worship bands, large projector-lit screens, flashing words and phrases, or any of the other things commonly seen, we must remember that these things are all "extras". It seems easy to slip and forget that the core of the worship service-- the necessary element-- is the proclaiming of the Word of God by both preaching and song. That is the danger of the "extras".

I am not decrying the modern trappings that sometimes accompany our worship. I simply seek to give a reminder that we cannot lose our focus. What a tragedy to realize that in our effort to spice up our worship we water down (or worse yet, leave out altogether) the primary essential of what corporate worship was meant to be.

Also, maybe it is time for me to get back to drinking basic coffee.

Debt Ceiling

All the recent talk of budgets, debt ceilings, taxes, and entitlements has, frankly, left my head swirling. As a fiscal conservative I tend to automatically think that having a balanced budget is a good idea. I mean, how can it be good for our country to remain in debt. Yet, the country doesn't just remain in debt-- its debt continues to grow. I worry about foreign powers having ever increasing influence in our national interests because they own an ever increasing share of our debt. Most of all, though, I worry about how our economy can remain solvent when inflated currency flows at a growing rate. How can an issue that should be so cut and dry (I mean it's all dollars and cents, profit and loss, black and white) be so difficult for our leaders, and us, to agree on?

I will start by admitting that I am no economist. I never did take an economics class-- either micro or macro-- in college. So, I can only argue from (in my opinion) common sense and the bits of knowledge I gain from reading those who know this subject far better than I. I know this much. The two main schools of thought in the current economic debate stem from two economic schools of thought. Those who are sure we must spend our way to prosperity and continue allowing our federal government to operate on credit are, whether they realize it or not, following the economic ideas of John M. Keynes. Those, like me, who believe that continuing down the current path will be destructive in the long-run, and that a balanced-budget/minimal-tax approach is best for the long-term health of our economy stem from the philosophy of individuals such as Milton Friedman.

I recently read an article in Time magazine which stated quite plainly that the federal government cannot and should not operate on a balanced budget. This was quite a shock to me. I know there are those who think that a balanced budget is not feasible, but I had never heard anyone argue that we should not have one. The writer mentioned that those who compare running the federal budget to a family budget are naïve and ignorant. Now, I realize that the budget of the federal government is larger and more complicated than the budget of the average family, but it certainly seems that some basic principles would be shared by both. Namely that a budget that constantly pays out more than it takes in is not sustainable. This writer argued that the government needs to be able to spend more than it has so that other entities are able to borrow from it. Here is where my lack of economic knowledge comes in to play. I just don't understand why our government must be in the business of lending money to anyone. I am not saying that it cannot or should not be in the business of lending money. I perceive that there are likely times and situations where that type of transaction is useful and profitable. I just don't see why it is argued that the government MUST do this.

More and more I am beginning to see that some people believe (or at least operate as if they believe) that the economy is somehow a part of the federal government. They view the economy as a subsidiary of the government that is able to be directly controlled via the government. In fact, many believe that not only is this the case, but also that this is the way it should be.

Now it seems to me that the economy is an entity entirely separate from the government. The economy, very generally speaking, is the composite of transactions, money flow, investments, and wealth creation that are constantly occurring in an organization. Specifically, I am talking of the overall national economy of the country. Most of the activities mentioned above happen in the private sector. It is true that government regulations impact and even direct all of these activities, but the activities themselves happen apart from the government. Also, any portion of the overall economy that happens to be public (that is going on inside and including the government) is wholly dependent upon the private sector. What I mean by this is that the public sector derives all of its revenue from the private sector economy by taxing the transactions that take place there. The private sector can create wealth through value-added transactions and investments. The public sector cannot create wealth. It can only draw wealth out of the private sector and redistribute it.

With all of that being said, it seems that one way to boil all of this debt ceiling debate down to bite-sized chunks would be to say the following:

The debt ceiling needs to be raised because the public sector economy continues to grow.

The public sector economy continues to grow because we are unwilling to make true cuts in any area of the public economy.

The only source of income for the public economy is to draw from the private economy through taxation.

The more the public sector grows the more income it needs to operate and the more it must draw from the private sector.

The more money that is drawn from the private sector the less money is available for investment and wealth creation.

This line of argument brings me to a basic conclusion. If we continue to raise the debt ceiling then we continue down a path that limits and weakens the private sector economy.

So, should we raise the debt ceiling? As a general rule I would say no based upon what I have written above. Yet, I have to be honest and say that I do not know for certain that this is a situation that is not a special case. Is this a special exception in which we should raise the debt ceiling? I am not sure. I do know that continuing this kind of fiscal policy is not healthy.

Inside Jokes

Inside jokes are great. I am a big supporter of inside jokes. The prime directive of inside jokes, though, is that they are meant to be shared with the one or two people that are actually involved with the inside joke. Trying to include outsiders on the inside joke just doesn't work. I know it seems like a good idea in the moment, but, trust me, it is not really that good of an idea.

Let me explain what I mean. You happen to meet someone and realize that you share a mutual friend. Pleasantries are exchanged for a minute or two. The conversation ends and instead of simply saying goodbye and going about your business you feel the irresistible urge to have this person pass along something to your mutual friend regarding some inside joke. This is often done without thinking about it. At the time it occurs to you that this would be a nice gesture to affirm that you share a mutual friend. It usually goes something like, "Hey, next time you see Jeff tell him One-Eyed Bill says stay out of the cookie jar."

Whenever you ask someone to do this you make several assumptions. First of all you assume that this new acquaintance will see this mutual friend in the very near future. This is a fairly presumptuous assumption to make. Why will this person see your friend any sooner than you? They might not see them for a week, a moth, or longer.

Second, you assume that if and when they do run into this mutual friend that they will remember to pass along whatever it is you are telling them. This is an even greater assumption than the first. You are telling this person some half-insensible phrase and asking them to remember to pass it along. Oftentimes jokes, especially inside jokes, are dependent upon a certain play on words or timing of delivery. This person will likely not remember to say anything to the mutual friend. If they do happen to remember they will have no background knowledge to know how to deliver the message to have the proper effect.

Third, you make the almost impossible leap to surmise that this unintelligible comment that you want this person to pass along for you will sound cute or funny to them. Listen, this is where first impressions take an ugly turn. You may have held a fairly intelligent, perhaps charming, conversation with this newly-met person for a few minutes. Now, you end up saying something utterly foolish to them right before you walk away. Not only that, you realize by the look on the person's face that this inside joke is totally lost on them. (That is kind of the whole point of inside jokes, right? They are only humorous to those "in the know".) You then proceed to make a total shambles of the incident by trying to explain to them why this comment would be funny.

Everyone knows the unpardonable sin of humor: if you have to explain it to someone then it isn't funny.

The longer you go on retelling the account of how this inside joke the more imbecilic you paint yourself. It is excruciatingly painful to be on the receiving end of this. You are trying to be kind and cordial. You smile and nod and even pretend to know what this person is talking about as they go deeper and deeper into the retelling of this horridly unfunny joke. You feel sorry for the person while at the same time wishing you could click your heels and be magically transported out of there.

The reason I take the time to post my thoughts on this topic is because I recently witnessed just such an episode. I was sipping a refreshing iced coffee in one of my favorite caffeine stations. I grown man (who obviously also frequents the place) was leaving and strikes up a conversation with the young, teenage barista. Just as he was ready to walk out the door he says, "Next time you see Sandra tell her Pretty-Boy Window Cleaners stopped in." I looked up from my clear, plastic, 60% post-consumer cup that had collected a decent amount of condensation. I even squirmed in my seat for the guy because I could tell it wasn't going to be pretty. He immediately perceived that the girl had no idea what he was talking about-- especially since he didn't fit the description of "Pretty-Boy". He then had to try to explain this story of why Sandra would know what he was talking about and why it would be funny. It took him three attempts before the girl even seemed to get a grasp of what the whole story was. By that time the damage had already been done. "Pretty-Boy" even realized the spectacle he had made of himself and made an abrupt and awkward exit.

So, the moral of the story is this: keep inside jokes where they belong-- between participating parties.

Of Justice

Sitting in a courtroom today I was thinking of the two opposing philosophies of justice and punishment. There really are only two basic philosophies when it comes to this subject. One extreme believes that justice is upheld when punishment is meted out in accordance with the crime committed. In a sense, when a wrong is done a punishment must be enacted to restore balance. This view focuses on the wrong act itself, and has as its end to counter the wrong act with a just punishment.

The opposing view is that justice and punishment are meant to reform the wrongdoer. The focus is on the person who commits the crime and not the act of the crime itself. A just punishment, in this instance, is one that brings about a positive change in the individual. The punishment does not need to fit the crime, but rather the criminal.

Of course, in real life you often find some ratio of these two opposing viewpoints play out.

I was in court to testify at the trial of a young man that had done wrong. He had already admitted his wrong. The trial was not meant to determine his guilt or innocence, but rather to determine what a just punishment would be. I was very interested to see which philosophical viewpoint would carry the most weight in the proceedings.

The trial did not take place today. Yet I was still given insight into the basic philosophy of the sitting judge and the representative lawyers. The public defender put forth a motion to have the case tried in juvenile court. The judge asked the prosecuting attorney if she had any objections. She did. She read for the judge a summary of the five previous cases involving this young man that had been tried in juvenile court and his lengthy police record. She argued that the juvenile court had been given a chance to mediate justice, but a continued pattern of criminal behavior demonstrated that it had not been effective. She suggested to the judge that the young man be held accountable for his actions and "see what it is like to wear an orange jumpsuit". "That," she predicted, "would be the best way to deliver justice and to help this young man see the end of the path he has chosen."

Did you notice the very telling indicator in the attorney's last statement? She mentioned both delivering justice and helping the young man. She talked as though they were two separate ideas. Can you guess which line of thinking about justice and punishment she was taking? She was clearly interested in focusing on the act and enacting justice because of the act itself. Secondarily, she was interested in having a positive impact on helping the young man make better decisions in his future.

The public defender also had an opportunity to present his argument to the judge as to why the case should be sent to juvenile court. It played out just as you would expect. He described the young man as a product of his upbringing and his circumstances. This young man wants to do what is right and wants to be a productive citizen, but so many things get in his way. "In fact," said the defender, "he wants to go to college." If the case would go to juvenile court then the young man would have a chance to change his ways and his record could be expunged without jeapordizing his future.

Clearly the defender wanted the judge to focus on the individual rather than the crime. He was pressing the judge to do what would be in the best interest of making a "good citizen" out of the young man instead of righting the wrong that had been committed.

I would love to tell you that the judge, with the wisdom of Solomon, cracked her gavel on the bench and issued a sentence that both upheld the balance of justice by addressing the crime and brought sweeping reform of this young man's life and future. This is not what happened. The judge resigned herself to giving the young man a stern lecture and then dismissing the case to juvenile court. I listened intently to the lecture. The young man was warned to "take a good look at where you are headed and think about the decisions you make." Oh, I am so glad someone finally thought to give this young man such sage advice. Something tells me this judge is not the first person to counsel this young man in such a way. I am also fairly certain that this young man could care less what the judge was saying to him. After all, she had already made the decision that she would not determine any punishment. Why, then, would he need to heed what she had to say. My personal point of view is that a punishment fitting the crime would have made a much more lasting impression than any black-robed, hollowly-worded lecture from behind a dusty bench.

Collective Bargaining

Recently, the term "Collective Bargaining" has been used often in the news in relation to events happening in the state of Wisconsin.  This term simply refers to the practice of  representatives negotiating salaries and benefits for a larger group.  The basic idea has several advantages.  The employer can negotiate with the representation and then does not have to spend large amounts of time and energy negotiating with each individual member.  This actually is a savings to the employer.  Very large organizations would have to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars just to pay for the time spent negotiating with every single employee.  Collective bargaining also provides an advantage to the group of employees.  When employees bargain as a large group they wield more power to negotiate higher salaries and better benefits.  I have no particular problem with this method of negotiating employment contracts.  It is perfectly legitimate and practical.

The real problem comes with the philosophy often held by those who are in favor of the "Collective Bargaining" mentality.  Collective bargaining is usually employed by groups of public employees (teachers, police, firefighters, etc.).  The representative bargaining group is usually composed of a union contingent.  Often, an Us vs. Them mentality plays a key role in these negotiations.  The employee union often enters negotiations expecting the employer to want to short-change them at every possible turn.  The employee union, then, tries to leverage to squeeze out every possible available cent in either salary or benefits.  Public employees often think that higher salaries and better benefits are not available because the employer simply chooses not to allow them to obtain them.  This actually demonstrates a sad lack of understanding between private- and public-sector economics.

I have no problem with a bargaining unit requesting higher wages or increased benefits.  The problem comes when groups of public employees forget where their salaries come from.  Public-sector employees have a limited pool of resources from which their salaries can be drawn.  Public employees need to remember that they work for the taxpayers.  Whenever the salaries of public employees increase that increase must come from tax money.  At some point, a continued increase in salaries and benefits overruns the available tax money.  Two options then exist: raise taxes or reign in public employee salaries.

I will always agree with many of my colleagues that teachers, by and large, are underpaid.  What many of my colleagues forget is that they do not work in a private sector economy-- an economy where the market often rewards individuals according to their actual market worth.  Public school teachers, police, firefighters, and other public employees work in a public economy.  A public economy is restricted and static.  It is an artificial economy.  It does not have the ability to grow to meet fluctuating market demands.  Public employees, then, will never truly have the ability to be "paid what we're worth".  The public economy is not designed to do that.  In the private-sector economy I can earn more money by doing high quality work and thus attracting more business.  Not so in the public sector.  In the public sector every individual employee is seen as having the same "worth" as every other employee.  High quality teachers are on the same pay scale as low quality teachers.

In the end, it is not a matter of paying teachers what they are worth.  It is a matter of paying teachers what an "average" teacher is worth and can be afforded in a static, publicly funded economy.  If teachers, or other public employees, want to be paid what they are worth then they will have to do away with collective bargaining.  Only then will high quality employees be able to be recognized apart from their lower quality colleagues.

Why The Liberals Have It (Half) Right

I was listening to a local area talk show recently.  The host is somewhat right-leaning.  He was having an excitable exchange with a left-leaning caller.  They were discussing the social ills and how best to address them.  The caller and the host both agreed on the problem-- a lack of cohesive, traditional family structure.  They also both agreed on the solution-- a more cohesive, traditional family structure.  The difference was in the means to that solution.

The caller had the usual liberal talking-points.  Society's wealth is disproportionately distributed.  Those of us who are more advantaged need to pay more taxes so that government programs can help the disadvantaged out of the cycle of poverty and crime.  The host had his usual conservative quips.  We have been throwing money and government programs at these problems for decades and they are arguably worse now then when we started.  The government is not the solution to our problems.

Finally, the caller said, "Well, if you don't want the government to do it, then who should?"  This was probably the best question of the whole exchange.  Unfortunately, both the caller and host quickly moved on and the question was not really addressed.  This is exactly where the liberal philosophy is half right.  Some people are stuck in cycles of poverty and crime and they desperately need somebody to come along and help them out.  Of course, the conservative philosophy is also correct.  Government is not the best "somebody" to do this.

The problem with both points of view is that the problem is viewed as a systemic problem instead of a personal problem.  If the problem is systemic then we do need to find systems-wide strategies as means to the solution.  The problem, though, is not systemic (as in a problem with a system); the problem is personal (as in a problem with individuals).  You cannot treat a personal problem with systemic strategies.  Personal problems have to be treated individually.  This takes much more than money.  It takes people-- real people-- to spend time with individuals and educate, model, and walk next them as they deal with and work through the problems.

For example, welfare programs do provide means for individuals that are in need the ability to obtain food and shelter.  What is missing?  For one thing, isn't it just as important for someone to come alongside a needy individual and show them how to balance a check book, live within their means, write a decent resume, fill out job applications, and just provide the moral support needed to keep on keeping on as they struggle to get back on their feet?  Sure there are programs that are set up to provide some of these services.  Many of them, though, are set up in such a way that the individuals who need them have to take the initiative to seek out those services.  What these individuals need is someone to take the initiative to come alongside them and show them what they need to do and help them begin to do it.

This is the reason the government is not very good at this sort of thing.  The government does not have the time or resources to spend the time necessary with individuals to meet the needs in the way they need to be met.  Just look at how the government handles anything else.  Government education is set up as a systemic approach that is designed to educate large numbers of students in basically the same way.  It is not designed to teach the individual.  How does the government run the post office?  The postal system is designed as a system.  If you want to send a letter or package you must make sure it conforms to the systems that have been set up.  I am not in any way arguing against public education or the post office here.  I am simply pointing out that the government does not, and cannot, deal with individuals very well.  The government always deals with problems systemically, not personally.

Now that I have tried to express why I believe the government is not the best "somebody" to deal with these types of issues, I must go back to the original question. If you don't want the government to do it, who should?  Well if we say it is a personal, individual problem, then it stands to reasons that individuals must be the ones to meet the need.  I think this sounds alot like what the Bible teaches us about the poor.  The poor are not simply a group we give money to.  The poor are people that need to be treated as such.

It is easy for the liberal to say that we need to redistribute wealth to make it more equitable for the poor.  It is also easy for the conservative to say that government is not the answer.  It would be nice if the "poor problem" could be fixed by simply giving money via charity or taxes.  If we give all our possessions to feed the poor and have not love, it profits us (and them) nothing.  It is fine to give money, and I think we should.  We then also need to show love individually and come alongside and truly help the poor.  Show someone how to deal with the daily struggles.  Sit down and teach someone how to balance a check book and prioritize spending.  Allow another person to spend time with you so they can learn how to live outside of a cycle of poverty and crime.  But, then again, that takes time and real, honest investment.  I think I will just throw some change in a red kettle and go about my day.

What is Job Satisfaction Worth?

I turned 33 years old a month ago.  I also finished the first 10 years of my time as an educator. This means I am approaching the second trimester of my professional career.  The first 10 years was spent trying to figure out how to do my job and expending energy trying to advance my career.  I am now reaching a stage in which I think I know what I am doing.  I still want to "advance" in my field, but I am not so interested in moving on as I am in moving forward with what I am doing now and building upon that to make a lasting impact.

Up until this year I have been pursuing the next step in the chain of advancement and salary scale.  Trust me, I am still interested in these things, but they are not the driving force of why I get up in the morning.  I find I am more and more interested in job satisfaction rather than position and pay.  This has caused me to ask myself a question: How much is my job satisfaction worth?

I can truly say I am satisfied with what I am doing right now.  I think I could go on doing this for another 20 years if necessary.  I have built key relationships with colleagues and the community in which I work.  This allows me to continually find new and challenging endeavors in the midst of maintaining a high level of performance in my day-to-day responsibilities.  I still see sufficient areas for personal and professional growth without having to take a new job title.

At the same time, I have had several recent conversations discussing possible new positions that would greatly increase my pay-- in the neighborhood of $20,000 annually.  No matter what your current annual salary is, a $20,000 increase is significant.  So, I ask myself, do I put forth concerted effort to pursue these very real opportunities, or just sit back and see what happens?

Truly, I can say that I would be satisfied no matter what happens.  That is a good position to be in.  It is nice to know that if I remain where I am now that I will continue to have a high level of personal and professional satisfaction.  It is also nice to know that there are possibilities out there should I ever desire to officially have an upwardly mobile career path.

So, how much is job satisfaction worth?  Well, I guess I can say that for me it is at least worth around $20,000.  I hope this means that more and more I view my level of job satisfaction as a function of what I do and not so much a function of how much I make.  As far as I can tell this is a good direction in which to be heading.