Merry Christmas

I heard the bells on Christmas day

Their old familiar carols play,

And wild and sweet the words repeat

Of peace on earth, good will to men.

And thought how, as the day had come,

The belfries of all Christendom

Had rolled along the unbroken song

Of peace on earth, good will to men.

Till ringing, singing on its way

The world revolved from night to day,

A voice, a chime, a chant sublime

Of peace on earth, good will to men.

And in despair I bowed my head

“There is no peace on earth,” I said,

“For hate is strong and mocks the song

Of peace on earth, good will to men.”

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:

“God is not dead, nor doth He sleep;

The wrong shall fail, the right prevail

With peace on earth, good will to men.”

Getting Ready for Christmas

At our house, I try not to think much about Christmas until after my wife's birthday on December 10. It seems wrong to me to submerge any December birthday in the annual culture blitz accompanying the biggest holiday of the year.


But today it's the 14th. We're back from a wonderful week visiting Arizona, full of the desert and pine forests, and I'm listening to the Downton Abbey Christmas album as I write this. We wish you a merry Christmas, and a happy new year!


I've already begun my usual round of Christmas rituals, dredging out many Christmas movies for their annual showings - from good George Bailey to little Ralphie, who only wants a bb gun for Christmas - and reading again Dickens' great Christmas ghost story. By Christmas eve I plan to be sated with carols and emotional overload. I might even look at "Christmas in Connecticut" once more, though to be honest, it's really a bad chauvinistic movie.


When I was a child, Christmas was a kind of silent war of wills between my parents. My father, though he felt the phrase "Keep Christ in Christmas" was banal, heavily emphasized the religious aspect of the day, the church organist at numerous Christmas Masses, and was a little contemptuous of the secular commercialism - Frosty, Rudolph and the rest. Mom, on the other hand, believed Christmas is a children's festival. Why not have Santa, lots of presents, and all the other foolishness of the holiday season? And so they battled behind closed doors over how much to spend on Christmas and on what. Mind you, Dad wasn't stingy. He was quite willing to spend money on us for things like musical instruments or educational toys. I remember a chemistry set as a Christmas present, and my brother who loved meteorology, never wanted for thermometers or other weather instruments.


Timing was also a kind of issue for them. I recall Dad saying that when he was a boy no one mentioned Christmas or a Christmas tree until Christmas eve. Then, one by one, the siblings would arrive home with bundles which they hustled out of sight to wrap and place under the tree that would be erected and decorated that night. I'm sure he thought that was the proper way to do things.


My mother's childhood was badly constrained by poverty, so I'm inclined to think she was compensating for her deprived early years by providing her children with the kind of opulent Christmas she never had. Accuse her of trying to buy our love if you want, I prefer to believe she had a warm heart and loved us all dearly. Usually she won out and he accepted the whole commercial holiday festival with more or less good grace.


My point here, and I do have one, is that we differ from one another in how we keep Christmas, or whether to keep it at all, and it behooves us to bend a little when we have differing opinions and enjoy the happiness of others, however they find it.


Merry Christmas to one and all!

Governor Rick Scott

With the elections just a few days away, I think it's important to repeat this old blog entry concerning Rick Scott, governor of Florida and strident opponent of Obamcare.


This is a quote from the Wikipedia article on Rick Scott.

On March 19, 1997, investigators from the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human Services served search warrants at Columbia/HCA facilities in El Paso and on dozens of doctors with suspected ties to the company.[20]




Following the raids, the Columbia/HCA board of directors forced Scott to resign as Chairman and CEO.[21] He was paid $9.88 million in a settlement. He also left owning 10 million shares of stock worth over $350 million.[22][23][24]



In 1999, Columbia/HCA changed its name back to HCA, Inc.



In settlements reached in 2000 and 2002, Columbia/HCA plead guilty to 14 felonies and agreed to a $600+ million fine in the largest fraud settlement in US history. Columbia/HCA admitted systematically overcharging the government by claiming marketing costs as reimbursable, by striking illegal deals with home care agencies, and by filing false data about use of hospital space. They also admitted fraudulently billing Medicare and other health programs by inflating the seriousness of diagnoses and to giving doctors partnerships in company hospitals as a kickback for the doctors referring patients to HCA. They filed false cost reports, fraudulently billing Medicare for home health care workers, and paid kickbacks in the sale of home health agencies and to doctors to refer patients. In addition, they gave doctors "loans" never intending to be repaid, free rent, free office furniture, and free drugs from hospital pharmacies.[4][5][6][7][8]



In late 2002, HCA agreed to pay the U.S. government $631 million, plus interest, and pay $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies, in addition to $250 million paid up to that point to resolve outstanding Medicare expense claims.[25] In all, civil law suits cost HCA more than $2 billion to settle, by far the largest fraud settlement in US history.[26]



How did this guy manage to stay out of jail, much less become governor of Florida?

A Letter to the Editor

Congressman Doug Lamborn, Republican from the Fifth District in Colorado, where I live, wrote an opinion piece for the local newspaper last week, that just begged for a rejoinder, so I wrote one. It was printed in Sunday's paper, and here it is.

Congressman Doug Lamborn writes in the Thursday paper that the Obama administration is thwarting petroleum development on public lands leading to gas prices twice as high as when the president took office. This is simply intellectually dishonest. Gas prices were unusually low in January 2009 because of the general economic decline. I bet we all can remember $4.00 a gallon gas during the Bush years.

Mr. Lamborn then plumps for the Keystone pipeline as a supposed cure for these energy woes. The Congressman claims tens of thousands of American jobs would result and millions of barrels of oil would be refined in the United States. This too is disingenuous. The pipeline would be a big construction project, some of it across private land condemned by local governments, with big profits for the contractors and the handful of speculators who are invested in the Canadian oil fields. The oil would be refined in Texas for transshipment to the Orient. Aside from some temporary jobs – not tens of thousands or anything close to it – there would be no benefit for working Americans and a terrible risk of contaminating oil spills.

Lamborn goes so far as to impugn the motives of pipeline opponents, saying they are acting from outright malice. What malice is there in trying to protect our aquifers and watersheds? If Mr. Lamborn feels free to malign the Obama administration for caring more about environmentalist donors than working Americans, it seems reasonable to return the rough comment by accusing pipeline proponents of being in the pockets of big oil and big contractors.

We will go to the polls this November. We will have a choice to make between those like Mr. Lamborn who cling to the dirty energy economy and those who look to the future and who want to protect our public lands.

Military Service of US Presidents

Military Service of US Presidents

Lately there’s been talk of a Constitutional Amendment mandating that any president of the United States must have served in the armed forces. It got me wondering about past presidents and their service. What follows is from memory, so there might be some mistakes, but it’s accurate in the main.

1. George Washington. Service in the French and Indian War and commanding general in the American Revolution.
2. John Adams. No military service.
3. Thomas Jefferson. No military service.
4. James Madison. No military service.
5. James Monroe. Honorable service during the American Revolution.
6. John Q. Adams. No military service.
7. Andrew Jackson. General in the War of 1812, and Indian fighter.
8. Martin Van Buren. No military service.
9. William Henry Harrison. General, Indian fighter.
10. John Tyler. No military service.
11. James K. Polk. No military service.
12. Zachary Taylor. General in the Mexican-American War.
13. Millard Fillmore. No military service.
14. Franklin Pierce. No military service.
15. James Buchanan. No military service.
16. Abraham Lincoln. Brief service in the Black Hawk War.
17. Andrew Johnson. No military service.
18. Ulysses Grant. General in the Civil War.
19. Rutherford Hayes. Colonel in the Civil War.
20. James Garfield. Army officer in the Civil War.
21. Chester Arthur. No military service, hired a substitute in the Civil War.
22. Grover Cleveland. No military service, hired a substitute in the Civil War.
23. Benjamin Harrison. Army officer in the Civil War.
24. Grover Cleveland.
25. William McKinley. Sergeant in the Civil War.
26. Theodore Roosevelt. Colonel in the Spanish-American War.
27. William H. Taft. Secretary of War, no uniformed service.
28. Woodrow Wilson. No military service.
29. Warren G. Harding. No military service.
30. Calvin Coolidge. No military service.
31. Herbert Hoover. No military service.
32. Franklin Roosevelt. Under Secretary of the Navy during World War I. No uniformed service.
33. Harry Truman. Missouri National Guard, combat service in World War I.
34. Dwight Eisenhower. Career soldier, combat service in World War I, commanding general in World War II.
35. John F. Kennedy. US Navy combat service during World War II.
36. Lyndon Johnson. US Army service during World War II, no combat.
37. Richard Nixon. US Navy service during World War II, no combat service.
38. Gerald Ford. US Army during World War II.
39. Jimmy Carter. United States Naval Academy, no combat service.
40. Ronald Reagan. US Army during World War II, no combat service.
41. George HW Bush. Combat veteran of World War II.
42. Bill Clinton. No military service.
43. George W. Bush. Service in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.
44. Barack Obama. No military service.

Ferguson Missouri

In Ferguson Missouri, there has been almost continuing unrest for better than a week now, occasioned by the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, by a white police officer, Darren Wilson.

One presumes that Officer Wilson is on paid leave and in seclusion somewhere while his department’s internal affairs division investigates, probably joined by now by personnel from the state of Missouri and the US Department of Justice. There can be no doubt that Officer Wilson has been questioned exhaustively, and his answers will be checked against the physical evidence and any witness statements.

Meanwhile, the air waves are full of opinions concerning the killing, and the streets of Ferguson have been filled with people, either outraged by Mr. Brown’s death or taking advantage of it to get some five-fingered discounts from local merchants. There have been numerous arrests, mostly for failure to abide by a curfew. The Ferguson police, using much military surplus equipment, have, it must be said, adopted a confrontational approach to the protestors.

Today’s news stories said the officer was treated for swelling around one eye after the incident, but earlier reports that the bones around his eye were shattered – apparently trumpeted by Fox News – are untrue. There are reliable reports that Mr. Brown was shot at least six times, including twice in the head. There is no reason to doubt that all of those wounds were inflicted by Officer Wilson’s gun.

Having been in law enforcement myself, including several years as a law enforcement supervisor, I have a few thoughts concerning all of this.

First of all, there hasn’t been any definitive statement made to the public about how all this began. I’ve heard that Mr. Brown either was jaywalking or had shoplifted a pack of cigarillos from a convenience store. It is also said that Mr. Brown paid for the cigarillos. Jaywalking and shoplifting are both misdemeanor offenses, warranting a police contact, and either a violation notice or a summons. Neither offense deserves an officer-imposed death sentence.

Second, police officers are not robots or automatons. Officers are trained to ignore insults and normally are able to do so. I always felt that I could let ninety-nine nasty comments bounce off me, but every hundredth zinger just gets under a person’s skin and starts to burrow in and can’t be forgotten. Still, an officer is trained and expected to maintain a professional demeanor even under stress. I remember telling one of my rangers, “When you start to take it personally it’s time to step back and get some perspective.” An officer shouldn’t lose his temper just from name-calling.

Third, police officers receive periodic training in unarmed combat techniques. I would be flabbergasted if Officer Wilson did not have this training. So the question that immediately arises is, why didn’t he use his training? In addition, police officers carry non-lethal equipment for just such circumstances. I can’t think that Officer Wilson wasn’t carrying a baton and pepper spray. (I left law enforcement before tasers became available, so won’t comment about them.) Again, why did he resort to his firearm when he could have used his other equipment?

Fourth, officers have rules of engagement just as the military does. These rules do not include firing on an unarmed offender, with the lone exception of a violator who is trying to take the officer’s gun. Since Officer Wilson’s statements about his contact with Mr. Brown remain confidential, there is no way for the rest of us to know if that was the case. With an aggressive unarmed offender, the officer should adopt the “ready stance” with feet braced, arms at waist level to repel an attack either by the opponent’s hands or feet, and can have the baton in hand. With the exception of Mr. Brown grabbing for his gun, there is no reason I can think of for Officer Wilson, or any officer, to draw his firearm against an unarmed man.

Fifth and last, let us have some faith in the judicial system and in each other. I realize this is difficult in the wake of the Trayvon Martin case, just to name one, but what else really do we have but trust in our prosecutors and our juries. The forensic evidence ultimately will either exonerate Officer Wilson or lead to his arrest, trial and lengthy imprisonment. Clearly it will be difficult for Officer Wilson to explain why it was necessary to shoot Mr. Brown six or more times. It will, I think, be particularly difficult for him to justify the shots to Mr. Brown’s head. If the two men were close together, a shot to the head would have to be fired at a sharp upward angle which doesn’t seem at all consistent with what I’ve heard of Mr. Brown’s injuries, and if they were at a greater distance what possible justification did he have to shoot at all?

Television and Internet accounts say there is now a legal defense fund for Officer Wilson that has raised over $100,000 already. I think he’s going to need it.

One last remark. I might be wrong about this, but I am inclined to think that the same people, the same media pundits who leaped to the defense of Cliven Bundy and his band of insurrectionists who were aiming loaded weapons at law enforcement officers who were within the lawful scope of their duties, are the same people who are besmirching the reputation of the late Michael Brown and defending – extolling – an officer who did use lethal force against an unarmed fellow American.

Refugee Children

Over the last few weeks, we have been hearing a lot about children crossing the border between the United States and Mexico. These children, some as young as seven or eight years old, peacefully turn themselves in to border patrol agents once they reach American soil. They have been housed in dormitories, warehouses, or wherever else the government can find room for them.

They are coming to America to get away from the extremely high rate of murder and mayhem in their home countries - Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. They cross Mexico, usually in freight trains, and arrive here, often famished, and frequently robbed of the few possessions they began with. They cross the Rio Grande in homemade boats, inflated inner tubes or childrens' swimming pools, or just by swimming. It is almost inevitable that some will drown in the attempt if some haven't died already. 

It is believed that about seventy percent of these children have parents living in the United States, and ninety percent have at least some other relative here. Often, the kinfolk living in America have forwarded money to the children to pay passage here, either by train, or to a guide. These guides, called coyotes, do not enjoy a good reputation. In fact, they are said to rob their charges as often as not. How many trusting children have been abandoned somewhere in Mexico, or even murdered by these coyotes is unknown, but we can be sure it has happened.

As if all that wasn't enough, Mexican officials, especially the police, have cut themselves in for a share of the funds these kids might be bringing with them. So the short of it is, these children arrive in our country after a desperate journey of hundreds of miles, hoping to find a welcome and a better life among us, or at least to escape the hellish conditions in their homelands.

But, many of us have not been welcoming at all. Let me concede right off the bat here, that they are entering the United States illegally. They commit a crime when they cross the Rio Grande, but please recall, these are juvenile offenders. In our legal system, and indeed in our moral view of life, a juvenile is not fully responsible for his or her actions. Indeed, as already suggested, they are coming because they were told to do so by adults in America, or in their native land. And don't we prize obedient children here?

Let us consider the practical aspects of this migration for a moment. The total number of unaccompanied children entering the United States in the last few months is about 57,000. The total population of the United States in 2013 was estimated to be 318,000,000. So, these kids increase our population by between one and two ten-thousandths of one percent of our population. In the great scheme of things, this does not represent an undue burden on our welfare system or our unemployment problem. That might be the case if they were all to remain in a single community, but it must be obvious that they will be dispersed across the nation, if they aren't deported.

And as to that. If they are sent back to their countries of origin, the same terror that caused them to make such a difficult journey will still confront them. Some will be killed, some others will turn into the type of criminals they fled, and almost all will remain impoverished with poor prospects for any kind of long fulfilled lives.

American law requires that persons entering the country without proper legal clearance must be refused and returned to their last country of residence. There is an exception, however, for refugees. People fleeing repression can gain asylum in the United States. Many Cuban citizens, to cite the most obvious example, came here for that reason. One can make a strong argument that these children qualify under the same exception to the immigration laws. One can also make a strong argument that our own American craving for narcotics has exacerbated the violence in Central America, but that might be a topic for another day.

In light of all this, the churlish reaction of some Americans to the influx of children has just been sickening. Crowds gathering at the border screaming abuse at these desperate young people, blocking buses taking the refugees to decent accommodations, accusations that they are being housed in luxury by the government, and worst of all the governor of Texas patrolling the Rio Grande in a swift boat with mounted machine guns, all are just despicable. What does he think he's going to do - shoot children in the water?

I have to believe we're better than that as a nation.

Minimum Wage

The minimum wage debate has been going on for some time now, the issue being whether it's good public policy to raise the minimum employers can pay per hour for work performed. Proponents specify $10.10 as an appropriate minimum. They argue that it's improper, even immoral to pay such low wages to unskilled workers, most of whom are adults, many trying to support families, often having to supplement their wages with public assistance. This is mostly in the form of food assistance. Thus, tax payers are supplementing the employers who pay low wages, incidentally giving them a competitive advantage over businesses that do the right thing.


Opponents of raising the minimum wage contend that if employers are obliged to pay more in wages they will lay off some of their employees, effectively killing jobs. They also argue that the market will supply a remedy for low wages as unemployment drops and employees are in a better position to bargain for more money. Finally, they cite the alleged loss of freedom associated with being under government compulsion to pay higher wages. Some people don't confine themselves to arguing against raising the minimum, claiming it would be good to lower it or eliminate it altogether.


Everyone has an opinion, it seems, so here's mine. I'm for raising the minimum wage for all American working people. Ten dollars and ten cents seems reasonable to me, though I don't quite know how that came to be the target. Notice I said ALL working people, including people who are not covered by current minimum wage legislation. My daughter-in-law waits tables, and by golly she deserves a steady wage so she doesn't have to worry about being stiffed by miserly diners.


The argument that raising the minimum wage kills jobs has just enough truth to convince those who want to be convinced. In other words, yes, a high minimum wage would make it more attractive for an employer to replace human workers with machines. But $10.10 per hour is not high enough to tempt very many employers. Arguing that such a small wage increase would cause more unemployment is specious. It suggests that employers are keeping excessive employees on as some sort of charitable project. We know that isn't so. Employers hire enough people to do the work they must have done, and no more. If they must pay more, they will cover the added expense in one or more of three ways - find some other way to lower expenses, raise prices, or (horrors!) accept a lower profit margin.


Lowering other expenses might, as already mentioned, include buying labor-saving machines. More likely, though, it involves finding more efficient ways to reduce costs - better climate control, reducing paperwork, better targeted advertising and so forth. Business owners who choose to raise prices hope no one notices, or that their products and services are in such demand that the public will be willing to pay more for them.


Finally, there is the matter of the businessperson's profits. Let me just say that in a private enterprise economy the profit margin should be razor thin. The entrepreneur should live in constant dread that some competitor will think of a way to make a better product, or as good a product at a lower price.


Let me tell you a little story. My first job was as a bagger at a Publix supermarket in Miami Florida (on Miller Road if you really want to know). It was 1965, I was sixteen, and my minimum wage salary was $1.15 per hour. We baggers were told not to double bag the large paper grocery sacks (no plastic back then) because they cost Publix two and one-half cents each. If we were asked to double bag, we should use the smaller bags that only cost a penny. The Publix supermarket chain realized a profit of two cents for every dollar spent there, so double bagging with the large sacks wiped out the profit from a whole lot of groceries going out the door.


That's what I mean by a small profit margin, but Publix was, and is, a successful company. Would they have done without some of us if they had to pay us more - say $1.50? It would have resulted in longer lines, and dissatisfied customers. I'll grant you that most grocery stores now have self-check lanes for people making only a few purchases, but more machinery is almost a given in our twenty-first century world. (They also have scanners now, whereas half a century ago the checker had to ring up each item on a manual cash register. For that matter, most purchases are made with credit or debit cards now. When I was a boy, purchases were made by cash or check, and a check had to be approved by the manager, who had to be summoned and who had to okay the check while other customers waited in line.)


So what is the debate really all about? It's about profit, of course, maximizing profit versus paying a living wage to people who often are not very upwardly mobile. By the way, the argument that a low minimum wage acts as a spur to the working person to improve his or her skills to gain a better job doesn't seem to be justified from a statistical standpoint. Many people are, for want of a better word, trapped with the skill set they acquired in their younger years.


So raise the minimum wage. If Congress is too deluded or too churlish to raise the minimum generally, at the very least, make the minimum the same for wait persons as it is for everyone else. Give my daughter-in-law a break! 

Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?

The Parable of the Good Samaritan

²⁵ On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
²⁶ “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
²⁷ He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’^[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’^[b]”
²⁸ “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
²⁹ But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
³⁰ In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. ³¹ A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. ³² So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. ³³ But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. ³⁴ He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. ³⁵ The next day he took out two denarii^[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
³⁶ “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
³⁷ The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”


Just now I re-read the Bible passage of the Good Samaritan. The story has been on my mind today because I became involved in a Facebook debate concerning panhandlers. I'll post the entries here, deleting the name of one of the contributors and saying, for the sake of full disclosure, that Pat Maasch is my sister. It started with my Facebook post, as follows.

Meanwhile, my local news channel just ran a story about the "problem" of the increasing number of panhandlers. Is it any wonder there are more people out begging for money after long term unemployment benefits were ended? An interviewee actually said there are more beggars because that's easier than finding work. You try standing all day in below freezing weather being judged and humiliated and see whether you wouldn't rather have a job.

Like · · Promote · Share

• 

  at several hundreds a day, one eases into it with cognitive dissonance

  16 hours ago · Like

  
• 

  

  Peter Baril I never see these people making any money. If it was several hundred a day, I'd be doing it.

  16 hours ago · Like

  
• 

   I've always wanted to follow one away from their panhandling spot, to see if they get into a Lexus.
  And Yeah Pete, they can make a decent "living", tax-free. Even if it's $10 per hour, that's more like $13 to 17 played against a paycheck with deductions.

  15 hours ago · Like

  
• 

  

  Pat Maasch Cause and effect-don't pass a jobs bill, keep wages low, end unemployment benefits (which the unemployed ALSO paid into, have lost their jobs through no fault of their own-and have to prove that they're actively seeking work to keep the benefits) and then be angry that people are poor, homeless and asking for quarters on the street. Who/what is the source of these people making several hunderd a day? Rush? Bill? Hannity? Sarah? Regan's fantasy "Welfare Queen" lives on........... .

  6 hours ago · Like

  
• 

  The "pain" of proving one is actively seeking work is the ten-minute effort of posting for two job apps online. Granted one has to have a resume, which takes several hours to get right, but it's nothing to "fake" trying to find a job.
  As far as the wages are concerned, I'm looking up the source, which I believe was 60 Minutes (CBS) some years ago.
  As far my source, I don't believe in believing the opinion of an opiate drug addict who only completed a HS education . . .

  3 hours ago · Like

  
• 

   Nice assumption, though

  3 hours ago · like

  
• 

  

  Peter Baril Bottom line, if you don't want to give something to a panhandler, then don't. but do we help people because they need help or because we think they deserve help?

  3 hours ago · Like

  
• 

   Does a seventh-generation lazy, able-bodied Welfare-food stamp-WIC-free housing-free mobile phone recipient DESERVE our help? This is NOT connected to the panhandling concept.

  3 hours ago · Like

  
• 

  

  Peter Baril Where is all this coming from? How does anyone know the history or circumstances of someone standing by the side of the road?

  3 hours ago · Like · 1

  
• 

  

  Pat Maasch I echo Pete-If you don't want to give to a panhandler--don't. May you never be unemployed with a loss of benefits, may you never be recovering from bad choices that you've made-but honestly wish to better yourself, may no female you know find themselves pregnant and deserted by the person they loved most-and have no options, may nobody you know wish to go to college and be told: "Sorry, there's no help for you.", may you never be so lacking in funds that you don't know how you're going to pay for this months electric bill-or feed your children. May you never suffer any of this--and face the disdain of people who think you are "lazy", a "taker" and getting rich off of welfare money. Welfare does not make a poor person rich-but tax breaks for the very wealthy only make them richer. As for me-I have been fortunate and had a good life-but I was raised to have compassion for and a desire to help people who have not been as lucky as I am-and will continue to be so. I don't see 'lazy' or 'taking' out there, I see despair and want among people not as well of as I am---and greed and indifference among the people far better off than myself. Anyway-peace to you and have a lovely day.

Back to the Samaritan. In the parable, Jesus says the man fell prey to robbers who left him, beaten and nearly naked, half-dead by the side of the road. Both a Pharisee and a Levite saw the man but couldn't be bothered to help him. A Samaritan - an outcast - took pity on the guy, dressed his wounds, took him to an inn, and paid for his lodging and meals.


I bet all of us hope we would be as compassionate. Perhaps we think we would do as well as the Samaritan did by the robbery victim. Let me just mention one or two other things about the story, however.


We don't know anything else about the robbery victim. He could have been a good guy or a bad guy. All we do know is that he was in desperate obvious need. Nor so we know a whole lot about the Pharisee and the Levite, except that they passed the half-dead man on the other side of the road - I'm guessing so they wouldn't have to hear his pleas for help - and that they were part of Jewish religious cults and were known for their presumed rectitude.

Finally, we don't know much about the Samaritan, just that he was a nice person and had two pieces of silver on him. Maybe they were his last bits of cash, who knows? My point is that he doesn't know the robbery victim either. It doesn't say anywhere in the story that he questioned the injured man to find out what had happened to him. For all he knows, the guy might have lost a fight that he had instigated himself. All he knows is that the man needs help, so he pitches in and helps.


Panhandlers on the roadside aren't in such obvious need as the robbery victim in the parable. And yes, in a nation of more than 300 million people, there are some folks who want to make only a minimal effort at life, and would rather ask for money than work for it. In fact, in a nation of more than 300 million people, there's just about nothing we can imagine that doesn't happen from time to time.


So, to sum up, should we give money to panhandlers? Does doing so just enable them to live idle lives? Possibly yes, as they say, but probably no. What I do know is that I'll give money to beggars as I'm able to, and won't bother myself about their motivations.