Category Archives: Night Writer

Tiger Lilly’s gift

Posted on by
2

For my birthday today Tiger Lilly gave me a writing assignment that she completed from her writer’s exercise book, 3 a.m. Epiphany by Brian Kitely. It read:

This was an exercise in The 3 a.m. Epiphany that I thought would be interesting to do. The exercise was to take a phrase or saying (preferably one with a large variety of words in it) and form 15 sentences out of that saying. The words needed to adhere around a character in a situation that seems related to (but necessarily a response to) the author’s original sentence. I managed to get a slightly silly pointless deep, meaningful story out of it. I used the following quote:

Two roads diverged in a wood and I,
I took the road less traveled by;
And that made all the difference.
— Robert Frost

I traveled by two roads.
I traveled in a wood.
Two roads traveled in a wood.
A difference in the wood made the roads diverge.
The two roads diverged.
The roads made all the difference.
I diverged in the wood.
I took the road less traveled by.
I made all the difference.
I traveled less in the wood.
The road and I diverged.
I took the difference and made the road that made the difference.
I made the road diverge in a wood.
The road and I diverged.
And that made all the difference.

Tiger Lilly’s present reminded me of Peter Gabriel singing “The Book of Love.” In turn I’ll modify one of the lines in that song to say:

And you, you can write me anything.

An early Father’s Day

Posted on by
1

There is a lot of commentary back and forth following Tuesday’s post about the German family seeking political asylum in the U.S. so that they can have the freedom to home-educate their children. This has had me thinking of the role of parents, and of fathers, and reminded me of something that happened at our March Inside Outfitters meeting.

This is the monthly men’s breakfast and teaching that has been drawing a large group of men from Minnesota Teen Challenge, a residential drug rehabilitation program. Last month we were at my partner Earl’s church for the meeting and Earl shared a message aimed at the men who had grown up without a positive male role model in their lives. He described the hurt and frustration of knowing you were missing something but not being sure what it was, and of the resulting anger and defensiveness that caused so many men to reject God the Father and to understand what it meant to be instructed and guided.

Earl is one who knows first-hand what that is like. He grew up with a violent, abusive father who was still highly respected as a deacon in their church. Earl’s heart hardened with each outrage as he and his brother, sisters and mother absorbed each outburst. He grew violent himself and turned violently to crime and to drug and sexual abuse. He eventually found himself in Minnesota’s maximum security prison, where the gentle spirit of a visiting pastor finally showed him who is real father is and set him on the path to becoming a pastor himself. As he finished his message, he told the men that God has plans for each of them and they need to be open to receive instruction and blessing and set aside the anger and hurt that was getting in the way. Then he did something kind of unusual. He invited my pastor and I to come up front with him, then he invited the men (some in their 30s and 40s) who hadn’t ever had a word of support or acceptance from their own fathers to view the three of us as stand-ins, and to approach and receive that word from us.

About 40 men came forward, some almost staggering, and divided into three lines. As each man facing me approached I wrapped my arms around his shoulders or pulled his head down towards mine and said, “I’m proud of you. You’re doing the right thing.” Some started to shake so hard that it was difficult to hold them up. Many wept openly. I got pretty misty myself. As we finished I went over to Earl and put my arm across his shoulders and addressed the group.

“I didn’t have a father like Earl’s father,” I said. “He had his outbursts and his moments, but I always knew he loved me and supported me and I know the sacrifices he made for me.” I added, “I’ve thought from time to time how our lives might have been different if Earl had had my father and I had had his as we grew up. Where would I be today, and where would Earl be, if that had been the case?”

I paused to let that settle a bit. It was dead quiet. “Where would we be today?”

My pastor spoke: “You’d both be right where you are now, doing what you’re doing.”

“Exactly,” I said, “because God the Father’s plan is greater than anything we, or you, might have missed or might have done. You have the same opportunity — and He’s proud of you.”

Learn the lessons

Posted on by
7

by the Night Writer

On the heels of an article in the St. Paul paper this week about the surge in homeschooling in the U.S., I read an article today about a German family seeking political asylum in Tennessee so that they can homeschool their children.

MORRISTOWN, Tenn. — Homeschooling is so important to Uwe Romeike that the classically trained pianist sold his beloved grand pianos to pay for moving his wife and five children from Germany to the Smoky Mountain foothills of Tennessee.

Romeike, his wife, Hannelore, and their children live in a modest duplex about 40 miles northeast of Knoxville while they seek political asylum here. They say they were persecuted for their evangelical Christian beliefs and homeschooling their children in Germany, where state school attendance is compulsory.

When the Romeikes wouldn’t comply with repeated orders to send the children to school, police came to their home one October morning in 2006 and took the children, crying and upset, to school.

“We tried not to open the door, but they (police) kept ringing the doorbell for 15 or 20 minutes,” Romeike said. “They called us by phone and spoke on the answering machine and said they would knock open the door if we didn’t open it. So I opened it.”

The Romeike’s case may sound extreme, but the fact is Germany is adamantly anti-home education, as I’ve reported in this blog on a couple of occasions. The first time was in November of 2006 in a post entitled Ve haf vays…

Stones Cry Out excerpted a story last week about German police forcibly delivering home-schooled children to the local state schools.

A Nazi-era law requiring all children to attend public school, to avoid “the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions” that could be taught by parents at home, apparently is triggering a Nazi-like response from police.

The word comes from Netzwerk Bildungsfreiheit, or Network for Freedom in Education, which confirmed that children in a family in Bissingen, in the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, have been forcibly hauled to a public school.

“On Friday 20 October 2006 at around 7:30 a.m. the children of a home educating family … were brought under duress to school by police,” the organization, which describes itself as politically and religiously neutral, confirmed.

A separate weblog in the United States noted the same tragedy.

Homeschoolblogger.com noted that the “three children were picked up by the police and escorted to school in Baden-Wurttemberg, with the ‘promise’ that it would happen again this week.”

The Network for Freedom in Education, through spokesman Joerg Grosseluemern, said the Remeike family has been “home educating their children since the start of the school year, something which is legal in practically the whole of the (European Union).”

It kind of makes you wonder about a government that’s afraid of what parents might teach their children…or that believes it is the rightful parent of the nation. Perhaps they’ve read their William Ross Wallace and know that “the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world,” and they find that discomforting. I’m also amazed that this “Nazi-era” law is still on the books in Germany; it is all für der Kinder, no doubt.

This all reminds me of how the roots of the U.S. education system go deep into the Prussian model of the early 20th century (believe me, we got more than just “kindergarten” from this influence). I had started digging into this topic for a post a long time ago and got sidetracked; it might be time to resurrect this effort. For now, at least, we can appreciate that our money is the only thing the state forcibly takes from our homes and sends to public school.

Like the Pilgrims before them, the Romeikes came to America seeking religious freedom (not freedom from religion) and to live their lives free of government interference. Good thing for them they came to Tennessee, though, and not California where the education unions and courts march in goose-step together, as I wrote about here last March…

More compelling was one judge’s written opinion:

“California courts have held that … parents do not have a constitutional right to home-school their children,” Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. “Parents have a legal duty to see to their children’s schooling under the provisions of these laws.”

Parents can be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply, Croskey said.

The ruling sent shock waves throughout the estimated 166,000 home-educators in California as well as through the California legislature and even Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said, “Every California child deserves a quality education, and parents should have the right to decide what’s best for their children. Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children’s education. This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts, and, if the courts don’t protect parents’ rights, then, as elected officials, we will.” Interestingly enough, Schwarzenegger’s signing of SB777 last year may be one of the things that have led many parents to abandon the public schools. Give the Governator credit though; he may not be great at logic but he definitely knows how to count votes and probably realizes that whatever other political beliefs a homeschooling family may have, telling them that they have no right to educate their own children trumps them all.

Personally, I’m not shocked. California has long been the most overtly hostile state toward home-educators (ironically it’s own school system struggles to place a certified teacher in every classroom, yet would seek to mandate it in every home-school). Similarly, Education Minnesota has no love lost for home-educators and my hunch is that they wouldn’t mind if their pet DFL pupils in the Minnesota legislature were to bring them a similar bill as if it were a bright, shiny apple.

Of course, it takes a real socialist mentality to proclaim that the State is the rightful owner of your children, as I’ve documented before regarding events in England and Germany. The Germans, in fact, are still embracing the 1937 law instituted by a certain mustachioed megalomaniac that mandates compulsory state school educations. Seventy years later they’re still enforcing it by forcibly taking kids from their homes to school in police cars or even removing children from their parents’ homes and hiding them in psychiatric hospitals for evaluation.

Maybe the Germans have this thing about control, but surely a liberal democracy and member of the European Union would have respect for things like rights and constitutions, right? After all, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union declares that “the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”. Yet according to the entry in Wikipedia where I got that quote:

Homeschooling in Germany is illegal with rare exceptions. The requirement to attend school has been upheld, on challenge from parents, by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. Parents violating the law have most prominently included devout Christians who want to give their children a more Christian education than what is offered by the schools. Penalties against these parents have included fines (around €5,000), successful legal actions to take away the parents’ custody of their children, and jail time for the parents.[1]

In a landmark legal case commenced in 2003 at the European Court of Human Rights a homeschooling parent couple argued on behalf of their children that Germany’s compulsory school attendance endangered their children’s religious upbringing, promoted teaching inconsistent with their Christian faith — especially the German State’s mandates relating to sex education in the schools — and contravened the declaration in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union that “the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”. In September 2006 the European Court of Human Rights upheld the German ban on homeschooling, stating “parents may not refuse …[compulsory schooling] on the basis of their convictions”, and adding that the right to education “calls for regulation by the State”. The European Court took the position that the plaintiffs were the children, not their parents, and declared “children are unable to foresee the consequences of their parents’ decision for home education because of their young age…. Schools represent society, and it is in the children’s interest to become part of that society. The parents’ right to educate does not go as far as to deprive their children of that experience.” The European Court endorsed a “carefully reasoned” decision of the German court concerning “the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society.”

Good luck to the Romeikes. I know from first-hand experience that the U.S. immigration and asylum courts can be very difficult. My hope for the family, and for the U.S., is that we all will enjoy prolonged freedom. Freedom requires vigilance and conviction, even to the point of risking conviction, and I hope the examples of Germany and — closer to home — California, are educational.

Update:

The real issue here isn’t what the parents believe, it is whether they or the State have the right and the responsibility to determine the best education for their children. This is fundamental, whether the State is totalitarian, benevolent or a right-wing theocracy. How would people react if their children were required by law to go to the latter? Will some parents fail spectacularly at this? Of course. And so do many schools. Yet the principles of liberty and freedom must be vigorously and vigilantly defended at every point, especially within the family.

We are better served by honoring and defending the rights of the individual than we are promoting the authority of the State. I learned that in school, once, a long time ago.

I’m it! I’m it!!!

Posted on by
5

by the Tiger Lilly

This is in lieu of Anorex[st]ics Inaneymous, which will be posted later.

I was tagged by the controller of Through The Illusion: the awesomely awesome of awesomeness Hayden Tompkins with the 7 Things meme. I will be tweaking this to make it, ‘7 Things That May Or May Not Be True About Me’ to throw all you stalkers and enemies off. Obviously, you are still sworn to secrecy. That being said, I will continue with the aforementioned meme.

1. If I find that someone has given away any of the secrets I will divulge here in complete confidentiality, I will make it my personal job to hunt you down and unleash my tamed (I guess you could call them cowed) ninja cows upon you. Then I will also have to hunt down the poor fool that you told the secrets to, and erase their memories, or something drastic like that.
Just kidding! (or am I?!?!?!?! Muahahahahahahahahaaaaa!!!!! *Ahem*)

2. I have had my appendix removed. I’ve found that that operation needs to be done to a few books, as well (especially the ones that have Appendix A, Appendix B, etc etc).

3. I took the crazy test, and the results came out as, ‘You are Paranoid Crazy!’ But you never would have guessed that.

4. I plan on traveling a lot when I get older. At some point, I’m going to save a lot of money, pack a few things, get into my car, and just drive with no particular destination in mind.

5. I have written a novel, and am working on the sequel.

6. Because I’m feeling an excess of rebellity and a superfluity of naughtiness, I’m only going to tag one person.

7. I tag: Sly the Family Rat. She has just told me she will post later this week.

Okay, there you go. Now you can decide if all was a lie, none was a lie, or if I put down a mixture of both. I hope this drives at least some of you insane (although, for some of you, it’s less than a drive and more of a short putt).

Ciao for now!

The Emperor’s Groove

Posted on by
1

It struck me the other day that the modern Disney classic The Emperor’s New Groove, is a stunning forecast of the Obama administration, even though it was released at the dawning of the previous administration in 2000.

Now, I don’t blog about politics too much because there are so many better bloggers out there with more fire and deeper insights than I, plus my own belief is that there’s really not a nickel’s worth of difference between the two major parties’ ruling credo of “just win, baby.” I am a big movie fan, however, and some of the recent political headlines started dovetailing with the great songs and dialog in the movie. Were the Disney studios eerily prescient in their allegorical (not Al-Gore-ical) forecast of an Obama administration, or did I simply spend too many hours in a car this weekend with too little to occupy my mind? You be the judge.

Submitted for your consideration, the following excerpts with President Obama as Emperor Kuzco, Senator Judd Greg as Pacha, Rahm Emanuel as Kronk and a host of “characters” that Obama has thrown under the bus represented by the emporer’s ex-advisor, Yzma.

Kuzco’s theme song: This was sung by the great Tom Jones, but the cartoon vocalist with his red-blond afro and over-the-top enthusiasm sounds a lot like Chris Matthews to me. Consider these lyrics (think “Big O” instead of “Kuzco”):

He was born and raised to rule
No one has ever been this cool
In a thousand years of aristocracy
An enigma and a mystery
In Meso American History
The quintessence of perfection that is he

He’s the sovereign lord of the nation
He’s the hippest dude in creation
He’s a hep cat in the emperor’s new clothes
Years of such selective breeding
Generations have been leading
To this miracle of life that we all know

What’s his name?
Kuzco, Kuzco, Kuzco…

He’s the sovereign lord of the nation
He’s the hippest cat in creation
He’s the alpha, the omega, a to z
And this perfect world will spin
Around his every little whim
‘Cause this perfect world begins and ends with him

What’s his name?
Kuzco, Kuzco, Kuzco…

Weird, huh? Well how about these lines of dialog (real names inserted for cartoon characters):

Pacha/Judd Gregg: Uh-oh.
Kuzco/Obama: Don’t tell me. We’re about to go over a huge waterfall.
Pacha/Gregg: Yep.
Kuzco/Obama: Sharp rocks at the bottom?
Pacha/Gregg: Most likely.
Kuzco/Obama: Bring it on.

[after the stock market’s fallen into the alligator pit]
Kuzco/Obama: Why do we even have that lever?

Kuzco/Obama: Oh, and by the way, you’re fired.
Yzma/Rick Wagoner: Fired? W-W-What do you mean, “fired”?
[Kuzco/Obama snaps his finger and a servant comes in and writes down Wagoner’s “pink slip”]
Kuzco/Obama: Um, how else can I say it? “You’re being let go.” “Your department’s being downsized.” “You’re part of an outplacement.” “We’re going in a different direction.” “We’re not picking up your option.” Take your pick. I got more.

Kronk/Rahm Emanuel: Hey, it doesn’t always have to be about you. This poor little guy’s had it rough. Seems a talking llama/talk show host gave him a hard time the other day.

Kuzco/Obama voiceover: This is Carville, the emperor’s advisor. Living proof that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth.

[Kuzko/Obama collides with an old man/Jim Cramer while dancing]
Kuzco/Obama: D’oh! You threw off my groove!
Palace Guard/Media: I’m sorry, but you’ve thrown off the Emperor’s groove.
[the old man/Cramer is thrown out of the palace window]
Old Man/Cramer: Sooooorry!

Kuzco/Obama: When will you learn that all my ideas are good ones?
Pacha/Gregg: Well, that’s funny. Because I thought that you going into the jungle by yourself, being chased by jaguars, lying to me to take you back to the palace were all really bad ideas.
Kuzco/Obama: Oh, yeah. Anything sounds bad when you say it with that attitude.

Pacha/Gregg: Why did I risk my life for a selfish brat like you? I was always taught that there was some good in everyone, but, oh, you proved me wrong.
Kuzco/Obama: Oh, boo-hoo. Now I feel really bad. Bad Obama.

Yzma/Rev. Wright: Why, I practically raised him.
Kronk/Emanuel: Yeah, you’d think he would’ve turned out better.
Yzma/Rev. Wright: Yeah, go figure.

I don’t know about you, but right now I’m scrutinizing Monsters vs. Aliens for predictions of the next election.

Deep theological question…

Posted on by
6

by the Night Writer

Road-tripped with the Reverend Mother and Tiger Lilly this weekend, and among the tunes on the car stereo was Marc Cohn’s “Silver Thunderbird”:

Don’t gimme no Buick
Son you must take my word
If there’s a God in heaven
He’s got a Silver Thunderbird
You can keep your Eldorados
And the foreign car’s absurd
Me I wanna go down
In a Silver Thunderbird

Which raises the question, “If God drives a silver Thunderbird, what does the Devil drive?”

I said, “Pinto.”

Tiger Lilly: “A Prius.”

Enter your suggestions in the comment section.

(Actually, I’ve always heard that God had a Chrysler, because the Bible says He drove Adam from the garden in his Fury.).

Inheritance taxes

Posted on by
1

by the Night Writer

A few years ago when home values were soaring my wife and I refinanced our house, taking out some equity to remodel part of our main floor while locking in a sub-5% fixed rate, 15-year mortgage (we hate paying interest). This was back in the day when you could finance 125 percent of your equity. The amount we needed was substantially less than this, and our loan officer kept trying to interest us in borrowing more. My wife wasn’t having any of it (I think this might have been the same loan officer who gushed that our credit score “walks on water”). Frankly, it kind of creeped us out to think about taking on all this extra debt simply because we could, especially for intangibles such as travel or ephemerals that depreciate quickly, such as new cars (both of which were examples of things the loan officer suggested we could spend the extra cash on). Fortunately for us, our instincts were correct.

I think most people have an built-in sense, or skepticism, for those “too good to be true” deals, even if we eventually decide that the deal is “too good to pass up.” Then, like the prize trout being reeled in we say, “I knew there was a catch!” It’s hard to resist, though, when the rest of the school is jumping in the boat on their own. Most of us have the scars on our lips to show for it.

I think that’s why so many people are feeling more than a little queasy about the direction of the economy and the proposed borrowing our way to prosperity budget offered by President Obama. How does it make sense that, if we’re in a crisis caused by unchecked borrowing, even more borrowing will get us out? And who are we borrowing from, and what’s the vig? Having learned a few things the hard way we tend to push back a little when the salesman says “you’ve got act by midnight tonight!” At the same time we really want to believe that things aren’t really so bad, and it will all work out in the long-run, because to believe otherwise calls into questions all those nice little assumptions that allow us to sleep at night. So when the salesman tries to allay our concerns with testimonials “Four out of five socialists prefer…” or say that this the “new and improved deficit, now with less rich people” we kind of say, “What the heck, and, you know, I think my next diet will be the one that works, too!”

“Besides,” the salesman says, “It’s really not my deficit…I inherited it!” So then we think, “Well, yeah, we’ve always had deficits, Winston, so what’s a little more?” If the Bush administration left us with the equivalent of a budget hangover, perhaps a little hair of the dog makes sense. A picture, as they say, is worth a thousand words — and likely a few trillion dollars as well.

As the Washington Post illustrated the other day:


SOURCE: CBO, White House Office of Management and Budget | The Washington Post – March 21, 2009

That’s not the Republicans providing that chart, or The Center for the American Experiment, or even Joe the Plumber; it’s the Washington Post, using numbers from both the President’s office and the ostensibly non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. As sickening as the Bush fiscal record is (and yes, the numbers above do include money spent on Iraq and Afghanistan), the current administration plans to take a case of the swine flu and turn it into Ebola.

As the Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl points out:

Perhaps someone can graph this for me: now that it’s been established that when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches cold, how long before the UN decides that our economy is too important to be left in the hands of Americans and requires global oversight?

HT: Bogus Gold.

An agenda in search of a weatherman

Posted on by
5

by the Night Writer

A couple of weeks ago I was sitting in my warm house, in a comfy chair, just flicking my gloveless fingers over my keyboard and I discovered that the amount of global sea ice was as high as it had been at any time since 1979, according to satellite observations of both the northern and southern hemisphere polar regions monitored by the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center. Of course, those paying attention will remember that 2008 was the year that some were predicting that the North Pole would melt entirely.

Didn’t happen. In fact, there was about 10 percent more ice in August of ’08 than there was in August of ’07. The last quarter of the year then saw an exceptionally fast and widespread refreeze to reach the 29-year high reported above.

Meanwhile, the Caitlin Arctic Survey team from the UK set out earlier this year to measure for themselves the amount and thickness of the arctic ice, predicting that due to climate change they’d have to swim (using special suits) for as much as 15 percent of the excursion.

Instead, severe weather and extreme cold put the team in danger as re-supply flights had trouble reaching the explorers:

Three global warming researchers stranded in the North Pole by cold weather were holding out hope Wednesday as a fourth plane set off in an attempt deliver them supplies.

The flight took off during a break in bad weather after “brutal” conditions halted three previous attempts to reach the British explorers who said they were nearly out of food, the Agence France-Presse reported.

“We’re hungry, the cold is relentless, our sleeping bags are full of ice,” expedition leader Pen Hadow said in e-mailed statement. “Waiting is almost the worst part of an expedition as we’re in the lap of the weather gods.”

Fortunately, a relief flight did manage to reach the group the other day, but it was touch and go for awhile:

“It’s been a pretty grim time waiting for the weather to lift enough to get the plane in. It’s no place to just hang around when it’s minus 40 degrees [Celsius], but we could not afford to move without our essential kit, food, fuel and batteries for our survey and communications gear,” said Hadow, the expedition leader, “All of us are just wanting to get going quickly and have a high calorie meal to fuel ourselves up.”

I’m glad to hear that the team is all right for now as only polar bears would truly be happy about the group’s predicament. Some of the commenters on the rescue story are upset, however, that fuel-burning, carbon-dioxide-spewing airplanes were used to resupply the expedition. Perhaps relief via a nuclear sub would have been better?

More taxes on the “lucky”

Posted on by
2

by the Night Writer

Are you one of the “95 percent” of Americans promised a tax-cut by President Obama? By all means, keep your fingers crossed and “hope” you get a little taste before pending “changes” in other tax laws and regulations swipe it right back out of your pocket.

A couple of weeks ago I highlighted a move by Congressional Democrats to tax your employer-sponsored health benefits. Today I have a couple more stories that suggest more back-door tax increases on your insurance are in the works.

One of the major features of life insurance and annuities has long been the ability to “build-up” cash values tax-free inside certain types of life polices and within annuities, with income taxes being taken when the funds were withdrawn, presumably in retirement when your income tax bracket is (hopefully) lower. It’s a similar mechanism to how a 401k works. Additionally, life insurance death benefits paid to your survivors have also been tax-free. All these tax deferrals act as incentives for consumers to take individual responsibility in planning for retirement and the financial security of one’s family.

This is not an strategy reserved only for the wealthy; cash value life insurance policies and annuities are mainstays of middle-class financial planning, while the more affordable term life plans (with no cash build-up) provide an important and accessible safety net for families with common sense but modest means. There are those, however, who love raising taxes every bit as much as they hate the thought of the individual doing anything for himself when the government could be doing it less efficiently. An example on the radar screen is out west where the Oregon State Revenue Committee is claiming that exempting these private funds imposes too much of a burden on the state which currently can’t get its hands on that money:

The federal government exempts life and annuity benefits from taxation, but Rep. Chuck Riley, D-Hillsboro, Ore., the sponsor of the Oregon bill, H.B. 2854, has argued that conformity with federal income tax rules is too costly, and that Oregon should tax some kinds of income now excluded from federal taxable income.

If passed as written, the bill would take effect on or after Jan. 1, 2010.

H.B. 2854 was first read March 2. To pass, the bill would need approval by a three-fifths majority.

The National Association for Life Brokerage Agencies, Fairfax, Va., has put out a statement opposing the bill, noting it would tax both the death benefits and earnings on the inside build-up of life insurance and annuities.

This “unfairly targets individuals and families who have taken responsibility for their financial future by preparing for retirement and planning for unforeseen circumstances,” NAILBA says in the statement. “Any changes to the tax system must not limit or disadvantage protection and security products, but rather strengthen them.”

It should be pointed out that “conforming” with the federal regulations doesn’t “cost” Oregon anything; it merely keeps money away from them, which really galls those inclined to think that your money (and children) belong to the State. It is also part and parcel of the mindset that, as with the earlier health insurance article, portrays having life insurance as a lucky break and unfair advantage and therefore worthy of confiscation and redistribution. While this particular article refers to Oregon only, if it passes it’s not much of a stretch to see other states trying the same thing.

On a related note, there is a recurring movement afoot in the federal government to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act which provides a limited anti-trust exemption to the insurance industry. This arises periodically, but now they are using the AIG imbroglio to justify this latest grab (though the connection is tenuous):

Two House Democrats have introduced a bill that would repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act insurance industry antitrust exemption.

The bill, H.R. 1583, the Insurance Industry Competition Act, would give the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission the authority to apply antitrust laws to anticompetitive behavior by insurance companies.

The bill would keep the McCarran-Ferguson provision that puts jurisdiction over insurance regulation in the hands of the states.

The bill was introduced by Reps. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., and Peter DeFazio D-Ore.

Taylor and DeFazio have introduced similar bills in earlier Congresses. They say the controversy over bonuses paid to American International Group Inc., New York, employees highlights the need for action on the antitrust issue.

The current insurance industry antitrust exemption gave AIG a free pass to become “too big to fail,” and “now the U.S taxpayers are on the hook to bail them out or risk even further turmoil in an already fragile economy,” Taylor and DeFazio say in a statement. “This legislation would close that exemption.”

Admittedly, McCarran-Ferguson is a rather esoteric issue in a complex environment, and “anti-trust” always sounds like it’s in the best interests of the public. What the Act does, however, is allow states to regulate insurance companies operating within their jurisdiction rather than bringing it all under federal oversight. The result, however, is to make the insurance products — both life & health and property & casualty — more affordable. Federalizing insurance regulation would, like the initial efforts at “health-care reform” would strengthen the biggest players while harming or even eliminating the smaller companies, and would result in higher costs for consumers, not lower.

As someone who’s worked in marketing and advertising in this industry for a long time I know that I have complained on many occasions about the challenges of working with 50 different state insurance commissions in order to get products and even certain advertising approved. While I’ve often thought it would be simpler to deal with just one entity I also see how state control benefits consumers.

Politicians have long been masters of saying one thing and doing another; of staging a distraction in the park while the pickpocket goes through the crowd. When you hear the music playing, be sure to look over your shoulder.

Picture this: Yo, Lumpy

Posted on by
2

by the Night Writer

“Take me, mold me,
Use me, fill me,
I give my life into the Potter’s hand…”

Singing this song always makes me think of Romans 12:2: And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

If you take a lump of clay into your hands your tendency is to squeeze it and roll it, perhaps making a little face out of it as you kind of doodle with your fingers. If you picture our lives as a lump of clay introduced into the world we can quickly see how all the outside forces in our lives try to shape and conform us to some image, squeezing and pressing us with things as diverse as fashion or politics or family expectations, or TV commercials, or our schooling. Everything, it seems, seeks to conform us to some earthly standard of what is acceptable, whether it’s your friends, your job, your gang, your political party — even your church. How the pressure is applied determines the shape our conformation takes on.

But there’s another way to shape clay. A potter can place a lump on a wheel and get the wheel spinning and in doing so begins to bring smoothness and balance to our lump and then, rather than conform, something transforming happens as the potter reaches into the spinning clay and cups his fingers outward, causing the little ball of clay to suddenly bloom outward and expand, displacing clay with air. Depending on the potter’s vision, the transformed lump could become a bowl, a pot, a vase or an urn.

Similarly, when our thinking is conformed to the world we are squeezed into something smaller and denser, our minds grooved and compressed by repetition. When we are transformed by allowing our minds to be renewed — to begin to grasp what has previously been beyond our imagination — however, we get bigger and can hold things; rather than being something to look at we become something useful.

The song above describes God as the Potter, and in my analogy you can see God reaching into us, increasing our capacity, making us fit for bigger, better things. Of course, we still have to be fired in the kiln, the trial bringing out our colors while making our final shape stronger (seeking to pull out of the fire too soon, however, and you’re left with a fragile, untrustworthy object).

But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
— 2 Corinthians 4:7