The One Part of Obamacare I agree with

It is no secret that I am not a rabid Obama supporter. I feel the man is not qualified for the job he holds (no, I'm not a birther. I am simply alluding to the fact that he has very little experience for the most powerful executive position in the world.)

But, that being said, one aspect of the proposed medical reform package actually makes some sense.

A lifetime ago, I used to sell heath insurance. I know a little about this.

Ever wonder why most people get their insurance through their employer? The reason is 'adverse selection '. Insurance is about risk. We buy insurance to cover us for the chance something bad will happen to us that would be devastating financially (house burn down, we get sick, etc) . By pooling large groups of people together, the insurance company can run statistics and perdict about how much claims will be, and can figure out how much everyone has to pay to cover the claims (and a make the company a profit).

Sick people are more likely to want to buy health insurance than healthy people. If you try to buy health insurance on your own, the chance that you are healthy and being careful is small, but the chance that your sick and want them to pay your bills is large, hence a larger bill.

Group insurance (like the policies sold to employers as part of a fringe benefit package), though, covers the healthy and the sick. The reason the people are being cover is because of where they work, not their health status. Thus, group policies are way, way, way cheaper than individual polices.

Part of Obama's idea (if you can call a bill originating in the House or Senate Obama's Idea) is to mandate health coverage. This would reduce the amount adverse selection, and allow individuals to start getting much rates.

While it makes sense, I do worry about the government saying "you must buy a product, even if you don't want to."

Marvelous design

I am astounded at the marvel of God's creation!

While doing some study on spiders, I learned a great deal about their circulatory system (they don't really have one in the same manner as we), and read how their systems, while much simpler and less efficient than ours, fits perfectly with their needs.

On one hand, the sources (mostly Wikipedia) talk of the design and explain its complexities and how well it fits the animal, then talk about how it all occurred by chance.

I don't get it. How can these very bright people look at something so complex, so well suited to their environments, and more efficiently engineered than the best sports car and say,
"It all happened by accident. Just chance. There is no designer of this design."

Prayer

Normally, if I blog about my faith, I do so here in my other blog, but this is a political reflection.

There has been a serious change in this nation since the 1960's, thanks mostly to the ACLU. Yes, our friends, who champion removing God, promoting homosexuality, protecting child porn, and pediophiles, have been bringing law suites against schools in which prayer is offered by a non-student. They cite the crystal clear line of a wall of separation between church and state as their motivator.  This wall of separation is found in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, in the Bill of Rights.

For those who may not be familiar with the Constitution, it would seem the issues was clear cut.  After all, doesn't the Constitution say that government and religion should have no interaction whatsoever.  As oil and water, government and religion can't be mixed.

The Text
The text is found in the First Amendment to the Constitution. The text in question is ...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is rather dense. In this one amendment we have freedoms of press, of speech, assemble and petition.  Let's uncompress it a bit, since were interested in the section dealing with freedom of religion.  That section reads.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Since the words of the Constitution do not magically change when the Supreme Court reads them, let's try tor understand what this is saying.  It forbids the Federal Legislature, i.e. Congress, from either establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. 

At the heart of the debate of student-led prayer, the display of the Ten Commandments, the hosting of Nativity scenes on the court house lawn and a million other issues is that little word "establishment."

At the time this was written, nearly every nation had an official religion, supported by taxes, and imposed on the people against their will. Usually, the religion of the monarch was the official religion of the land, and those who practiced something else were either at best, taxed to support the State religion, while their own beliefs were tolerated, or at worst, hunted down and killed.

The establishment of religion actually can be rephrased as

"the government shall not create, nor fund an official church"

Please Notice the second clause. Congress cannot prevent the FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. This is co-equal to the first clause. They are both valid. They both are talking about FREEDOM OF RELIGION!

We have now come to a place where the "FREE EXERCISE" of religion is squelched in order to preserve the fallacy of "separation of Church and State"

Jefferson said

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, ... that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

The intent was not to be hostile to the expression of religion!  It was not to prevent religion from having any impact on government.  It was to keep the state out of the matter of the church, as he said "that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god."

Furthermore, this limits ONLY THE CONGRESS, not the courts, not the executive branch, nor the states!  See the phrase "Congress shall"?  Look at the wording of the Second Amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 The key, dear reader, is that the Second Amendment was written such that the Federal, State or Local governments could not infringe on this right.

Now, I am not advocating for Catholic Priests teaching catechisms in public school.  Nor am I suggesting that Mormons, Muslims or Baptists do the same.  As a Christian, I believe in the Golden Rule of "Do unto others as you would have them do to you."  We should show respect for other's beliefs while expressing our own.

And student led prayer is free exercise of religion, with is unambiguously protected by the First Amendment.  (Sort of.)

Immigration Stupidity

I was reading this article today, and had to comment on the stupidity therein contained.

The author kept using the euphemism "Undocumented immigrants." That's like saying "unauthorized, non-customer withdraws" to describe a bank robbery!

Mr. Koulish's position is irrational. This nation has laws on immigration that are being violated wholesale, and it seems his position is that we should ignore the violation.

If the laws are wrong, fine, change them. No nation of laws can exist by ignoring the laws it finds inconvenient. By doing so, it devalues all laws.

Furthermore, his statement about the "destruction of families" caused by deportation of an illegal arrested for a "minor infractions" ignores that they are already lawbreakers by being here illegally. If I robbed a bank, and then got picked up for littering, does it mean that the police should ignore the bank robbery charges?

Finally, he stated that '"securing the border" is indefinable, unmeasurable". This is hogwash total, ridiculous pig's bath water! How about we define securing the border 'preventing unauthorized border crossing'? How about measuring it by the number of legal interdictions?

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Illegal immigration is a topic neither party wants to deal with, and this creates a de facto slave class, which is so wrong I could just scream. It is not fair for lower-income Americans, it's not fair for the Mexican, it's not fair to the community asked to bear the burden of the influx of low skill, low income, poorly educated people. It needs fixing, but I doubt I'll ever see it.

Hypocracy

Folks, we conservatives aren't known for protesting. Sure, we'll vote, and complain, and sometimes even pass out literature. But protest..?

Now the liberal line is that the recent protests during town hall meetings as fake, 'astroturf' is the term.

They say that the protesters are not everyday people. They say that these people are planted. They say that there is an organization. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer even said it's unamerican. 

Oh, you filthy hypocrites!  It is you, fair-minded liberal, who said that protesting is the highest form of patriotism!  It is you, members of the far left, that have  bussed in protesters by the hundreds all over the nation!  Lefties, you are the ones who have done everything short of paying people to protest to drum up support for your cause!  And you have the gull, the unmitigated audacity to complain about us?

Sure, I know our side is hypocritical as well. We've criticized the wackos from code pink and act up for being rude and interrupting events, while we sit back and cheer when the red-faced tea partier screams down a senator.  But our level of hypocritical behavior pales in the face of your past stances, dear liberal.

What does the following people and organizations have in common?

• Code Pink
• Act Up
• Cindy Sheehan
• ACORN
• Jane Fonda(who is now a born again Christian as of 2001.)
• most unions
  

The common thread is that each of these people or organizations have protested, organized, spoke out, and attempted to influence both elections and public policy. These efforts were heralded by the media as wholesome and fully American.

When the SAME EXACT behavior occurs from our side (although, usually, it's much more sedate and mannerly.  We Conservatives like to follow rules, even when protesting.  We pick up our trash too, afterwards.) you point your crooked fingers at us, foaming at the mouth, and stammer out baseless accusations such as racism and call us unamerican.

Suck it up, stop your whining, pull up your big boy underwear, and deal with it! 

For decades, our side has been mostly silent and passive, while yours has been loud and aggressive. 

What's good for Code Pink is good for the tea parties, and it's about time you got a taste of your own medicine!

Obama's Birth Certificate

Ok, I admit that I don't like Obama. It's not personal. I'm sure he's a great guy to hang out with, but his socialist policies are too much for me.

That being said, there is some chatter about Obama's birth certificate. There are statements that he's never produced one showing that he was born in the USA.

The U.S. Constitution requires a man to be a natural born citizen in order to serve. There are two ways to become a natural born citizen. First, be born within the borders of our nation, and second, to be born from at least one U.S. citizen.

In other words, say Barak was born in Kenya. So what, his mom was a citizen, so he would be as well.

Also, I did see a birth certificate produced by his campaign. It is an abstracted certificate from the state of Hawaii. It looks legit to me, and I do know birth certificates (I work for Vital in WV)

Fussing about something stupid does not help the cause to push back his policies, it just makes our side look like kooks.

Why?

If there is no media bias then...
Why is every movie about a president picture the Republican as

• stupid
• greedy
• insensitive
• brutish
• immoral (or at least amoral)
  
• uncaring
  
• for 'evil corporate concerns'
  

while the Democrat is

• loving
• kind
• smart
• whity
• moral,
  
• cares for the poor
  
• for the 'working man'

Don't belive me? American President. Dave. Swing vote, need I go on? West Wing, MASH, etc.

NASA's Impending death

Next year, the Space shuttle will be retired. For nearly 30 years, the space shuttle system has been the symbol of pressing the boundaries, and moving to the next step in space exploration.

Now, NASA is giving up it's heavy lift Constellation Systems.  We are going to lose our position as leader in space because bureaucrats can't make up their minds on what goals to reach for.

NASA is dying.  Without a vision, the Bible Says, the People perish, and without a goal NASA languishes.  They have wasted billions building a shuttle replacement, the changing their minds, and going a different direction. 

NASA is dying.  It's lost it's cutting edge.  It's lost it risk-tolerance, without which there is no real exploration.  In a few decades, our space program will be a distant memory.

I hope and pray I'm wrong.

Torture

Torture

"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession..." United Nations Convention Against Torture

Torture is a horrible practice. It's been used since before recorded history. Some modern forms of torture are

• physical assaults (i.e. beating up the prisoner)
  
• Stabbing, cutting, suffocating
• electrocution
• starvation
• breaking of bones
• chemical burns

Obama is thinking about prosecuting those who approved 'aggressive' interrogation techniques. The following are some of the "torture" inflected on detainees

• keeping somebody from falling asleep
• Exploiting someones fear of insects to coerce information from them
  
• Making somebody stand for hours, in an uncomfortable position
• Pushing someone into a specially built wall that bounces. Steps are taken to prevent any injury. The wall just makes a big sound (like the mat in pro wrestling)
• Holding the detainees' face
• Slapping the detainees' face (with spread fingers) no more than twice
• Grabbing the detainees' shirt and pulling him close (think Clint Eastwood style)
  
• Pouring water into somebody's face.

Compare this to the torture inflected upon our POWs in Vietnam.

In all honesty here folks, that isn't torture! It is not warm and cuddly. It's not comfortable. These same techniques have been used for years on over 10,000 U.S. airmen in the Air Force's Survival, Evasion and Escape program.

Do we torture our military? No. The training is tough, it gets close, but still fails on the 'severe pain and suffering.' Causing fear is a common interrogation technique used by all police departments in the world. Fear itself cannot be called sever pain and suffering.

The crux of the issue is

1. What constitutes torture? We agree that beatings and cutting off body parts constitutes torture, but does slapping someone? How about sleep deprivation?
   
2. Is morality absolute, or is it dependent upon the situation. If we caught someone planting a dirty bomb in a major city, and we knew that there were five more bombs, how far would we be willing to go to extract the locations of the other bombs from the terrorist we captured? Would our self-righteousness balm the knowledge that thousands, in not millions, are now dead because we decided not to get rough?
3. Are we fighting a war or are we doing law enforcement? Soldiers kill the enemy. Police arrest criminals. Police require evidence, and assume innocence. Solders neither require nor assume either. These are mutually exclusive worldviews. We cannot be of two minds about this question.

If we become like those we are fighting, we loose the very thing for which we are fighting. We can also be sure that our enemy will not limit themselves in this fight to what we consider moral, no matter how much nice we are.

The basis of our nations policy should be reality before philosophy. There are groups of people in this world who want to do us harm. The way to prevent them from inflicting harm on us to to hunt them down, and stop them. Stopping them may mean killing them.

There are two different moral implications at work in this decision. First, the governments obligation to act in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States, and with the traditions of this great nation. The second is much more basic. One of the first responsibilities of governments is to protect its citizens against attack. How moral would it have been if Bush could have prevented 3,000 deaths on 9/11, but choose instead not to be rough with a conspirator?

In light of the threats on this nation, and after reading the memos, I honestly believe the Bush people attempted to apply reasonable techniques that attempted to balance the morality of action against the morality of inaction. While harsh and aggressive, these methods fall short of out-right torture. All of the techniques were required to do no actual harm. Pain was to be kept to a minimum. Do you think that our enemies would be as considerate or moral?

Disgusting

In doing research of a paper I was writing for history class, I came across something I never heard before.  

During the early part of WWII, the Soviet Union invaded Poland and in the course of events, executed at least 22,436 Polish POWs.  Of course, the Soviet Union denied it had done so, until the Nazis discovered the mass graves.  FDR rejected a report from one of his underlings detailing Soviet responsibility and banished him to American Samoa for the rest of the war. American POW  Col. John H. Van Vliet wrote a report that concluded that the Soviets were responsible.  U.S. Maj. Gen. Clayton Bissell, assistant chief of staff for intelligence to Gen. Marshall (of the Marshall Plan fame) destroyed it to keep from offending our allies, the Soviets.

Murder of POWs is an atrocity that the Soviet Union repeated.  At the end of the war, when Germany surrendered, 91,000 German were taken as prisoners of war by the Soviet Union in Stalingrad.  Of these, only 6,000 survived.

The U.S. leadership showed no moral authority what-so-ever.  Political commentators condemn Reagan for supporting the Contras but give a pass to their favorite president, FDR, who did much worse.

Cap and Trade

Environmentalists, are you stupid?  You are behind Obama's Cap and Trade deal despite the facts that

• The major polluters will not be affected (China, for example)
• Cap and Trade will destroy our economy by raising energy prices to such a level that our current economy will fall.
• Cap and trade will bring poverty, and poor nations have some of the poorest environmental records.
• For years, environmentalists have complained about pollution, and companies have responded by cleaning up  emissions, redesigning products and so forth.  The result is that the only by-product produced in quantity now is CO2.  CO2 is also a by-product of breathing. How surprising it is that this useful gas, without which there would be no food, is now the state enemy # 1 with environmentalists.  If a device was made tomorrow that made burning coal as clean as wind power, do you think environmentalists would support it?

The problem isn't pollution.  I believe that a certain core of hyper-environmentalism is behind the recent pushes.  I seem them as religious fanatics who worship mother earth.  They view humans as a pestilence on the face of the planet, and loath any lifestyle above that of the Aborigines.

Their goal is to destroy modern life, and decrease population to 'sustainable' levels.    Most 'greens' are not among these, but buy into the whole notion that man is destroying the earth by not living like animals.

I am a conservationist.  I believe we huamns need to preserve and care for our envirnonment, while we make use of its resources.  Cut down that tree, but plant one.  Kill that deer, but leave enough to ensure the survial of the species.

The Pope, AIDS, Condoms, and the Liberal Mindset.

I am not Catholic.  I typically have no opinion on anything the Pope says, nor do I generally care what other people say about him.  

Back in mid March, the Pope went to Africa, and said that condoms are not the way to prevent AIDS/HIV.  

The liberals foamed at the mouth.  Here are their talking points.

• How dare he!  There are people dying and he doesn't care.
  
• Telling people to abstain from sex is nonsensitical.  People are going to have sex, and if we don't have them use condoms, they'll die!
• He's an old man, and therefore is either confused or is so old he doesn't remember what its like to have a libido.
• The only way to prevent HIV/AIDS is to push condom usage hard!

I don't know if the Pope cares or not, but I would bet that he did care.  That's not his point.  Do you know what's driving the pandemic in Africa?  Sexual immorality.

The New York Times says " researchers agree that extramarital sex has been a major factor in the AIDS epidemic. At least four million Africans, 80 percent of those infected, are believed to have acquired the AIDS virus through heterosexual intercourse."(emphasis mine)

Another publication mentions that researchers have identified  Transactional Sex , a euphamizum for armature prostitution, is a major driving force in the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa.

The Pope's point wasn't "Do not ever have sex"  but rather, "Have as much sex as you want, as long as it is only with your wife or husband."

If both the husband and wife are  monogamous, and clean of the virus, guess what.  They can't catch it!  

What is stupid, though, is encouraging condom use as if it is a cure all.  If used perfectly, condoms fail about 20% of the time.  Let's take a six-shot pistol, put one bullet in it, spin the revolver, and put the gun to our heads and pull the trigger.    That's real close to the actual odds of condom breakage. 

I'm not against passing out condoms to adults in Africa, but I think the better solution is to encourage men to be faithful to their wives, or the disease will.  If there were no extra matrial sex, the epidemic would stop very quickly.

Divorce Proof

We watch the TLC show, Jon and Kate Plus 8.  Seems as if the couple is going through a rough spot in their marriage.  I ran across this site that said "divorce proof" your marriage, and one of the items it said would help is a prenuptuial agreement.  That is a load of crap.  From being married over 14 years now, and having gone through many rough patches, I can give some prospective on preventing divorce.

1. Marriage takes work.  You have to do it on purpose.  You have to take steps to communicate, spend time together, and relate to each other.  A good marriage, like a well designed, well built home,  doesn't happen by accident, it takes planning and work.
2. Marriage takes commitment.  You have to say, "We will not divorce.  ever. "  when you say that to your heart, a funny thing happens.  When things are bad, you can either be miserable or fix them.  If you keep reminding yourself that you can quit, you'll experience  "grass is greener" syndrome, where you believe that it will be easier and better to quit.  Gut it out.
3. Marriage and selfishness don't go together.  Most problems in marriage arise because of selfishness.  Marriage requires a certain amount of selflessness.  We should put our needs secondary to our spouses.  This means that you guys out there need to turn off the ball game and talk to your wife, even when  you don't really care about the topic.  Gals, that means when your husband is interested in you physically, and you're not in the mood, put his needs first.  If both the husband and the wifes are actively trying to serve each other, then both of their needs will be met.
4. Communicate.  Make time everyday to talk with your spouse.  Talk to him or her about your day, your problems, your feelings, and your plans.  Just sharing your day will pull you closer together.  Most problems in marriage comes from communication problems.
5. Spend time together.  Make it a point to spend time together each week.  Even if you have to put aside time for  a cup of coffee after dinner, do so.  
6. Fight fair.  All couples fight.  Conflict is a natural, but the goal of 'fighting' is to resolve the issue, not to gain points.  Keep yourself under control, and agree to stop if things get overheated.  You're a team, not adversaries.  
7. Decide to Love.  Love is more of a decision than an emotion.  Make the decision to love your spouse, even if he or she doesn't deserve it.  Show your love even when you don't feel like it.
8. Forgive.  Jesus told Peter that we are supposed for forgive a brother 490 times for the same offense.  Forgiveness is letting the person go of the guilt they have.  It's hard, but it's required.  We cannot have a quality marriage if we constantly dredge up past wrongs.
9. You're Responsible for you.  While I can't control my wife's actions,  I can, however,  control me.  I can choose to respond out of love rather than anger.  I can choose to treat her with unearned kindness and deference.  I can choose to let go of past hurts and move forward.  I can choose to turn off the ballgame, put down the phone, turn off the computer pay attention to her.  I firmly believe that if more people would get this one concept in their minds, our divorce rate would plummet.

What's up with that?

While we were watching the Proud Family on the  Disney Channel (I think it was Disney),  a commercial came on advertising 'emergency contraception'

Oh,  how gross.  Pre-teens are now being assaulted with sex-related products on Disney?  I guess they think they have a demographic that watches the show that would have need of their product.  Honestly, though, I can't see what pre-pubescent kids need with that stuff.

I am sick of tampon, douche, condom, erectile disorder medication, and hemorrhoid commercials.  Can't we have a yuck-free evening with kids without having to have long conversations explaining what erections are, and why someone would have one for four hours or more?

Linux

I am not a novice computer user.  

Trust me.  I've been programming computers since I was 12 (25 years now).  I use a command prompt every day.  I write software for a living.  I've built computers.  I fix computers all the time.  In my house, we have a home network with file and print sharing.  There are times that I am using two computers at once!

I've been trying to get into Linux.  For those of you who don't know, Linux is a alternative operating system to Windows and Mac.  It's free.  It is really fast.  You can't break it (not like Windows, that is.)  Most Distros (think of them as versions or flavors) come with tons of free software too.

The problem is that it's hard.  For me, a professional computer programmer, that's saying something.    Nothing is easy in its setup.

The problem is that it was written for geeks by geeks.  Being a geek myself, that has a certain appeal.  There are big differences between Windows and Linux.

Microsoft has done a lot of work hiding how complex things really are.  

Why would  geeks hide how clever they are?

Microsoft has grey haired old ladies, overweight middle aged men with no technical ability and complete idiots who drool on themselves in mind when they design Windows.

Linux designers have themselves and their buddies in mind.  True, they do  simplify things.  Some of their friends are on the slower side, and only know one  or two  computer programming languages, and couldn't even program a binary search!

Linux geeks think it fun to create another program to do a function even when there are 47 others that do the same thing, just because they can.

Windows has any flavor you want, as long as it is vanilla.

Windows worries about making it pretty, then about making it work.

Geeks worry about how things look after they make it work and work right.

One day soon, I too will become geek enough to use Linux.  Until then, I'll hide my head in shame and use XP.

Grace

One of the Biggest words in the English language is a small, five letter word. Grace means unmerited favor. Often, grace is confused with mercy.

Mercy is when you don't receive the negative consequences of your behavior. You're driving 80 mph in a 25 zone, and a cop pulls you over, but lets you go without a ticket. That's mercy.

Grace is more than mercy. In the above example, if the cop handed you a million dollars, that would be closer to grace.

Grace is the sole means of salvation through Christ. The Bible teaches that works won't do.

I heard a preacher buddy of mine, Randy Wilson, define it as "Gods Riches as Christ's Expense" I've never heard a better definition.

The Change

While looking at a friend's Facebook page, I ran across a video called 'cardboard testimonies'.

The content is the same old story that I've heard all my life. God changes lives. Even though it's old, it's also quite true and very powerful.

The truth of the gospel is evident in the change. Whenever God moves in, there has to be a change.

No matter what our lives were before we met Christ, we know that in Him is the power to change lives. Marriages restored, sickness healed, sin forgiven, families brought together, addictions cured, and it goes on.

No matter what our problems, there is only one solution, and that is Jesus the Christ.

Pondering the Love Dare

Sometimes I feel like I am very different from most men.   I have been learning, however, that my reactions and feelings are within normal parameters.  There is an area, however, that I seem to be different.

For Christmas, my beautiful bride bought me a book called 'the love dare.  The book is taken from the movie Fireproof, in which the husband in a troubled marriage heading towards divorce, takes a 'love dare' from his father, and starts to show his wife he loves her.

I am all about improving my marriage.  To me, marriage is scared and vastly important, and I try( most days) to be a better husband.  As my bride will tell you, I don't always succeed.  Our marriage is far from perfect.  

My point is, though, that the book wasn't written for me.  It was written to get people who are self-centred to stop being so.  For example, some of the dares are 'do one act of unexpected kindness' or 'contact your spouse during the day, just to see how they're doing' 

I have been doing these things for years!  

You see, I am not typically a selfish person.  If anything, I need to be more selfish (I tend to put everyone above myself, which isn't good)  So far, the dares have not substantially changed the way in which I interact with my bride, nor  have they been challenging.  The book is good, however.  I'm going to finish it.

It's like Rick Warren's book, The Purpose Driven Life".  It states, "Your created for a purpose.  There is a reason you're here.  God has something he wants you to do."  I'm like, yea, so where's the news.  I've known that since I was five.  My life isn't about me.  It's about Him.  I couldn't finish the book, because it was so painfully obvious.  

I am not perfect by any stretch or definition.  I have problems with self-esteem and self-confidence.  I am prone to read more into situations than I probably should.  I have a lazy streak (I'm blogging instead of doing laundry.)  I'm a procrastinator (I'll start on the laundry when I finish this blog).  I have many other weaknesses and failures, just like everyone else.  

I don't, however, struggle from thinking the world revolves around me.  And from the reaction of most people who read "The Purpose Driven Life" and the "Love Dare", I must be in the minority.

It's hard for me to believe that most of society is self-centred.