Most of my friends are ignoring the brouhaha over prescription drugs and medicare. After all, we’re young, hip, and immortal. The fact of the matter is, though, that even if you plan to die young and leave a good-looking corpse, you should be worried about how the government is screwing us all over.

The House and the Senate have each passed slightly different prescription drug plans for senior citizens. Democrats (as usual) are saying things like “it doesn’t go far enough” (implying that its good, but not great) and Republicans are predictably shouting “this is salvation for seniors”. In reality, though, this sucks for everybody.

Here’s how the plan is going to work. A senior citizen signs up for private insurance that covers prescriptions. Then, once they are enrolled, the government helps pay for prescriptions – but only after a certain amount of premium is paid (about $450 a year) and after a certain amount of money has been paid by the senior citizen for drugs (about another $250). After all of that the plan begins to pay 80% or 100% of the remaining drug costs (depending on if we’re talking House or Senate plan). Sounds OK, right?

Well, not really. The first big problem concerns the fact that the plan won’t go into effect until 2006. This isn’t because its complicated (although it is), this is because virtually no company offers prescription-only insurance – the basis for the plan. Congress expects private companies to begin offering prescription-only insurance in the meantime so that they can cash-in on the plan.

This may be wishful thinking. The people most likely to enroll in such plans are those who really need the coverage. Insurance companies make their profits by not covering people who are likely to need their insurance. Or, they do so by overcharging enough in premiums and co-pays that they still make money despite providing benefits. So the companies that do provide prescription-only insurance are almost certainly going to charge as much as possible for every step of the insurance cycle. All of those extra costs, by the way, will be paid for with tax moneys.

The Senate version of the bill has a provision, though, saying that Medicare will offer its own prescription insurance – but only if there are less than 2 private providers of such insurance in a region. Many worry that this will in effect promote local monopolies – insurance companies that are the sole providers of insurance in a region who, free from competition, charge whatever they want and have their charges gladly paid for with tax money.

Another problem is the cost structure. Although senior citizens that spend a great deal on prescription drugs ($5,000+) will save money, they vast majority of seniors (about 70%) will not have their costs go down. Indeed, the Commonwealth Alliance (a watchdog group) estimates that about 35% of seniors on Medicare will have their drug costs go up. For about 10% they will double or more. Oh, and if they have other insurance (say, from retirement benefits) that contribute toward drug costs, that money doesn’t count toward the plans out of pocket costs – no matter what, you must pay $700+ to receive any benefits.

To sum up, the plans currently passed by Congress rely upon an almost nonexistent service that, if and when it is provided, will cost some senior citizens more than they pay now and will certainly cost the government a great deal more than if they were to pay all cost directly (since the plan is effectively funding insurance company profits on top of drug costs). It involves a chain of doctors, private individuals, private insurance companies, pharmacies, etc., all of which will require more administration, also driving up costs.

So why did the Congress pass a bill that makes care more complicated, more expensive, and more prone to error? As usual, the answer is ‘money’.

According to the group Public Citizen, drug companies spent almost a quarter of a billion dollars on lobbying, advertising, and campaign contributions during the 2000 election cycle. The annual lobbying expenditures by drug manufacturers has been no less than $25 million for almost 2 decades. The three or four drug companies that dominate the market spend fortunes on influencing our elected leaders to protect their own immense profits.

How immense are the profits of the drug industry? According to Fortune magazine (April 2002 issue), the average profits of the major drug manufacturers were 8 times the average return of the rest of the Fortune 500, making it the most profitable industry in America. Indeed, the most profitable drug company in America, Pfizer, made more profit ($7.8 billion after all taxes, expenditures, etc.) than Fortune 500 companies engaged in railroads, clothing, home construction, and publishing combined. Merck, the second most profitable drug company, had a total profit of 7.3 billion, meaning that its profit was greater than the profits of all Fortune 500 companies engaged in hotels, casinos, resorts, crude oil production, pipeline industries, food production, and semiconductor manufacturing combined.

According to the University of Minnesota, the drug industry has been one of the top two industries in America for over 30 years and has been the clearly dominate money-maker since the dawn of the 1990’s with a profit margin almost 4 times greater than the average for Fortune 500 companies. Heck, even inn 2001, when the economy as a whole was taking a dive for the pavement, gross profits for the drug industry were up 33%. Needless to say, the multimillionaire CEO’s of these companies, with their hundreds of millions of dollars in stock options, are very interested in protecting these immense profits.

In addition to lobbying congress (also known as ‘paying for protection’), the drug companies lobby us, the everyday consumer. The most successful ploy is to contend that the enormous costs of research and development to develop drugs that may or may not work demand that they charge high prices – otherwise, they say, they can’t keep developing life-saving drugs.In an informal survey of 50 people at a nearby college I found that 80% of them could recite this argument almost word for word.

In truth, however, R&D doesn’t cost that much. While the National Science Foundation does report that drug companies spent about $16 billion on R&D in 1997 (the most recent comparative year), this was less than the $18 billion spent on R&D for computer hardware alone, meaning that they are spending less R&D money than companies that do not compare to their level of profitability.

Indeed, Fortune magazine reports that none of the top 10 drug companies spent more money on R&D than they designated as profits in 2001. Indeed, on average drug companies spend three times as much money on advertising, marketing, and administrative costs as they do on research and development. And according to a Senate committee report from 1991, drug manufacturers exaggerate their research costs by adding in all expenditures on marketing research, including things like focus groups and surveys to create a name for a new drug.

It gets even shadier. An oft-cited 2001 report by the Tufts Center for Drug Development claimed that it costs $802 million dollars to develop a single new drug. This number is, in polite terms, an obfuscation. The Tuft’s report includes in this total the ‘opportunity cost of capital’, or the theoretical money ‘lost’ by the company by not investing in something else. Now, considering that the most profitable industry in America is the manufacture of new drugs, I am not alone in wondering how the Center for Drug Development decided that this hypothetical cost came to about $400 million dollars per new drug, or about 50% of their total estimated costs.

Another ‘obfuscation’ is the failure to mention that R&D dollars are tax deductible, meaning that, after tax savings, R&D costs should be reduced by about 33%, reducing the actual cost of R&D to about $240 million per new drug. Last but not least, the Center for Drug Development’s estimates are only for the development of completely new drugs, something that is increasingly less common. Most new drugs today are variations of existing pharmaceuticals, meaning that the actual R&D cost per a new drug may average as low as $40 million each, perhaps much lower.

We will almost certainly never know the actual costs of R&D for new drugs because the companies involved (despite their complaints) refuse to divulge the information. Even when subpoenaed by Congress the drug companies refused, eventually winning the right to stay silent in the Supreme Court in 1993.

In addition to all of this, the government pays for at least some drug research and development with tax money. The National Institutes of Health says that 45 of the top 50 drugs in volume of sales were developed with at least some government funding (with a total of no less than $175 million in taxpayers’ money) and that total drug research expenditures by the government were over $1 billion dollars in 1996. Unfortunately, the NIH tracks its research spending “very loosely” and cannot give a detailed accounting of how the money was spent.

What we do know, however, is very upsetting. For example, the drug Taxol was developed at taxpayer expense (for a mere $27 million, at that). It is currently exclusively marketed by Bristol-Meyers Squibb and had total sales of about $1.6 billion world-wide in the year 2000. The return to taxpayers? Zero dollars.

The drug industry also receives tax breaks. In a 1999 congressional report it was revealed that the average effective tax rate of major industries was about 27% from 1993-1996. During that same period, the effective tax rate for drug manufacturers was about 16% due to tax breaks granted by Congress. In the end, the most profitable industry in America is also the least-taxed industry in America. This is certainly the result of decades of hard-core lobbying by the drug industry.

Which leads us back to the prescription drug bills now being reconciled in the congress. One of the reasons that it is so complicated is to make sure that prescription drug users are not represented by a single company or governmental group. Why? It drives down costs and, thus, profits.

Virtually every European nation (and I’m including Canada is this group) negotiates prescription drug costs. Some set limits to profits, requiring a company toi reimburse the government if it exceeds some upper profit limit (about 17% in England, more elsewhere), some encourage the use of generic drugs, and some simply sit down with the drug companies and reach an agreement on a ‘fair’ price. According to the Government Accounting Office all the nations that do this use the same drugs that Americans do but spend between 35% and 50% less total on prescriptions. Similarly, in America the Veteran’s Administration has conducted simple negotiations with drug companies reducing the cost of prescription drugs at VA centers by 50%. As a result, 60% of the drug companies’ world-wide profits come from America.

Needless to say, the drug companies are very interested in maintaining the high prices in America – the difference is pure profit. As a result, more than $12 million in ‘soft money’ alone was donated to political parties and PACs in 2001-2002 (75% to Republicans, the rest to Democrats). And an additional $78 million was spent on lobbying members of Congress that same year. In total, the drug industry has a total of about 625 full-time lobbyists, more than half of which are former Federal employees – including 23 former members of Congress.

And the lobbying is paying off. Over the last 20 years, as the drug companies spent more and more in Washington, all efforts to provide a prescription drug benefit directly through Medicare have failed, patent protection for drugs (making them more profitable for longer) have been extended a number of times, and legislation has been passed limiting the ability of citizens to sue drug companies for damage caused by drug side-effects.

And, of course, the new prescription drug plan from Congress. A plan that costs senior citizens more, costs all taxpayers more, denied patients the opportunity to engage in group negotiation, and guarantees that the drug companies will continue to make tens of billions of dollars in profit every year.

OK, OK - I've been busy. Summer term started and I'm taking Christian Morality and the Theology of Global Economics - lots of reading for both! In the last two weeks I've read three entire books (scholarly books, yet), written four papers, reviewed the social teachings of the Catholic Church, etc., etc. - all while writing two projects and doing the usual "4 sons and a lovely wife" stuff, too!

And, speaking of writing, it just doesn't pay enough right now - so I'm looking for a "real" job. The urgency is a bit high, too - I need $3,000 to purchase our van (I'll never lease again!) or I won't have a way to get to school or work. I've actually started asking relatives for a loan, but most of my relatives are not in a position to help. Ah, well - something will come up.

But enough about me... what about you?

Well, gotta' get to class. I'll post more later.

Man, what a bind I am in. And on so many levels. Let me explain.

No, its too complicated. Let me sum up.

Almost exactly a year ago I ceased being employed by my former employer under circumstances that I cannot talk about in deference to our lawyers.

Anywhoo, I decided that I would work for myself and went into writing. After a few false starts, I started to develop a freelance career aimed at a very small niche. And its now starting to pay off. Slowly. And with the occasional 'we'd like to pay you, but we have no money'.

Life or a writer, tight?

Here's part of the rub. I figured this would be the perfect time to return to college and complete my degree. If writing is great, its cool. If it isn't, I am now degreed and, thus, more employable. I have often suffered from a (irrationally) terrible combination of having over 10 years of experience as a manager and no degree. I think this demonstrates that I have proven time and again that I am a capable, talented manager who has clearly demonstrated leadership abilities (after all, I keep getting promoted to manager). However, no HR department agrees with me. Even worse, when you have 4 managers and all but one has a degree, guess whi gets laid off first?

That's right - I do.

So, I figured, my degree completion will be good.

More stickiness added.

I like college. A lot. Now that my brain isn't being crushed by an aneurysm, I'm doing really well.So Jen and I started thinking/talking about/debating "why don't I get my master's degree?"

So I'm going to do that now. A master's degree.

More stuff.

And why not get a PhD? In my chosen field (theology) you really must have a PhD to be employed as a professor. And it would add credibility to my writing. And I'm considering public speaking - a PhD would be real handy for that.

Back to the here and now.

So, writing has been a bit of a slow starter. I'm not going to quit, but I need to, say, feed my children - so I'm looking for a real job.And I want to get my master's here. If I do well enoguh, I can get into Notre Dame's PhD program, with its full ride plus stipend.

Or should I get a job and go to the MA part-time? Just get a job?

Argh. Well, I'm obviously a bit burned out with sheer potentiality. Time to put in the Conan the Barbarian soundtrack and stop thinking so much.

Here I am, taking a break from... well, writing something else, actually. I'm working on the player's guide for the d20 adaptation of the DemonWars Saga series of novels by R. A. Salvatore. Mucho fun.

And I finally found the album Heaven or Las Vegas by the Cocteau Twins. I was certain I had lost it in the move and was ready to buy a new copy when it shoed up. I am personally convinced that if you haven't heard Liz Fraser singing you have missed an important, perhaps life-changing, event. I don't know how many reviewers have compared her to an angel. Heck, when they needed someone to sing the Elvish Lament in Lord of the Rings - The Fellowship of the Ring they got Liz. By herself.

And she sounded just like what I thought elves would sound like when I was 12 and read the books for the first time.

Let me put it this way - I'm such a big fan of Liz that I not only have her agent's phone number and email address (I was an intelligence goober in the army, ya' know), but I've written to him about how my wife and I can get to meet her (Jen is a huge Liz fan, too). He's nice, BTW, not what you'd expect from an agent based on how Hollyweird portrays them in movies, and makes vague comments about her next big tour in America.

Fair enough.

Until then, though, I'll keep listening to songs like Iceblink Luck and Frou-Frou Foxes in Midsummer (from this album) or my all time favorite, Treasure Hiding.

And no, Hjalmer, I won't give you the agent's contact info - he made me promise not to if we want to meet Liz.

In my place you'd do the same thing.

Time for a lighter entry than normal, I think.

Back in 1999 one of the movie review sites I visit (probably www.stomptokyo.com) mentioned a website for a movie called The Blair Witch Project. I checked it out and was immediately hooked. I sent the page to all of my co-workers and friends with an interest in movies and saw it opening week. And i really, really enjoyed it. During the credits, though, I noticed that it was produced by a guy named Gregg Hale.

"Huh," thought I, "I had a close friend named Gregg Hale. I wish I'd kept track of him."

Like much else from those years, the thought of finsing my friend never quite took - the pressure from my aneurysm was getting severe, making me forgetful and unable to focus. If I had only known....

Gregg and I went to the Defense Language Institute together in 1985-86 where we were in class together, studying the Farsi language. We both loved Japanese food and drinking, so we hung out a lot. He introduced me to punk music and the ideological aspects of cultural dissent. He was 2-3 years older and we had a lot of fun hanging out, going to the e-club, and playing D&D. After DLI I went to the 519th at Ft. Bragg and he went to 5th Special Forces Group, also at Bragg. 5th Group eventually moved to Ft. Campbell and I lost touch. At the time my first marriage was collapsing, so I had little opportunity to track him down and, after, my illness kept me from thinking too much about anything.

Well, about 4 months ago I'm trying to track down someone else when I encounter an email address for a Gregg Hale. Not too hopeful, I dashed off an email - and it is my old friend! Very cool.

I asked, and found out, that he was, indeed, the producer of The Blair Witch Project. Super cool.

Which brings us to the meat of today's entry. Monday night my wife, who is certainly NOT a fan of horror movies, or even just scary movies, finally sat down to watch Blair Witch with me. I pop in the DVD and hit play.

She stopped actually watching the movie during the events of the second night. As the characters were preparing to camp for the fifth night, she finally demanded that I turn off the movie and leave all the lights on. I was further instructed, quote, "Tell your friend Gregg that I don't really like him much right now," end quote.

I'm pretty sure Gregg will be happy to hear that.

The story keeps on going, though. Tuesday morning at breakfast Jen is kinda' mad that I "made" her watch as much as she did. Our oldest, Jack (who is 6 years old), asked to watch the movie with me. Jen told him, "Remember how the movie Them scared you so badly? This is 100 times scarier."

Jack's eyes got really big and he asked, "Does it have ants 100 feet tall?"

While Jen tried to hide her laugh, I chimed in, "Well, you really don't see what is after the characters, you just... hear things."

Jack smiled and said, "Oh, just like Forbidden Planet. I loved the part where the Monster from the Id left those scary footprints in the sand. That was awesome."

He immediately jumped down from his chair and ran off to play "Monsters from the Id" with his brothers.

Jen and I were laughing quietly while I beamed with pride over my son's knowledge of horror and science fiction film. Even Jen was impressed, considering Jack saw Forbidden Planet only once and that was more than a year ago.

Dinner table discussions of theology, science, horror films, and science fiction. Such is life in a home full of geeks. I wouldn't trade it for NASCAR and wrestling for all the money in the world.

Well, my final final of the semester was Friday. I spent yesterday trying to relax. I'm not very good at 'working on relaxing', so today will be much less productive, I hope.

And I am having serious trouble with the entire italics html tag in my blog. Please forgice me, but I have brain damage. Maybe I'll ask my good buddy Hjalmer to debug this page. hmmmm.

I had two interesting philosophical encounters over the past few days. Most people don't seem to have any - but they probably aren't looking! Me, I look and listen because I think that what and how we think is important and needs to be examined and discussed. Of course, my friend Gregg Hale would counter that I just like to argue. He probably has a point.

Anyway, my first issue was with a local radio personality named Todd Friel with KKMS (look up www.kkms.com) in the Twin Cities. Now, politically-liberal religiously conservative Catholic that I am, I have many problems with the far-right wing evangelical protestants of KKMS in general. But I listen to find out what people who don't think like me are talking about, something I feel is very important.

Todd is a talk-show host that I find to be a mass of contradictions; he likes to make proclamations like "Good Christians don't do x", or ""This book/movie/whatever is evil and no Christian should buy/see it", while claiming he doesn't think about theology much. He seems to really dislike the very word 'theology'.

Huh.

Now, whenever you say or think things like 'this is evil', or 'this is something a Christian/Buddhist/Zoroastrian should or shouldn't so', you are engaged in theology. And most religious people know and admit this. I usually find that when someone who is religious rejects the concept of theology one of three things is going on; 1) they think 'theology' is some weird, esoteric thing like church Latin and is not part of everyday life; 2) they haven't figured out what they actually believe yet, can't detail their beliefs, and therefore avoid discussing particulars; or, 3) both A and B.

I think Todd is more B with a bit of A along the lines of 'theology equals complexity'. Mainly, though, he joins the vast ranks of evangelicals who have strong beliefs - but don't know how to detail or defend them.

Now, before you think I'm a jerk, I don't think that only people with a developed theology are religious, or that religious people with a fuzzy theology are weak, poor cousins, etc. Far from it. But I do think that if you are going to spout off about Good and Evil and what 'good Christians' should or shouldn't do, you have an obligation to have a solid theology behind you.

Todd doesn't. And he doesn't see a problem with that. Like a lot of people I encounter, he knows what he knows and if you don't agree then you are deluded. Facts, logic, and rhetoric don't matter - he's right, you're wrong, he's moving on.

Lest you think I'm picking on poor Todd, let me assure you - I am convinced most of us (amd i include myself) think like this most of the time. Indeed, it is the only way to be productive. We don't wonder if the sun will come up in the East tomorrow, nor do we worry that the next time we turn the tap the water will flow up just this once. Making assumptions and working off preconceived notions keep sus efficient and productive. even sane.

But we can't let this stand when it comes to such issues as politics, religion, relationships, etc. We must ensure that we check our premises every now and then. And even if you are certain that you will never change your mind about something (such as my faith), you should understand it, be able to explain it, and make logical extrapolations from it.

My other encounter - well, I'll talk about that some other time, I think.

I apologize for the scarcity of posts, but 1) its the end of the semester for me and I'm taking 20 credits (including three 300 level courses), 2) I just moved to a new home, 3) I have 4 children under the age of 7.

I've been busy.

During the move, though, something special happened. Our new place has the magic that is cable TV. Normally, I don't watch TV very much (see items #1, 2, and 3, above) but I have been watching some cartoons with the kids. Anyhoo, I was able to experience my oldest son's first encounter with the Hunting Trilogy of Chuck Jones.

The cartoons called the Hunting Trilogy are the three cartoons titled Rabbit Fire, Rabbit Seasoning, and Duck! Rabbit, Duck!. These cartoons have some importance to trivia buffs like me (they are the only three Warner Brothers cartoons to feature Elmer Fudd, Daffy Duck, and Bugs Bunny together), but virtually every North American recognizes them as 'the ones where Daffy and Bugs argue that its either rabbit season or duck season'.

Now, you may be thinking to yourself "So his kid saw a cartoon; so what?"
Let me illustrate with a bit of dialogue;
After being shot by Elmer when he expected Bugs to get shot, the following exchange takes place,
Daffy: "Let's run through that again, shall we?"
Bugs: "Sure, Doc."
Daffy (dispassionately): "Its rabbit season, shoot him."
Bugs (also dispassionately): "Would you like to shoot me now or wait 'til you get home?"
Daffy: "Shoot him now, shoot him now."
Bugs: "You keep out of this, he does not have to shoot you now."
Daffy (the light dawns): "A-ha!" (looks at the camera) "Pronoun trouble".

Folks, this isn't 'just a cartoon', this is art. And I don't mean as in 'Fantasia is art', I mean this is good, important, you should learn about it in college art. Where Fantasia was created by a group of guys who wanted to 'prove' they were artists, Rabbit Seasoning and the rest were made by artists trying to make something they would love and be proud of. And the difference in how people react to Fantasia and Rabbit Seasoning shows this. All sorts of TV specials show you the sorceror's apprentice and talk about how 'important' it is. But you don't go to work and talk about fantasia with your co-workers. On the other hand, people watch Rabbit Seasoning all the time and talk about it with each other over the water cooler even though the cartoon was made in 1952. There isn't anything artificial about it, no attempt to be relevant - and that's what makes this 7 minute animated short so cool - the guys who made it just wanted to make the viewer laugh. And we have been laughing for 51 years.

If you think this stuff hasn't seeped into our culture, try this - next time you see two people arguing over some matter (in a friendly way) just interject "rabbit season!" - they'll get the reference. Or look at the movie Drive where two guys are arguing when one suddenly yells "Don't try that Bigs Bunny shit on me! I am not going to tell Elmer to shoot me!"

Or just look at my son, Jack. He laughed his head off at Daffy's spinning beak. And I suspect that 30 years or so from now while his kids are laughing at Daffy's beak, he will be laughing at the same line that gets me every time.

"Pronoun trouble".

In general, I think talk radio is a vast wasteland. Most talk radio hosts either have a too narrow focus, too skewed position, or both. If 'truth in talk radio' laws existed, most radio 'personalities' would be in jail for a loooong time.

But I spend a lot of time listening to talk radio, nonetheless. Why? I listen to the people I disagree with most just to keep an ear on the opposition, as it were. Just as theologians are mainly responding to questions and dealing with problems, I listen to prepare for attacks and respond to questions. Just doing my part to be prepared. And besides, the research I do often teaches me new things and occasionally changes my mind [for example, my research has led me to think Mumia Jamal did kill that cop, but I also think he didn't get a fair trial. So I think he shouldn't be executed, but should spend some time in the big house].

It also makes me realize how the Catholic Church needs to make its full position on many topics much more widely known. Here is an aexample.

Yesterday I heard a local marriage counselor talking to a woman with a problem. While she was pregnant her husband started an affair with another, younger, woman. He returned to his wife when she gave birth - but now his mistress is pregnant with his child, too, and he's waffling. This is a horrible situation and the counselor mentioned that he's seen this before and has plans to deal with it in an attempt to save the marriage.

Seen this before? Church of the Holy Sepulchre, what is going on?!

But I know what's going on. A huge number of males in this society have no concepts of responsibility of the results of their sexual activity. And almost as many females concur that sex and consequences have nothin to do with each other. I refuse to refer to these adults as 'men' or 'women' because these attitudes are immature and 'men' and 'women' are words to describe mature humans.

And why should a young man feel that he should face any consequences from being sexually active? After all, birth control means that a woman can't get pregnant, right? And condoms also prevent STDs, right? Well, no - not really. A condom combined with a spermicide is (according to the FDA) about 85% effective - meaning that about 1 in 6 times the woman will get pregnant. And the FDA calculates that a condom without spermicide (the method of choice for many) can be no more than 97% effective. Indeed, the FDA calculates that a diaphragm with spermicide is statistically about as effective as withdrawal. And remember, the FDA is dealing with statistical means here - hurried young people with little experience are going to actually be in danger of slipping down to the 50% to 60% effectiveness of such sloppy birth control. But these young people expect the effectiveness to be 100% - so they really don't think about the potential consequences. And if there is a failure, then just get an abortion, right?

Again, this is ducking the responsibilities in herent in sex. After all, according to the CDC about 10% of all abortions result in immediate health complications (ranging from second-degree burns to intestinal perforations) and about one-fifth of these complications (or 2% of total abortions) are considered life threatening. That means that about 80 women are suffering life-threatening complications from abortions not every year, not evey month, but every day. And the CDC also reports that many deaths directly related to abortions are not reported as related to abortions, increasing the number of women who die as a direct result of abortion by at least 50%, to no less than 40 women a year.

Scary numbers - who wants to die because of sex? And we haven't even started talking about STDs, which are more likely to bypass contraception!

So beyond any emotional connectedness, spiritual directives, moral issues, or just plain compassion for your sexual partner, having sex instantly creates a situation where at least the woman's future is potentially at risk.Having sex is a risky business and human societies have historically recognized this and placed moral, cultural, and societal demnds on those who engage in sex.

But current society tells youngsters that sex should be and is free of all consequences as risk. Indeed, many parents oppose abstinence education because it 'doesn't work'. Actually, as everyone from the Pope to the CDC, FDA, and NOW continue to state/freely admit only abstinence is 100% effective in preventing disease and pregnancy. The only nation in Africa with a declining percentage of AIDS infection is Uganda. Its secret? Abstinence education and a strong emphasis on monogamous marriages with no infidelity. So they have a declining percentage of AIDS infection, a sharp drop in all other STDs, and a steep decline in unwed mothers and teen pregnancies. And the basic message of their abstinence program is 'if you have sex you will eventually get pregnant or catch a disease'. And it works.

Let's repeat that - teaching people that sex has consequences is shown to reduce teen pregnancies, unwed mothers, STDs, and the percentage of AIDS infection. And I do mean a declining rate of AIDS infection, which means the total number of AIDS patients is still growing, albeit slowly - I mean a declining percentage of AIDS patients, meaning the total number of infected people is going down. This information is available from Doctors without Borders and in a number of medical journals - but not the WHO, yet. Many at the UN oppose abstinence programs because it might take funding away from condom programs.

Let's repeat that, too - some want to suppress the abstinence and monogamy programs (that have been proven to work in the real world) because it might reduce the funding for condom programs (which have been proven to fail in the real world).

This is all part of a continuing pattern of people confusing the acceptance that sex has consequences with being repressed. People think that teaching others that having sex will lead to children, that abortion is inherently dangerous, or that condoms don't prevent AIDS (statistically) is somehow infringing on their 'rights'. Read the news stories about these issues and see if you can see this pattern. Or write me and tell me I'm crazy - either way, think about this. Its more important than you think.

Friday was an interesting day in my American Political Thought class (I'm working on a degree - BA this Winter, Master's program immediately after). We are reading and discussing various themes in American political history and this section is on class and economics - this means people like Brownson, Sinclair Lewis, etc. Well, while discussing middle class/working class issues and poverty several students used the term 'the poor' in ways that meant that they were envisioning only urban "people-of-color". Not only is it unfair to Blacks to assume that 'poor' equals 'unemployed Black man' it ignores the fact that the majority of poor Americans are employed Whites in rural areas. A vast majority, actually. Unemployed Blacks just tend to be much more convienient when a politician or reporter wants an image - they are close, and they are so stereotyped in American thought that they are perfect for framing a soundbite.

That's OK - these kids are in college to learn, so I spoke up a mentioned the statistics (giving some references I had at hand) so they could do some research and learn some facts about poverty.

Then the fun began. A student started a rant about how the poor aren't doing to well for themselves politically because (close quote, but not exact) 'they're so ignorant that the vote to block abortions for someone else when they don't have healthcare. I mean, how stupid is it to care what someone else does with their body when you don't have insurance? They have their priests and ministers telling them what to do and they just do it because they don't know enough to think for themselves.'

No, really. A kid going to a Catholic university said this. In front of people, and stuff. On purpose.

I broke in and said "You might want to be more careful before you equate being pro-life with being ignorant or stupid. Or claiming that its only an issue for the poor."

And he actually tried to reply! he said, "I'm just saying that the poor are more likely to be religious and that they don't have the education to realize they don't have to do what the priests tell them to do. I mean, why don't priests care about wages, or insurance? I'm not trying to be offensive."

I said, "You're failing. Badly."

Where was the professor, you ask? Standing there, letting me correct this kid.

Just so you know, the Catholic Church has been officially promoting the concept of a 'living wage', or a minimum wage sufficient to support a family, since the encyclical Rarum Novarum in 1891. Many bishops, theologians, etc. have advocated similar concepts since at least the 3rd century, but it became the official stance of the Church as a whole with this encyclical on Capital and Labor. And the Church remains heavily active in the modern living wage movement (Santa Fe springs to mind) to this day.

And while the Church has no official declaration on universal health care, two millenia of building hospitals, educating doctors and nurses, and providing free care to the poor and indigent speaks loudly enough, I think.

This kid was obviously made nervous by my words and literally bolted out of the room as soon as class ended. I think that tomorrow night I might write up a little note for him including all the stuff I've written about here (with a bibliography) as well as a statistical snapshot of pro-life voters. Wht go to the trouble, you ask?

Too many people today assume that if you do not agree with their opinions (a popular opinion) then it means that you are misled and that you are not worth listening to. I do my best to introduce people to one of my favorite pastimes - trying to change my own mind. By this I mean taking something that someone disagrees with me about and researching it to see if I'm the idiot. I've discovered that I am wrong about enough things that I try to spread this wonderful idea around a bit.

Wish me luck.

According to the best numbers available the Catholic Church has a touch over 1.1 billion members. This is based upon the number of people who are officially members of a parish, nt just 'self-reporting' Catholics (although some estimates were made for 'secret Catholics', or Catholics in nations where being Catholic can get you arrested or killed, like China - but that is a fraction of the total). This means that about 16.5% of all humans are Catholic, making it easily the largest denomination on Earth. It also means that Catholics just barely outnumber all other Christian denominations combined (there are about 2 billion Christians, or 33% of the total population).

Not too bad for a church that has been called 'irrelevant' or even 'dying' by the media, huh?

And the Catholic Church is growing, by the way, at about 10% per decade. While this may seem like small growth, in actuality it means that in 2010 there will be about 110 million more Catholics than there were 2 years ago. Compare this with, say, the Pentecostal churches which have about 1 million congregants world-wide. And a large number of 'new' Catholics are converts, always dynamic members that are usually very active (in any religion).

In America about 25% of all citizens are Catholic, or about 70 million people - easily the largest single denomination in America.

Yes, I'm getting to my point now.

Traditionally, American Catholics have voted Democrat for about 120+ years. Rain or shine, as the party changed it usually changed to match the opinion of Catholics. This all began to change in the late 1920's and accelerated in the '70's, especially post-. Since the 1980 elections more and more Catholics are voting Republican until it is clear that soon Catholics may become majority Republicans. So what has the Democratic party done to win back this massive voting block?

Nothing.

That's right, nothing. While the changes are many, the main sticking point for most Catholics is the abortion issue. After that are other 'socially conservative' issues, like homosexual marriage, sex education, etc. In the main, though, surveys reveal that many Catholics that vote Republican prefer the Democratics position on issues like fiscal policy, legislation, welfare, medicaid, etc. In other words, Catholics are largely socially conservative but fiscally liberal (the opposite of Jesse Ventura); they are pro-welfare, anti-war, and don't want tax cuts for the wealthy.

As more turn to the Republicans on social issues, though, this is changing and Catholics are sloooowly becoming more fiscally conservative, too, in response to what they see as a total failure of the Democratic positions.

So it seems that it should be fairly easy to reach out towards Catholics, doesn't it? Indeed, a survey done in 1996 by Father Andrew Greely (Catholic Priest and sociologist) indicated that a fair number of American Catholics would vote Democrat (either instead of voting Republican or not voting at all) if the Democrats would simply talk about differing viewpoints on abortion, etc., being acceptable within the party. A staunch Democrat himself, Greely published the information and sent a copy to the Democratic National Commitee. When nothing happened Fr. Greely confirmed his first survey with another, again learning that many Catholics indicated that they would vote Democrat if the party leadership would simply let their dissenting voices be heard.

Nothing like that happened. And some estimate the Democrats effectively abandoned maybe as many as 2 million votes in the last presidential election - an election where the Republican candidate visited Bob Jones University, a notorious center of anti-Catholic hate. Even is the actual numbers were 1/4th the large estimate it would have made a huge difference in places like, say, very Catholic Florida.

In one of his books Fr. greely spoke of when he entered the headquarters of a Democratic candidate in Chicago. In street clothes, Fr. greely eventually spoke to the campaign manager and asked,


Why aren't you working on the Catholic vote?"


The reply? "We have been working on the blue-collar vote."

Greely left, angry and dismayed at the ignorance. He then lists the statistics for Catholics in America. Of all gentile (i.e., non-Jewish) religious groups in America, Catholics; are the most likely to have a PhD; have the highest average salary; are the most likely to have a management or administrative position; and have the highest average IQs. The days of Irish Catholics driving railroad spikes with hammers are over 100 years behind us, yet many think of Catholics as being just like they are portrayed in the films of 1930's and '40's Hollywood.

So why have Democrats abandoned Catholics? I'm not sure, but I suspect it may be because many leaders within the Democratic party disregard all religious people. Oh, they'd never admit it, but many people who see themselves as intellectual completely reject all religions and believe people who embrace religion are deluded at best and fools in general.

What are Catholics to do? I suspect we either have to do one of three things; 1) get very involved in local politics AND be very vocal about our religious beliefs so that people finally realize how many of us their are; 2) promote our social and justice concerns in secular terms and hope for the best (although this seems to be failing as we speak); or 3) start our own political party.

I bet you can guess which one I suspect is most likely to succeed.

You know what one phrase instantly makes me ready to be offended?

"I don't hate Catholics."

This is usually immediately followed by "...I just hate [their beliefs/their traditions/their way of life/my stereotypical view of x element of being Catholic]. I love the people, I hate [x]."

Very offensive. There was a survey done of media about 6 years ago now by an ecumenical group that investigated religious bigotry. What religious group is most discriminated against? Catholics, hands down. From cartoons to oped pieces to sitcom plots Catholics were portrayed negatively and the Catholic faith system fared worse. And the more orthodox (i.e., faithful to Catholic belief) the characters were, the more negative the portrayal.

This is no news to Catholics, especially the devout. As a recent convert to Christianity at all, I am constantly appalled. I know a man who would never utter a racial slur who refers to Catholics as "idiots" (as in "I saw the pope and his idiots on TV today. Must have been a few thousand idiots at that rally!" "That was a public mass, 'Bob'"). I know a manager that fired a sales rep for using the phrase "I jewed them down" but goes out of his way to tell offensive Catholic 'jokes' to the Catholics that work for him. His boss didn't understand what I was upset about, either. And I know a college student with a 'celebrate diversity' sticker on his car that "...doesn't think the anti-christ [he means the Pope] should be allowed in the UN".

And let us not discuss the portrayal of Catholics in movies or (please no!) television. Let's just agree that as far as TV writers are concerned Catholics are either evil or the village idiot.

So why is this permitted? Why do professors who teach diversity feel free to call the Catholic Church evil? Why do TV shows that would never dare portray gays, Jews, or Asians in a negative or stereotypical light consistently portray Catholics as ignorant, repressed hicks (or morally corrupt villains)? And why is the portrayal of Catholicism in the popular media so mistaken, so error-ridden, and so flat-out wrong that even many Catholics have seriously flawed concepts as to what the Church actually teaches and believes? If your documentary on the Discovery Channel claimed that Jews controlled all moneylending in Renaissance England you'd lose your job as producer for not fact-checking (although Jews were moneylenders in that period of English history, the Italians were dominant). Yet I saw a documentary on that same channel proclaim that the Catholic Church sold indulgences as "forgiveness of sins in return for money" - a 'fact' so well established that 'everyone knows its true'.

And, naturally, it isn't. Indulgences were not a forgiveness of sin in return for money. What they were is more complicated. In Catholic theology confession of your sins to God (in the presence of the priest, the representative of both God and the members of the Church) God then forgives you sins. BUT, there is a penance, as well. The penance is a 'payment' made by the forgiven to expiate, or puge the effects, of the sin. For example, if I stole $5 from my Mom when I was 12 years old and then confessed, my penance might be to replay the $5 and to give $5 to charity to teach me that money isn't everything, that giving is more important, etc. Of if I had committed adultery my penance might consist of months of prayer and reflection, working with the poor, and parayer with my wife to ingrain in me the importance of my family, my love for my wife, and how adultery corrodes my character as a life of deceit.

Some penances, especially in the Euope of the 1300-1600's, were pretty hardcore. Like a pilgrimage from Paris to Vienna. On foot. In Winter. Or 1 hour of constant prayer every day for 3 years. This is where indulfences entered the picture. In certain areas Bishops of the Church announced that certain charitible causes were innately beneficial; thus, giving money to these causes would help expiate the effects of sin. So, if you gave x amount of money to, say, building a hospital or feeding the poor in a famine-ridden area you were counted as having done some certain level of other penance. This was called 'an indulgence from penance' or just an indulgence (the theological explaination of this involves a concept called the Communion of the Saints and the manner in which the Church can determine what is or is not meritorious - don't worry about it too much). And, yes, you could 'buy ahead' on penances that you had not yet been assigned by a priest. However, this did not mean that you were forgiven for sins you had not yet committed. Indeed, many people 'bought ahead' out of simple charity in the concept of 'a good cause is a good cause'.

Did some people misunderstand what indulgences were? Probably, especially among those too poor to purchase them. And were fake indulgences sold by con men? Sure. And were some bishops selling indulgences for things that didn't seem very meritorious? Yup (that is what Luther was most upset about, per his notes. That and all 'works', actually). But $1 billion worth of indulgences wouldn't have forgiven a single sin and the Church never said they would, just that you could substitute giving to certain charities for certain other actions required by your faith.

Of course, understanding this requires time, and some knowledge, and some history - hence, people just repeat the anti-Catholic accusations of certain Protestants without ever checking the facts. And after a few hundred years of this legend being repeated everywhere from Lutheran pulpits to college classrooms I have to convince cradle Catholics that it just ain't so.

Happy Easter!

On this most important of all Christian holidays I doubt that I will have time to blog... but you never know. So on this day that the Lord has made, try to remember the importance of the day. By His death and resurrection Christ has broken the bonds of sin, freeing us from death.