That's not the point

For the last three days, President Obama's signature legislation has been argued in front of the nine Supreme Court justices as to the constitutionality of the so-called individual mandate. The mandate essentially requires every American that can fog a mirror to either purchase health insurance or be forced to pay a penalty to the federal government if they don't purchase a policy. Congress has stated that 40 million Americans are without health insurance. Not all 40 million are incapable of purchasing insurance, mind you; some number just choose not to participate and the reasons for not buying it are varied. Some of that number are young, healthy people that are likely not incurring much, if any, medical cost now or in the foreseeable future so...why would they pay for insurance they don't need yet? Because Congress needs more folks to buy insurance who are going to pay in far more than they will consume in the near future.

Congress also expanded the coverage people are afforded. People with pre-existing conditions must be allowed to buy insurance. Young people under age 26 can now remain on their parent's policies (it used to be a lower age in most states.) Someone has to pay for this expanded coverage. So let's make healthy people pay for something they don't want or need now.

We also have laws that state that people cannot be turned away from receiving emergency medical care even if they have no insurance or are otherwise unable to pay the bill. We don't let people just die at the doors of emergency rooms. But, because people can receive "free" medical care, there is a cost shifting that takes place and has to be borne by somebody. Forcing every American to buy health insurance was Congress' solution to this problem.

So for the first time in the country's history, citizens will be forced to buy something just because they are alive. The logic is that just because a person is not a healthcare consumer now, they eventually will be so they need to pay into the system now.

OK, I get it. I understand the logic in the whole insurance/risk/cost sharing, scheme. I can see the financial justification here.

But that's not the point.

Congress decided that every American must be given access to medical treatments, even if they have no way to pay for it.  Congress says that people with pre-existing conditions must not be turned away because of the known financial exposure involved in covering them. Congress has decided to expand coverage people must be afforded. Congress has mandated that young people be allowed to stay on their parents' policies until they are 26. These are all, for the most part, good things. But Congress can't create a  new financial exposure then decide to trample the Constitution in order to pay for it. Either quit writing checks your body can't cash or find another way to get these changes paid.

Liberty is more important than this healthcare funding scheme. Fundamental freedoms are at risk here. Once Congress is allowed to force Americans to participate in something just because they breathe with the reasoning that "but we need the money to pay for this program we decided to start" then there is no limit on the federal government's power. Justice Kennedy said "And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a fundamental way." He is exactly correct. This power grab is unprecedented...at least not since the New Deal initiatives of the 1930s which saw major changes in the Federal Government's authority over the economy and people's lives. Some programs that were attempted to be implemented by Franklin Roosevelt's administration were deemed unconstitutional. This one should be as well.

Some people try to draw analogies here. There is no analogy of an existing precedent that applies. One of the justices equated medical costs to burial costs. Everyone is going to utilize this service at some point. And if you die without the means to pay for your burial and you don't have burial insurance, the taxpayers are going to foot the bill. So why not make all adults pay for burial insurance regardless of their age?

Some have used Social Security as an example of how everyone participates and pays into the system. That is actually not true. Unless you have wages and salary, you don't pay Social Security taxes. And if you do not earn enough credits over your working career, you are ineligible to receive benefits. So this isn't an accurate analogy.

I am all for Congress solving problems. That's not the point. I have no problem with a state imposing an individual mandate. I believe that states have that right. I see nothing in the Constitution, however, that gives the Federal Government that kind of authority.

Let's hope and pray that the Supreme Court comes to the correct conclusion.

Movie night

I have to confess, I am a movie junkie. Since Carol and I started dating almost 30 years ago, it would be hard to estimate how many movies we have attended. Friday night for the last three decades has, more times than not, involved going to the movie theater. We have seen our share of good movies, great movies, so-so movies and just plain awful ones. Have you ever walked out of a bad movie? We have a few times. One time we walked out of a pretty funny, but unbelievably crude movie. Another time we left because of the foul language. I can handle some amount of bad language but, the movie had better be really good. This one was just not good enough to tolerate the dialog.

After the kids came along, going to the movies involved an investment in a babysitter. A night out got a wee bit more expensive. Our pediatrician confessed to Carol that when he and his wife did their movie night they decided that, since they were paying for the babysitter anyway, they might as well make full use of the time. So they started going to two movies in the same night. Well, we thought that was a great idea so, for many years we followed their example. Some people, however, would look at us with a skeptical eye when we shared our Friday night ritual and asked if we just sneaked into the second movie without paying (we never did..we always walked back outside and bought tickets.) We learned never to buy tickets to both movies up front. Sometimes after sitting through one movie we would opt out of seeing a second one due to rear-end fatigue or any number of other reasons. Middle-age (and the $7.50-$11.00 ticket prices) ended our two-a-night marathon movie sessions.

Did you ever take your parents to the movies with you and discover that the movie was not one that you wanted to watch with your parents sitting next to you?  Uh, awkward. You have to be careful who you have accompany you to a movie. Carol and I have weirdly similar senses of humor. One time we were at a movie with another couple and realized all the while we were cackling like a couple of idiots, the other couple wasn't laughing...at all. So we felt a little constrained and determined that we needed to start behaving more like grown-ups. Boring.

I have realized over all these years that one of my biggest reasons for going to the movies is to eat the popcorn. There are some rules of the universe that involve movie going and what is appropriate to eat while in a movie theater. Popcorn, candy and soft drinks. That's it. If you want to eat a hot dog, go to a baseball game. Pizza? In the movie? That would be like eating an Oreo cookie...with a Guinness. And tortilla chips drizzled in molten cheese whiz? Are you serious? I'm not sure you should ever eat that anywhere.






I remember back in ancient days when an order of popcorn came in only one size. It was a white box with red lettering about 12 inches tall by 8 inches wide by 2 inches thick. That was it. No paper bags and no 7 quart cardboard tubs. As a kid I would almost bust a gut forcing myself to not start eating my popcorn until after the cartoons and previews were over. I wanted my popcorn to last at least past the opening credits. Alas, I often broke down and began devouring the fluffy, salty, buttery goodness before the movie even started.

Which brings me to my main point. I read today that popcorn is really good for you. Seems that researchers at the University of  Scranton (PA) have deduced that the husks of popcorn (which I assume is the part that you dig out of your teeth/gums for the next 24 hours) are loaded with polyphenols. And of course, you know what those are right? Neither did I. I think they are good for you since they are also found in fruits and vegetables. Popcorn is also loaded with the antioxidant ferulic acid and you know what that means. Cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular, and neuro-degenerative diseases (like Alzheimer's) may be less likely to occur thanks to these beneficial components of popcorn**.

** "This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease" (Have to keep the pesky food police lawyers off my back.)


I knew that popcorn was good for you! I mean, just the benefits of the fiber and roughage has to have some positive effect in keeping you a "regular" movie-goer. Sorry...bathroom humor.

So, go ahead and order that large tub of popcorn. That way when you finish it all by the time the movie starts, you can always go back and get that free refill. See you at the movies...and pass the popcorn.

Church Tourism

I read an article in the newspaper today about an interesting phenomenon going on in the New York City neighborhood of Harlem. It seems that the historic African American churches have become the Sunday destination for...tourists. For $55, you can take the "Harlem Gospel Tour-Sunday" run by tour operator Harlem Spirituals- Gospel and Jazz Tours (this is just one of several available tour operators.) You will get to attend a worship service in one of the churches in Harlem, North Harlem or the Bronx. You are asked to not bring a camera or video camera and not to wear shorts, tank tops or flip-flops and not to leave the church once the sermon starts (the visitors regularly violate the no camera and no leaving early policy.) In many cases, the tourists outnumber the congregation members. Some of the participating churches receive monetary benefits from the tour operators in addition to whatever the visitors leave in the offering plate. For many of these churches, this additional source of revenue is deemed essential.

Mother African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, the oldest church in New York State, admits that they need the financial assistance the tourists provide. "Our building is in need of repair," church member Paul Henderson said after the service. "We need assistance. They are helping to sustain us."

Watch video

The Abyssinian Baptist Church, founded in 1808 is one of the favorite tourist destinations, although their website states that it is "not aligned with any third-party Tour Companies." It also has a written policy concerning tourists [link] Tourists are not allowed to attend the 9:00 AM service, only the 11:00 service. It further states that visitors should be prepared to stay for a 2-1/2 hour worship service. There are eight Sundays, including Christmas, Palm Sunday, Easter, and Mothers Day, when no tourists are admitted.

People from many different countries participate in these tours. These Harlem churches have rich traditions and beautiful architecture so there is nothing uncommon about folks wanting to see them. I am sure the reasons for attending are just as varied as the tourist themselves.

Tourists in church. Some are there to be able to say that they have been there...another travel destination notch in the belt. Some attend for the music. Many of these churches have gospel choirs that powerfully sing the spirituals that are well known in these church traditions. Some come out of curiosity. This might be their first time in a church or at least a church that looks and sounds quite different from what they know back home. Some may want to hear a preaching style that they have heard stories about and now want to hear first hand. Some of these New York visitors may simply want to attend a church service while they are visiting and decide.. why not attend in Harlem? I'm not sure you need to join a tour group for that though...you could just call a cab.

Do we have tourist in our own churches? April in Augusta, GA certainly sees its share of visitors in churches. Thousands of people descend on this city to attend the Masters golf tournament and some will attend Sunday services while they are in town. But that's not the kind of tourist I'm talking about.

Do we have tourists in our own churches? Are there folks that attend week in and week out because they just want to watch what's going on? Do some folks attend because it is considered the place to be on Sunday morning? Are they there primarily because they want to hang out with people they enjoy and maybe only get to see that one day of the week? Are they there mainly because they love the music? If confronted with whether they would like to become a part of that church, they might give the same answer as they would give to the retail store clerk... "no thanks, I'm just looking." Are there some folks there that think, because they have "paid their fare" by being generous in the offering plate that they have earned the privilege of not only being there but offering their critical opinion as to the quality of that tourist destination? Some will say "I've seen better." They will tell you about all the other churches they've "toured" and describe all the ways that it was a better experience than what they experience in their own church. Some may be tourists because they want to hear what they perceive to be the celebrity preacher. "I go to ABC Church because of Pastor So and So. That guy preaches an awesome sermon."

All churches should openly embrace all that come...members, visitors and  yes, even tourists. But I really don't think church should be a tourist destination. What I mean is that folks that attend church should not attend as if they were only tourists. Worship is not something to observe...it is something to do. A worship service shouldn't be judged by how the people in attendance enjoyed it...only the true audience gets that privilege (and it is an audience of One.) Put the guidebook down and forget what time you are supposed to get back on the bus. Forget about where the tour is taking you for lunch. Stop gawking at the architecture and listening to the choir. Rather, be amazed at the majesty of the the One who is truly Beautiful and sing your heart out with the choir; lifting up words of praise and adoration to the King of Kings.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you will look straight ahead you will see the whole reason we are here. This is Jesus the Christ. If you look carefully, on the left you will see the scars on His right hand and the place where He was pierced. If you look to the right, you can see the nail scar on His left hand. Look into His face and you can see the love that He has for all of us, the forgiveness He purchased for you and me and the grace and mercy He hands each of us as a parting gift on our tour today. That's the tour bus to get on.

An apology to all sailors

Yeah, you heard me. I think we need to apologize to all the sailors out there. First off, there must be a certain population of maritime workers known as drunken sailors and, apparently, these sailors have some consistently bad habits. One of those habits has to do with their willingness to part with their money. You've heard the term "spend like a drunken sailor" haven't you? She spends money like a drunken sailor... huh? Do inebriated sailors have some unique spending habits? Seems so.

The term probably comes from the fact that when sailors would finally get shore leave (which could often times be quite infrequently) they would take those rare opportunities to indulge in all sorts of activities that involve the separation of their cash from themselves. This could involve everything from excessive souvenir shopping (yeah sure); to overindulgence of food and drink; to the activity that coined the phrase "a girl in every port." But this isn't the "____ like a sailor" I wanted to focus on.

A second phrase is commonly known: "cuss like a sailor." This would imply that sailors have another bad habit not directly attributable to excessive alcohol consumption. It appears that sailors have a colorful vocabulary. I've never heard the term "she cusses like a Coast Guard diver" or "he cusses like an Army infantryman." No..... it seems that those donning the white or denim bell bottoms have cornered the market on swearing.

I guess it has its origination in the early days of sailing. Days, weeks or months cramped together in less-than-optimum quarters probably brought out the worst in these old salts...and add in the stereotypical "boys will be boys" (since nearly all the sailors of the early days were men and boys.) So the language could get....well, salty. I don't think the foul language of sailors was necessarily something that was condoned or encouraged; it just was what it was.

On a more serious note, though. Back in 1972, a well known (now deceased) comedian pushed the envelope of decency by itemizing words that, he said, could never be used on television. It ultimately led to the US Supreme Court ruling on the prohibition of indecent dialog between the hours of 6am and 10pm (when children would be likely listening/watching) over the public airwaves. Of course, that was in the days prior to cable, satellite and internet television and satellite radio.

Coarse, vulgar, indecent and obscene language now pervades all sorts of mediums. Language used in today's music, broadcasting, social media, internet, and day-to-day conversations have devolved to a pretty nasty level. It seems like folks are trying to take it as far as possible in the direction of disgusting.

Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh is in a heap of trouble for his calling a female college student a four letter word on his radio broadcast. He's not in trouble for saying the word; he's in trouble because he called this young lady this word multiple times in a crude attempt to make a political/ cultural point. But this is the same word that Dan Akroyd used to call Jane Curtin in the Saturday Night Live comedy routine satirizing the news show "Point/Counterpoint." Akroyd even added that she was ignorant. But that was OK, I guess, because it was comedy.

We can't seem to agree on what is vulgar and what is not. Certain words are "OK" in one instance but not in another. Bill Maher used a vulgar four letter word in describing Sarah Palin a while back but nobody seemed to get too upset about it (except maybe Sarah Palin and her family.) And, it was as vulgar as it gets.

As far as I know, for every vulgar word, there is a non-vulgar alternative that is available. Human body parts have actual grown-up words to describe them...we probably even have them in Latin (or maybe I'm thinking about plant species.) For every human "function" there is a real, mature word available to use (if you actually ever need to refer to it.) But coarse, vulgar speech is becoming more and more the norm and that is a great shame. Children used to say cuss words to make them feel more grown up. Today, I think adults use many of these words to make themselves feel like younger people. Adults trying to become teenagers again. It really is a sad situation. I used to have some folks that I was "friends" with on Facebook but I either de-friended them or blocked them from my news feed because I just got tired of reading all their potty mouth comments.

There was a time in my younger days when my language was pretty foul. It was a very bad habit. And yes, it is a habit. But, you can break a habit if you put your mind to it. Does an inappropriate word ever come out of my mouth on occasion? Of course it does. Maybe worse, I have said some ugly things about people and used hurtful words and made cutting remarks. Have you ever said "he's worthless" or "she's an idiot." To me, that's just as bad as dropping a bomb. You unfortunately know what I'm referring to when I say that.

Let's do 2 things...let's try to clean up our written and spoken language....show some common decency. And, I think we owe all the sailors out there an apology.

kon-truh-sep-shuhn

If I was smart, I would probably avoid this topic. I guess that answers that question.

Who would have ever thought that the subject of contraception would ever dominate the airwaves? Nothing really surprises me anymore, however, when it comes to things to argue about. And this topic has become a great source of argument lately (and here I am writing about it....) Here's the current situation as best I understand it.

1. The Catholic Church embraces the position that contraception is wrong and it is against their teachings. Prior to 1930, nearly all Protestant religions agreed with the Catholic Church's longstanding position on this subject. The primary Biblical justification for this is Genesis 38: 8-10. The Anglican Church at its 1930 Lambeth Conference announced that contraception would be allowed under certain circumstances. Over time they and all other Protestant religions changed their position to "allow" contraception across the board. In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued the landmark encyclical letter, Humanae Vitae (Latin- "Human Life") reaffirming the Catholic Church's historic position that contraception is wrong. And the Catholic Church's position on abortion is well known.

2. In 1965, the US Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The Court, by a 7-2 margin, ruled that a Connecticut law, prohibiting the use of contraceptives, to be invalid on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy." 

3. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010 requires that insurance plans cover female contraceptives and contraceptive counseling without cost-sharing. Churches and houses of worship could choose to opt out of offering this coverage on religious grounds. The Obama administration decided that Catholic hospitals and universities, however, were not exempt from this mandate. After a significant backlash from the Catholic Church and others who posit that this is a violation of religious liberty, the administration offered a compromise position that the insurance companies themselves (not the Catholic institution employer) be required to cover the cost of this coverage to allow the Catholic Church to "not have to pay" for something they held as being against their teachings. The controversy remains active, especially since the presidential primary season is in full swing. I'm sure the insurance companies may have something to say about this new cost but, we'll leave that alone for now.

So, just what is meant by "contraception?" ...contra (meaning against) and [con]ception (meaning fertilization) Contraception is used to prevent sperm from fertilizing the female egg. This can be accomplished by the physical barrier method including the condom, cervical cap, and diaphragm. Hormonal barriers inhibit ovulation and fertilization and include injectable and oral contraceptives. "The Pill" is the most common form of hormonal contraceptive. The methods listed are not intended to be exhaustive.

Then there is contragestion. Contra (against) and gestation (generally meaning the implantation of the fertilized egg) This method of preventing a fertilized egg from normally implanting into the uterus includes intrauterine devices (IUD) as well as some "emergency" hormonal treatments. Certain methods and devices can be either contraceptive or contragestive depending on when they are used. Again, the ones mentioned are not intended to be an exhaustive list. I assume these are also included in the administration's mandate since they are typically referred to as contraceptives.

Then there are abortifacients. These are substances intended to end gestation by terminating the pregnancy. RU-486 (aka the abortion pill) is one of the pharmaceuticals used. It's ingredient is mifepristone which, when administered in a 600 mg dose up to 49 days gestation, (without getting overly graphic) causes the embryo to shed. If "successful" it is followed two days later by a dose of misoprostol which causes contractions. No need to elaborate.

Mifespristone in a 10 mg dose is also used as an emergency contraceptive. It is believed that it prevents ovulation (the production of the egg) rather than preventing implantation. So, this drug, in differing doses, can both prevent pregnancy as well as end pregnancy. Is this drug also covered? In what dose?

My simple conclusion is:

Contraceptives are intended to prevent a sperm from fertilizing an egg (or preventing the egg production itself)
Contragestives are intended to prevent or interrupt a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus
Abortifacients are intended to terminate an implanted embryo/fetus

Most people (including the majority of Catholics) don't have issues concerning the use of contraceptives. People might disagree on who should pay for it, though. Despite the position of the Catholic Church, the majority of Americans approve of the common methods used to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

But what is pregnancy? Is it when the sperm penetrates the egg, when the fertilized egg implants or some time after that?

Not to deliver a biology lesson (since I am not qualified) ...here is my understanding of the process:

1. Sperm penetrates the outer layer of the egg and egg releases cortical granules preventing any other sperm from penetrating
2. Sperm and egg nuclei fuse and a single cell zygote is formed
3. Day 1- cell splits into 2 cells
4. Day 2- 2 cells split into 4 cells
5. Day 3- now at the 6-12 cell stage
6. Day 4- now at the 16-32 cell stage
7. Day 6-7- "blastocyst" attaches to the endometrium and burrows in (implants) and it begins secreting HGC (hello morning sickness)
8. Day 7-10- major cellular reorganization into ectoderm, endoderm and mesoderm
9. Day 10-14- fluid amniotic cavity starts to form, yolk sack starts to form, embryo starts to form from embryonic disc, placenta starts to form
10. Day 15-21- emergence of vertebrate body plan
11. Week 3 to week 8- development of all organ systems (day 22 - heart begins to beat)

Is one of the issues central to both the contraception issue and the abortion issue the question of when life begins? Is it at the moment the sperm penetrates the egg? Is it when the fertilized egg implants into the uterine wall? Is it after 3 weeks? Is it when a fetus is viable outside the womb? I think many of us just want to put our hands over our ears and make that loud humming sound...we just don't want to have to hear the question and certainly don't want to answer it. In addition to the concern of the Catholic Church, many people have concerns that the federal government is trying to blur the line between contraception and abortion.

I think part of what gets people confused and upset about all this is the polarizing jargon. Is it birth control or pregnancy control? Is it pro-choice and anti-choice or pro-abortion and anti-abortion or pro-life and ....what? Is it contraception or contragestion or does it even matter? Is it "access to contraception" or is it "contraception paid for by someone else"? Is it women's rights or protection of the unborn? Is pregnancy a woman's health issue or the beginning of a new life, created by God? Is it providing affordable preventive care or infringing on religious liberty? Can the answer be yes to all of them? Probably not.

I met a young lady many years ago who came to a small, high school discussion group I was leading at church. We were discussing the topic of abortion (their chosen topic, not mine.) The discussion was lively and heated. Arguments for and against, justification because of medical necessity, rape, and incest were tossed into the mix. In the middle of all the shouting, this young lady, who was an out-of-town guest of one of our members, raised her hand and asked if she could say something. All eyes turned to this stranger. My paraphrase of what she said is this: "When my mother was a teenager, she was raped and she decided the best thing to do was to have an abortion. The drug they gave her didn't do what it was supposed to do and, for whatever reason, it didn't end the pregnancy. When the doctor told her what had happened (or didn't happen) she got scared and asked if she could still go through with the pregnancy. The doctor warned her of the possible medical issues for her and the baby but, said it was her decision. Nine months later she ended up giving birth to a healthy little girl. That little girl is me."

You could  have heard a pin drop. To this day I don't know if that story she told was true. I have never seen her again. I have no reason to believe her story wasn't true. It had a profound impact on those dozen or so teenagers. And it had a profound impact on me. Here was a beautiful young lady sitting in front of us who came very close to never being born. What a tragedy that would have been.

People are passionate about many things. When our passions conflict, like they do on topics like this, society fractures more and more. What is the right answer? Who says so?

Are you somebody?

Seems like an innocent enough question doesn't it? The answer is obvious...of course you are. But what about all those people that make the headlines and the nightly news? Aren't they the real somebodies in the world? They get all the attention; they are the people that everyone notices...if even for only a brief time.

Rick Santorum, Jeremy Lin, Rush Limbaugh, Mitt Romney, Rory McIlroy, Benjamin Netanyahu, Justin Bieber, Newt Gingrich, Kate Middleton, Kobe Bryant, Charlie Sheen, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Danika Patrick...all well known, all making the headlines. Somebodies. Politicians, athletes, business leaders, celebrities. In our culture, these are some of the most important people around.

Remember Paris Hilton, Anthony Wiener, Floyd Landis, Rob Blagojevich, John Ashcroft, Lindsey Lohan, Glenn Beck, Barry Bonds, Dennis Hastert, the Jonas Brothers, Roger Clemons?...I could go on and on. These folks were pretty famous too...for a while. Now they are either no longer in the limelight or even worse, have become infamous for all the wrong reasons.

In August 1997, Princess Diana was killed in an automobile accident in Paris. The wife of Prince Charles, Diana was one of the most famous and beloved women in all the world. She certainly was famous as the beautiful bride of the heir to the throne of England. She was young and beautiful. She was involved in several worthy causes including the work to eradicate leftover land mines in various places around the world where wars had been fought.

Five days later, Mother Teresa died in Calcutta, India at the age of 87. Mother Teresa was a Catholic nun who spent 45 years serving the poorest of poor in India. She won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979.

What was remarkable to me was the difference in the reaction to the deaths of these two women. Thousands of people wept and placed flowers, teddy bears and other tributes at Kensington Palace making a pile nearly 5 feet deep as a show of sympathy to Diana. There was nothing resembling this outpouring of adoration for Mother Teresa. I wonder why?

By the world's standards, Diana was beautiful...Mother Teresa was not. Diana was royalty, enjoying all the benefit and entrapments that provided. Mother Teresa lived among and served the poorest and most sick and downtrodden in India.

Who decides if you are somebody? The world around you? The news media? Your boss? Your friends? Your bank? Your spouse? Your family? Your resume? I don't think so. Besides, if those were the ones that determined your somebody-ness, they could easily take that away. Just think about all the somebodies that have eventually been declared nobodies (by the same folks that once said they were somebody.)

My net worth and your net worth are not measured on a spreadsheet. Your net worth is determined by the One that made you. You and I are somebody because God says so.

The old familiar sing-a-long says- "I am somebody because God loves me and I'm accepted just the way that I am. His love is higher; it's deeper and wider, than you and I will, ever understand." That was true in the 1990's when people still actually sang that song. And it is true today. And it will be true tomorrow.