Gerry Charlotte Phelps

Want to Help World's Poor? Support Free Trade!

il

   (Image from newsimg.bbc.co.uk)

The numbers are in.  Income is up for the poor of the world!  Poor countries are getting richer.  Why?  Rich countries have lowered some barriers to free trade.  But most of all, many poor countries have also lowered barriers to free trade and made their own economies more free.  Such countries have gotten measurably richer, and so have their ordinary people, here.  "The gap between the per-capita income of have-not nations and that of the developed world is narrowing."

What stands out is that this narrowing of the income-gap did not come about through charitable giving, either by government or private charities, as important as that is.  Rather, it came about through the growth of free trade and of economic freedom in the countries that gained income.  The ranking of countries is here.

This comes from the "2007 Index of Economic Freedom".  ($24.95, available at 1-800-975-8625)

What does this mean for people who want to help the world's poor?  Not to stop charitable giving, but to become an avid supporter of free trade, here and abroad.  Also, becoming a strong supporter of increased economic freedom, which poor countries must have to benefit from more free trade. 

What does that show that we need to do?  Rich Americans need to support the lowering of trade barriers between the U.S. and all other countries.  American industries will argue that it will hurt them and cost jobs.  But the American economy as a whole always benefits when barriers to free trade are taken down. 

Labor leaders will argue against the exporting or "outsourcing" of American jobs.  But the numbers show that the more jobs we outsource, the more jobs we create here at home.  And they are not low-paying jobs either, in the net, as wages and personal income continue to rise in the U.S. no matter how many jobs we outsource!

After all, what helps poor people the most?  Hand-outs or jobs?  Charity or work opportunities?  When we send them jobs and opportunities to start their own small businesses, that helps them more than any hand-outs ever could.  Not only can we afford it: we even benefit at the same time.

When a poor country is being robbed blind by a thieving dictator, a big part of any charity we send the poor of that country will end up in the hands and the bank of the dictator instead.  But when we sometimes help a country break free of a dictator, that can help its poor more than any charity.

We need to re-think what it means to help the poor of the earth.  The fact is, the free-trade public policies we support can help them even more than our kind-hearted and very important charitable giving.

Biofuels Worse than Oil for Planet, Poor

                   (Image from telegraph.co.uk)

"We need a 5-year freeze on biofuels, before they wreck the planet, writes George Monbiot in The Guardian, here.

The theory is that fuels made from plants will reduce carbon dioxide from cars and trucks.  What is wrong with that?  Just this:

Plants absorb carbon as they grow - it is released again when the fuel is burnt. By encouraging oil companies to switch from fossil plants to living ones, governments on both sides of the Atlantic claim to be “decarbonising” our transport networks.

First, this sets up a competition for food between cars and people. 

The people would necessarily lose: those who can afford to drive are, by definition, richer than those who are in danger of starvation.

It would also lead to the destruction of rainforests and other important habitats(5).

This is already happening.

Since the beginning of last year, the price of maize (corn) has doubled(6). The price of wheat has also reached a 10-year high, while global stockpiles of both grains have reached 25-year lows(7). Already there have been food riots in Mexico and reports that the poor are feeling the strain all over the world...According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, the main reason is the demand for ethanol: the alcohol used for motor fuel, which can be made from both maize (corn) and wheat(9).

Farmers will respond to better prices by planting more, but it is not clear that they can overtake the booming demand for biofuel. Even if they do, they will catch up only by ploughing virgin habitat.

Second, besides taking food from the poor, biofuel is already known to be worse for the planet than petroleum.

The UN has just published a report suggesting that 98% of the natural rainforest in Indonesia will be degraded or gone by 2022(10). Just five years ago, the same agencies predicted that this wouldn’t happen until 2032. But they reckoned without the planting of palm oil to turn into biodiesel for the European market.

This is now the main cause of deforestation there and it is likely soon to become responsible for the extinction of the orang utan in the wild. But it gets worse. As the forests are burnt, both the trees and the peat they sit on are turned into carbon dioxide. A report by the Dutch consultancy Delft Hydraulics shows that every tonne of palm oil results in up to 33 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, or ten times as much as petroleum produces(11).

I feel I need to say that again. Biodiesel from palm oil causes up to TEN TIMES as much climate change as ordinary diesel.

Similar impacts are happening all over the world.

Sugarcane producers are moving into rare scrubland habitats (the cerrado) in Brazil and soya farmers are ripping up the Amazon rainforests. As President Bush has just signed a biofuel agreement with President Lula, it’s likely to become a lot worse. Indigenous people in South America, Asia and Africa are starting to complain about incursions onto their land by fuel planters. A petition launched by a group called biofuelwatch, begging western governments to stop, has been signed by campaigners from 250 groups(12).

The British government is well aware that there’s a problem. On his blog last year the environment secretary David Miliband noted that palm oil plantations “are destroying 0.7% of the Malaysian rain forest each year, reducing a vital natural resource (and in the process, destroying the natural habitat of the orang-utan). It is all connected.”(13)

Then why are governments so enthused about biofuels?  It is because they don't upset drivers.

(Biofuels) appear to reduce the amount of carbon from our cars, without requiring new taxes. It’s an illusion sustained by the fact that only the emissions produced at home count towards our national total. The forest clearance in Malaysia doesn’t increase our official impact by a gram.

So what should we do?  Monbiot says:

We need a moratorium on all targets and incentives for biofuels, until a second generation of fuels can be produced for less than it costs to make fuel from palm oil or sugarcane.

I suggest a five-year freeze.

This would be very hard to do, because "...encouraged by government policy, vast investments are now being made by farmers and chemical companies. Stopping them requires one heck of a battle. But it has to be fought."

Monbiot's foottnotes can be found at the link at the top of this post.  (See also here.) 

That Notorious One Percent

         (Image from savecivilization.org)

Economist Thomas Sowell, Fellow of the Stanford Hoover Institute, has a great gift.  He makes economics simple.  He does it again, here to explain the notorious 1% wealthiest in the U.S.

A recent column by Anna Quindlen in Newsweek (or is that Newsweak?) laments that "the share of the nation's income going to the top 1 percent is at its highest level since 1928."

Who are those top one percent? For those who would like to join them, the question is: How can you do that?

Easy: you can join them by selling your house in San Francisco (if you have one.)

Virtually anyone who owns a home in San Francisco, no matter how modest that person's income may be, can join the top one percent instantly just by selling their house.

But that's only good for one year, you may say. What if they don't have another house to sell next year?  Well, they won't be in the top one percent again next year, will they? But that's not unusual.

Americans in the top one percent, like Americans in most income brackets, are not there permanently, despite being talked about and written about as if they are an enduring "class" -- especially by those who have overdosed on the magic formula of "race, class and gender," which has replaced thought in many intellectual circles.

Recent data from the Internal Revenue Service show that more than half the people who were in the top one percent in 1996 were no longer there in 2005.  Among the top one-hundredth of one percent, three-quarters of them were no longer there at the end of the decade.

This kind of movement between income groups happens all the time, to and from all income groups, here and here.  In the U.S. there are no permanent income classes, but constant movement between income groups.

Among corporate CEOs, those who cash in stock options that they have accumulated over the years get a big spike in income the year that they cash them in. This lets critics quote inflated incomes of the top-paid CEOs for that year. Some of these incomes are almost as large as those of big-time entertainers -- who are never accused of "greed," by the way.

Sowell points out:

Most Americans in the top fifth, the bottom fifth, or any of the fifths in between, do not stay there for a whole decade, much less for life. And most certainly do not remain permanently in the top one percent or the top one-hundredth of one percent.

So why does it seem like the richest 1% is mostly the same group?  It is the way statistics are gathered, he explains.

Most income statistics do not follow given individuals from year to year, the way Internal Revenue statistics do. But those other statistics can create the misleading illusion that they do by comparing income brackets from year to year, even though people are moving in and out of those brackets all the time.

That especially includes the top one percent, who have become the focus of so much angst and so much rhetoric.

The Power of the Poor - Part 1

                              (Image from menbcmedia3.men.com)

Actually, this is really about the power of the poor in the West, on the Weat and for the West, not everywhere.  And not the poor alone, but also all their cousins - the weak, the oppressed and the afflicted.  But I will use "poor" here to include all of these.

Why would the poor have power in the West?  Because the West, like other cultures, is founded on the base of its religion.  Like it or not, that religion - Christianity and its parent, Judaism - underlies not only our laws, but our institutions, governments and how Westerners grow up thinking.  It shaped what we think is right and wrong, what is worthy and unworthy behavior and what is admirable or detestable.  And that religion has very strong views about the poor and the afflicted.

That is to say, it shaped the conscience of Western civilization.  One part of that conscience has to do with how we view the poor and other disadvantaged people.  To the Western conscience, they should be a protected group.  Westerners may not always protect them, but they don't feel at ease about it.when they don't  They admire those who do protect and help them.

Here is the test:  how do you feel when confronted by a beggar?  Are you at all torn by the question of what to do?  Do you think about it longer than you mean to?

And here is the big test.  Do you realize how much your feelings about the poor shape your politics?  Even how you view your religion, or your lack of religion?

Questions about the poor are also questions of fairness and justice.  They are questions about our own humanity or inhumanity.  Ultimately, they are questions about God, or about the nature of the universe.  Why is there poverty?  Suffering?  Unfairness?  Injustice?   What, if anything, should we do about them?

What I recently realized is that what we believe to be the causes of poverty are perhaps the deciding factor in where we stand politically.  Think about it. 

For those who think that the poor are poor simply because they are oppressed, that belief will push them to the left.  They may go as far left as the Marxists, believing the only moral course is to enforce equality of income among all.  (Well, for all except for the favored few leaders, that is.)  They are drawn to the Marxist motto "From each according to his means, to each according to his need."  In their view, capitalism is the monster that oppresses the poor and therefore causes most poverty.

Or they may go only as far as working for a welfare state, with a "safety net" for the poor and afflicted.  Or only as far as "statism" where the government controls and plans a "mixed" economy (part capitalist, part socialist).  Or even only as far as "mercantilism" where the government regulates some businesses, subsidizes others, and controls foreign trade in favor of domestic businesses and labor.  Or perhaps they only go so far as being pro-union, believing that without unions, workers will be exploited by business and poorer as a result.

But which ever position they take on the sliding scale of the left, what they believe to be the causes of poverty is the major factor determining their political position.

On the other hand, those who believe that most of the poor have a reasonably good chance to stop being poor through their own efforts will tend to move to the right.  They focus more on opportunities to move up than on financial support for the poor.  They tend toward wanting pure capitalism, unregulated and lightly taxed, with government supplying enforcement of contracts plus protection from fraud, crime and foreign attacks.  They are convinced that capitalism does more for the poor than any other system, and that restricting capitalism results in more poverty.

What guidance do we have as to the actual causes of poverty?  The Bible points to numerous causes, including  oppression, denying the poor their rights, crime (no one could travel the roads because of robbers, until Deborah arose in Israel - very bad for the economy), fraud, abuse of workers, laziness, drunkeness, profligate spending (the Prodigal Son), partying all the time, sexual excesses, illness or disability, natural disasters, losing a war, being taken into slavery, being in debt, and being a widow, an orphan or an abandoned woman or child. 

And that is just the Old Testament!  The New Testament goes even further.  Then there is the stunning example of the first church in the book of Acts, where "all possessions were held in common, and no one said that anything was his own."  The Bible points to many causes of poverty.  But what it makes clear is that we have obligations to the poor and afflicted.  That is profoundly a part of the conscience that the West inherited from the Judeo-Christian teachings.  We are all influenced by it, regardless of whether we understand where it came from or its power over us.

So then, what are the causes of poverty today?  What can be done about them?  What actions are most helpful to the poor?  How can we tell? 

Also, how does the Western conscience concerning the poor and afflicted differ from the conscience of other traditions?  How does it affect the attitudes and tactics of activists?  Of non-Westerners? 

Tune in next time for Part 2.

Great Mobility In And Out of Wealth

(Image from daveramsey.com)

In "Most U.S. Poor Don't Stay Poor," my post of September 21, 2007, there was a graph showing that most people do not stay where they start economically, whether they start out rich, poor or inbetween.  With such economic mobility, there need not be excessive concern about people "getting stuck" at the bottom of the scale.

Now the latest "Forbes 400" list of the wealthiest people in the world has just shown that there is also great movement in and out of even that tiny group of top billionaires. As most are Americans, it highlights strong economic opportunity in the U.S.

For instance:

-Of the members of the first Forbes 400 in 1982, only 32 remain today.  That is a change of 92% over 25 years.

-Only 74 of the present 400 - 18.5% - inherited their entire fortune.

-The vast majority - 270 of the 400, or 68.5% - made their fortunes entirely on their own, without benefit of inherited money.

-The remaining 56 - 13% - made their fortunes by using an inheritance as well as their own efforts.

-There were also stories of high school and college dropouts.  Others grew up extremely poor.  One, Jim Clayton, was actually born in a backwoods log cabin without electricity or running water, here. 

How did these top billionaires get there?  By pleasing consumers better than their competition.  John Tamney explains:

Ludwig Von Mises once wrote that the entrepreneur who fails to use his capital to the "best possible satisfaction of consumers" is "relegated to a place in which his ineptitude no longer hurts people's well-being." Conversely, successful entrepreneurs give consumers what they want, and remove what Von Mises termed "uneasiness" from our daily lives by making us happier, healthier, and frequently, wealthier. When we read the stories of these brilliant capitalists, it becomes apparent that Von Mises knew well what he wrote.

To read many business journalists today, one might assume that the U.S. economy is stratified, offers little room for advancement, and that those at the top are impervious to market forces while enjoying market power that enables them to fleece the less fortunate. Thanks to the lessons offered up yearly in the Forbes 400, we know the opposite is true. Successful people are that way because they make our lives exponentially better, while yearly dropouts from the Forbes list frequently offer evidence showing that consumers punish those who falter. For that, we should be glad that the Forbes 400 goes against the conventional grain and celebrates successful American enterprise.

Most U.S. Poor Don't Stay Poor

          (Image from onthefencefilms.com)

Inequality of incomes is a hot political  issue in the U.S.  Many politicians claim such inequality is growing.  Many economists say it is not.  But is it important?  Is inequality of incomes even unfair?  If it is growing, does that mean unfairness is growing?  I have argued here that so long as incomes are rising all across the economy, it does not matter if some are rising faster than others.  That is, even if someone has more than some others, those others have more too.  So everyone together is better off.

But back to inequality of incomes: is it really a matter for concern so long as most people do not stay down at the bottom for long?

                                 Click here to see entire graph 

                                    (Image from heritage.org)

The fact is that over the 25 year period in the graph above, almost 60% of the people in the poorest fifth of the population moved up.  For that matter, over 50% of the people in the richest fifth moved down!  In fact, most people in every fifth were moving up or down, not staying the same.  There was great mobility across the entire economy. 

So much movement between income groups is dramatic proof  that the U.S. is indeed a land of great opportunity.  No matter where you start financially, It is very possible to move up.  A majority of the poor actually do.

For some other sources, see here, here, here and here 

US Poor Better Off Than AVERAGE European

Campaign Time Means Talking About the Poor

           (Image from ammanddickey.com)

In every political season, we hear a lot about the poor.  How much of what is proposed would actually help the poor?  Not much, actually  But that is a very important question, especiially for those of us who are deeply concerned about the poor.

But first another question should be asked.  How much of what is said by politicians even matches up with actual facts?  As it turns out, not much, actually.  Here are some helpful, well-researched facts about the poor in the United States.  You could be very surprised.

1.  43% of all poor households own their own homes - with an average of 3 bedrooms, 1 1/2 baths, a garage and a porch or patio.

2.  80% have air conditioning (only 36% of all people in the US did in 1970.)

3.  Only 6% are overcrowded.  Over 2/3 have over 2 rooms per person.

4.  The average POOR American has more living space than the AVERAGE person in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities.

5.  3/4 of US poor households own a car; 31% own 2 or more.

6.  97% of poor households own a color TV; over half own 2 or more.

7.  78% have a VCR or DVD player; 62% have cable or satellite TV.

8.  89% have microwave ovens; over half have a stereo; over 1/3 have an automatic dishwasher.

9.  The average consumption of proteins, vitamins and minerals is exactly the same for US poor and non-poor. Poor children eat more protein than non-poor children.

10.  Nearly 75% of poor children would be lifted out of poverty if at least one parent worked an average of 40 hours a week instead of 16 hours.

11.  Almost 75% of poor children would be lifted out of poverty if poor mothers married the fathers of their children.

12.  1/4 of all poor Americans are first-generation immigrants or their minor children.

13.  1/10 of all poor in America are illegal immigrants or their minor children.

All of the above is to say that THE AVERAGE POOR PERSON IN THE U.S. lives better than AVERAGE PEOPLE IN ADVANCED COUNTRIES, and much better than most Americans realize.

Still, we want them to move out of poverty.  How?  The above statistics strongly indicate the way out for most of the poor.  The author of the study summarizes them as:

A sound anti-poverty strategy must seek to increase work and marriage, reduce illegal immigration, and increase the skill level of future legal immigrants.

Wouldn't it be great to hear a few politicians out there say so?

African Aid - "For God's Sake, Please Just Stop!"

A recent Interview by Germany's Der Spiegel newspaper is here, with Kenyan economics expert Shikwati.  When the interviewer mentioned aid to Africa, Shikwati said "For God's sake - please, just stop!"   

                         Congoilese Line Up for UN Food Delivery

                                         (Image from spiegel.de)

The economist explained that aid to Africa does more harm than good, saying that Western development policy is disastrous for Africa, leading to corrupt rulers and an overstatement of the AIDS problem.

SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.

Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape.

SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox?

Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the (bureaucrats) would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.

Shitwaki explains that food aid is deadly to the African economy.  Grain is shipped from highly-subsidized farmers in the EU and the U.S.  It swamps the markets.  African farmers go out of business. 

Shikwati: ... A portion of the corn often goes directly into the hands of unsrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own tribe to boost their next election campaign. Another portion of the shipment ends up on the black market where the corn is dumped at extremely low prices. Local farmers may as well put down their hoes right away; no one can compete with the UN's World Food Program. And because the farmers go under in the face of this pressure, Kenya would have no reserves to draw on if there actually were a famine next year. It's a simple but fatal cycle.

He goes on to explain that hunger should not be a problem in most countries south of the Sahara. Der Spiegel protests that AIDS has made things different now.

Shikwati: If one were to believe all the horrorifying reports, then all Kenyans should actually be dead by now. But now, tests are being carried out everywhere, and it turns out that the figures were vastly exaggerated. It's not three million Kenyans that are infected. All of the sudden, it's only about one million. Malaria is just as much of a problem, but people rarely talk about that.

SPIEGEL: And why's that?

Shikwati: AIDS is big business, maybe Africa's biggest business. There's nothing else that can generate as much aid money as shocking figures on AIDS. AIDS is a political disease here, and we should be very skeptical.

Shitwaki goes on to comment that

"Millions of dollars earmarked for the fight against AIDS are still stashed away in Kenyan bank accounts and have not been spent. Our politicians were overwhelmed with money, and they try to siphon off as much as possible. The late tyrant of the Central African Republic, Jean Bedel Bokassa, cynically summed it up by saying: "The French government pays for everything in our country. We ask the French for money. We get it, and then we waste it."

Jean Bedel Bokassa, late tyrant of the Central African Republic

                  (Image from dittatori.it)

On donations of old clothes, Skiwati notes the same problem we had in running our homeless shelters in the US - people literally flooded us with their old clothes, vastly more than we could use.  But in Africa, such mountains of used clothing also put African clothing manufacturers out of business and their workers out of work.

SPIEGEL: In the West, there are many compassionate citizens wanting to help Africa. Each year, they donate money and pack their old clothes into collection bags ...

Shikwati: ... and they flood our markets with that stuff. We can buy these donated clothes cheaply at our so-called Mitumba markets. There are Germans who spend a few dollars to get used Bayern Munich or Werder Bremen jerseys, in other words, clothes that that some German kids sent to Africa for a good cause. After buying these jerseys, they auction them off at Ebay and send them back to Germany -- for three times the price. That's insanity ...

SPIEGEL: ... and hopefully an exception.

Shikwati: Why do we get these mountains of clothes? No one is freezing here. Instead, our tailors lose their livlihoods. They're in the same position as our farmers. No one in the low-wage world of Africa can be cost-efficient enough to keep pace with donated products. In 1997, 137,000 workers were employed in Nigeria's textile industry. By 2003, the figure had dropped to 57,000. The results are the same in all other areas where overwhelming helpfulness and fragile African markets collide.

At the end of the interview, with the Der Spiegel interviewer almost in despair over the prospect of not sending aid to Africa, he asks:

SPIEGEL: What are the Germans supposed to do?

Shikwati: If they really want to fight poverty, they should completely halt development aid and give Africa the opportunity to ensure its own survival.

But you should read the entire article for yourself.

Little Kindnesses Matter

The following is "More Valuable Than You Know," Rubel Shelly, The FAX of Life, June 25, 2007. 

___

___

___

___

___

Richard Liggett Made Ruth Graham's Coffin

(Image from moverstreet.wordpress.com)

Remember the story in the Bible of a lad whose sack lunch was put into the hands of Jesus and miraculously multiplied into food enough for 5,000?  With a dozen baskets of scraps and leftovers picked up afterward?

Remember what Oskar Schindler did in rescuing Jews from the Holocaust?  Against the millions who died though, Schindler discounted what he was able to do.  There were so few he could help to save.

When it comes to truly "little things," who is going to remember your kindness to an elderly lady whose name you didn't even know?  What will it matter if you visit a sick friend in the hospital?  And what difference would it make for you to help with your church's Sunday School or youth camp?

There seems to be a prevailing view to the effect that only the big and splashy, noisy and expensive things matter.  It just isn't so!

Richard Liggett has made coffins for the past couple of decades or more.  They weren't expensive or ornate, mind you.  He and a crew of men who worked with him built coffins from birch plywood, lined them with foam padding covered with fabric, and put brass handles on the side.  A cross typically adorned the top.  The total cost of each coffin was a modest $215.

Ruth Graham was buried in a coffin made by Liggett.  She died earlier this month at age 87, after a long illness.  A matching coffin has already been made, purchased, and stored away for her husband - Evangelist Billy Graham.

In the press coverage around Mrs. Graham's death, her simple coffin became a story.  When people asked about the unusually simple and unadorned casket in which her body had been placed, the name of Richard Liggett became public.  And I'm sure there would have been a rush to interview him about the project, if he were still alive.  He died of cancer in March of this year.

Liggett died an inmate at the Louisiana State Penitentiary.  He was 31 years into a life sentence for second-degree murder.  Christ found and claimed him there, and he spent his final years not only building caskets, but sharing the gospel with fellow inmates.  The Grahams' son, Franklin, saw Liggett's work on a visit to Lousiana's penitentiary at Angola and was struck by its simple beauty.

Before he died, he said that the most profound thing he ever did was to build coffins for Ruth and Billy Graham.

Who says "little things" don't matter?  Seldom get noticed?  Don't make a difference?  So why should you shrink back from a less-than-spectacular chance to do something kind or holy or encouraging?

If no one else sees or cares, God does.  And that is all that matters.

(A member of the North Carolina Honor Guard stands beside the casket of Ruth Graham before a memorial service for her Saturday.  Associated Press)

(Reprinted here by permission.  The FAX of Life is available weekly by email from GBCIII@aol.com)

Is Rich-Poor Income Gap Growing? No, Senator Clinton

                            (Image from msnbcmedia4.msn.com)

Hilary Clinton made a strong statement Wednesday that income inequality between the rich and the poor was widening, and that she wanted to put a stop to that, here.

What is wrong with that?  Just the facts, that's all.  The facts say the poorest have actually gained more in income than the richest, here.    

Clinton "outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an 'on your own' society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity."

What exactly did that mean?  She explained it by saying that Bush had "widened the gap between rich and poor."  She wanted to fix that gap, not by encouraging economic growth through the private sector, but by growing various government programs.  Those would include enlarging the earned income tax which goes to the working poor, pursuing energy independence and "ensuring that everyone had affordable health care."

There are two problems here.  First, enlarging govermnent spending does not grow the economy.  It takes money away from private investment.  That slows the economy.  And when the economy slows, rich and poor alike lose.

Second, the problem she wants to fix does not exist.  Ron Haskins wrote in the Washington Post that according to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study released in May 2007, that from 1991 to 2005,  "The bottom fifth (income group) increased its earning by 80%, compared with around 50% for the highest-income group and around 20% for each of the other three (middle fifths) groups."  So actually, the poorest fifth increased their income by a much higher percentage than the highest income fifth.  But Clinton claimed the reverse.

First Senator Jim Webb in January, and now Senator Hilary Clinton in May, have made these false, inflamatory claims about a widening income gap between the richest and the poorest, when it has been shrinking.  Why?  Apparently they want it as an issue in the 2008 elections.  They seem to think that stirring up class resentment will help them.

But politicians who try to sell such fictions, in order to turn Americans against each other for their own political gain, deserve to be called on it every time.  Promoting divisive fictions like these harms the whole country.

Christians, the Poor, the Climate and - Vegetarianism!

        (Image from content.answers.com)

What do the poor and the climate have to do with vegetarianism?  A lot, it turns out.

First, take the climate.  There may be Global Warming.  But the big question is whether humans are causing it.  Most assume we are.

So we are urged to cut back on producing carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse warming gas.  That means cutting back on electricity and transportation.  But CO2 accounts for only about 3% of the global warming gasses.  And human-caused CO2 is only 4.5% of that 3%, or 0.00135% of the total, here. 

In fact, water vapor accounts for 95% of all global warming gases.  All the other warming gases together account for only 5% of the total, here.

But according to the UN, methane is a much greater cause of global warming than CO2, here. Livestock alone accounts for 18% of all warming from methane.  Methane is also 20 times more climate-warming than CO2. So getting rid of much of the 1.5 billion cows in the world would slow global warming much more than getting rid of all planes, trains, ships and automobiles.  That's what vegetarianism could do.

Second, take the world's poor.

In 1970, Frances Moore Lappe pointed out in her best-seller, "Diet for a Small Planet," that eating grains and legumes directly is much less of a burden on the earth than feeding them to livestock, then eating the meat.  The poor can much more easily afford a pound of grain and legumes than a pound of meat.  For those who want to help the poor, not eating animal products is a real contribution.

There is no ecological need to eliminate all meat-eating.  Large areas of the world are too dry or too cold to support food crops, but provide grazing lands for livestock and game.  If more meat was grass-fed, not grain and soy-fed, then crop lands could grow grain and other food crops to feed people directly rather than to produce meat.  That would help the world's poor, and still provide grass-fed meat.

Third, a plant-based diet can easily support a much larger world population

A  plant-based diet produces far more protein per acre of cropland.  For instance, an acre of grain produces 5 times as much protein, an acre of beans 10 times as much, and an acre of green leafy vegetables 15 times as much, as an acre of grain fed to livestock!*

But isn't animal protein necessary for optimum human health and strength?

Actually, vegetarianism is better.  Large-scale, long-term population studies such as "The China Study" have shown that populations that are largely vegetarian have few of the "degenerative" diseases, such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, Alzheimer's, etc., although they do still have the infectious diseases.  But when such populations turn to a more "Western" diet, then they develop the degenerative diseases.**

As to strength, most athletes perform better on a diet high in complex carbohydrates.  With the exception of body-builders, most athletes do not need a huge amount of protein.  instead, they need to "load" on carbs.  A vegetarian diet provides plenty of protein anyhow, normally at least 50 grams a day.

So....

Not everyone is attracted to a vegetarian diet - although it can be very tasty.  Choice of diet is a free, individual decision.  But it seems clear that the more vegetarianism there is, the better.

It would help with global warming gases more than eliminating all human sources of CO2.  It would be a great help to the world's poor.  The croplands already in use could support a much bigger world population.  And individual health can be improved by vegetarianism.

For these reasons, Christians who are concerned about the poor, the environment, and being good stewards of their own bodies, should not dismiss the very large potential benefits of vegetarianism.

___

*"Diet for a Small Planet," Frances Moore Lape, Ballentine, 1971, 1975, p. 10

**See www.drmcdougall.com.

HELPING THE NEEDY AND AFFLICTED, AND EVANGELISM

Recently many of us have responded to appeals to help Israeli charities.  These charities provide emergency care for hundreds of thousands of Israeli families living in bomb shelters, and for those whose homes and businesses have been destroyed. 

___

For some, that raises the old question: "Should we put our money and efforts into 'doing good' or into evangelistic efforts?"  The answer has to be "Yes".  It is best to do both.

___

It is a centuries-old argument among Christians.  Is evangelism more important than helping the needy and afflicted?  Or is giving them help more important than telling them about the good news of the gospel?  Where should we come down between these two positions, seemingly at opposite poles?

___ 

In fact, what about all the other questions about the needy and afflicted?  Is helping them even commanded by God?  If so, what is the Christian way to do it? 

___

These questions are urgent.  Still, I would like to take a pass on all them!  Even though I have written a book on many of them.*  And even though I have started and run charities that helped some thousands of needy people and have preached about this to some other thousands. But I still want a pass for now.  Instead, another matter concerning them and the gospel needs to be confronted.

___

The fact is, when Christians help the needy and afflicted, they shrink what scripture calls “the offense of the gospel.”  Often we forget, but the gospel carries an offense.  Plainly said, it offends people!  It offends those who hear it.  It even, God help us, offends us to tell others about it, at least until we do it enough that we notice less.

___

How can it be that such good news as the gospel would offend people?  Let me count the ways.

___

One is that people who try to be strong and independent are easily offended by the gospel.  That is because it says that none of us will be able to save ourselves by our own efforts, no matter how hard we try.  That's offensive!  Aren’t we supposed to take care of ourselves and not be dependent on anyone else? 

___

A big one is that Christians are supposed to live by a set of rules.  And they sure look like party-pooping, bust-your-bubble, never-have-any-fun rules.  Surely God does not expect anyone actually to live like that!  Are you serious?  What is he anyhow, some kind of control-freak?  First, very few people would ever give anyone that much control over their lives.  And second, if they did, it would never be to anyone who wanted them to live like that.

___

Another is that religion is thought to be no more than superstition, probably by a constantly growing number of people.  They think science has disproved it.

___

Another is the damage that being a Christian can to do to your reputation and your prospects.  You would lose respect.  Seriously.  It is true.  It could hurt your career.  That is true too.  You can get sneered at.  Laughed at. Ignored. Dismissed.  Become invisible at important times and places. Fired.  Kicked out of your family.  Scorned.  Passed over. Vandalized. Hated. Attacked.  Even persecuted or killed, depending on where you are and when.  All true.

___

Then, when people have another religion, they have additional, strong reasons to object to hearing the gospel.

___

No wonder people can get offended, even hostile, when some batty Christian thinks they might be a candidate for becoming as stupid and wrong as they think Christians are.  And no wonder Christians inwardly shudder – no matter how much they may deny it or say that no, it is really something else that stops them – when the time comes to help save the life of the go-ahead-make-my-day unbeliever somewhere near them.

___

Surely we can agree that there is an offense to the gospel.  Yet there are a couple of ways to shrink that offense.  One is to live out the gospel.  That alone – let’s face it – very seldom brings people to Christ.  But it keeps us from driving them away.  When they see us not living out the gospel, they are quick to spot us as hypocrites and to turn even further away.  It is a case of “See, I thought so.”

___

The other way is helping the needy and afflicted.  Now, quick, before someone else brings it up – no, that does not mean Christians should help them as a propaganda ploy.  That without really caring about their needs, we should use them just to help convert others.  Certainly not!  That would be offensive to God.

___

But when Christians give real, truly compassionate help to the needy and afflicted, and are seen doing so, it does soften the offense of the gospel.  It does help correct the public image of Christianity.  It does show, better than words, that contrary to all the horrible, untrue images of Christianity, there are other, nobler, loving and truly admirable marks of a Christian.  It does make many stop and think.  Many revise their views when they see the love of Christ made so visible by action.  Many are more ready to give Christianity another look, even a hearing.

___

Remember in the “Sermon on the Mount”, how Christ said, “Let your light so shine before men that they may see your GOOD WORKS, and glorify your father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16)

___

As it turns out, what helps us get an audience for the gospel is not our resume, or achievements, or personality, or wonderful way of talking about the gospel that causes our light to shine so that people will glorify God.  No, it is our good works!

___

What qualifies as good works?  The Bible describes them as helping the poor, the afflicted, the broken-hearted and the oppressed.  (Look at the Old Testament version of Matthew 25, in Isaiah 58:6-12; or Isaiah 61:1-2 or Luke 4:18-19, Jesus’ first recorded sermon.)  When others see Christians doing these things, they begin to look at Christianity differently.  And they become more likely to glorify, not us, but God.  All that helps lessen the offense of the gospel. Then people are more likely to be open to hearing the gospel, and to accepting Christ when they do.

___

Good works alone can never substitute for hearing the gospel.  But they often help get it a hearing.

__________

* "Up and Out", all of which is posted online here, with chapters listed in the left-hand column.

BEST EARTHQUAKE PROTECTION? PROSPERITY

Today Ben Blankenship, our guest blogger, writes on the Pakistan/India/Afganistan/Kasmir earthquake.  His summary - National prosperity is the best protection from disasters; and freedom is what is needed to achieve national prosperity.  Now - here's Ben!

"Gerry, as you were saying...

"Pakistan authorities report that 30,000 people have perished in the earthquake that has devastated parts of Pakistan, India and Afganistan.  That must be, at best, a very crude estimate that could be wildly off in either direction.

"A large majority of earthquake fatalities and injuries occur because buildings collapse.  In one horrifying instance in Pakistan, 250 girls died and another 500 were injured when their school collapsed.  In developed countries like the U.S., earthquakes take far less of a human toll because of superior construction techniques. 

"This is one of countless instances where prosperity, which is so often and unfairly maligned, saves lives.  Here's another.  I haven't seen the statistics, but I'm sure someone has figured out how many people in the developed world are saved from entirely preventable deaths by the water quality we take for granted.  The figure is undoubtedly in the millions.

"There is no mystery to sound construction and clean water.  The only requirement is prosperity.  And the only requirement for prosperity is freedom.  This is not the most important reason why our foreign policy should be centered on promoting freedom abroad.  But it is certainly on the list.  Helping promote free enterprise in the underdeveloped world will do far more good than any amount of foreign aid."

LIVES SAVED FROM KATRINA AND RITA BY U.S. PROSPERITY

We got lucky, here in Austin and almost everywhere else in Texas.  Rita went mostly somewhere else.  We are concerned about the people she pounded, working to help them and continuing to pray for them.

Saturday morning the roads from Austin to Houston were packed again, but they were going home.  Galveston can keep people out: there is only one bridge in.  But Houston has thousands of ways to sneak in.  If people want to go back, Houston really cannot stop them.

There is a big festival in Austin this weekend, with 65,000 tickets sold, and people had hotel rooms reserved.  Hotels had to ask the Texas evacuees to leave because their rooms were reserved for others.  It looks like many of them decided just to go home.  Word is there are no hotel rooms available in Texas, Oklahoma or Louisiana anyhow.  So there literally may have been nowhere else for them to go, and they didn't want to wait for something else to be arranged - which would not be easy to do for some 2.5 million evacuees!

My sister (in the NW corner of the Houston area) said Saturday morning that evacuees were coming back in at the rate of 10,000 an hour.  She also said their power went off at 3:30 a.m. Friday night.  They were told there were 750,000 homes without power, and that it would take 2 weeks to restore power.  But today, Sunday, only 300,000 homes remained without power.  (Not bad, Houston!)   

You can literally watch us all learning daily and hourly from Katrina and Rita, from the President on down.  It will make us better prepared to handle the next big one, whether natural disaster or attack. 

It also fits what I wrote earlier (see "THE BEST DEFENSE AGAINST NATURAL DISASTERS? PROSPERITY!, under the category "Katrina/New Orleans," August 29, 2005.)  National prosperity is the best protection against disasters.  A more prosperous country benefits from better early warning, buildings and other infrastructure built to higher codes, better protection from disasters, more and better-trained responders to disasters, more money for rebuilding, and everything done faster than if the country were poorer. 

We cannot stop natural disasters and many man-made ones.  But by working to make this nation and others more prosperous, we also help save innumerable lives in future disasters.  Promoting national prosperity, here and abroad, is one of the most caring, humane things we can do.

WHAT KATRINA REFUGEES NEED MOST? JOBS!

Many American refugees from Katrina are already arriving in other cities.  I know of three shelters in Texas already, in Houston, San Antonio and the covered Burger Statium here in Austin.  Arkansas has some too, and more are coming.

As an old hand at helping poor people move up out of bad situations, I want to make a suggestion to all those trying to help these storm victims.  Whether they were poor or not before, most of them are now.  What they need is to get back on their feet somehow, soon.  Handouts just won't achieve that.  They need jobs.  The only way out of such a deep hole is to work your way out.  That can only start with a job.

But aren't they too stressed, too depressed, too much in shock and grief?  Actually, a job would help them with all that.  The great psychologist Rollo May said that the only cure for grief is time and work.  Work is healing!  Being unemployed often leads to feeling worthless.  A job brings confidence, a sense of being worth something.  It faces us toward the future and brings hope.  And the money to apply toward our hopes.

But do we have enough jobs for them in America?  Before I stop laughing at the idea, let me put on my old economist's hat for a minute.  Yes - there are plenty of jobs in America!  Presently we are at 5% unemployment, or more-than-full employment.  Full employment is defined as about 5.6% unemployment.  (That level is where those who want to work are working, except for those temporarily moving from one job to another.  For instance, worker B is busy applying for the job worker C just left, while worker A is preparing to apply for the job worker B just left.  This movement between jobs is called "frictional unemployment."  It is a normal part of the work world, involving about 5.6% of the workforce at any one time.  It is not the same as true unemployment.  That is why 5.6% unemployment is considered "full employment.")

The U.S. economy, after all, is the one that has somehow absorbed around 11 million illegal immigrants into the job market, yet still has more-than-full employment!  It is the economy that continually outsources more and more jobs overseas, while still continuing to increase the total jobs in the U.S.  It is the economy that bounced back from a 2000 recession made sharply deeper after 9/11, in just 2 to 3 years.  It happens to be the economy that fuels all the other economies in the world.  And we don't have enough jobs to employ all these refugees?

Excuse me, but that is just silly.  If anyone tries to make such a claim, the only rational response would be mirth and amazement.  After all, there were only some 500,000 people in all of New Orleans.  That many would not make a serious dimple in our workforce.

As an example, when the unemployment rate was much higher, at 7-8% in California during 1988-92, we made the families in our homeless shelter get jobs.  Impossible?  Heartless?  Well, not one of them (out of a few thousand) failed to get a job.  Please!

A big risk is that the Katrina homeless may never want to leave their new shelters.  After the great earthquake of 1989 in the California Bay Area, some of our San Jose Family Shelter staff went to Watsonville to see what was happening in the tent city there.  We had trouble believing what we learned.  After a year in the tent city, everything was ready for them to leave.  And they did not want to leave!  Some were planning to actually refuse to go.

Why?  They had become dependent.  They had gotten used to having food, water, shelter, everything they needed, brought directly to them.  They did not have to lift a finger for any of it.  They also had formed a new, though artificial, community.  They did not want to leave it.

Who are the thousands needing help because of Katrina?  They are most likely to be the very poorest of New Orleans and the other stricken communities.  The more prosperous, the ones with cars, are most of the ones who got out on time.

New Orleans was already thought of as socially "the last helpless city in American."  (See Nicole Galinas, former resident of New Orleans, at City Journal, www.city-journal.org.)   It had a crime rate 10 times higher than the rest of America.  She writes of an economy completely dependent on tourism, with no real competent government or civil infrastructure.  The best and most affluent corporations and people had fled for years, leaving behind a population largely dependent on the government.  The 10% or so who stayed in New Orleans to wait out the hurricane were largely the ones without cars, mostly from this dependent population.  (HT to James Tarranto, Best of the Web Today, Wall Street Journal, 9-1-05.)

These Katrina refugees need jobs.  They need, not further dependency, but independence.  Those who help them can help the able-bodied among them best by prodding them into jobs, and by requiring them to work in order to continue to receive help.  Anything short of that will also fall short of true compassion for these stricken people.

There is a guidebook for helping the poor in this way.  I wrote it out of my long experience, but never published it.  Right now, I pledge to get it up online, where anyone can read it for free, just as fast as I can.  Anyone planning to work with Katrina refugees is going to need it, or something like it!  Until then,  God bless all of you as you try to help your neighbors - the refugees from Katrina.

THE BEST PROTECTION FROM NATURAL DISASTERS? PROSPERITY!

Watching the devastation from hurricane Katrina, and the rescue and restoration efforts afterwards, we should remember how much was lost in big natural disasters in other countries.  The Tsunami tragedy less than a year ago; the recent floods in Bangaladesh; the earthquakes in Iran; and others.  Especially, we should note how much less the loss of life and property is here during Katrina, and think about the reasons why.

The unavoidable answer is that in natural disasters, it is mostly national prosperity that makes the biggest difference.  Early-warning systems, such as did not exist in many poor countries hard hit by the tsumanis.  Preparation for disasters, with disaster-readiness equipment like generators for hospitals.  Personnel already trained and drilled.  Local and national teams already equipped to move in quickly, restore the most vital services such as power and water.  Quick restoration of order, prevention of looting.  Trained, well-equipped rescue specialists.  Quick, excellent medical care for the injured. 

Then the national means to rebuild, with really amazing ability and quickness, what was lost.  Good insurance and financial help to assist that rebuilding.  Plenty of people willing and able to do it.  Then the ability to learn from each earthquake, flood, fire, hurricane or tornado, drought, how to better withstand the damage the next time.  Then the ability to build that new knowledge into the infrastructure.

This may seem so obvious as to not be worth mentioning.  But it is important to notice that it is prosperity that is key to preventing loss of life and property, and to restoring what was lost.  Why?  Because knowing the power of national prosperity to save lives and property helps us to understand that it is not purely selfish.  Not at all.  Building national prosperity is one of the most important things that we can to do save lives.  It is also one of the most important things we can do to help the poor, since the poor suffer much more from natural disasters  than the others. 

It is also one of the very most important things that we can do to help the poor in poor countries.  Everything we can promote to increase their national prosperity - capitalism, free trade, freedom from corrupt and thieving governments who steal from the country and increase its poverty, freedom from systems that stifle individual freedoms to start small businesses - all these not only help the poor in those countries rise above poverty.  They also help save their lives in the next big natural disaster they have.

In short: capitalism, free trade, economic freedom and freedom from oppressive, corrupt governments not only help the poor vastly more than handouts; they also help save their lives when the next huge tsunamis, floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters hit.

Handouts are important when disaster strikes.  But they matter less than having reached greater national prosperity.

Post 4: THE POOR AND THE GOSPEL

Is evangelism more important than helping the poor?  Or is giving the hungry food more important than telling them about the good news of the gospel?  Where should we come down between these two positions, seemingly at opposite poles? 

In fact, what about all the other questions about the poor?  Is helping them even commanded by God?  If so, what is the Christian way to do it? 

These questions are urgent, more than we realize.  Still, right now I would like to take a pass on all them!  Although I have written a book on them (which is in the process of being posted online), have started and run charities that helped some thousands of poor and have preached about the poor to some other thousands, I still want a pass, just a temporary one, on looking at them here.  Instead, another matter concerning the poor and the gospel needs to be confronted.

The fact is, when Christians help the poor, they diminish what scripture calls “the offense of the gospel.”  We often forget, but the gospel carries an offense.  Plainly said, it offends people!  It offends those who hear it.  It even, God help us, offends us to tell others about it, at least until we do it enough that we notice less.

How can it be that such good news as the gospel would offend people?  Let me count the ways.

One is that people who try to be strong and independent are easily offended by the gospel.  That is because it says that none of us will be able to save ourselves by our own efforts, no matter how hard we try.  Offensive!  Aren’t we supposed to take care of ourselves and not be dependent on anyone else? 

A big one is that Christians are supposed to live by a set of rules.  And they sure look like party-pooping, bust-your-bubble, never-have-any-fun rules.  Surely God does not expect anyone actually to live like that!  Are you serious?  What is he anyhow, some kind of control-freak?  First, very few people would ever give anyone that much control over their lives.  And second, if they did, it would never be to anyone who wanted them to live like that.

Another is that religion is thought to be no more than superstition, probably by a constantly growing number of people.  They think science has disproved it.

Another is the damage that being a Christian can to do to your reputation and your prospects.  You would lose respect.  Seriously.  It is true.  It could hurt your career.  That is true too.  You can get sneered at.  Laughed at. Ignored. Dismissed.  Become invisible at important times and places. Kicked out of your family.  Scorned.  Passed over. Vandalized. Hated. Attacked.  Even persecuted or killed, depending on where you are and when.  All true.

No wonder people can get offended, even hostile, when some batty Christian thinks they might be a candidate for becoming as stupid as Christians are.  And no wonder Christians inwardly shudder – no matter how much they may deny it or say that no, it is really something else that stops them – when the time comes to help save the life of the go-ahead-make-my-day unbeliever somewhere near them.

Surely we can agree that there is an offense to the gospel.  Yet there are a couple of ways to diminish that offense.  One is to live out the gospel.  That alone – let’s face it – very seldom brings people to Christ.  But it keeps us from driving them away.  When they see us not living out the gospel, they are quick to spot us as hypocrites and to turn even further away.  It is a case of “See, I thought so.”

The other way is helping the poor and afflicted.  Now, quick, before someone else brings it up – no, that does not mean Christians should help the poor as a propaganda ploy, using them as tools to help convert the rest.  Certainly not!  That would be offensive to God.

But when Christians, as the church or as Christians, give real, truly compassionate help to the poor and afflicted, and are seen doing so, it does soften the offense of the gospel.  It does help correct the public image of Christianity.  It does show, better than words, that contrary to all the horrible, untrue images of Christianity, there are other, nobler, loving and truly admirable marks of a Christian.  It makes many stop and think.  Others revise their views when they see the love of Christ made so visible by action.  Many are more ready to give Christianity another look, even a hearing.

Remember in the “Sermon on the Mount”, how Christ said, “Let your light so shine before men that they may see your GOOD WORKS, and glorify your father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16)

As it turns out, what helps us get an audience for the gospel is not our resume, or achievements, or personality, or wonderful way of about talking about the gospel that causes our light to shine so that people will glorify God.  No, it is our good works!

What qualifies as good works?  The Bible describes them as helping the poor, the afflicted, the broken-hearted and the oppressed.  (Take a good look at the Old Testament version of Matthew 25, in Isaiah 58:6-12; or Isaiah 61:1-2 or Luke 4:18-19, Jesus’ first recorded sermon.)  When others see Christians doing these things, they begin to look at Christianity differently.  And they become more likely to glorify, not us, but God.  All that helps lessen the offense of the gospel.

Then people are more likely to be open to hearing the gospel, and to accepting Christ when they do.  Good works alone can never substitute for hearing the gospel.  But they often help get it a hearing.

FATHERS ESSENTIAL FOR HEALTHY SOCIETY

There are few things in life that I appreciate more than seeing a good father with his children. Partly that is because it is a beautiful, heart-warming sight. And partly it is because my past work in getting some thousands of homeless families out of homelessness, and welfare families into jobs and out of dependency, taught me some radical things about how essential good dads are.

These facts are well-known to researchers in the Social Sciences. But there is great reluctance to use them, or talk about them, because the political implications point to the need to encourage and protect marriage much more strongly than we do now.

Here are those facts:
1. Fatherlessness is the most reliable predictor of poverty. (Most of the poor are never-married mothers and their children.)
2. Fatherlessness is also the most reliable predictor of violent crime. (70% of the most violent young offenders in our prisons are fatherless.)

These facts DO NOT mean that most fatherless children will be poor, much less be violent criminals. The fact is that most fatherless children have valiant single moms who will see to it that neither of these things happen. What they do mean is that most of the poor, and most violent criminals, will come out of the pool of fatherless children. That shows the value of fathers in stark terms. (For more facts on how fathers make societies better, and keep them from being worse, see today's article "Father is the Best" by Rich Lowry at www.nationalreview.com.)

But fathers do much more than keep their children from poverty and from a life of violent crime. For one thing, they supply the model their sons will imitate, and that their daughters will search for in choosing a husband. Daughters learn from good fathers to look for a man like them, who thinks they are precious and to be cherished, not exploited. Because of their dads, they also learn to respect men, and to choose a good man and appreciate him once they get him. Because they see their dads do so, sons learn to respect and appreciate women, and to protect women and children.

Through fathers' relationship with their wives, they model for their sons and daughters what a marriage is, and what a man's role is in it. By their support of, and protection for, their wives and children, they live out the highest teachings of a good society. And even without words - they may not use much of those - they teach by their actions. Their children learn from watching them, just as they learn from watehing TV and movies.

Thanks largely to radical feminism and the sexual revolution, fathers have become, not only an endangered species, but a group under attack. How sad! Fathers are more precious, more valuable than we ever knew before we lost so many of them. Hooray for fathers! Long may they live and prosper. And multiply.