The Gender Wage Gap Lie - Slate - By Hanna Rosin

Found here. A counter-narrative from a liberal website.

----------------

You know that “women make 77 cents to every man’s dollar” line you’ve heard a hundred times? It’s not true.

How many times have you heard that “women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men”? Barack Obama said it during his last campaign. Women’s groups say it every April 9, which is Equal Pay Day. In preparation for Labor Day, a group protesting outside Macy’s this week repeated it, too, holding up signs and sending out press releases saying “women make $.77 to every dollar men make on the job.” I’ve heard the line enough times that I feel the need to set the record straight: It’s not true.

The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers. But that is very different than “77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.” The latter gives the impression that a man and a woman standing next to each other doing the same job for the same number of hours get paid different salaries. That’s not at all the case. “Full time” officially means 35 hours, but men work more hours than women. That’s the first problem: We could be comparing men working 40 hours to women working 35.

How to get a more accurate measure? First, instead of comparing annual wages, start by comparing average weekly wages. This is considered a slightly more accurate measure because it eliminates variables like time off during the year or annual bonuses (and yes, men get higher bonuses, but let’s shelve that for a moment in our quest for a pure wage gap number). By this measure, women earn 81 percent of what men earn, although it varies widely by race. African-American women, for example, earn 94 percent of what African-American men earn in a typical week. Then, when you restrict the comparison to men and women working 40 hours a week, the gap narrows to 87 percent.

The point here is not that there is no wage inequality. But by focusing our outrage into a tidy, misleading statistic we’ve missed the actual challenges. It would in fact be much simpler if the problem were rank sexism and all you had to do was enlighten the nation’s bosses or throw the Equal Pay Act at them. But the 91 percent statistic suggests a much more complicated set of problems. Is it that women are choosing lower-paying professions or that our country values women’s professions less? And why do women work fewer hours? Is this all discrimination or, as economist Claudia Goldin likes to say, also a result of “rational choices” women make about how they want to conduct their lives. But we’re still not close to measuring women “doing the same work as men.” For that, we’d have to adjust for many other factors that go into determining salary. Economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn did that in a recent paper, “The Gender Pay Gap.”.”They first accounted for education and experience. That didn’t shift the gap very much, because women generally have at least as much and usually more education than men, and since the 1980s they have been gaining the experience. The fact that men are more likely to be in unions and have their salaries protected accounts for about 4 percent of the gap. The big differences are in occupation and industry. Women congregate in different professions than men do, and the largely male professions tend to be higher-paying. If you account for those differences, and then compare a woman and a man doing the same job, the pay gap narrows to 91 percent. So, you could accurately say in that Obama ad that, “women get paid 91 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.”

Goldin and Lawrence Katz have done about as close to an apples-to-apples comparison of men’s and women’s wages as exists. (They talk about it here in a Freakonomics discussion.) They tracked male and female MBAs graduating from the University of Chicago from 1990 to 2006. First they controlled for previous job experience, GPA, chosen profession, business-school course and job title. Right out of school, they found only a tiny differential in salary between men and women, which might be because of a little bit of lingering discrimination or because women are worse at negotiating starting salaries. But 10 to 15 years later, the gap widens to 40 percent, almost all of which is due to career interruptions and fewer hours. The gap is even wider for women business school graduates who marry very high earners. (Note: Never marry a rich man).

If this midcareer gap is due to discrimination, it’s much deeper than “male boss looks at female hire and decides she is worth less, and then pats her male colleague on the back and slips him a bonus.” It’s the deeper, more systemic discrimination of inadequate family-leave policies and childcare options, of women defaulting to being the caretakers. Or of women deciding that are suited to be nurses and teachers but not doctors. And in that more complicated discussion, you have to leave room at least for the option of choice—that women just don’t want to work the same way men do.

Is “What Would Jesus Do” the Way to Live? - By Randy White

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

-----------------------I've commented on Dr. White once before.  I'm beginning to think that Dr. White is exhibiting what is becoming an identifying characteristic, that is, he seems to be limited in his thinking skills. Which is strange, because he has glimmers of insight. I don't wish to be disrespectful of a man who has committed his life to the service of the Kingdom. I bless him for that. However, the things he writes are properly the subject of scrutiny, since he represents himself as a teacher of the Word. Read on:--------------------------------

by Randy White

January 25, 2014

~~For the longest time, perhaps since the days of Charles Sheldon’s classic book “In His Steps,” the phrase “what would Jesus do?” has been a code of ethics for millions of believers. Unbeknownst to most of these believers, however, “what would Jesus do?” is actually a bad ethical model. (So we have Dr. White's premise, that is, is asking ourselves what Jesus would do is a bad ethical model. Let's see if he makes his case.)

One of my greatest fears for Christians today is that they are so gullible. (Probably true. Most people are gullible.) 

If something sounds spiritual, then thousands upon thousands of believers will immediately accept it. Anyone who questions it will quickly be condemned as unspiritual. (Dr. White is once again beginning to exhibit certain tendencies for which I previously criticized him. Here he's making a sweeping generalization based on a false binary equation. In this case, he is setting himself up as the persecuted party, since he is the one who will be offering criticism. He expects condemnation, and in his mind the persecution will be because he told the truth to the gullible.) 

For example, if someone says they don’t like the church growth movement, (Which was the subject of his previous article), 

they will be accused of an, “us four and no more” policy. If someone is opposed to the social gospel, (Which he mentioned in his previous article) 

they will be accused of not caring for shoeless children in Africa. (He seems to think that practical expressions of mercy is the same thing as the social gospel. The social gospel is a political doctrine, not a biblical one. However, caring for shoeless children is certainly one of the legitimate expressions of faith we should embrace. The two are not the same.) 

If someone doesn’t believe that God is giving direct messages to believers around the world, they will be accused of rejecting the third person of the Trinity. (This is a big subject, which Dr. White reduces down to a dreadfully simplistic level, making it devoid of meaning.) 

So, having experience with each of these, I know that some people will reject outright my rejection of the “what would Jesus do?” code of conduct. (A little bit of advance excuse-making. He's suggesting because these other criticisms were unreasonable in some way, what he is about to write will likewise be subject to unreasonable criticism.)

But, should we do what Jesus would do? Can we do what Jesus would do? Do we know what Jesus would do? Are we instructed to do what Jesus would do? (These are good questions. It will be interesting to learn what he thinks constitutes "doing what Jesus would do.")

Even before twitter we had what I call “twitter theology.” Twitter theology is a spiritual statement that is easy to post and repost, to like and to share, and to put into sound bites and onto the church marquise. Most of this twitter theology needs to be thoroughly questioned. (Well of course. Who is suggesting that we should not?) 

In fact, we should question twitter theology as much as–if not more than–the sermons we hear, the Christian books we read, and the contemporary Christian music we listen to. (All true. It's called "discernment," and it's not limited to sound bites. Even a wordy treatise, like what we're reading now, is subject to the same scrutiny. Shortness is not an indicator of truthfulness or value.)  “What would Jesus do?” is pre-twitter era twitter theology, and I want to question it.

For at least two reasons, I do not think that Jesus can be the criterion for Christian living.

JESUS LIVED UNDER THE LAW

What would Jesus do for breakfast? (Our first indicator of what Dr. White considers to be "WWJD." He selects something irrelevant, inane, and unillustrative of the topic in order to belittle the entire concept.) 

Biblically, the only time that we see him eating breakfast, He is eating fish. Personally, I’m not too eager to do what Jesus would do for breakfast. (As if this is what it means to imitate the life of Jesus.) 

Though we only have one incident in the Scripture in which Jesus is actually eating breakfast, we know that Jesus would not have bacon for breakfast.  Sausage and biscuits are also out. (Is he trying to be funny? A whole paragraph on Jesus' breakfast? This is how he illustrates his point? Really?)

Daines needs to stop talking for all Montanans - letter by Elizabeth Marum

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

-------------------------

I know I've been publishing a lot of things about the criticism of Steve Daines, but a lot of things are being published that criticize him. So many of them are unblinking, unthinking regurgitations of Leftist talking points. I just can't let those remain unchallenged.

Especially ones like this. It's one thing to level legitimate criticisms of Steve Daines' political philosophy or policy, it's something else to make untrue, off-topic, or irrelevant claims about him. 

But worse, the letter is not about Steve Daines per se, it is about her. Her pleasure, her happiness, her needs. ACA has made her happy, so any opposition to ACA is opposition to her happiness.

Lastly, the title to the letter, provided by the Chronicle, is not accurate, since Ms. Marum made no such statement.

Read on:

-------------------------------

I'm weary of Congressman Daines' repetition that Montanans don't like the new heath care law. (She might be weary, but Daines' claim is accurate. Which means that Daines' opposition to ACA is proper, and he is justified in working to repeal this unpopular and messed up legislation.) 

I couldn't be happier that we have a law assuring access to affordable healthcare, encouraging wellness through preventive medicine and permitting lower premiums for people making less than 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. (Good for her. I'm glad a government program has given her happiness. It's all about her, of course. She's happy, so Daines is wrong and we should not repeal the law. Based only on her happiness.)

Letter to the editor regarding Geoff Stephens

I decided to write a letter to the editor based on my prior post.

--------------------------

These letters criticizing Steve Daines all sound alike. The sentences are simply rearranged, regurgitated talking points. Or maybe the writers really believe this stuff, a product of lock-step indoctrination. Hard to say.

Geoff Stephens recent scattershot letter hyperbolically suggests that Daines engaged in "assault" with his vote against the budget bill. In the pink unicorn land of the Left, opposing profligate government spending or wanting better legislation equals hating children. Worse, it's "extreme." This is a textbook example of why the Left will never let government be reformed. You see, the reformers are haters.

Apparently, the unemployed were assaulted as well, because Republicans refused to "extend jobless benefits for just three months." "Just" three more months. You know, if Mr. Stephens really cared, he would favor doubling unemployment benefits. No, triple. Come on, sir. Are you assaulting the unemployed?

And, those eeevil Republicans are "pushing" bad economic policies, yet are we "still trying to recover" from the recession, after 5 years of Hope and Change. You know, it's been Big Government for as far as the eye can see. So why are we still languishing after Obama's laser-like focus on the economy? Why haven't the stimuli and the bailouts helped? Where did all those trillions go?

Mr. Stephens then asserts that "two-thirds of all working Americans live paycheck to paycheck." Daines has been in office for a year. Leftist economic theories have dominated the economy for 80 years. But surprise, it's Daines' fault.

And, ooooh, Daines is wealthy! A little envy always furthers the conversation. Leftists are obsessed with other peoples' money. But Daines did nothing more than parlay his skills and work ethic into an American success story. Daines should be admired and emulated.

Daines isn't the problem, it's Big Government and their enablers. Whether Republican or Democrat, we should blame them. And vote them out.

Daines continues attack on working Americans - letter by Geoff Stephens

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

-------------------------------

These letters about the eeevil Steve Daines all sound alike. It seems like the same person is writing all the letters, and these individuals simply rearrange the sentences and sign their names. Or maybe Leftists are so lock-step, so indoctrinated, so unblinkingly thoughtless that they simply regurgitate everything they've been told. Read on:

--------------------------------

Last week Steve Daines (That's Congressman Steve Daines to you, dude.) 

continued his assault on working Americans by voting against a bipartisan budget deal that provides funding for veterans, children, the elderly and many others. (Definitionally, every budget bill contains money to be spent. That's what budget bills do. The question is, is the bill a good one? Most agree that the bill is a compromise, which contains things that no one likes. In Daines' case, he found the contents of the bill onerous enough to vote against it. 

But in the pink unicorn land of the Leftist, opposing wasteful government spending or wanting better legislation equals hating veterans, children, and the elderly. This is what passes for logic in the Leftist mind. And this is why government can never be cut, reformed, or reduced, because it automatically means that the reformers are haters.

What is astonishing is that this way of thinking actually is persuasive with these people.)

This is just the latest in Daines’ assault on working people. He is one of the extreme (Leftists love this word. Definition of extreme: Disagreeing with a Leftist.) 

Republicans who are refusing to extend jobless benefits for just three months ("Just." After 26 weeks was extended to 50 and now it is 99. At the end of three months, then we "just" need three more. In fact, if we really cared about the jobless, why don't we make unemployment permanent? You see, Mr. Stephens must hate the poor, because he only favors a three month extension. If he really cared, he would double their benefits, and give them for as long as they needed them. No, he would triple them. If he disagrees, he's a hater, right?) 

or to raise the minimum wage. Two-thirds of all working Americans live paycheck to paycheck. (This is Obama's economy, he's been president for five years. Daines has been in office for a year, but it's his fault? Really?) 

Maybe Steve Daines doesn’t know what that is like since his median wealth is listed at over $13 million, putting him firmly in the richest 1 percent. (A little leftist envy thrown in for good measure. The Left is sure obsessed about peoples' money. Actually, Daines' net wealth is not $13 million, it is $9.19 million, which is 40th richest in Congress. 

So what is the takeaway? Daines, a long-time Montanan, parleyed his skills and abilities into an American success story. He worked hard, took risks, and succeeded. Success, it's a GOOD thing. We ought to admire him, emulate him. The headline about Daines should read, "Local boy makes good.")

Why I Oppose The Church Growth Movement - by Randy White

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. Originally found here. My comments in bold:

----------------
(I'm a little surprised at this Dr. White, because his chief complaint seems to be that unnamed churches are engaging in unnamed heretical activities which result in unscriptural church growth. I've read the article several times, looking in vain for specifics on what these violators are doing, who they are, and why it's bad. 

It appears to me that Dr. White simply doesn't like churches with a different style. He doesn't cite any specific churches, specific doctrinal errors, or even quote any of the supposed perpetrators. All he succeeds in doing is imputing certain characteristics to amorphous bogey men, dismissing them as heretical, then retreating to the comfort of his own ideas. Read on:
--------------------

Church growth is all the rage. For pastors, the focus is on leadership. For laymen, on “reaching people.” In the church world, church-growth is the standard of success. If a church “reaches people,” and the pastor is a “visionary leader,” then the church will be considered a success. If a church makes it into somebody’s bogus “Fastest Growing Church” list, then the growth frenzy continues with the sheep flocking to check out what innovation has been initiated to reach the masses for Christ. Personally, I think the Emperor has no clothes. (Note the manipulative "scare quotes." The implication is that "reaching people" is bad. Let's see how he explains this.)

For at least four reasons, I reject the church-growth and church-health principles taught at almost every pastor’s conference, and expressed in almost every church. (This is the first indication of unhealthy thinking. It's Dr. White against "almost every church." You see, he stands alone, beating back the evils of church growth, standing for the truth, and fighting the battle against apostasy. It's a variant of a persecution complex, where he and only he has the truth, and only he is right because he rejects all the heretical stuff he will be writing about below.)

Our church will be different, because I reject these principles. Although different will likely mean odd, behind-the-times, and shrinking in size, I go there anyway. (A little bit of advance excuse making. His church will be withering away, he says, because he alone stands for truth at any cost. So if his church gets fed up with him, he will be able to claim that it's because he stood up for the Truth.)

I refuse to believe that a “Christian community” will save anyone.

(Who says that a "Christian community" saves people?) 

Community is the big word today (along with missional…and if you claim to be a missional community, you are really on the cutting edge). Churches work hard to design community. They do it through small-groups, centered around felt-needs, and gathered in living rooms across the country. These community groups gather for the bigger community in a weekly celebration of magnificence. (Note the pejorative language. "Celebration of magnificence" is a phrase chosen to diminish those with whom he disagrees. But he hasn't identified anyone specific. No specific practices, doctrinal errors, or errant churches. In fact, the charges he levels are something he couldn't possibly know about all these churches. 

So, according to Dr. White, churches that have home groups and Sunday gatherings are suspect, despite the fact that churches have been organized this way for ages. "Community" is the problem, apparently. But churches have always sought to be a community (A body, if you will), right from Acts chapter 2. None of this is new, but apparently it is now self-aggrandizing.) 

This weekly celebration has been carefully scripted, (My roots are conservative Baptist. Every Sunday we met at 11:00, sang four hymns, had an offering, listened to a sermon, and were out of there by noon. I've been to many churches that have done almost exactly the same thing in the same way, probably for decades. Sounds like it's also carefully scripted, doesn't it? How is this any different than what Dr. White is complaining about. Oh, and let's not forget about something called the liturgy. Is this offensive to Dr. White as well?) 

from the ridiculously silly and manipulative countdown screen, (How about the ridiculously silly and manipulative sign hung on the wall that tells the number in attendance last Sunday as well as the offering amount? Dr. White's criticisms ring hollow.)

to the last triumphant note of victory at which the community members are sent out to create a Christian society by building community within their neighborhoods. (Yes, yes, we certainly don't want people to go out and act on their faith. We don't want people, motivated by their church, to go out and act on what they've learned. It would be a shame if some of them decided to attend Bible school, become missionaries, or enter the pastorate!)

These community groups gather for “Bible study,” which is almost always a double misnomer. The only Scripture used (Only? Really? Another broad generalization.) 

will be out-of-context references that came from the latest book (Dr. White is an author. I wonder, do any Bible studies use his books? Would he condemn them if they did?)  

by the latest Hollywood-looks celebrity pastor


(Here's Dr. White. Not a bad looking guy...) 

who gathered his thoughts (from the internet?), (Irony alert. This very article is found on the internet.) 

and allowed a nameless editor to work them into something profitable. The group will neither study the passages, nor the book itself. They will simply read a chapter before they come, spend 45 minutes talking about the parts they liked, share how the chapter made them feel about themselves as well as any insights gained, then go away and tell their friends about their marvelous Bible study. It reminds me of when my dad told me we were having tube steak for dinner. I was somewhat disappointed when I found out he just used that lofty sounding name to refer to hot-dogs. Today much of the Bible study in missional-communities is the equivalent of tube steak. (Notice Dr. White's persistent rhetorical technique? He paints with a broad brush, leveling universally applied criticism against people he doesn't know, meetings where he wasn't present, and events he didn't witness. It's "almost always" happening in the way he describes it. No one, apparently, is having real Bible studies. Everyone is reading pop culture interpretations. And it's like this everywhere except his dried-up and shriveling church, where the courageous truth is taught. How does one argue against this kind of rhetoric?)

Following “Bible study,” the groups engage in fellowship time, then go on their way as biblically empty as when they arrived. (Which again, he knows for a fact.) 

Soon they will gather for a “mission project” in which they repair a home (painting the door red so all the town will know that this is one of the homes repaired by that missional community, and will rise up and call the missional community wonderful). (Oh, my. I'm having difficulty expressing my reaction to this overt meanness.)

If not a home repair project, it may be picking up trash for the city, or painting a dilapidated school, or providing shoes for shoeless children. The sermon will often be aimed toward raising up an army of Christians who adopt the orphan, visit the imprisoned, and blog for social justice. (No, we can't have Christians repairing homes, picking up trash, painting schools, or giving shoes to children. Can anyone explain to me why Dr. White is objecting to these acts of mercy and compassion? I will concede, however, that "social justice," as understood by political Leftists, is worthy of contempt.)

Even if I believed that these “missions projects” were as successful as the church websites claim (So these churches are apparently lying as well.) 

(“we had an awesome God-thing happen at our last gathering”), I don’t think it has any lasting impact. (Wow. Now he's apparently in a position to judge the duration and eternal significance of the impact of these activities to coming generations of people. Amazing chutzpah, Dr. White. You can't know this stuff. And it seems to be a perilous enterprise indeed to pass a priori judgment on the good works of others.)

As I see it, the Christian is not so much to engage his society, but to come out from it. (Hmm. At least Dr. White has the circumspection to admit that he has an opinion about what Christians should do. This is the most subdued we have seem him.)

The church today is filled with those who are both in the world and of the world, (*Sigh* Dr. White just goes on and on. There is no way he can know the hearts of these people. He cannot possibly know they are "of the world." Every single one of them. This is presumption and arrogance to think one could know the hearts of people, and large numbers of people at that.) 

and who are organized to change the world into a kinder, gentler place to be. (I guess we should not being going and making disciples of all nations.) 

The success rate of the mega-church missional-church movement has been an utter failure. (So this is his conclusion. Let's see how he arrived at it...)

Society is more liberal and godless than ever before, with no end to its decline in sight. The mega-missional church will gather in their multi-campus celebrations this weekend and slobber over themselves (Wow, he just cannot resist using hostile and dismissive language against his theological enemies.) 

for their victories, yet our society doesn’t display achieve a single victory. Not one. (Ok, so he's holding the "missional" church [if there is such a thing] responsible for failing to stem the tide of godlessness. May we ask, can this charge be laid also at the feet of "non-missional" churches? Or is it only the fault of those churches Dr. White disagrees with?)

Building missional community does nothing more than produce a feel-good complacency to the community members. (Wait. I thought they were repairing peoples' houses and shoeing the shoeless? Which is it, Dr. White?)

Although they live, assured they are going to be people of impact, as part of a community, they fail to really make any difference. (Again, Dr. White. Why single out the group you hate for the failure of the church at large? Or is your withering church actually succeeding based on your superior leadership?) They fool themselves into thinking the Emperor’s clothes are superb.

Have you noticed that I’ve not mentioned anything about the proclamation of the Word, and the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? That’s because there is not much to mention from the church today. (Who is he criticizing now? Has his rhetoric changed focus to the church at large?)

The church today does good works, has good music (in the ears of many), has a really good sound-system, and a pastor who could lead circles around Moses. What it doesn’t have is the backbone to proclaim that our world must reject humanism, social justice, poverty eradication efforts, and other white-washed measures of “expanding the Kingdom of God”—and, must find its only hope in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (This is becoming tiresome. He doesn't know any of this, for he cannot. Of course, there probably are godless, liberal churches who have lost sight of their heaven-sent calling, but Dr. White doesn't deal in specifics. He prefers to engaging in a general impugning of every other church [or alternately, every other "missional" church, as he brands them. 

His diatribe resembles a foaming-at-the-mouth gush of verbiage, with unsupported assertions, and blanket condemnations, and broad generalizations about people he obviously has not met or churches he has never visited. But he knows they're all evil and backslidden.)

I reject all manipulation and aim toward persuasion.

The second reason I’m leaving the missional-community church-growth movement is because I reject manipulation of all kinds. In fact, more than ever before, it disgusts me. The modern church is so built on manipulation that I’m convinced it could not continue without it.

I recently attended a relatively small Bible-believing, Bible-teaching church as a guest. (Hmm. Up til now I thought his church was the only one.)

I was refreshed to see that almost every participant had their Bible—and opened—during the sermon. This told me that the pastor regularly delivers enough verse-by-verse content that looking up one verse on an iPad just wouldn’t suffice. Bibles, for this rare congregation, were a necessity. I was also impressed by the music. It was bad…and that impressed me. It wasn’t polished. There wasn’t a carefully selected Praise Team who passed the “Sunday morning test” of looks and sound, dressed in color-coordinated clothing, closing their eyes and looking to heaven as if they were in an ecstatic moment (I’ve often seen these ecstatic moments turn on and off like a light switch). In fact, the song leader was clearly not a professional, and his tone was often off just a bit. But the people sang with joy. I was impressed with their prayers. They prayed for real and legitimate needs during a Sunday morning service. It would never pass the church-growth test, because it wasn’t seeker-friendly at all with random people from the congregation praying at-will over the needs of the members. As a first-time visitor, I felt out-of-place during that prayer, and I thought that was wonderful. After all, if I was looking for a church, I’d want one that really cared about the hurting people they knew, the flesh-and-blood people who sat in their pews each Sunday. (Which apparently is not what happens in the churches that have attracted his ire.)

Most churches (including mine) are not like this. (See? He's alone in the wilderness, with just a handful of brave compatriots scattered about.)

In most churches (not mine), I wonder if they would be able to continue the “worship” if the electricity went out. (It's these kinds of unwarranted pot-shots that cause me to bristle.) 

The service is so dependent on mood-lighting, electric instrumentation, sound amplification, and video enhancement that it would fall flat in a New York minute with no power. In my church, thankfully, if the electricity went out, we would give one another a quick glance and grin, and keep on singing or preaching. If the electricity-dependent “worship” of the modern church lost electricity, we would see quickly how much vast emptiness there is in these churches, and in short-order, the churches would be vastly empty. No show, no crowd. (Yes, yes. I'm sure there are churches like this out there. But Dr. White continues to hammer the little ol' us against the big evil them theme into the ground. He issues smug condemnation of "most churches" from his high perch of righteous judgment without offering a single bit of evidence that what he is saying is, true, relevant, productive, or of any value whatsoever. He is content to stand off in the distance and toss rocks at these supposed heretics.)

(Incidentally, I’m not a fan of the black-box architecture of the missional-community church. This is a total rejection of centuries of theologically-driven architectural principles of church design that understood a theology of aesthetics.)

Rejecting manipulation, I won’t do a countdown video before the service; it simply enhances the idea of a show that is about to begin. I refuse to only allow the A-team to “perform.” I don’t want soft music playing while I pray (or preach, or give an invitation). I don’t want “smart lights” that set the mood, changeable at the push of a button to fit the tone of the selected song. I don’t want to manipulate my audience into a certain feeling which will evoke a certain action. Doing so is sadly too easy, because our generation (as the Bible predicted) loves the tickling of ears. If you tickle, they will come. (His taste, which must be the model for all churches...)

What I do want to provide is persuasion. I want to stand before the congregation with a persuasive argument from Scripture. As a lawyer before the jury, I want to present a water-tight case that will change the thinking of those who have come to hear a Biblical message. I realize that I do this in a day in which feeling trumps thinking, and so my kind of persuasive preaching will often be rejected. Persuasive preaching doesn’t have enough stories, illustrations, and “you can do it” back-slapping grunts. (If his preaching is anything like his writing, he's in for a real let down.)

I refuse to let my congregation be deceived by good feelings

Thirdly, I reject the missional-community church-growth movement because it is deceptive. Participants in these churches feel like they are stalwart conservatives in a Bible-believing, Gospel-proclaiming, Hell-reducing, Kingdom-expanding church. They consistently proclaim, “My preacher really preaches the Bible.” True, their preacher does hold up a Bible and talk about how true and authoritative it is. He even quotes from the Bible fairly consistently (“I know the plans I have for you…I will never leave you nor forsake you…I am come that you might have life more abundantly…(and, of course) bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse”). What these church members do not know is that they have adopted the leftist agenda (socialism) or neo-con agenda (reconstructing a Christian society) which is as empty as it has always been. (More of the same. I'll just stop for a moment and simply let him rail against all these lukewarm, evil, co-opted churches. He knows so much about them and what they do and how they believe and why they aren't saved. Ad nauseum.)

I will lose church-growth potential because I won’t allow a good-feeling production to trump reality. Do my church members know their Bible? Can they give a defense of the attacks against it? Can they rightly divide the Word of Truth? Do they have a Biblical worldview that understands creation (young-earth), eschatology (pre-trib), salvation (Jesus as propitiatory sacrifice), grace (free from the Law), and so much more? Have I developed a congregation that could, and would, stick with it through a months-long study of the book of Numbers? Or Leviticus? If I have not developed this kind of Biblical hunger, then I’ve just allowed them to be deceived by thinking they’ve had Bible study, experienced worship, and come away a better (and more Christ-like) person. Since I will stand before God someday to be judged for reality (not feelings), I will be satisfied to spend my time and energy developing a Biblically-literate congregation.

I reject the church as a program organization over which I am the CEO

Finally, the CEO model of Pastor has to go. (Finally, something I agree with. However, if you google his name, you will find it prominently displayed on his church website.) 

I know that almost every missional-community church-growth model pastor’s conference says this same thing, continually reminding pastors that they are not CEOs. (Hmm. Apparently the eeevil churches agree.)

Then, having given the obligatory rejection of CEO style leadership, they tell the Pastor that he should be known as the “Lead Pastor” (lead…short for leadership, a key CEO trait). They instruct him in the best means of vision development and “vision casting.” They Peter Drucker him to spiritual death. They study the Bible, not looking for Biblical truth, but looking for leadership traits of Moses (one of the worst leaders of all time), Gideon (zero leadership capability), Nehemiah (who was not a priest nor a pastor, but a government official), Jesus (who did nothing but follow His Father), or Paul (who said pastors should “preach the Word”). (Yeah, we don't want people to study significant personages in the Bible to examine the goods and the bads of how they approached the issues of their lives.)

Going further, these pastor’s conferences (or books) talk about all the programs and paradigms the church could/should implement to develop its missional-community. Of course, as soon as you create any kind of ministry (i.e. program) in the church, it requires some oversight, which requires the Pastor to leave his pastoral function and begin acting like the conference/book instructed him to act: like a leader.

Don’t call me Lead Pastor. Don’t call me Senior Pastor (been there, done that). Don’t call me Teaching Pastor (is there any other kind?). Just call me Pastor, and let me devote my life to prayer and the ministry of the Word, ministering to the flock under my care. I happen to believe that if a person attends a church where they cannot call the Pastor and talk to him, they don’t really have a Pastor. (I wonder what his view of "pastor" is derived from? I find a single reference to "pastor" in the NT:

Ep. 4:11-13 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fulness of Christ.

Why does he call himself pastor, and why does he attach such importance to the "proper" view of pastor? Does he have any prophets, apostles, evangelists? It sounds to me like he, as the pastor, still sits on top of the pyramid in his church. Worse, he is not reluctant to promulgate his ideas about proper church to the entire body of Christ, viciously condemning those who do not line up with his views.)

Conclusion

I’ve just rejected everything that has become the favorite methods of the missional-community church, which it uses as it bows down to its idol called church-growth. I’m sure some have said “amen” all the way through. If that was you, you’ve probably struggled to find a place to worship and call your church home. Others have come to the end with a righteous rage, wondering how I could so “not get it.” Whichever side you are on, I encourage you to run to the Bible and use it as your only source of revelation about the will of God in church, society, and your own personal life. (And then there are people like me, who aren't in either camp. We are people who love the Lord, love the Bible, and love His work in the church, even in churches that don't suit our tastes. 

It doesn't bother me that he doesn't "get it." It bothers me that he issues sweeping condemnation on things he hasn't experienced about people he presumes to know the motives of. I am not in a "righteous rage" or any other kind of rage. I am actually somewhat saddened.)

Dr. Randy White is Pastor of First Baptist Church of Katy, TX, and ministers online at www.RandyWhiteMinistries.org.

City revisits affordable housing issue - By ERIN SCHATTAUER

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

------------------------

The Bozeman City Commission has chipped away at some of the issues surrounding the city’s affordable housing shortage. (Chipped away, as in offered up yet another government "solution" bound to fail.)

A roundtable discussion on the issue was held at the end of Monday night’s commission meeting with members of the Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board, including members of the Human Resource Development Council and city staff. (No members of the community at large? No dissenting voices? No diverse interests?)

The discussion was to let commissioners hear recommendations from the board and get direction on possible affordable housing policies. (Can we guess what solution a government advisory board would offer? Would it be, maybe, a government program? No, couldn't happen...)

More affordable rentals are needed in Bozeman, especially for households with incomes at or below 40 percent of the area median income, said Wendy Thomas, the city’s director of community development. In 2012, the median income for a family of three in Gallatin County was $60,900, according to calculations presented by the city. (Problem identified. Good. We need affordable housing. Logical, since people who are poor need to find places they can afford. So, what will be the solutions they offer? Read on.)

Thomas laid out several challenges that the city faces when it comes to affordable housing: decreased federal funding, too few staff members and increasing prices. ("...challenges that the city faces..." Oh. I thought we were talking about challenges that the poor face. My mistake.) Home prices increased 9 percent in 2013 for a single-family home and 14 percent for townhouses and condos. (So we aren't talking about housing the poor, we are talking about them buying houses. And because home values have increased after years of plunging decreases, all of the sudden there is a problem. Hmm.)

Snowden a traitor, deserves death - letter by Vern Smalley

Reproduced for fair use and discussion purposes. Letter originally found here. My comments in bold.

------------------------

Mr. Smalley is a frequent contributor to the Chronicle's opinion page. I've commented on him before, most recently here and here. In fact, the second example is pretty much the same letter as what he wrote below.

Read on:

------------------------------
Pardon Edward Snowden for leaking classified information? Are they kidding?

Snowden signed a legally binding oath invoking a prison sentence and heavy fine if he should ever reveal the information to which he was given access. That information was so highly classified that revealing it would place America in grave danger and cost lives. (Maybe, maybe not. But it is odd for a leftist to be defending the need for the US to maintain secrets, especially related to spying. Does anyone remember the criticism leveled at Bush when it was revealed there were secret prisons where suspected terrorists were being held? How outraged was the Left!)

Imagine Russia’s reaction when they learned we had their secrets. They’d immediately ask how did America get this information? Who among the Russians was the mole? Who should be tortured and executed? (Does Mr. Smalley know that Russia granted Snowden asylum? Russia is not looking to execute him, they welcomed him!) 

Thanks to Edward Snowden, people trying to help us very likely lost their lives, but we might never know who. Russia’s revealing whose life they took would confirm that our intelligence information was correct, and we can’t admit we had high level spies. (? Why can't we admit we have high level spies, when we just been forced to admit we are doing high level spying?)

Also thanks to Edward Snowden, our collections of enemy strengths and weaknesses, strategies and tactics have been made more difficult to acquire by being saturated with disinformation. That’s all intel data from all countries. (It's truly amazing how concerned is Mr. Smalley for the US cloak and dagger operations. I can't recall the last time someone on the Left defended the operations of US intelligence and military objectives.)

If we don’t deal harshly with Snowden, we will encourage every potential traitor who has access to our nation’s secrets to incompetently, on his own, decide what should be revealed. In my opinion, the biggest threat we have in this county are those who, like Edward Snowden and political extremists, live in an idealistic world convoluted by their own hyper-inflated egos.

Normally, I’m not in favor of the death penalty and would much rather have the worst of the worst rot in hi-max prisons for the rest of their lives. However, Snowden deserves to receive his penalty in full view of others who would betray our nation. Maybe they would rethink before becoming traitors. (Well, sir, you are either for or against the death penalty. So this means you are in favor, despite your protestations. We are therefore justified in examining all the people who might be deemed worthy of death by our justice system whom the Left routinely defends against the death penalty. All sorts of murderers, child rapists, and various other perpetrators of astonishing horrors are deemed worthy of living. But for Mr. Smalley, Snowden is worse than all of these, and deserves death. Hmm.)

By the way, the NSA is welcome to keep track of my phone calls any time it wants. I have nothing to hide. (Ok, so Mr. Smalley shouldn't mind the police traipsing through his house without a warrant for any and all reasons. He has nothing to hide. How about a camera outside his bedroom window? Well, he has nothing to hide. He should have no problem with random patdowns has he walks Bozeman streets. Because he has nothing to hide. And when he is arrested for a crime which he did not commit, I expect he will be agreeable to dispense with the trial by jury, because he has nothing to hide.

Mr. Smalley, our constitutional rights are to protect the innocent, not the guilty.) 

Even if everyone worked hard and went to college someone would still need to make our pizzas...

FB friend D.G.:posted this:  

Me: Who assumes this?

D.G.: Thoughtless people. Sadly there are a lot of them out there (of all political persuasions, of course).

I am actually curious what a thoughtful opponent of redistribution like yourself thinks about the distributional consequences of the service industry. I can imagine a few perspectives:

1. These jobs should be filled by young people getting work experience; they shouldn't be long-term careers. I like this one in theory, but it begs the question of how to manage the economy in such a way that there are enough suitable "career" jobs for everyone who works hard and is educated. IMHO automation and off-shoring will make this very hard.

2. The jobs that aren't truly necessary (e.g. we don't actually need cheap pizza) will go away. The jobs that are truly necessary (e.g. distributing physical goods) will wind up paying more if that's the only way to get workers. This answer works great as long as there's sufficient competitive demand for labor (see #1).

3. These jobs should be filled by immigrants. IMHO, this is probably the best solution. Obviously it's not permanent, but IMHO if we reach the point where we run out of people who are desperate to immigrate to the US, that means that the world has gotten so much better that I will jump for joy and not worry about what comes after that.

M.W.: Unfortunately I don't think any of those three alternatives are viable, Dan. They all run smack into the problem you identify in #1: "not enough suitable 'career' jobs due to automation and off-shoring."

I don't think capitalism contains a solution for this problem, and yet I don't see the "bread and circuses" approach as viable either. The only solution I can imagine is social: building an ethic of cooperation which values work but doesn't necessarily require compensation to be equal to production. There is absolutely enough productive capacity to make all human beings quite wealthy, but only if the top producers are open-handed in their generosity. The early Church "had all things common," and while I think property rights are important for pragmatic reasons, I think a Zion society (sorry for the religious terminology but I don't know how else to describe it) also requires that people not be particularly ATTACHED to their property--if it is clear that someone else needs a vehicle more than you need a second car, you give it to him freely.

Thus, the only conceivable solution I see lies within the principles of the gospel of Christ. Any solution which isn't built on voluntary cooperation and a spirit of true charity will ultimately break down.

D.G.: That's really interesting, Max! In some sense I agree; while I think the solution should be formalized through government rather than being totally voluntary, I do think that in practice it's dependent on a philosophical consensus across all levels of society. Just like democracy is only sustainable if the leaders actually believe in it.

M.W.: Why would it have to be formalized through government? If you really do have a philosophical consensus, it seems that any coordination mechanism would work--government has no advantage over the Kiwanis Club in that scenario. I'm interested in why you think otherwise.

That being said, I think coordinating information is a perfectly legitimate function of government.

D.G.: Two reasons:
1. Government is good at solving collective action problems. Even if there's a general consensus, it's far too tempting for individuals to try to free-ride.
2. Having a broad consensus that resources should be redistributed leaves a ton of open questions--how much? from whom? to whom?. The democratic process is the right way to answer those questions.

T.H.: I am a fan of a floating income tax rate for corporations and the top 1%. Tie it to the unemployment rate and the average income for the bottom 50% of households. No improvement = 90% tax rate for the ultra rich.

T.L.: I think a missing link in this is capitalism itself. As we've seen by shrinking wages and lowered incomes, there is very little capital floating around for the entrepreneurial minded. Per the SBA, small businesses make up 99.7% of U.S. employer firms and 49.2% of private sector employment. If we give more capital for expansion, or start-up capital for new businesses, we can provide more employment opportunities. I know a lot of people with good ideas, especially in niche or emerging markets, who can't access the capital to realize their ideas.

M.W.: Dan, I'm afraid I can't agree as much as I would like. If my friend has a need that I can help fulfill, the democratic process is not in the same position to meet that need that I am in. Furthermore, if by 'free riders' you mean 'those who have refusing to use their means for the benefit of others, on a wide scale' I'm afraid you don't have a consensus in the first place. Forcibly taking from some in order to give to others is the 'bread and circuses' model, and for a variety of reasons I don't think it's sustainable, not least because it fails to build feelings of friendship between the giver and receiver.

You're welcome to try it anyway but I will vote against it.

M.W.: Thomas, the ultra-rich don't care about the marginal tax rate. They only care about the capital gains rate.

T.H.: In my tax plan this rate would take over for ALL income above $1 mil per year. I think it is stupid to have a lower capitol gains rate for high earners. The rich are going to invest in stocks either way - and even if they don't its not a terrible loss.


M.W.: This is a bit of a tangent, but I would advocate eliminating all corporate taxes and the capital gains preference too--just tax everything as ordinary income. Today we tax some income twice and other income hardly at all--it's a mess.

Me:  "...but it begs the question of how to manage the economy..." No, it doesn't. The economy doesn't need managing. It only needs government to punish lawbreakers. The rest works itself out.

D.G.: "The rest works itself out."

Can you clarify what you mean by that? Do you think that without government intervention, everyone who worked hard and got an education would find a job concomitant with their qualifications? Or do you think that's unnecessary, and that it's okay for people who are qualified for higher-paid jobs to get stuck doing low-paid manual labor due to the state of the economy?

Me: No one is entitled to a job, let alone a job in their field or a job that pays them what they expect.

The relationship between an employer and an employee is consensual. There is a job if there is work to do. That's why employers hire.

D.G.: "The relationship between an employer and an employee is consensual. There is a job if there is work to do. That's why employers hire."

Agree. That's why I would much rather see a guaranteed basic income instead of a minimum wage.

However, I would genuinely like to understand your views, so let me ask my question a different way. If a hard-working person who got as much education as was available to them (in the US under current law, that typically means college), but could only find a low-paying service or manual labor job, would you say that outcome is:
a) Deserved, because no one is entitled to anything other than their market value;
b) Undeserved, because the individual's efforts deserve better, but still fair, because the outcome was established by a fair, neutral market; or
c) Undeserved and unfair?

"IF you dig up some examples, can I simply dismiss them as not good enough or numerous enough?"

"If you've got minimum skills, minimum education, show minimum motivation, and provide a minimum contribution to the workplace, why the hell should someone be forced to pay you more?" http://bit.ly/1drRUDR

"The unskilled dumbasses that are striking try to join a workforce mafia."
"These are little to no skill jobs that require minimal education and training. Unfortunately there are millions of dumbass people that fit that mold, lol."
"if you cant keep a simple order right at min wage, what makes you think you deserve more????"
"In most cases these burger flippers won't even come to work. They quit without notice and bring nothing to the table. They are minimum wage employees for a reason."
"If they're too stupid or unskilled to obtain a better job then they don't really deserve more, because any idiot can flip a burger."
https://www.facebook.com/TheComical.../posts/356634097803108:

And yes, I know you can find plenty of internet idiots on the other side as well. Like I said above... thoughtless people.

M.D.: I would much rather see you adopt one of these people in poverty. Take him into your home, or at least your life on a regular basis, and treat him as a social equal who is temporarily in need. Some people don't even know how to write a resume, others have chicken-and-egg transportation problems. Others really do have no interest in or aptitude for holding a job, but at least you'll be there as a friend.

Once you are doing that, you have at least a shred of moral standing to talk about forcing everyone else to help the poor. Otherwise not so much.

Me: Exactly, Mr. Wilson. There are elements in our society who seem perfectly happy forcing other people to do things they consider compassionate, but would never consider opening their own homes or checkbooks.

Several years ago we took in a family of 5, and the 6th was born right in our house. At the same time we took in a troubled young married couple, so we had a total of 11 people living in our house. What was astonishing is that we had no financial difficulty in caring for all those people, even though I had just started a new job at much lower pay.

It's not easy to make a personal investment in people. Too many of us would simply rather have government take care of it, whether by welfare, minimum wage, rent control, or food stamps. None of these things have ever solved the problem for which they were created, because they all eliminate the crucial element: Personal human compassion.

Me: Dan, my answer is none of the above. The outcome is neither deserved or undeserved.

D.G.: So you think that the concept of desert is irrelevant to economic outcomes, is that what you're saying? What about fair or unfair?

Me: No, I did not reply that way. I replied "...can I assume no one does?"

Fair or unfair is irrelevant. Generally speaking, the obsession with fairness is a childish way of thinking. It is children who continually carp about fairness, and it is adults who tell them that life isn't fair.

D.G.: M.W., I have given substantial help to a number of friends in need; and I agree, some of them were in a cycle that is not easy to break out of (in particular, if you grew up poor, you likely know a lot of people who need help, and it can be very draining if you start helping them as soon as you have a little surplus).

(I also donate substantially to charity, but of course that doesn't have the personal touch.)

The fact is, a co-ordinated, national effort can achieve great things that I cannot as an individual. And critically, I view this as a matter of rights and justice rather than charity. Personally, I try to practice what I preach; but even the thief is right when he says that stealing is wrong.

D.G.: Rich, you asked if no one does, and I answered.Of course life isn't fair. That doesn't mean we just give up on justice. If you prefer, let's use the word just. Do you believe that the outcomes of capitalism are just? Or that they are unjust, but necessary because capitalism is necessary?

Me: You apparently misunderstood my claim. No matter.

Just is not synonymous with fair.

The outcomes of capitalism are what they are. Capitalism is simply voluntary association with a legal purpose in order to engage in a mutual exchange of things of value. Justice or fairness is not relevant.

When capitalism is violated (coercion, cheating, stealing, etc.), then government is required to prosecute lawbreakers. Generally, violations of capitalism are violations of property rights.

Compassion is an obligation of individuals, not government, when some of the outcomes of life are not good. A government program is not compassion, not effective, and not desired. Only people can be compassionate.

Compassionate people can and do band together to effect change. These are called charities, and they are also voluntary associations where participation is not coerced.

Notice that government is the only party that coerces participation. This is why government programs by definition are not compassionate.

M.W.: I'm with Rich on this. I don't know what deserved/undeserved even means in this context; trying to apply the terms of merit to a situation feels inappropriate. If it's 'deserved' does that mean I'm supposed to take satisfaction in the outcome? If it's 'undeserved' am I supposed to be outraged?

Government is good at solving collective action problems, but compassion isn't a collective action problem. There's no Nash equilibrium there that precludes reaching a Pareto optimum. If Bob helps Tom fix his car so he can get a job while Harry sits around, neither Bob nor Tom is worse off than if Harry had been helping Frank. Ergo, no collective action problem.

It has been my experience that individuals in need usually (but not always) need things that are more efficiently provided directly instead of by giving cash. (E.g. Rich probably could not have afforded to pay rent for three homes--but he could afford to let them move in with him.) Now maybe my experience will turn out to have misled me--maybe your experience with friends in poverty says they need cash most--but because federal programs are ill-equipped to provide anything but a check, I believe that if you turned all neighborliness into a government check instead, poor individuals would be substantially worse off.

Government, especially federal government, is the wrong tool for this problem. (Local government is fine, since it can still build communities--but note that the Issaquah food bank is a private entity! It receives some amount of funding from the state though.)

And incidentally, thanks for whatever you do to help the poor, Dan and others. If there is any solution to poverty it will be through individual compassion, so thanks.

Edit: off-topic, 'even the thief is right when he says stealing is wrong,' I 100% agree. Ad hominem is therefore a frustrating mode of discourse.

Edit 2: 'right now I view this as a matter of rights and justice rather than charity.' That appears to be the fundamental disagreement between us, then. So from your perspective, if Bob helps Tom but Harry doesn't help Frank, Harry is failing to uphold an implicit social contract with Bob about social justice. Is that right?

If so, yeah, I definitely don't see it that way.

Puffing up city council members Jeff Krauss and Sean Becker - two articles by Erin Schattauer

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
---------------------------------

Two articles written by Erin Schattauer have appeared in recent issues of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, regarding two of our city councilmen. Reproduced below.

It precipitated a note from me. That is first, followed by her reply, and then the articles.

--------------------------

Ms. Schattauer,

I apologize in advance for any offense you might take to the following.

I'm wondering if you have any journalistic skepticism regarding the city commissioners. I note that there is not a single negative observation, caveat, or challenging question in either of the two articles you've written.

These are the same city commissioners that messed up the transfer station, demanded Facebook passwords of their employees, paid fines to former employees, created a lightly used bus system and parking garage, and charged Wal-Mart $500,000 in extortion money.

Do you not remember the Story mansion debacle, including the "Becker Amendment?" Do you not wonder how someone can be in office for 10 years and not allocate money for needed repairs of infrastructure, instead allowing it to crumble?

It would seem that you wasted an opportunity to ask pointed questions, instead settling for a couple of puff pieces replete with pictures of cute children.

Forgive me for my directness.

Respectfully submitted,

-----------------------------------------

Notice her reply completely rationalizes her failure. The fact remains that she wrote two puff pieces, and failed to take advantage of the opportunity to challenge the power structure. It is irrelevant that the paper has already covered these issues. A "profile piece" tells us about the people being profiled. Why edit out important things about them?

-----------------------------------------
Rich,

Thank you for your email. I appreciate your directness.

While I understand your point, the two recent articles on the outgoing and incoming mayors were meant to be profile pieces. In the past, the Chronicle has diligently covered these topics, including the Story Mansion, Facebook passwords, etc., as they arise. We will continue to do this in the future as well.

Thank you, again, for your input.

Best regards,

-- Erin Schattauer

----------------------------------------

Now for her two articles:

----------------------------------------

Federal health insurance plan sign-ups pass 1 million mark - By JOSH LEDERMAN

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

------------------------------

Here's the latest happy-face by the AP. It is astonishing to me how far the "objective" news media will go to cover for the Obama administration.

----------------------------------

Combined with state-run markets total enrollment in private plans stands at about 2 million, about two-thirds of original goal

HONOLULU (AP) — The government’s rehabilitated health insurance website ("Rehabilitate: to bring someone or something back to a normal, healthy condition." You know, words mean things. They impart information. They either illuminate or obfuscate. Clearly, "rehabilitate" is a word chosen to muddy the waters. We all know that the website is a patched-up mess that still does not function fully or properly. We all know that it was a failure from the get-go. We all know that it is a nightmare to use. We all know this, yet the AP spins, with a single word, the reality of the situation.) has seen a December surge in customer sign-ups, pushing enrollment past the 1 million mark, the Obama administration says. Combined with numbers for state-run markets, that should put total enrollment in the new private insurance plans under President Barack Obama’s health law at about 2 million people through the end of the year, independent experts said. (Unnamed "independent experts." No mention of how many in that number are medicaid signups. No mention of how many are paid enrollees.)

That would be about two-thirds of the administration’s original goal of signing up 3.3 million by Dec. 31, a significant improvement given the technical problems that crippled the federal market during much of the fall. The overall goal remains to enroll 7 million people by March 31. (I just don't get these numbers. Remember how the Left and the media trumpeted the horrifying 52 million uninsured? How does 7 million get anywhere close to what is supposedly needed? And why, with a crisis of this magnitude, is the number of signups greeted with what can only be described as ambivalence?)