I have been in Seoul, Korea, the past few days on a business trip, and it has been a very interesting visit. I had never been to Asia before and I am marveling at the both the amazing amount of building and growth going on here as well as at the density of the population in the very large cities like Seoul. Most of Seoul has been built since the Korean war so it is a very new city and it is rather clean and well kept. However, I am beginning to understand how food plays a bigger role in our lives than I had realized.
Kimchi is a traditional Korean food that seems to be present at every meal. While there are supposed to be over 100 kinds of kimchi, the type that seems to show up most often is best described as cabbage soaked in Tabasco sauce. That’s right. Cabbage preserved, or pickled, in hot sauce. If that weren’t enough, many of the main dishes, served with rice or noodles, are also fairly well swimming in hot sauce. I am not talking ‘Taco Bell’ hot, I am talking HOT! Many employers here provide lunch but it is one or two entrée choices plus rice, soup, and kimchi. So far the entrees and the kimchi have always been very, very spicy hot. The good news is that I am not tempted to overeat at lunch!
The people here actually seem to like this stuff. But to us Americans of tender palate, I find myself longing for a hamburger or some other American food when I eat a Korean meal. Oh, and beware anything described as ‘seafood’ on a menu. That seems to mean a mixture of a few shrimp plus a lot of things that would not show up in America. The seafood dishes I have had so far included squid (not those tiny little calamari-type squid, but big honking squid! It has the texture of boiled fire hose generally) and sea cucumber (which might be described as resembling seafood-flavored jello)along with some other things I didn’t ask anyone to identify.
Fortunately the hotel has an enormous breakfast buffet that is wonderful, so I can indulge myself at breakfast and take a banana along with me so that I can make it through lunch just sampling the offerings. This has, however, reminded me of times in the past when I had wondered about the role of food to some people. When I was growing up, for example, I recall my family and extended family reminiscing about certain foods that they had often eaten on the farm growing up and how they missed some of those: things like homemade sausages or my grandmother’s buttermilk biscuits. Those were familiar foods, though, so I could relate. Then when we lived in Massachusetts, one of the men I worked with was from Nigeria. Every month he spent a weekend going to New York city to visit ethnic markets to get African foods that were not available in Pittsfield, MA. Now, I had tasted some of the stuff he brought for lunch and while it was not kimchi it was still pretty awful. Yet, as he put it, ‘I have to have my food’. Put the emphasis in that last statement on ‘my’ food. His own, native food. This was a very personal thing to him, something of utmost importance to his personal well being and happiness.
There is something about being the foreigner, the stranger that makes us ill at ease. Food, I think, drives that home more than a lot of other circumstances. Language does that as well, but here in Korea so many folks speak English that the language issues have touched me less than the food. Foreign food seems to reinforce that I am just passing through, this is not my home.
That is a good reminder for me. C.S. Lewis pointed out, along with many others including the apostle Paul, that God never intended for us to get too comfortable in this world. That ‘settled comfortableness’ ,as Lewis called it, is what we try to achieve here but we will not achieve that until we reach our true home. He never intended us to. Being in a foreign land rather reminds me of that.
As the old hymn says, ‘This world is not my home, I’m just a passin’ through…’; I’m just hoping that we can skip the kimchi in heaven!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Presidential Candidates, CEO's, Lunatics and Sons
When Sarah Palin was announced as the running mate for John McCain there was considerable conversation about her four children and whether she could handle the Vice Presidency and still do justice to her family responsibilities. A few commentators were honest enough to admit that a political career also takes a toll on fathers, though it seems to be more acceptable for fathers to neglect their families than for mothers. Indeed many fathers neglect their families regardless of what kind of career they pursue. Nonetheless, it is very clear that high profile, high consequence jobs like President or Vice President will result in very little time for family life. The result is that most people in those kinds of roles are people I would never want my sons or daughter to be like.
Back in the 90's, in 1997 to be exact, Robert Samuelson wrote a terrific commentary piece in Newsweek about this sort of thing, entitled 'Close to the Lunatic Edge'. The article is mostly about annual reports and what they reveal about the priorities of a company, but at the end he notes that they also tell you something about the people running the company, how they feel entitled to their lavish pay, and how their single-mindedness verges on fanaticism. He quotes Jack Welch of GE saying of CEO's, "You cannot be a moderate, balanced, thoughtful, careful articulator of policy. You've got to be on the lunatic fringe."
Sad but true, in politics as well as business. In any high profile, high power position including major sports coaches, business leaders, politicians and most any other line of work, the people at the very top are borderline lunatics in their singleminded devotion to their career. Most of them are people that you would never want your son or daughter to be like when they grow up. That certainly includes Jack Welch in my opinion. Their lives are unbalanced to the point of absurdity, their families are typically neglected or abandoned, and their egos are most often larger than the great outdoors. I would be hard pressed to think of either a presidential candidate or a CEO that serves as a role example that I would hold up to my children and say, 'Be like him!'. I am speaking here of large company CEOs, as small businesses vary all over the map. Neither Obama nor McCain offer a good role model of what a father should be as far as I can tell.
So, to pick out Sarah Palin for this criticism is very odd but interesting. Pretty much all politicians at the national level have not fulfilled their family responsibilities very well. It does point out that as a society we still expect better things from mothers than from fathers. And I do indeed mean better things, not just different things. To be as unbalanced and unresponsible in so many key areas of life as most large company CEOs and national level politicians are is reprehensible. It would be much better if the only people allowed to run for President were people who did not want the job. That is how it was , or at least appeared to be, with Washington. He was 'drafted'. It has only been true a few times since, as when Truman became President when FDR died. Gerald Ford would be another example. It is interesting that President's Truman and Ford, especially in retrospect, became so well loved by the nation for their role in a job they never wanted. But Ford and Truman were exceptions that resulted from bad circumstances. Too bad we cannot find a way to draft a different kind of candidate every four years.
Back in the 90's, in 1997 to be exact, Robert Samuelson wrote a terrific commentary piece in Newsweek about this sort of thing, entitled 'Close to the Lunatic Edge'. The article is mostly about annual reports and what they reveal about the priorities of a company, but at the end he notes that they also tell you something about the people running the company, how they feel entitled to their lavish pay, and how their single-mindedness verges on fanaticism. He quotes Jack Welch of GE saying of CEO's, "You cannot be a moderate, balanced, thoughtful, careful articulator of policy. You've got to be on the lunatic fringe."
Sad but true, in politics as well as business. In any high profile, high power position including major sports coaches, business leaders, politicians and most any other line of work, the people at the very top are borderline lunatics in their singleminded devotion to their career. Most of them are people that you would never want your son or daughter to be like when they grow up. That certainly includes Jack Welch in my opinion. Their lives are unbalanced to the point of absurdity, their families are typically neglected or abandoned, and their egos are most often larger than the great outdoors. I would be hard pressed to think of either a presidential candidate or a CEO that serves as a role example that I would hold up to my children and say, 'Be like him!'. I am speaking here of large company CEOs, as small businesses vary all over the map. Neither Obama nor McCain offer a good role model of what a father should be as far as I can tell.
So, to pick out Sarah Palin for this criticism is very odd but interesting. Pretty much all politicians at the national level have not fulfilled their family responsibilities very well. It does point out that as a society we still expect better things from mothers than from fathers. And I do indeed mean better things, not just different things. To be as unbalanced and unresponsible in so many key areas of life as most large company CEOs and national level politicians are is reprehensible. It would be much better if the only people allowed to run for President were people who did not want the job. That is how it was , or at least appeared to be, with Washington. He was 'drafted'. It has only been true a few times since, as when Truman became President when FDR died. Gerald Ford would be another example. It is interesting that President's Truman and Ford, especially in retrospect, became so well loved by the nation for their role in a job they never wanted. But Ford and Truman were exceptions that resulted from bad circumstances. Too bad we cannot find a way to draft a different kind of candidate every four years.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Health Care, Stealing, and Eating
The blog about health care as a right or a need prompted some discussion, which is good! Part of that discussion turned to a comparison to the 'right to life' via food. We believe in rights to 'life, liberty, and property' in the U.S., so does the right to life mean that if we are poor and hungry that we have to right to take someone else's food? This question is akin to the health care question: if I am poor and sick, do I have the right to expect/demand that someone else pay for my health care?
The Bible sheds some light on this question in regard to food. It is of course one of the Ten Commandments: 'Thou shalt not steal.' Consider also Ephesians 4:28 which says, "Let him who steals steal no longer; but rather let him labor, performing with his own hands what is good, in order that he may have something to share with him who has need." This second passage goes a bit further than just the commandment because it recognizes that there are circumstances that might cause you to be tempted to steal if you have need. Proverbs 30:8-9 gets very explicit about this in this prayer: "Keep deception and lies far from me, Give me neither poverty nor riches; Feed me with the food that is my portion, lest I be full and deny Thee and say, 'Who is the Lord?' Or lest I be in want and steal, and profane the name of my God." This last verse gets to the heart of the matter: even in need, stealing is wrong. It profanes the name of God for his people to steal.
There are a number of other passages that discuss stealing and they all make it clear that stealing is wrong. There are also a number of others, such as Eph 4 above that indicate that it is also good for those with plenty to help those in need so they are not tempted to steal.
One of the things that was new about the Law of Moses when it appeared in the world was its recognition of property rights. This was not a common thing in the ancient world where strength was the primary 'right' to property. The prohibition of stealing is a recognition that the poor do not have a right to someone else's property just because they are poor. Yet, those with plenty still have a moral obligation to help the poor. A moral obligation of the prosperous to help the poor is NOT the same thing as the poor having a right to take the property of someone else (food in this case) just because they are poor.
Of course, as economists will eagerly tell you, property rights are crucial to growing economies. The recognition of property rights ends up feeding far more people than charity does.
The health care question can also be viewed as a matter of property rights: Do those without health care insurance have a right to take someone else's money to pay for their health care? When put this way the answer is pretty obvious: of course not. If it is wrong to steal when you are hungry then it also wrong to 'steal' to pay for your medical bills. This does not mean that the prosperous should not help. It does mean that there is no 'right' to health insurance. We do, of course, already choose to help with health care, in the form of Medicare (for retirees), Medicaid (for the poor), and various state programs (like Peach Care for children in Georgia). The current debate is largely over whether health care insurance should be available to everyone, even those who do not qualify for the current programs, including those that do not meet the current definitions for 'poor'.
The Bible sheds some light on this question in regard to food. It is of course one of the Ten Commandments: 'Thou shalt not steal.' Consider also Ephesians 4:28 which says, "Let him who steals steal no longer; but rather let him labor, performing with his own hands what is good, in order that he may have something to share with him who has need." This second passage goes a bit further than just the commandment because it recognizes that there are circumstances that might cause you to be tempted to steal if you have need. Proverbs 30:8-9 gets very explicit about this in this prayer: "Keep deception and lies far from me, Give me neither poverty nor riches; Feed me with the food that is my portion, lest I be full and deny Thee and say, 'Who is the Lord?' Or lest I be in want and steal, and profane the name of my God." This last verse gets to the heart of the matter: even in need, stealing is wrong. It profanes the name of God for his people to steal.
There are a number of other passages that discuss stealing and they all make it clear that stealing is wrong. There are also a number of others, such as Eph 4 above that indicate that it is also good for those with plenty to help those in need so they are not tempted to steal.
One of the things that was new about the Law of Moses when it appeared in the world was its recognition of property rights. This was not a common thing in the ancient world where strength was the primary 'right' to property. The prohibition of stealing is a recognition that the poor do not have a right to someone else's property just because they are poor. Yet, those with plenty still have a moral obligation to help the poor. A moral obligation of the prosperous to help the poor is NOT the same thing as the poor having a right to take the property of someone else (food in this case) just because they are poor.
Of course, as economists will eagerly tell you, property rights are crucial to growing economies. The recognition of property rights ends up feeding far more people than charity does.
The health care question can also be viewed as a matter of property rights: Do those without health care insurance have a right to take someone else's money to pay for their health care? When put this way the answer is pretty obvious: of course not. If it is wrong to steal when you are hungry then it also wrong to 'steal' to pay for your medical bills. This does not mean that the prosperous should not help. It does mean that there is no 'right' to health insurance. We do, of course, already choose to help with health care, in the form of Medicare (for retirees), Medicaid (for the poor), and various state programs (like Peach Care for children in Georgia). The current debate is largely over whether health care insurance should be available to everyone, even those who do not qualify for the current programs, including those that do not meet the current definitions for 'poor'.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Health Care Insurance: Right, Responsibility or Something Else?
At the final pre-election debate this week, Barack Obama proclaimed that health insurance is a right for everyone. That is a 'right' as in 'all men have been endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights' as it was put in the Declaration of Independence. Does that make any sense?
First some history. During the wage and price controls of World War 2, employers were unable to attract the limited supply of workers by offering higher wages so they began to offer paid health insurance instead. It was a form of compensation that got around the wage controls. Up until that time, no one would have imagined health insurance as a right. It was a purchase you could make, like life insurance or any number of other purchases. It became a form of compensation during the war.
Health care service from a provider has always been a purchase, something that you pay for. Health insurance is a way of spreading those purchases over time, leveling the cost. So how does it now become a right? What is a right, anyway?
To me, a right is a freedom that we exercise to pursue our needs and interests. Freedoms have to do with opportunity and are different from things we need. Health care is a need. Health insurance is a means of paying for that need. Freedom to own property (like an insurance policy) is a right.
To turn a need like health care into a right is to destroy the meaning of the word 'rights'. We have a number of basic needs, including food, clothing and shelter. We do not and should not expect the government to provide our food, clothing and shelter normally. We do expect our government to protect our right to own food, clothing and shelter. Providing for us is a very different thing than protecting our rights.
So, while health care services are purchases that we often need, health care is not a right. Our former President FDR did not help us any on this point with his famous Four Freedoms speech in which he declared that freedom from want and freedom from fear are equivalent to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, confounding the rights of speech and religion with needs for food, clothing, shelter, and security. The muddled thinking of Obama is following a long tradition in that regard.
So what is an appropriate view of health care for all? If we as a nation choose to provide health care for all citizens it is as a choice for how we want to pay for health care. It is not a right. It may in fact be charity (as in 'agape', which the King James version of the Bible translates 'charity' and newer versions translate 'love') for the poor among us who cannot afford very much health care. We may as Christians want to do this as a matter of charity/love, but it is not a right. As such, it should be vigorously debated and the costs made clear. The attempt to proclaim it a right is an attempt to short-circuit the debate, deny others the right to disagree, and insist that it is beyond debate. And to force it on us is indeed to violate our rights.
Does that mean that our government welfare system is charity? Yes it does. Government provided health care would also be charity. To provide food, clothing, and shelter through taxation and the government for those who try to provide for themselves but cannot is a good thing to do, but it is still a form of charity.
First some history. During the wage and price controls of World War 2, employers were unable to attract the limited supply of workers by offering higher wages so they began to offer paid health insurance instead. It was a form of compensation that got around the wage controls. Up until that time, no one would have imagined health insurance as a right. It was a purchase you could make, like life insurance or any number of other purchases. It became a form of compensation during the war.
Health care service from a provider has always been a purchase, something that you pay for. Health insurance is a way of spreading those purchases over time, leveling the cost. So how does it now become a right? What is a right, anyway?
To me, a right is a freedom that we exercise to pursue our needs and interests. Freedoms have to do with opportunity and are different from things we need. Health care is a need. Health insurance is a means of paying for that need. Freedom to own property (like an insurance policy) is a right.
To turn a need like health care into a right is to destroy the meaning of the word 'rights'. We have a number of basic needs, including food, clothing and shelter. We do not and should not expect the government to provide our food, clothing and shelter normally. We do expect our government to protect our right to own food, clothing and shelter. Providing for us is a very different thing than protecting our rights.
So, while health care services are purchases that we often need, health care is not a right. Our former President FDR did not help us any on this point with his famous Four Freedoms speech in which he declared that freedom from want and freedom from fear are equivalent to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, confounding the rights of speech and religion with needs for food, clothing, shelter, and security. The muddled thinking of Obama is following a long tradition in that regard.
So what is an appropriate view of health care for all? If we as a nation choose to provide health care for all citizens it is as a choice for how we want to pay for health care. It is not a right. It may in fact be charity (as in 'agape', which the King James version of the Bible translates 'charity' and newer versions translate 'love') for the poor among us who cannot afford very much health care. We may as Christians want to do this as a matter of charity/love, but it is not a right. As such, it should be vigorously debated and the costs made clear. The attempt to proclaim it a right is an attempt to short-circuit the debate, deny others the right to disagree, and insist that it is beyond debate. And to force it on us is indeed to violate our rights.
Does that mean that our government welfare system is charity? Yes it does. Government provided health care would also be charity. To provide food, clothing, and shelter through taxation and the government for those who try to provide for themselves but cannot is a good thing to do, but it is still a form of charity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)