Literal, Allegorical, or Metaphorical?

Literal, Allegorical, or Metaphorical?

Hi, and welcome to another addition of Modeling Scripture.

One thing that fascinates me is how different people look at the stories in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. How are those stories to be read? Did they literally happen? Are the stories of the formation of humanity constructed with poetic license? Are they metaphors; and if so, for what? The answers to these questions are supplied by the bible itself. While we might never know exactly what the authors of the Old Testament were thinking when they wrote the books, we can easily see what the authors of the New Testament thought about the Old Testament.

There is a particular chapter in the New Testament book of Hebrews that references several books of the Old Testament. There are more references to Old Testament books per word in Hebrews 11 than there are in any other chapter in the New Testament. So let's have a look at what Hebrews 11 has to say about the stories in the Old Testament. As you read the quoted text (if you read it) pay close attention to the different Old Testament books that are referenced.

From Hebrews 11, King James Version of the Bible:

(...)
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the (word of God) [Genesis 1:1], so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
4 By faith (Abel offered unto God) [Genesis 4:4-8] a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
5 By faith (Enoch was translated that he should not see death) [Genesis 5:22-24]; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
(...)
7 By faith (Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world) [Genesis 6:13-22], and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
8 By faith (Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive) [Genesis 12:1-4] for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
(...)
10 For he looked for a city which hath (foundations) [Psalms 87:1], whose builder and maker is God.
11 Through faith also (Sara herself received strength to conceive seed) [Genesis 18:11-14], and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
(...)
17 By faith (Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac) [Genesis 22:1-10]: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
(...)
20 By faith (Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau) [Genesis 27:27-29] concerning things to come.
21 By faith (Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph) [Genesis 48:16]; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff.
22 By faith (Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel) [Exodus 13:19]; and gave commandment concerning his bones.
23 By faith (Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents) [Exodus 2:2-3], because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment.
24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, (refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter) [Exodus 2:10];
(...)
29 By faith (they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned) [Exodus 14:21-30].
30 By faith (the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days) [Joshua 6:15-20].
31 By faith the harlot (Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace) [James 2:25].
32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of (Gedeon) [Judges 6:1], and of (Barak) [Judges 4:6], and of (Samson) [Judges 13:24], and of (Jephthae) [Judges 11:1]; of (David) [1 Samuel 16:1] also, and (Samuel) [1 Samuel 1:20], and of the prophets:
33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, (stopped the mouths of lions) [Daniel 6:22].
34 (Quenched the violence of fire) [Daniel 3:25], escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong,(waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens) [2 Samuel 12:29].
35 (Women received their dead raised to life again) [1Kings 17:22] [2 Kings 4:35]: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, (moreover of bonds and imprisonment) [Jeremiah 20:2]:
37 (They were stoned) [1 Kings 21:13], they were sawn asunder, were tempted, (were slain with the sword) [Jeremiah 26:23]: (they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented) [2 Kings 1:8];
38 (Of whom the world was not worthy:) (they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth) [1 Samuel 22:1].
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that (they without us should not be made perfect) [Revelations 6:11].

So what exactly can we tell from Hebrews 11? We can tell that the author believed all the stories of the Old Testament -- at least the ones that were mentioned -- to be literal and true. He didn't discuss them like they were allegorical, nor did he treat them as a metaphor for something else. He clearly looked at the stories as being literal representations of actual events.

Now traditionally Hebrews is attributed to the Apostle Paul; and if that's true, then his literal interpretation of the Old Testament holds throughout all the books of the New Testament written by him. But even if the Apostle Paul wasn't the author if Hebrews, we can still see that the author did take the Old Testament stories literally.

If the book of Hebrews isn't a large enough sample for you to be sure that the New Testament authors took the Old Testament as literal, it doesn't take anything more than a good reference bible to see all the connections between any book of the New Testament and the Old Testament. I have yet to find a single book in the New Testament that treats the Old Testament as anything other than the literal truth.

There is just no way to model the Bible without accepting that the entire Bible -- both Old Testament and New Testament -- was taken literally by all the individual authors.

The Biblical Age of the Earth

The Biblical Age of the Earth

Hi, and welcome to Modeling Scripture. Today I want to talk about the age of the Earth. How was the age of the Earth determined from biblical scriptures? While there have been as many ages as their have been people to calculate, they all seem to be based on the genealogy given in the New Testament book of Luke (Luke 3:23-38) [1]. The genealogy and a few ages are listed below:

God

1) Adam (Gen 5)	130 (Gen 5:3)
2) Seth	105
3) Enos (Enosh)	90
4) Cainan (Kenan)	70
5) Mahalaleel (Mahalalel)	65
6) Jared	162
7) Enoch (never died)	65
8) Methuselah	187
9) Lamech	182
10) Noah	500 (Gen 5:32)
11) Shem	100 (Gen 11:10)
12) Arphaxad (Arpachshad)	35 [2] (fathered Shelah)
13) (the second) Cainan [3]
14) Shelah	30
15) Ebar (Eber)	34
16) Peleg	30
17) Reu	32
18) Serug	30
19) Nahor	29
20) Terah	70 (Gen 11:26)
21) Abraham (Abram)	100 (Gen 21:5)
22) Isaac	60 (Gen 25:26)
23) Jacob	unknown age 01
24) Judah	unknown age 02
25) Perez	unknown age 03
26) Hezron	unknown age 04
27) Arni (Ram)	unknown age 05 [4]
28) Admin (Ram)	unknown age 06 [4]
29) Amminadab	unknown age 07
30) Nahshon	unknown age 08
31) Sala (Salmon)	unknown age 09
32) Boaz	unknown age 10
33) Obed	unknown age 11
34) Jesse	unknown age 12
35) David	unknown age 13
36) Nathan	unknown age 14
37) Mattatha	unknown age 15
38) Menna	unknown age 16
39) Melea	unknown age 17
40) Eliakim	unknown age 18
41) Jonam	unknown age 19
42) Joseph	unknown age 20
43) Judah	unknown age 21
44) Simeon	unknown age 22
45) Levi	unknown age 23
46) Matthat	unknown age 24
47) Jorim	unknown age 25
48) Eliezer	unknown age 26
49) Joshua	unknown age 27
50) Er	unknown age 28
51) Elmadam	unknown age 29
52) Cosam	unknown age 30
53) Addi	unknown age 31
54) Melchi	unknown age 32
55) Neri	unknown age 33
56) Shealtiel	unknown age 34
57) Zerubbabel	unknown age 35
58) Rhesa	unknown age 36
59) Joanan	unknown age 37
60) Joda	unknown age 38
61) Josech	unknown age 39
62) Semein	unknown age 40
63) Mattathias	unknown age 41
64) Maath (Mahath)	unknown age 42
65) Naggai	unknown age 43
66) Esli (Hesli)	unknown age 44
67) Nahum	unknown age 45
68) Amos	unknown age 46
69) Mattathias	unknown age 47
70) Joseph	unknown age 48
71) Jannai	unknown age 49
72) Melchi	unknown age 50
73) Levi	unknown age 51
74) Matthat	unknown age 52
75) Heli	unknown age 53
76) Joseph	unknown age 54 [5]

Jesus

Now if you're like me, your eyes glazed over when you saw a list of names that was both extensive and difficult to pronounce. My main reason for including them here is to show the calculations from the beginning to the end.

The left column above is the name of each of Jesus' ancestors [6], and the right column is the age of the ancestor when they gave birth to the next ancestor in the line. If only we had these ages listed for each ancestor, it would be an easy calculation of adding them all up and we would have a good model for the age of the Earth. Unfortunately it isn't quite that simple. We can only get the first twenty-one ages from Genesis before we have to find alternate ways of coming up with dates. Fortunately for us, we are building a model that doesn't have to be 100% accurate.

By adding the first twenty-one ages together, we come up with: 2,106 years.

That also gives us an mean age per each ancestor/birth of: 100 years.

Ordering the list, we get a median age for each ancestor/birth of: 70 years.

And with a little grouping [7], we get a modal age for each ancestor/birth of: 30 years.

Finally, years since the birth of Jesus: 2014 years.

Of course it would be better if we had a larger list of known ages to calculate our averages from, but this list is large enough for this model.

For this model, we will use the following data:

God_Build_Time = << 1 year.

Known_Ancestor_Ages = 2106 years.

Ancestor_Age_Mode = 30 years.

Ancestor_Age_Mean = 100 years.

Ancestor_Age_Median = 70 years.

Ancestors_With_Unknown_Ages = 54.

Years_Since_Jesus_Birth = 2014.

Since we are assuming that the time it took for God to build the Earth is so small, we will essentially ignore it. The margin of error for the model will be so large that it would disappear into the noise. That leaves:

Known_Ancestor_Ages + Ancestors_With_Unknown_Ages * Ancestor_Age_Mode + Years_Since_Jesus_Birth = Lower bounds of the age range = 2106 + (30 * 54) + 2014 = 5740 years.

Known_Ancestor_Ages + Ancestors_With_Unknown_Ages * Ancestor_Age_Mean + Years_Since_Jesus_Birth = Upper bounds of the age range = 2106 + (100 * 54) + 2014 = 9520 years.

Known_Ancestor_Ages + Ancestors_With_Unknown_Ages * Ancestor_Age_Median + Years_Since_Jesus_Birth = A good starting point for the age of the Earth = 2106 + (70 * 54) + 2014 = 7900 years.

Giving a final answer of 5740 years < 7900 years < 9520 years.

Or as some people like to see it: 7630 years ± 1890 years.

And there you have it. This is a good working model of the age of the Earth as described in the Bible.

Notes:

[1] Using "The Holy Bible, English Standard Version"

[2] Genesis, where I am getting the ages of Jesus' ancestors from, lists Arphaxad as the father of Shelah. This cuts out the second Cainan.

[3] Since the scriptures disagree whether Arphaxad or Cainan is the father of Shelah, and I can't find the age of Cainan at the birth of Shelah, I have decided to leave him out of the calculations.

[4] Some ancestries list Hezron, father of Arni, father of Admin, father of Amminadab. Other ancestries list Hezron, father of Ram, father of Amminadab. For these calculations, I am using the former.

[5] While not the biological father of Jesus, his age at the time Jesus was born will give us the data needed to perform the calculations.

[6] There is debate whether this is the maternal or paternal ancestry, but it doesn't matter for our purpose.

[7] For the modal calculations, I sorted the ages using groups that spanned six years. This gave a clear mode for further calculations as well as holding true to the biblical data. After the grouping, The results were also rounded as to not give the impression of greater certainty than the grouping warranted.

Homecoming countdown: Maramec, Oklahoma

The preparations to move back to what I consider my hometown are still under way. Progress is being made even if it is slower than I would like.

In the progress of preparations for my move, I found a video about the ghost town that is Maramec, Oklahoma. To me, these images are haunting. I recognize almost everything that is displayed there. I even lived within a few hundred feet of many of these pictures.

Enemies of science

Science always seems to be under attack. Basic scientific teaching has been under attack by creationists since evolution was first discovered. The only thing that has changed with time is that even more science is under attack from various directions.

Social, behavioral and economic (SBE) science research is the latest target by conservative Republicans. It seems like they are beginning to make have an effect on the budgets, and therefore the research, of the various sciences.

Roll Call reports on the cuts led by people like Tom Coburn (R-OK). They even include a plausible reason why they are making those cuts:

Despite such obvious benefits, critics of SBE (social, behavioral, and economic) programs have asserted that they provide few societal returns and are rife with examples of frivolous research. But there might be a more insidious reason for such opposition: a conviction that SBE research outcomes will not conform to conservative ideology.

The longer our nation operates by trying to ignore basic scientific research in order to meet nearsighted conservative goals, the more danger our nation is in of falling behind the rest of the world and seeing our economy reliant on other countries' prosperity. If that happens, we won't have anyone to blame but the rest of the idiot Americans.

Inhofe's Christian Crime Connection

While Sen Jim Inhofe (R-OK) might not have a formal Christian crime ring, his actions would make more sense if he did. I can almost imagine him saying something like, "Nice planet you got there. It'd be a shame if something happened to it."

I generally believe that there isn't anything inherently wrong with being a Christian. While I feel confident that Christians are wrong in their beliefs, I also don't feel like those beliefs steer them in a heinous direction. People can generally be good with or without god. It has to do more with someone's moral grounding which is mostly shared by the religious and non-religious. But Jim Inhofe gives a perfect example of why there is still a danger to the world from Christianity.

In a response to The News on 6 in Oklahoma, Inhofe said:

"The book of Genesis tells us that the cold and heat, summers and winters will not cease, and I believe the God who spoke these words is still up there and in control. We have seen environmentalists disregarded the term 'global warming' and adopt the phrase 'climate change,' because there will be cold, there will be heat, there will be summer and there will be winter, but the earth shall not cease. Furthermore, more than 60 percent of weathercasters recently polled for a study done by George Mason University believe that any global warming that occurs is the result of 'natural variation' and not 'human activities.' There is no question that we should be good stewards of what God has given us, but the global warming alarmists are using gloom-and-doom, fear-based tactics to advance their environmentalist agenda which will eliminate job opportunities and slow economic growth."

You can see my reply to his disingenuous portrayal of "weathercasters" (that would be meteorologists) and how he tries to misrepresent climate science on my blog, here. But the thing that stands out about this statement is the total lack of science, reason, or understanding.

He is absolutely wrong on climate change. Climate science is based on known scientific principles. There is no question about the science. What remains is an obvious example of using religion to damage the world and the people in it.

Jim Inhofe gives us the perfect example of where the usage of religion has gone wrong. This is exactly the type of danger that religion poses to the rest of the world. Ultimately it doesn't even matter whether he believes what he is saying or not. The simple fact that there are people out there that will believe what he is saying because of their shared religion is what makes him and religious people like him as dangerous as someone actively trying to destroy the world and everything the human race has built.

Slap a generator on that spin

I can't help but wonder whether Jim Inhofe actually believes the things he says or not. If he believes the things he says then he is one dangerous person to have in political power. If he doesn't, then he is even more dangerous because he has no interest in the truth or the people that the truth will hurt.

In a statement Jim Inhofe gave to the U.S. Senate Comitee on Environment and Public Works: "Climate Change: It’s Happening Now." he said:

Most meteorologists agree [with Allison MacFarlane, when she was asked about whether she thought the tornadoes in Oklahoma or Hurricane Sandy were extreme weather events, she said, “I would not call these events extreme. I would call them normal."]. A recent study by George Mason University reported that 63% of weathercasters believe that any global warming that occurs is the result of “natural variation” and not “human activities.” That is a significant two-to-one majority.

Here is a quote from the study (pdf) that Sen. Inhofe is referring to:

Weathercasters hold a wide range of beliefs about global warming.
Survey participants responded to a variety of questions assessing their beliefs in and attitudes about “global warming,” questions that have been used previously in our public opinion research. More than half of our respondent (54%) indicated that global warming is happening, 25% indicated it isn’t, and 21% say
they don’t know yet. About one-third (31%) reported that global warming is caused mostly by human activities, while almost two-thirds (63%) reported it is caused mostly by natural changes in
the environment. Half indicated that they have thought “a lot” about global warming, and a large majority said they are fairly or very well informed about the causes of global warming (93%), the consequences of global warming (89%), and the ways to reduce global warming (86%)—numbers that are much higher than public responses to the same questions. Over half of weathercasters indicated that humans could reduce global warming (58%), and that the U.S. should reduce greenhouse gas emissions regardless of what other countries do (63%). Almost half (47%) felt they needed some or a lot more information before forming a firm opinion about global warming, and almost one-third (30%) said they could easily change their mind about global warming. Just over one quarter (27%) agreed with the statement by a prominent TV weathercaster: “global warming is a scam.”

The picture that the study paints -- even the paragraph that Sen. Inhofe quote mined -- shows that meteorologists are geared more toward doing something about global climate change (or global warming if you prefer) than are geared toward ignoring it. And only about one in four think that "global warming is a scam".

But there is more to this study than that. The study was done to gauge what the meteorologists knew about global climate change. It is climate scientists that are doing the science on global climate change, not meteorologists. This was a study to see if the meteorologists were keeping up with what the climate scientists were learning. And while the study shows that the meteorologists are better informed as a group that the average American citizen, they still have a long way to go.

The very next paragraph from the study demonstrates the problem. Sen. Inhofe would have been much more truthful to report this:

Only one third of TV weathercasters believe that there is a scientific consensus on climate change. Despite the strong scientific consensus among climate scientists, almost two-thirds (61%) of TV weathercasters think there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening. Perhaps partly as a result, 79% of our respondents indicated that coverage of climate change science must reflect a “balance” of viewpoints just as coverage of political or social issues are covered. Prior research conducted by others, however, has shown that “balanced” news coverage about climate change is misleading in that it tends to give audience members the false impression that there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening.

Yes, global warming is happening. The science of the cause of global warming isn't new. The science has been well understood for quite some time. Greenhouse gasses make the atmosphere warmer. No one except the scientifically illiterate and the completely deluded would deny that. The deeper Jim Inhofe digs trying to find reputable people that believe the same way as he does, the more he will look like the bottom feeder that he is.

But you don't have to take my word for it. The study (pdf) isn't that long, and the findings aren't difficult to understand. Go read the study and you will discover just how much Jim Inhofe has to quote out of context to even bend the non-scientists to his viewpoint.

Nokia, the best hardware you will never buy

Everyone seems quick to jump on the blame-anyone-but-Nokia-for-their-problems train, but I think the burden of Nokia's problems fall squarely on their shoulders.

Forbes reports:

I’ve been carrying a yellow Lumia 920 for about 8 months now and it is easy to spot in my purse. The battery life is spectacular compared to the phone it replaced.  The screen is easy to see and read.  Turn it 90 degrees and you can even read it with polarizing sunglasses when outside. Yellow was the theme of the day right down to yellow converse sneakers. Great excitement greeted the demonstration and the jaded journalists there applauded at different features. It was clear the phone was impressive and a hit.

And later in the article, they report:

It is hard to believe that Stephen Elop has now been at NOK for almost three years. He was correct in his initial assessment that the company was standing on the oft quoted ” burning platform” and needed to take drastic action.  He jettisoned almost all the company had left including its Symbian platform that was incapable of moving Nokia into the evolving future .  His options were really to become 1. another “me,too” Android offering or 2. to attempt to build an entirely new ecosystem around the Windows platform. Elop chose the later, tougher path but the only one which offered any chance of winning long term with something unique. Now that Samsung is so dominating the Android universe, by now any attempt at another Android phone would have left no hope for Nokia at all.

Which one is it? Is the phone hardware so great that it puts the phone in a class by itself, or is the software that needs to be different in order for them to build their own class?

I admit that I am bias. I was a faithful user of Nokia products up until they could no longer provide the features I needed on their phones.

Where I live we still suffer from spotty coverage due to the enormous distance between towns. Short of putting in cellular towers that support only one or two subscribers, you are going to find dead spots. When this happens, you want a handset that will be made to the most exacting quality so that it can get a signal when no other handset will. Those handsets were always Nokia.

I used Nokia handsets long after they had gone out of style simply because they were incredibly rugged and able to make calls where every other phone failed. I eventually had to give them up for a modern phone.

When Nokia had to choose between Android and Windows Mobile, I was really hoping they would choose Android. I knew that Nokia had the very best hardware, but I also wanted the very best software to go along with it. The software that I wanted was Android. They were the only ones that had a chance of getting the apps to compete with Apple.

Things haven't changed since then. You either use an Apple or an Android phone. There is no one else that has the apps, consumer backing, developer backing to make a splash in today's market.

When Nokia was making its decision, it had a place in the market. It was, and arguably still is, the best hardware manufacturer on the market today. If they hadn't hobbled themselves with software that no one is willing to use, it might be them as the leading Android manufacturer instead of Samsung. As it is, they manufacture the best hardware that no one will buy.

Gun visibility to save a life?

I, like many people in the United States, have been thinking about the George Zimmerman/Trevon Martin confrontation. I wonder what kind of a culture we have created when society tells black boys and men that they must actively work to save their own lives at all times. I weep at the thought of the tension being so great between people of color and the police that people of color follow different rules from the rest of us when they are pulled over. I am dumfounded that a person can be considered suspicious for simply walking or driving no differently than someone that has a much lower volume of melanin in their skin.

I also wonder what would have needed to be different for the tragedy to be avoided, and apparently I'm not the only one. Ryan Grim, at the Huffington Post, wrote about six (or seven) things that could have changed the outcome of the Zimmerman/Martin encounter.

I was initially expecting the list to be things that Trevon Martin should have done differently. After all, it seems that society expects people of color to act impossibly innocent or be considered guilty by birth. What I didn't suspect was a rational list of what could have (and should have) been done to avoid an innocent death.

One of the things that jumped out at me was this suggestion:

4. If Zimmerman's weapon had not been hidden, Martin probably would have dealt with him differently.
When a man follows another, tensions rise. One way or another, those tensions led to a physical confrontation. But if Florida law barred concealed carry, Martin would have been able to see that Zimmerman was armed. Zimmerman defenders suspect Martin threw the first punch. But even if that's true, would he have done so if he knew Zimmerman was carrying a loaded weapon?

I live in the heart of gun culture. Every type of firearm that can legally be owned -- and some that can't be legally owned -- are all around me. It isn't uncommon for me to visit with someone that has an AK-47 in the front seat of their vehicle. In fact, there are very few vehicles on the road that don't have some kind of firearm in them. But the thought of switching from concealed carry permits to open carry permits simply for safety reasons? I hadn't thought of that.

I realize that open carry brings on a different set of problems. When someone is carrying a firearm in the open it is much more likely to be taken away from them. That could put them and those around them in more danger from people bent on committing acts of violence. At the same time, people that aren't intent on committing acts of violence can see that the person carrying a firearm is actually supporting a dangerous and potentially unstable condition through their choices.

I hate the thought of open carry laws being the best solution to protect ourselves from the gun nuts, but perhaps that is what we are reduced to. It would have probably saved at least one innocent life, and it could hardly make things more dangerous for the people of color that just want to live their lives in peace.

Of course there is a better solution. We could have better safety laws for firearms, better background checks, and fewer concealed or open carry laws. We could update our expectations from the wild west and bring society into the modern age. We could set up a society where everyone doesn't have to look at their fellow humans and wonder whether they are out to kill them or not.

Hmm, that seems like the best solution to me. Let's make a society where we are all safe and we don't have to fear that our neighbors are out to kill us. Let's create a society where firearms aren't brandished as a sign to tell those around us that we are ready, able, and willing to kill them regardless of whether it is right or wrong. It may be true that if George Zimmerman had telegraphed his intentions to kill Trevon Martin by openly carrying his gun that Trevon Martin might be alive today. But the better solution is to remove the gun from the equation all together.

Obamacare and the employers

It is frustrating to hear Republicans complaining about what Obamacare is going to do for the people in the future. Brevard Times has an article that gives us a perfect example to work with:

“Gatorland has 135 full-time employees. Gatorland currently pays 80 percent of the insurance cost for these employees," [U.S. Senator (R-FL) Marco] Rubio said. "But now under ObamaCare, evidently what they are doing is not going to be enough.  ObamaCare, first of all, requires them not just to provide insurance but to provide for them a certain type of insurance, a type of insurance that the government has decided is enough."

If this is indeed the case, then I suspect that the insurance that is being provided for the employees is virtually worthless.

My company provides me with what's called Mini-medical insurance. It has a relatively high deductible and a yearly cap on what it will pay. In addition, it won't cover many of the procedures I might find myself needing from a doctor or hospital.

I might have an insurance card in my purse, and it gives me less blank lines when I'm filling out paperwork for the doctor, but many hospitals put my in the category of uninsured because the insurance is so restricted. I could easily do better by paying my own medical bills without the insurance provided by my employer; the money I would save on premiums would more than pay for the substandard coverage provided by my insurance company.

One thing that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) does is to eliminate mini-medical insurance from the offerings. Since mini-medical isn't enough to actually help anyone, there is no point in pretending like it does. Obamacare is essentially telling employers that they have to provide real insurance instead of smoke and mirror policies.

The working people of America need real medical care, not the scraps that some employer decides they will throw our way. If we are going to end the cycle of sick people skipping care until they have to go the emergency room and leave the debt to the hospital, then we have to provide workers with something that will actually pay for their medical care. Any employer that wants to provide their employees with less is simply taking advantage of other people's needs so they can line their own pockets.

Obamacare didn't go far enough, but it is the best that we have right now. If the politicians (I'm looking at you Republicans) actually wanted to help the American people, they should be looking at how to get people even better insurance instead of trying to eliminate the progress we are making toward a better, and more healthy future for everyone.

Textual gems: Tiffanie Drayton

Salon has an article giving a view of America from woman that should be our friend and neighbor:

I survived because I was never able to make America my home. I never watched my childhood neighborhood become whitened by helicopter lights in search of criminals or hipsters in search of apartments. No state, city or town has been a mother to me, cradling generations of my family near her bosom, to then be destroyed by unemployment or poverty. No school system had the time or opportunity to relegate me to “remedial,” “rejected” or “unteachable.” I never accepted the misogynistic, drug-infested, stripper-glamorizing, hip-hop culture that is force-fed to black youths through square tubes. I am not a product of a state of greatness but a byproduct of emptiness.

It would be so easy to make others a part of our American family. If we could just get past the othering of people, we might create a country where the people we are are discarding could make the country great again.