Letter to my Congressman on the national debt

Honorable Representative Scott,

I voted for you last November, trusting that you would represent the best interests of my family, my district, and indeed my nation. You represent *all* of us--not (just) the Tea Party, not (just) Republicans, not (just) Democrats, not (just) businesses, not (just) union members, not (just) natives, not (just) immigrants, not (just) Christians, not (just) Muslims. I'm confident that you believe this and do your best to put this into practice.

My foremost concern is coming to a viable strategy for dealing with the national debt. I must confess that I am *extremely* concerned by your statement that that the federal government does not need to raise the debt ceiling at all. Such a statement is the height of irresponsibility. When businesses get into serious financial trouble, do they announce that the only strategy they will consider is to cut expenses? NEVER. Here's the common business plan:

1. Cut expenses

2. Increase revenues

3. Secure new financing for short-term debts so that creditors and employees get paid while #1 and #2 (expense management and revenue enhancement) take place.

It would be the height of irresponsibility for a business to ignore 2/3 of the solution. And in so doing, the business would be irresponsible in its commitments to those to whom it currently has obligations.

I'm not asking you to support a plan that has only revenue enhancement. Or a plan that only raises the debt ceiling. I'm simply asking you to show courage, and to be a responsible leader, by taking every measure that needs to be taken: cut expenses, enhance revenue, and make provisions for short-term borrowing.

Second, as a representative of all of us--not just those who share your philosophy--I want to encourage you to take the high road of compromise. That's right, it's a high road. It's called win-win in the business world I live in. Those who insist on not negotiating don't get very far in real life. Believe strongly, but also act wisely. Be willing to help our nation to work out a deal that everyone of every political persuasion can support. That means that no one gets everything they want, and frankly...that's a good thing. When my children were young, they believed they could get everything they wanted. Helping them realize that was not the way life worked helped them to grow into effective, productive citizens. I'm sure it works the same way in Washington, DC as it does in American families like mine.

Finally, I want to bring to your attention a couple of facts that cut against common political philosophy in the United States. I trust you will not say, "What are you going to believe? Your hard data or my philosophy?" Instead, I trust you will ponder the data and their implication for policy. So here are the facts:

Fact 1. When taken as a percentage of the gross domestic product, US tax revenues are quite low compared to the taxes of most industrialized nations.

"The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product. By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan’s administration...."

Source here

Of the 33 OECD countries, only 3 have a lower total tax burden (federal, state, local, and corporate) as a percentage of GDP than the US. The OECD average is 34.8%; the US percentage is only 26.1%. Source here

Fact 2. Corporate tax burden in the US is the *lowest* among industrialized nations.

"The United States actually has the lowest corporate tax burden of any of the member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development....The statutory tax rate [is not relevant because it] applies only to the last dollar earned ... the effective tax rate is substantially lower even for the richest taxpayers and largest corporations because of tax exclusions, deductions, credits and the 15 percent top rate on dividends and capital gains."

Source here

Fact 3. The percentage of US national revenues devoted to cash entitlement programs, though they are certainly growing, are actually quite low compared to most industrialized nations.

"Cash transfers — for unemployment insurance, pensions, benefits for children and the like — amount to only 9 percent of household disposable income in the United States. Among the industrialized nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, only Korea provides less."

Source here

Thanks for listening. Rest assured that you and our other national leaders will be in my prayers these next few days.

Respectfully yours,

Chris Falter

Silver Wedding Anniversary for Don and Donna Gaudette

We met Don and Donna because they opened their home to a community group meeting organized by our church. We always enjoyed the amazing artistry that Donna invested in their home, along with their sincere friendship. Don has recently begun competing in triatholons and road races, hence this tribute to them on this wonderful occasion...

Dear Don and Donna –

I was thinking about the excitement and joy we all feel because of your 25th wedding celebration, and I realized that it’s a lot like coming out of the water in a triathlon and realizing you’ve set a personal record. All of a sudden you’re confident, knowing that—although there’s still a long race ahead of you—you’ve got what it takes to finish well.

This is our prayer for you: that you will receive encouragement from the Lord to press on toward the goal. As we have seen since the beginning of our friendship, the Holy Spirit is truly at work in you, and He who promised is faithful, and will bring to completion the good work He has begun in you!

With best wishes,

Chris and Linda Falter

Should I Get that H1N1 Vaccine? Or Should I Believe Dr. Leonard Horowitz?

Before I rolled up my sleeve two days ago, I decided to research the warnings from Leonard Horowitz, the "humanitarian, clinician, prophet, scholar and natural healer" who produced a 2.5 hour video entitled "In Lies We Trust." His ideas are certainly provocative! I didn't have time before my vaccine to watch the whole video, but with some research I did find documents he has published on the emergence of HIV and the emergence of H1N1. I also did a little background research on Horowitz.

In this post I share with you, dear readers, what I have unearthed regarding Horowitz and his theories. I also hope that you will share some comments about any further information I should have considered (on either side of the question)

An Examination of Horowitz' Qualifications to Speak on the Origin of Viruses

My research on Horowitz himself turned up the following:

1. Horowitz claims multiple PhDs on the video; however, as far as I can tell, he does not possess them.

A. The designations he claims are not Ph.Ds

People usually think of a Ph.D. in a scientific field as something you earn after spending several years of studying peer-reviewed papers, performing years of laboratory research in collaboration with other scientists, and getting that research published in peer-reviewed journals.

The titles that Horowitz claims (DNM and DMM) do not involve anything of the sort. In fact, there is massive confusion surrounding the DNM designation; according to Vitality magazine, a source certainly not indebted to big pharmaceutical companies,

"a DNM may have some weekend or on-line courses, some mentorship from another DNM, and no experience....a DNM might be a medical intuitive or energy healer."

Thus the DNM designation cannot be equated to a Ph.D. Please note that I am not saying that there is no value in DNM studies, which covers the areas of nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathic medicine, oriental medicine, lifestyle counseling, natural medicine diagnostics, and manual therapy. I'm just saying that a DNM is no more relevant to the subject at hand than a DMD (dentistry) or MS in Computer Science.

And as for the DMM Horowitz claims...what is it, anyway? I have googled hard for an explanation of the title, but have only found "Doctor of Music Ministry" as an academic title associated with the acronym.

B. Horowitz may not even hold DNM and DMM titles he claims

On his bio page, Horowitz gives great detail about his studies in dentistry and his MPH (which is a policy degree, as opposed to a science degree). However, he states nothing at all about the institutions and dates of study associated the supposed DNM and DMM titles he claims. The World Order of Natural Medicine Practicioners maintains a list of accredited institutions; at which of them did Horowitz study? If he can't provide basic information like this in the biography that he himself has written, I have great difficulty believing his claim to the designation is valid.

Think of it like this: suppose you are a manager hiring for an open position that requires a B.S. in Computer Science. A candidate submits a resume in which he claims to have the degree, but does not provide any information about what institution awarded it or when. Are you going to accept the resume at face value, or discard it and move on to the next candidate's resume? I don't know any managers who would accept a resume without basic background information.

C. Horowitz has little or no background in the pertinent subjects

To speak with scientific authority on the origin of a virus, you would need a background in virology or biochemistry. Horowitz' verifiable background, however, is in dentistry and in public policy regarding health. Worthy fields, but insufficient to claim scientific authority. And as discussed above, the DNM and DMM credentials are not pertinent. In view of his claims regarding musical notes at 528 Hz, perhaps Horowitz is in fact claiming the Doctorate of Music Ministry for himself. Clearly such a degree would not bolster his credentials to speak as a scientist, however.

2. Horowitz habitually makes truly bizarre claims on a variety of subjects

Like Dave Barry says, I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried! In the world of Horowitz:

* "528Hz is the Central Broadcasting Channel of LOVE in the Living Water that carries the Message. FAITH is the power button that turns this hydrosonic creationistic technology on. For you personally, the 'Music of the Light,' universally transmuting the 'Music of the night,' is available by FAITH, choice, and heart-felt prayer.... This system is free to enjoy (not manipulate or destroy) for the benefit of producers (not consumers)-- powerful co-creators; not destroyers-- those who choose to listen to this 'Sound of Silence' and calling from the Most High." (Link here)

Except that it's not really free; you can, however, purchase it from one of Dr. Horowitz' sites for $19.95.

Not only that: "Dr. Horowitz's simple, yet powerful water energizing technology, the '3E,' [is] based on his research into the Perfect Circle of Sound and the 'frequencies in harmony with the universal symphony.' 3E stickers and 'cling ons' can be placed on glassware and elsewhere to structure water." (emphasis mine; link here)

Price to change the molecular structure of water from your pipes: $19.40 at one of his online stores. (I trust that all my readers will understand that changing the molecular structure of water is not something that you can perform by putting a sticker on a flask.)

And do not forget: "You are a digitial, bioholographic, hydrosonic, precipitation, crystallization, miraculous manifestation, of divine frequency vibrations."

* Horowitz has cracked the real Da Vinci code! "The Real Da Vinci Code reveals the secret set of numbers and symbols from which all creation flows." Available for $22.85 here.

* Horowitz markets a powerful potion that contains superconducting silver! "In this 'Age of the Great Plagues,' the doctor's most important advancement is the 528Hz frequency resonating silver hydrosol called OxySilver, that Dr. Horowitz describes as 'a combination of God/Water, LOVE/528Hz energy, and superconducting nanosilver bonded to oxygen.' He predicts OxySilver will put BigPharma out of business as people learn how simply and powerfully this mineral Water works energetically. .." (Link here) He markets it as a substitute for vaccines and antibiotics. Just $49.40 + shipping/handling per 8 oz. bottle, sold here.

Never mind that, in order for silver to act as a superconductor, it must constitute approximately 75% of a solid. So, contrary to Horowitz' claims, it is utterly impossible for his potion to contain superconducting silver.

* Horowitz also claims that MRI uses sound waves, and that 97% of DNA has the function of capturing divine light and sound transmissions. Such assertions are 100.0% rubbish.

You will notice that Horowitz' claims are frequently used to support the marketing of products from his website. Caveat emptor.

On to the Presentations

Now I turn to Horowitz' actual publications. We start with his theories regarding HIV:

Horowitz on HIV

He contends that HIV is the result of a 1970s conspiracy between Merck and Henry Kissinger to wipe out the populations of Africa and African-Americans. His evidence is basically this:

1. Kissinger was on the Merck board.
2. Kissinger had an insurance policy against charges of genocide
3. Merck distributed vaccines in the areas where HIV/AIDS first developed in the 70s. Some of those vaccines even contained substances derived from the cells of chimpanzees.

However, there are completely reasonable interpretations of these facts that have nothing to do with a conspiracy:

1. Politicians and corporate boards have been having fun together for centuries. This is completely normal behavior.

2. I have been able to find no substantiation whatsoever to Horowitz' claim about a Kissinger insurance policy. Scanning the first 100 results returned by Google from "Kissinger genocide insurance" turned up nothing. Wikipedia mentions nothing of the sort. But even if he did have such a policy, Kissinger had reason to fear genocide charges due to his involvement in US military campaigns, some secret, in southeast Asia. That's why he would have had such an insurance policy (if indeed he had one).

3. Merck was distributing vaccines basically everywhere on the planet during the period in question. No matter where AIDS might have emerged, Merck could have been accused of complicity. Plus, remember that correlation does not equal causation.

Moreover, there is very strong reason to disbelieve Horowitz' conspiracy theory:

4. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. At a minimum, I would want to see some emails or documents from Merck scientists, or interviews with Merck scientists, before I could give Horowitz' extraordinary theory any credence.

However, Horowitz has produced no documentary evidence of conspiracy whatsoever...nothing but pure speculation. Elsewhere, he points to an interview with Dr. Maurice Hilleman in which Hilleman cracked a joke about importing AIDS (the interview team had a long laugh), but documenting a wisecrack among scientists is not the same thing as documenting a conspiracy. He has also produced documentation that USAID was funding population control programs in Africa (which he erroneously refers to as "depopulation" programs). He has documented that the US military requested funding to study the feasibility of creating biological agents in 1970, but has failed to note that studying the feasibility of something and actually doing it are very different things. He has documented that there was a program to study the relationship between viruses and cancer that went so far as to distribute primate viruses to various research programs. To which I say: so what? There is no documentation that the program was, or even could have been, used to concoct deadly retroviruses and distribute them via vaccines.

5. Real PhDs have studied the emergence of HIV infection, and trace it to a leap of Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV) from chimpanzees into human populations via the bushmeat trade in Africa. Among the factors in the NIH-funded analysis is that "the natural habitat of these [infected] chimpanzees directly coincides with the pattern of the HIV-1 epidemic in this area of Africa." This study was published in the February 1999 edition of the peer-reviewed magazine Nature.

6. Scientists did not possess the information necessary to participate in a conspiracy until well after HIV/AIDS had appeared. Thus it was impossible for any scientist at "BigPharma" or any government agency to commit the horrific deeds of which Horowitz accuses them.

A. HIV infections were occurring in Kenya in 1959. Applying a molecular clock analysis to the diversity in HIV strains existing at the time indicates that HIV had been circulating among humans since "near the beginning of the twentieth century." Bottom line: HIV infections predate the supposed conspiracy by several decades.

B. AIDS was first noted in the US in 1980; however, HIV was not even discovered until 1983. The Center for Disease Control, a government agency, played a major role in funding and coordinating the success search for the pathogen that causes AIDS. The important point here is that, since scientists did not even know HIV existed until 1983, they could not possibly have tried to distribute HIV among any populations via vaccines prior to 1983.

D. Scientists have traced the origins of HIV to zoonosis by the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV). However, SIV was not even discovered until 1985. Therefore, it was impossible in the 1970s for any scientist to have the idea that vaccines created from processes using chimpanzee cells could be used to start an autoimmune disease pandemic.

Horowitz on H1N1

Now I turn to Horowitz' claims regarding the emergence of H1N1, which he attributes to a conspiracy among government agencies, scientists in the area of biochemistry and virology, and "BigPharma" (especially Novavax). According to Horowitz (and I quote at length):

"As the first cases of the 2009 Mexican flu outbreak were being reported, clamoring journalists began calling the doctor, requesting his commentaries. A few hours later, after investigating the government officials and vaccine makers involved, the Harvard-trained emerging diseases expert uploaded the above 10-minute SPECIAL REPORT to YouTube--a classic 'scam buster.'

"Within a day of posting the above YouTube video, thanks to prompt reactions from dozens of faithful activists who mailed this clip to thousands of others, more than 90,000 people in less than 30 hours watched Dr. Horowitz, an award winning author and filmmaker, perform a mass media exorcism, commanding Google's top search listing throughout the flu fright that virtually ended on May 5, 2009, when CDC officials who had been hyping the virulence of this germ from its emergence, suddenly announced, 'It is not as bad as we first thought.'

"Suddenly and quite amazingly, as quickly as these demons had been exposed, the virus' lethality was downgraded."

So in summary:

* By spending a few hours going over the list of officials and companies who were involved... Again, Horowitz provides no documents--nothing that could possibly be considered as evidence in a court of law, or even in normal journalism. Just by spending a few hours enumerating the organizations that are interested in combatting H1N1, Horowitz divines a conspiracy among them to actually spread the infection. This is quite near a claim of omniscience.

* He conducted a media exorcism that resulted in a reduction in the virus' lethality. Hmmm... need I discuss this any further?

Final Thoughts

As a final point on the whole question of the emergence of "new" viruses: this frightful phenomenon was happening long before Merck and Novavax existed. Witness the sudden and deadly Spanish flu of 1918, which then disappeared almost as soon as it appeared. In nature, viruses can recombine their genetic material in a common host, resulting in the potential emergence of "new" and lethal viruses. While this process has long been suspected as the cause of the 1918 Spanish flu, it is perhaps more likely (according to Oxford scientists) that the 1918 flu was the result of normal mutations in the HA1 gene of human flu viruses. Bottom line: we can be very confident that the emergence of "new" and even recombinant, deadly viruses does not require a laboratory. So why should we feel the need to hunt for a conspiracy of governments, scientists, and pharmaceutical companies to explain the emergence of HIV and H1N1? Scientific study has given us a natural explanation based on virology, and we need look no further.

Please don't be afraid of viruses: the just shall live by faith. And don't be afraid to obtain flu vaccines, either! At least that's what I did. My arm's a little sore, but otherwise I'm in great shape. Thanks for listening.

A Notorious Islamic Extremist Renounced His Childhood Christian Faith Because Of Creationism (In Part)

Omar Hammami, son of Syrian Muslim and Southern Baptist parents, has been playing a leading role in the Al-Shabbab militancy in Somalia. The New York Times magazine has just chronicled his journey from Southern Baptist (baptized at age 6) to Islamic extremist. One stage of the process involved dealing with creationism:

"When he was 12, Hammami wrote in his journal, 'Sometimes I get confused because the Bible says one thing and our textbooks and Darwin say another.'"

There were of course other issues in the journey--among them his father's Muslim faith and a mile-wide rebellious streak. But if he had been taught that the inerrant Bible is in complete agreement with the concepts of a billions-years-old earth and a providential (theistic) view of evolution, perhaps he would have become a rebel for Christ (instead of an al-Qaeda sympathizer)!? It's impossible to say for sure, of course. And as long as he lives and breathes, he can always return to his childhood faith.

I just wanted to point out the effect that creationism had on Hammami to reinforce the idea behind my previous post: the apologetics we use, and the way that we handle issues of science and faith, can have a huge impact for good or for ill. We need to think very carefully about these issues, and not just think the way we've always thought, and speak the way we've always spoken, just because it's more comfortable for us.

Scientific Creationism Nearly Wrecked My Faith

As an enthusiastic young evangelical decades ago, I devoured the scientific creationism literature written by the likes of Duane Gish and Henry Morris. Did you know that, based on the erosion rate of silicon, it only took 8000 years for the oceans to reach their current concentration of silicon? So how could the earth be billions of years old? I filled my mind with dozens of such factoids, held intense debates with my atheist friend Shawn, and scoffed at unbelieving scientists.

Then I entered the Ivy League, where respect for the scientific enterprise flowed like a deep, irresistible current. As it carried me along, I felt like I had to abandon my Christian faith or drown. The scientific consensus was that the earth was indeed billions of years old, but the Bible taught that the earth was less than 7000 years old. I had to choose between the two...and I chose science.

I considered myself to be an agnostic, I guess because I didn't want to adopt the label of atheist and give up all hope of ever rediscovering faith. I was adrift; just what was life supposed to be about anyway? If everything boils down to baryons and the forces of physics, then there is no free will, no design, no purpose.

I resolved one evening that I must nevertheless live a life of love. But this left me with a terrible problem: how was I to accomplish that? I was no saint, nowhere close. In fact, I would have to describe the 19 year old Chris Falter as just another selfish, arrogant Ivy Leaguer hungry for success. I gazed up at the stars in anguish, looking for an answer. Suddenly a vision of Jesus on the cross came to me. The message was unmistakable: Jesus demonstrated how to love truly when he offered his life on that cross. If I wanted to love others, I had to follow Jesus. With newfound hope I prayed, "Lord, if you're really there, make your power and love known in my life!"

I re-embarked on the journey of faith, eager to resolve the bitter dispute between faith and science. Dr. John Suppe, an astonishingly gifted geologist, was acting as a mentor to many Christian students at Princeton. He didn't openly repudiate the "scientific creationists," but the theory of plate tectonics that he was helping to develop clearly could not be squared with an 8000 year old earth. I began to believe that the word of God and the works of God did not have to contradict. Then my dear friend Jerry Roth, a Christian student in geology, pushed me over the line one day by talking about some field studies he had participated in. His team had drilled into a mountain to obtain rock samples, and dated them by the potassium-argon method. Sure enough, the deeper the samples, the older the dates, just as predicted. And yes, the dates were in the tens of millions of years.

So Dr. Suppe and Jerry showed me that I could be a Christian of both deep faith and scientific rigor; I didn't have to choose between the heart and the mind. (Indeed, Jesus commanded us to love the Lord our God with all our minds as well as with all our hearts.) From the writings of Hugh Ross, I discovered that the use of the word "day" in Genesis can also mean "era" in the original Hebrew. Thus, we are not tied to a 168-hour interpretation of the creation account. This exegesis is supported by Hebrews 4: 7, which indicates that the seventh day of Creation continues as the present age of grace--a "day of rest" that we enter by faith in Christ.

I also came to realize that the so-called scientific evidence that Gish, Morris, and others in scientific creationist camp had cited was completely in error. For example, silicon does not just erode into the ocean; it also leaves through a process called efflux. Once we take efflux into account, we see that the silicon concentration in ocean water is in equilibrium. So oceanic silicon actually supports the view that the oceans are billions of years old, and contradicts the view that they are only a few thousand years old. I will review some of the other young-earth creationist "evidence" in another post, hopefully very soon.

For now, I just want to leave you with this thought: if you are a Christian parent, why should you expose your child to the danger that he or she will read the scientific literature and conclude that the Biblical account of creation is just wrong--and that the Bible must therefore be wrong? If you are a pastor, why should you expose your flock to this danger? How I wish that a pastor had taught me the day-age view of Genesis 1 - 3 in my youth! I could have been spared a lot of darkness, despair, grief, and emptiness.

Please, please, please: spare our children the darkness that I experienced! Teach them that they can explore the whole body of scientific evidence with an intellectual integrity that befits someone who desires integrity in every area of life. Teach them that the scientific enterprise and the Bible do *not* contradict, because a reasonable exegesis of Genesis points not only to an ancient universe, but also to a God who is pleased to reveal Himself both through personal encounter and through His creation.

[Thanks to my editor, the beautiful Linda Falter, for her help with this post.]

Stupid Jokes

They say that those who approach life with humor live happier, healthier, longer lives. Does that apply to those who have a jovial demeanor but whose jokes have a...shall we say inconsistent...quality?

The time when my lovely wife Linda was most worried about my well-being was when I stopped telling jokes. We were living among the poor overseas, the challenges were unbelievably difficult, and I got so focused on just trying to suvive that the puns, word plays, and self-deprecation ground to a halt. My teenagers would say that everyone must have rejoiced! But in fact Linda was deeply worried. Perhaps more so than when I got malaria...twice. More than when I got typhoid. More than when I suffered unemployment for a year.

But now I'm making it up as I go along, and Linda is happy, most of the time. The teenagers less so, but I'm not sure what to do about that. Your own kids are a tough crowd, to be sure. A 10 year-old girl in White Plains was overheard scolding her dad for singing out loud. The father? Billy Joel. If the guy who commands $100 per ticket in sold-out stadiums can't please his progeny, what hope do I have? Of course, I love my kids so much that it doesn't matter anyway. And that's no joke!

Congratulations to Daniel and Mary

My eldest son Daniel has been a constant source of pride and joy for us. This past August he moved to Louisville to pursue a masters degree in music performance (jazz percussion), and the wonderful surprises have not ceased. He met a wonderful young lady, a fellow grad student named Mary Goff, and they fell in love. She is a delightful, creative, godly future daughter-in-law. You are reading that correctly; Daniel proposed on Valentine's Day, and she said yes.

We have great confidence that their relationship will go the distance. They encourage one another in faith, they have fun together, they strengthen one another. So why does my heart harbor a mild sensation of misgiving?

It's not about them, it's about me. Can I really be ready to be a grandfather?

I'm not old enough yet! (I might not feel old enough in another decade, either, but that's not relevant.)

Stop laughing at me, kids. I'm too weak to fight back and too senile to think up a clever riposte. Sigh.

But it's beautiful. As long as I focus on the wonderful things I see God doing in Daniel and Mary, I think I'll be okay.