Author: citybaseblog

The Case for Balance: Conservatism, Progressivism, and the Way of Christ (A collaboration of Lewis McLain and AI)

.Reading time 25 minutes.

Outline: The Case for Balance

Introduction

  • Crisis of extremes in today’s America
  • Conservatism = order, tradition, limits
  • Progressivism = justice, equality, renewal
  • The necessity of balance, scarcity of resources, and lessons from Christ + the Greatest Generation

Part I. Conservatism: The Voice of Prudence

  • Edmund Burke — Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790): change must be gradual, rooted in tradition
  • The Federalist Papers (1787–1788): checks and balances, realism about human nature
  • Friedrich Hayek — The Road to Serfdom (1944): dangers of central planning
  • Milton Friedman — Capitalism and Freedom (1962): economic freedom as foundation of political freedom
  • Thomas Sowell — A Conflict of Visions (1987): constrained vs. unconstrained visions of human nature
  • Key Insight: Promises beyond available resources lead to collapse; discipline and work are essential

Part II. Progressivism: The Call to Renewal

  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau — The Social Contract (1762): the general will as the basis of political legitimacy
  • Thomas Paine — Common Sense (1776), Rights of Man (1791): independence, universal rights, anti-aristocracy
  • Herbert Croly — The Promise of American Life (1909): strong federal government for justice and equality
  • John Dewey — Democracy and Education (1916): schools as engines of democracy
  • John Maynard Keynes — The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936): government can stabilize economies
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt — Four Freedoms (1941): freedom of speech, worship, from want, from fear
  • Martin Luther King Jr. — Letter from Birmingham Jail (1963): urgency of justice
  • Betty Friedan — The Feminine Mystique (1963): women’s dissatisfaction and gender equality
  • John Rawls — A Theory of Justice (1971): veil of ignorance, fairness as justice
  • Key Insight: Society must evolve for freedom to be real for all

Part III. Jesus and the Apostles: A Higher Balance

  • Conservative side: Upholding the Law, Prophets, moral absolutes (Matthew 5:17)
  • Progressive side: Expanding to outsiders, critiquing power, Sermon on the Mount’s radical love
  • Transcendent side: “Render to Caesar and to God” (Mark 12:17), avoiding partisan traps
  • Apostolic example: Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), conserving unity while expanding inclusion
  • Key Insight: Balance is not compromise but fulfillment—law + grace, truth + mercy

Part IV. The Greatest Generation: Living Balance

  • Conservative traits: discipline, thrift, faith, family, self-reliance
  • Progressive achievements: G.I. Bill (1944), infrastructure, civil rights, shared sacrifice
  • Key Insight: Married discipline with generosity, self-reliance with solidarity

Part V. The Constraint of Limited Finances

  • Scarcity as a boundary: resources are finite, promises must be realistic
  • Conservative error: cruelty when prudence lacks compassion
  • Progressive error: recklessness when generosity ignores cost
  • Balanced approach: provide help where possible without undermining work ethic or solvency

Conclusion: A Call to Balanced Renewal

  • Conserve what works; reform what is unjust
  • Christ as the model: grace + truth, law + love
  • Greatest Generation as proof: balance is possible in practice
  • Balance = wisdom, not weakness
  • America’s path forward requires humility, gratitude, discipline, and justice

Introduction: Beyond Extremes

America in the twenty-first century faces a crisis of extremes. On one side, conservatism warns of the dangers of abandoning tradition, order, and discipline. On the other hand, progressivism presses for justice, equality, and renewal.

Both hold truths; both have excesses. The question is whether we can rediscover balance—a balance that honors the sacrifices of the Greatest Generation, and even more deeply, reflects the balance found in the teachings of Christ and His Apostles.

But balance must also reckon with reality. Resources are finite. Governments cannot promise everything to everyone, nor can societies thrive when work and self-sufficiency are devalued. The greatest danger of imbalance is not only moral but practical: the collapse of liberty and justice under the weight of unsustainable demands.

Part I. Conservatism: The Voice of Prudence

The modern conservative tradition begins with Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790). Burke (1729–1797), an Irish statesman and philosopher, argued that society is a partnership across generations. He warned that tearing down institutions in the name of abstract ideals—such as “equality” or “reason”—destroys the accumulated wisdom of history.

In America, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay’s The Federalist Papers (1787–1788) defended the Constitution by showing how liberty required structure. Their concept of checks and balances (a system where power is divided so no branch of government dominates) reflected a deep realism about human nature: ambition must counter ambition.

Later, conservatives like Friedrich Hayek in The Road to Serfdom (1944) warned that centralized economic planning, however noble in intention, leads to tyranny. Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom (1962) argued that economic freedom (the right to trade, own property, and work without government micromanagement) is inseparable from political liberty.

In A Conflict of Visions (1987), Thomas Sowell compares two very different ways of looking at human beings and society:

  1. The Constrained Vision (often associated with conservatism):
    • Belief: Human nature is deeply flawed and doesn’t really change much. People are selfish, limited, and prone to mistakes.
    • Implication: Since people are imperfect, we need strong institutions (laws, traditions, checks and balances) to restrain bad behavior and manage conflict.
    • Example: The U.S. Constitution divides power because no one can be fully trusted.
  2. The Unconstrained Vision (often associated with progressivism):
    • Belief: Human nature can improve with enough education, reason, and reform. People are basically good and can be perfected.
    • Implication: Since people can change for the better, society itself can be redesigned to achieve justice and equality.
    • Example: Reformers often push for systemic overhauls (education systems, welfare programs, social engineering) believing these can eliminate poverty or injustice.

The conservative insight is clear: justice cannot be pursued by promises that exceed the means to fulfill them. To guarantee more than the treasury or community can provide leads not to compassion but collapse. Thus, conservatism insists on discipline, thrift, and the dignity of work as non-negotiable foundations.

Part II. Progressivism: The Call to Renewal

Progressivism begins with Enlightenment thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s The Social Contract (1762). Rousseau (1712–1778) argued that legitimate authority rests on the general will (the collective agreement of the people). This broke from monarchy and aristocracy, inspiring modern democracy.

Thomas Paine’s Common Sense (1776) and Rights of Man (1791) called for independence, equality, and universal rights. Paine (1737–1809) rejected hereditary privilege, arguing that justice requires lifting barriers for ordinary people.

By the early 20th century, American progressivism had its own architects. Herbert Croly’s The Promise of American Life (1909) argued for a strong federal government to regulate industry and reduce inequality. John Dewey’s Democracy and Education (1916) saw schools as engines of democracy, cultivating critical citizens rather than passive learners.

Economic thought also reinforced progressivism. John Maynard Keynes’ The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936) showed that governments can stabilize economies through spending and monetary policy. His ideas underpinned Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal during the Great Depression.

In the civil rights era, Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham Jail (1963) declared that waiting for justice is itself unjust: “Justice too long delayed is justice denied.” Around the same time, Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique (1963) exposed “the problem that has no name,” the deep dissatisfaction of women confined to domestic roles. Both expanded the scope of freedom to those left out of America’s promise.

John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice (1971) introduced the veil of ignorance thought experiment: imagine designing society without knowing whether you’d be rich or poor, male or female, black or white. Rawls (1921–2002) argued that rational people in that position would choose fairness, with protections for the least advantaged.

The progressive insight is equally clear: society must evolve if freedom is to be real for all. Ignoring inequality, systemic exclusion, or economic hardship is not prudence but neglect.

Part III. Jesus and the Apostles: A Higher Balance

Jesus embodied perfect balance between tradition and renewal.

  • Conservative dimension: He upheld the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17), taught moral absolutes, and rooted His life in Israel’s covenantal story.
  • Progressive dimension: He broke barriers—speaking with Samaritans, dining with tax collectors, and lifting women into equal dignity. His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) redefined morality around love and mercy.
  • Transcendent dimension: When asked whether to pay taxes to Caesar (Mark 12:17), He rose above partisan traps, affirming both civic duty and ultimate loyalty to God.

The apostles mirrored this balance. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) conserved unity by affirming faith in Christ but broke with Jewish tradition by welcoming Gentiles without circumcision. This was both conservative in preserving the faith and progressive in expanding its reach.

Christ’s model shows that balance is not compromise but fulfillment: holding law and grace, truth and mercy, discipline and compassion in perfect harmony.

Part IV. The Greatest Generation: Living Balance in Practice

The Greatest Generation—those who endured the Great Depression and fought in World War II—lived this balance in real life.

  • They were conservative in character: disciplined, hardworking, loyal to faith and family.
  • They were progressive in vision: supporting the G.I. Bill (1944), which expanded college access and home ownership; building infrastructure; and embracing civil rights reforms that broadened opportunity.

They understood scarcity. Government could not provide everything, and individuals bore responsibility for themselves and their families. But they also understood solidarity: in times of crisis, sacrifice and shared effort lifted the whole nation.

Their greatness lay in marrying discipline with generosity, self-reliance with common good.

Part V. The Constraint of Limited Finances

Where ideology often falters is in ignoring limits.

  • Conservatives resist redistribution not simply out of selfishness but because they recognize that resources are finite. Providing “everything for everyone” is not generosity—it is insolvency. Debt, inflation, and economic collapse are the penalties of overpromising.
  • Progressives sometimes push reforms without reckoning with cost, yet their moral impulse is indispensable. Without reform, entrenched hierarchies and exclusion persist.

The balance is this: help where help is possible, but not in ways that destroy the culture of work, dignity, and responsibility. Charity without prudence breeds dependency; prudence without charity breeds cruelty.

Conclusion: A Call to Balanced Renewal

Conservatism teaches us to preserve what works; progressivism presses us to reform what is unjust. Christ models the union of both, and the Greatest Generation lived it out in practice. The path forward lies not in extremes but in balance—acknowledging limits while striving for justice, respecting tradition while welcoming renewal.

Balance means:

  • We conserve eternal truths and hard-earned institutions.
  • We progress toward wider justice and opportunity.
  • We discipline ourselves with the reality of scarcity.
  • We inspire ourselves with the vision of abundance rightly ordered.

The balance of conservatism and progressivism is not weakness—it is wisdom. It is how free people endure. It is how nations remain both just and strong. And it is, perhaps, the very balance of Christ Himself—grace and truth held together.

Glossary of Key Terms and Thinkers

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay

Founding Fathers of the United States who wrote The Federalist Papers (1787–1788), defending the U.S. Constitution. They argued for checks and balances and a system that accounts for human flaws.

Allan Bloom (1930–1992)

American philosopher. Author of The Closing of the American Mind (1987), warning that relativism (belief that all truths are equal) undermines education and moral clarity.

Betty Friedan (1921–2006)

American feminist. Author of The Feminine Mystique (1963), which exposed women’s dissatisfaction with being confined to domestic roles. Helped spark the women’s rights movement.

Checks and Balances

A system where each branch of government (executive, legislative, judicial) limits the others, preventing any single branch from dominating. Introduced in the U.S. Constitution.

Edmund Burke (1729–1797)

Irish statesman. Author of Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790). Considered the father of modern conservatism. Advocated gradual change rooted in tradition.

Friedrich Hayek (1899–1992)

Economist and philosopher. Author of The Road to Serfdom (1944). Warned that government control of the economy threatens liberty and leads to authoritarianism.

Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945)

32nd U.S. president. In his Four Freedoms Speech (1941), he defined freedoms that extended beyond politics to include economic security and global peace. Architect of the New Deal.

General Will (Rousseau)

The collective agreement of the people on what benefits everyone, even if individuals disagree. Introduced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in The Social Contract (1762).

GI Bill (1944)

Legislation that gave World War II veterans access to college, home loans, and job training. A progressive expansion of opportunity but rooted in conservative values of hard work and earned reward.

Herbert Croly (1869–1930)

Political thinker. Author of The Promise of American Life (1909). Advocated a strong federal government to regulate industry and ensure fairness. Influenced Theodore Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism.”

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778)

Philosopher. Author of The Social Contract (1762). Believed governments should reflect the people’s will, not monarchy or aristocracy. His ideas influenced modern democracy.

John Dewey (1859–1952)

Philosopher and educator. Author of Democracy and Education (1916). Believed schools should prepare students for democratic participation, not just rote learning.

John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946)

British economist. Author of The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936). Showed that governments can use spending and policy to stabilize economies during recessions.

John Rawls (1921–2002)

Philosopher. Author of A Theory of Justice (1971). Introduced the veil of ignorance—a thought experiment asking us to design society without knowing our own status, which would encourage fairness.

Letter from Birmingham Jail (1963)

A letter written by Martin Luther King Jr. defending civil disobedience. Argued that unjust laws must be resisted, and that waiting for justice is itself unjust.

Martin Luther King Jr. (1929–1968)

Civil rights leader. Advocated nonviolent resistance and equality. His Letter from Birmingham Jail (1963) and speeches inspired progress toward civil rights in America.

Milton Friedman (1912–2006)

Economist. Author of Capitalism and Freedom (1962). Argued that free markets are essential for both prosperity and political liberty. Advocated for school choice and minimal regulation.

Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)

Burke’s warning against radical revolution. Advocated gradual reform and respect for tradition.

Thomas Paine (1737–1809)

Political writer. Author of Common Sense (1776), which urged American independence, and Rights of Man (1791), which defended democracy and universal rights.

Thomas Sowell (1930– )

Economist and social theorist. Author of A Conflict of Visions (1987). Distinguished between the constrained vision (human nature is flawed and needs limits) and the unconstrained vision (human nature can be perfected through reason and reform).

Veil of Ignorance (Rawls)

A thought experiment: if you didn’t know your race, class, gender, or abilities, what kind of society would you choose? This encourages fairness, since no one could stack the deck in their favor.

William F. Buckley Jr. (1925–2008)

American author, commentator, and founder of National Review magazine. His book God and Man at Yale (1951) criticized his alma mater for promoting secularism and collectivism instead of faith and free markets. Buckley became one of the most influential conservative voices of the 20th century, helping to shape modern American conservatism and popularize its arguments in public debate.

Witness (1952)

Autobiography of Whittaker Chambers (1901–1961), a former Communist turned anti-Communist. Framed the Cold War as a struggle between faith and materialism.

Glossary of Biblical and Theological Terms

Law and the Prophets

A Jewish phrase referring to the Hebrew Scriptures (what Christians call the Old Testament). It includes the moral laws given through Moses (e.g., Ten Commandments) and the writings of the Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.) who called Israel back to faithfulness. Jesus affirmed their authority but showed how He fulfilled them (Matthew 5:17).

Sermon on the Mount

One of Jesus’ most famous teachings (Matthew 5–7). It begins with the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3–12), a set of blessings that turn worldly values upside down:

  • “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
  • “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.”
  • “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”
  • “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled.”
  • “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.”
  • “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”
  • “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.”
  • “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
  • “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for great is your reward in heaven.”

After the Beatitudes, the Sermon includes teachings on love for enemies, turning the other cheek, and the Lord’s Prayer. Jesus raised the moral bar beyond outward behavior to inward motives, shifting focus from legalism (rule-keeping) to mercy and heart transformation.

Render to Caesar

A statement by Jesus in Mark 12:17. When asked whether Jews should pay taxes to the Roman emperor (Caesar), Jesus replied, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” This shows His balance: recognizing civic duties while reserving ultimate loyalty to God.

Council of Jerusalem

A meeting of early church leaders (Acts 15, around A.D. 50). The apostles debated whether Gentile (non-Jewish) converts to Christianity had to follow Jewish customs like circumcision. They decided faith in Christ alone was enough, removing barriers to inclusion. This was a conservative move (unity in faith) with a progressive outcome (welcoming outsiders).

Disciples vs. Apostles

  • Disciples: Followers or students of Jesus during His ministry. The word means “learner.”
  • Apostles: Specifically, the twelve chosen by Jesus to spread His message, later joined by Paul. The word means “one who is sent.”

Grace and Truth

In John 1:14, Jesus is described as “full of grace and truth.” Grace means unearned favor, mercy, or kindness from God; Truth means reality as God sees it, including moral and spiritual absolutes. Together, they express Jesus’ balance between compassion and justice.

Pharisees and Sadducees

Religious leaders in Jesus’ time. Pharisees emphasized strict observance of the law and traditions. Sadducees were more aristocratic, tied to the Temple system, and skeptical of beliefs like resurrection. Jesus often criticized both groups for hypocrisy—upholding rules while neglecting justice and mercy.

Gentiles

A biblical term for non-Jews. In early Christianity, the inclusion of Gentiles was revolutionary, showing that faith was not tied to ethnicity or Jewish law but open to all nations.

Prophets

Messengers in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) who spoke God’s word to the people. They often challenged corruption, warned of judgment, and called for justice. Jesus positioned Himself in continuity with them, yet greater, as the fulfillment of their message.

Kingdom of God

Central theme of Jesus’ teaching. Not a political kingdom, but God’s reign of justice, mercy, and peace breaking into the world. Jesus described it in parables (stories) and embodied it through healings, forgiveness, and teaching.

Faith Once Delivered

Phrase from Jude 1:3. Refers to the original Christian message handed down by the Apostles. Early Christians emphasized guarding this core faith while adapting its reach to new cultures.

Acts 19 – Bible Study Prep (NIV)

.Reading time 19 minutes.

One of the ways I am using AI is for Bible Study. The group of men I’m in covers one chapter per week. We are on Acts 19. I have worked with ChatGPT to develop a format I like. Once done (I keep adding things), all I have to do is to ask for an analysis of the next chapter. It remembers the format. I view this as studying by looking into a prism, obtaining a new view each time I turn it slightly. By the time I am done, my result is more than just reading the Scripture. An hour or two can go by easily. I have AI rewrite many times to include a definition or to explain a concept. Fortunately, AI never gets tired. So, I am sharing this week’s preparation for this chapter. LFM

🔹 Acts 19 – Complete Expository Study (NIV)

Summary
Paul arrives in Ephesus and finds twelve disciples who had received only John’s baptism. Upon hearing the full gospel, they are baptized in Jesus’ name. Paul lays hands on them, and they receive the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues* and prophesying.

📜 NIV Text – Acts 19:1–7

1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples
2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”
5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues* and prophesied.
7 There were about twelve men in all.

Questions & Answers

  1. Why hadn’t they received the Holy Spirit?
    ➤ They had received John’s baptism of repentance, not the full gospel of Jesus and the Spirit. Paul completes what John began.
  2. Why does Paul lay hands on them?
    ➤ Laying on hands symbolizes spiritual transmission. It affirms the moment they are filled with the Holy Spirit.
  3. What does their transformation reveal?
    ➤ Conversion isn’t complete until it involves surrender to Christ and the reception of the Spirit. Discipleship includes empowerment.

Footnote:
“Speaking in tongues” in the New Testament can mean either speaking a known foreign language not previously learned (Acts 2), or a Spirit-inspired, heavenly language (1 Corinthians 14). In Acts 19, it most likely refers to the latter, confirming the Holy Spirit’s presence. Sources: Carson, Fee, Bruce.

✅ Acts 19:8–12

Summary
Paul preaches in the synagogue for three months but moves to the hall of Tyrannus due to opposition. He teaches daily for two years. Miraculous healings occur—even through aprons and handkerchiefs that touched him.

📜 NIV Text – Acts 19:8–12

8 Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God.
9 But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way.
So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus.
10 This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.
11 God did extraordinary miracles through Paul,
12 so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.

Questions & Answers

  1. Why does Paul leave the synagogue?
    ➤ Resistance grew too great. Paul wisely moves to a neutral teaching space, the lecture hall of Tyrannus.
  2. What does the two-year commitment show?
    ➤ Paul didn’t just plant churches—he nurtured disciples through persistent teaching.
  3. Why are these miracles called “extraordinary”?
    ➤ Because God worked even through cloth that touched Paul. This emphasizes divine power, not superstition.

✅ Acts 19:13–20

Summary
Jewish exorcists, including seven sons of Sceva, try to use Jesus’ name to cast out demons but are overpowered. The incident causes fear and reverence. Many repent and burn their sorcery scrolls publicly, totaling 50,000 drachmas.

📜 NIV Text – Acts 19:13–20

13 Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed.
They would say, “In the name of the Jesus whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.”
14 Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this.
15 One day the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know about, but who are you?”
16 Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all.
He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding.
17 When this became known to the Jews and Greeks living in Ephesus, they were all seized with fear, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in high honor.
18 Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed what they had done.
19 A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly.
When they calculated the value of the scrolls, the total came to fifty thousand drachmas.
20 In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power.

Questions & Answers

  1. Why did the sons of Sceva fail?
    ➤ They lacked true relationship with Jesus. The demon knew they had no authority and attacked them.
  2. Why did believers burn the scrolls?
    ➤ It was a public act of repentance. The loss of money showed the cost of following Jesus.
  3. How did this incident affect the church?
    ➤ It brought conviction, holiness, and growth. The fear of the Lord restored reverence for His name.

✅ Acts 19:21–34

Summary
Paul plans to go to Jerusalem and then Rome. Meanwhile, Demetrius, a silversmith who profits from idol-making, incites a riot, claiming Paul threatens Artemis. The crowd fills the theater, shouting “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” for two hours.

📜 NIV Text – Acts 19:21–34

21 After all this had happened, Paul decided to go to Jerusalem, passing through Macedonia and Achaia.
“After I have been there,” he said, “I must visit Rome also.”
22 He sent two of his helpers, Timothy and Erastus, to Macedonia, while he stayed in the province of Asia a little longer.
23 About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way.
24 A silversmith named Demetrius, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought in a lot of business for the craftsmen there.
25 He called them together… “You know… we receive a good income from this business.
26 And you see and hear how this fellow Paul… says that gods made by human hands are no gods at all.
27 There is danger… the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited…”
28 When they heard this, they were furious and began shouting: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”
29 Soon the whole city was in an uproar…
30 Paul wanted to appear before the crowd, but the disciples would not let him…
34 …they all shouted in unison for about two hours: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

Questions & Answers

  1. What was Demetrius really afraid of?
    ➤ Loss of income. Though he frames it as religious loyalty, he’s motivated by economics.
  2. What does this reveal about gospel impact?
    ➤ The gospel doesn’t just challenge sin—it disrupts corrupt systems.
  3. Why was Paul restrained?
    ➤ His friends and local officials knew it was dangerous. Sometimes wisdom means stepping back.

✅ Acts 19:35–41

Summary
A city official calms the riot. He affirms the city’s Artemis tradition but points out Paul’s companions have done nothing illegal. He warns the assembly could be punished for rioting. The crowd disperses.

📜 NIV Text – Acts 19:35–41

35 The city clerk quieted the crowd and said: “Fellow Ephesians… the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis…
36 …you ought to calm down and not do anything rash.
37 You have brought these men here… they have neither robbed temples nor blasphemed our goddess.
38 If Demetrius… has a grievance… the courts are open…
39 …it must be settled in a legal assembly.
40 As it is, we are in danger of being charged with rioting…
41 After he had said this, he dismissed the assembly.

Questions & Answers

  1. How does the clerk function as God’s instrument?
    ➤ Though secular, he brings peace and justice. God uses unexpected people for protection.
  2. Why is legal clarity important?
    ➤ It confirms that Paul and his companions broke no laws. This matters for future gospel work.
  3. What lesson does this ending give?
    ➤ God’s mission isn’t stopped by mobs. He can resolve chaos through wisdom and law.

🎭 Poetic Dialogue: Voices from Ephesus

Paul:
In dusty halls and crowded streets,
I saw the gospel take its seat.
Twelve once knew just water’s grace—
But fire came, and filled this place.

Disciples:
We walked in light that was not flame,
Till Christ was preached, and Spirit came.
Now tongues arise, and hearts rejoice,
For we have heard the Savior’s voice.

Sons of Sceva:
We used the name with lips alone,
But found its power was not our own.
The demon knew the one who bled—
And we fled naked, bruised, and dread.

Demetrius:
A silver god can’t fight the Word,
No matter how loud songs are stirred.
His cross shook more than temple stone—
It struck the idols we had grown.

City Clerk:
I spoke of law and Roman peace,
But sensed in Paul a deeper lease.
He broke no rule, yet shook the ground—
And still his gospel spread around.

The Lord:
I move where hearts confess and bow,
I break the scroll, the curse, the vow.
In every riot, flame, or hush—
The Word shall grow. My Spirit rush.

🎶 Hymn: The Word Grew Mighty in Ephesus

(To the tune of “Love Divine, All Loves Excelling” – HYFRYDOL)

Verse 1
Twelve were seeking truth and power,
Paul proclaimed the risen Lord.
Baptized now in Jesus’ mercy,
By His Spirit they adored.
Tongues and prophecies were spoken,
Hearts ignited from above.
From repentance, chains were broken—
Newborn faith walked firm in love.

Verse 2
Daily in the hall he reasoned,
Scripture shaping every soul.
Miracles and healing followed—
Christ the King was in control.
Even cloths that touched his labor
Brought the sick to strength and peace.
Darkness fled before the Savior,
As the gospel did increase.

Verse 3
Seven sons invoked His power,
Yet the demons mocked their claim.
Only those who know the Savior
Bear the right to speak His name.
Scrolls were burned, and idols shattered,
Hearts made clean from pride and shame.
Truth spread wide, and lives were scattered
As torchbearers for His name.

Verse 4
Demetrius raised up a riot,
Fearing loss of silver gain.
Still the church stood firm and silent,
Unafraid of scorn or pain.
Though the crowd cried for their goddess,
God’s own hand preserved His way.
Ephesus, once filled with idols,
Saw the light of gospel day.

Verse 5
Lord, revive us now with power,
Send Your Word to spread again.
Break our idols, cleanse our altars,
Make us bold and free from sin.
Let the cities hear Your message,
Let the Word grow strong and wide.
Make our hearts Your burning temple—
Christ enthroned and glorified.

Expanded Footnote: What Is “Speaking in Tongues”?

“Speaking in tongues” (Greek: glōssais lalein) refers to a supernatural gift of speech empowered by the Holy Spirit. The Bible describes this phenomenon in multiple contexts, and scholars generally distinguish two distinct but overlapping uses:

1. Speaking in Known Human Languages

(Acts 2:1–12)

At Pentecost, the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages (glōssai) — actual, recognizable languages they had not previously learned. These were understood by Jews from various nations gathered in Jerusalem:

“Each one heard their own language being spoken… we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” (Acts 2:6, 11 NIV)

This is often referred to as xenolalia — the miraculous ability to speak a real language without learning it.

📚 Scholarly Support:
  • F.F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, NICNT: “In Acts 2, the tongues were clearly intelligible human languages understood by others present… the phenomenon served to witness to the global scope of the gospel.”
  • Craig S. Keener, IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament: “The miracle was in the speaking and hearing of actual foreign languages — a reversal of Babel and a sign of the gospel reaching all nations.”

2. Speaking in Unintelligible or Spiritual Languages

(Acts 10:44–46; Acts 19:6; 1 Corinthians 12–14)

In Acts 10 and 19, people speak in tongues when they receive the Holy Spirit, but no foreign audience is noted. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul discusses a different kind of tongue-speaking — not a known language, but speech directed to God that requires interpretation.

“For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 14:2 NIV)

This use of tongues is typically called glossolalia — inspired speech that may not correspond to any human language.

📚 Scholarly Support:
  • Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence (1994): “Paul differentiates between intelligible speech and tongues. In Corinth, tongues were primarily an ecstatic utterance, not human language.”
  • D.A. Carson, Showing the Spirit (1987): “There is no compelling reason to believe the tongues in Corinth were foreign languages. Paul treats them as spiritual language for prayer, needing interpretation.”

🔎 What Does It Mean in Acts 19?

In Acts 19:6, twelve men in Ephesus receive the Holy Spirit and immediately speak in tongues and prophesy. Unlike Acts 2, no international crowd is present, and there’s no mention of specific known languages. Most scholars interpret this as glossolalia — Spirit-inspired praise or prophetic speech in an unknown language.

This event serves as a confirming sign that these men received the same Holy Spirit given at Pentecost, now spreading to new geographic and ethnic frontiers.

I’m Back!

.Reading time 2 minutes.

I see that my last post was in 2019. So, why start posting again? There are several reasons.

  1. I’ve actually been writing quite a bit – just not posting since most of my writings have been about personal matters.
  2. I now write in collaboration with AI, mostly ChatGPT. By the time I have had AI add, rewrite, and let me be the content guide and editor, is it Lewis or AI? Like I said, it is a collaboration in the truest since of the word.
  3. I’m heavily influenced by a Bible Study I am in as well as the ages and stages of life. Our oldest granddaughter, Lindsey, has now graduated from college, is teaching 4-year-old autistic children and living in her own apartment in downtown McKinney. Lily is a junior architectural student at Texas Tech. Anderson just left last Friday for Texas Tech as a freshman. He is planning to study business and computers. Kenneth & DeAnne are downsizing their home and plan to live in the historic district in Downtown McKinney. Linda & I are both 78, in so-so health, and are celebrating our 57th anniversary today. God is good, and all is well. Just happy to be alive!
  4. After years of being politically neutral as much as possible, with conservative leanings, I am full bore conservative/anti-woke and a Trump supporter now. My disdain for liberalism is greater than my support of conservativism.
  5. I still write about governmental finance topics even though my preferred subject stream is wherever my mind and heart are at any given moment. I still work close to 40 hours a week with my expertise being narrowed to Sales Tax Analyses as well as Multi-Year Financial Planning (MYFP). I love every minute of my consulting and will probably continue as long as I can use the keyboard.

    What this means is that if you are not interested in the type of topics I mostly write about these days, then I think there is a way you can unsubscribe on your own.

    If you think I have anything interesting to say, please forward to any of your friends, colleagues and family.

    Thank you!
    Lewis

Thanks for Throwing McKinney Under the Bus, Shemwell – Now Resign!

.Reading time 9 minutes.

Mr. Shemwell has already shown us who he really is. I started off wishing him well. Then he abandoned the stature of his position. Finally, I came to this conclusion.

Here’s the deal. This man has gotten out of his lane this time. He should know that when an elected official goes out of his territory, he or she carries the City of McKinney’s title as Councilman with him. But he certainly doesn’t try to hide it here. Unfortunately, he uses the opportunity to trash the City of McKinney.

As he should know, NOTHING irritates a city more than someone from another city coming in to tell them what they should do. Cardinal Sin, Mr. Shemwell. Think about your own personal reaction if Dallas decided it could run McKinney better than the governing body of which you are currently a part of.

Resign, Shemwell! Please do the City of McKinney a favor and take your words and demeanor to another city as a private citizen. McKinney deserves better, and I feel quite confident there are a dozen qualified individuals who can represent McKinney in general and specifically your district! Responsible citizens who look like you on the outside but have a different compass inside.

If you won’t resign, then you are going to cost the City money to recall you. Perhaps you will consider it a badge of honor to be recalled. As you have displayed your logic in a statement or comment in the past, I’m sure you will find a way to turn a recall into ill treatment or some other self-serving interpretation.

However, the Citizens of McKinney have you sized up now, and you stand revealed and repugnant. Be gone! LFM

McKinney Council Member, a Black Lives Matter Activist, Brings the Fight to Dallas City Hall

The Dallas Observer

Lucas Manfield | October 11, 2019 | 4:00am

undefined

The activist who confronted Chief U. Renee Hall at the heated police oversight board meeting on Tuesday at Dallas City Hall doesn’t live in the city. He’s McKinney City Council member La’Shadion Shemwell, a barber and activist who was voted into office in 2017 following the McKinney pool party incident that exposed racial tensions in the rapidly growing city.

Since then, Shemwell has been working to reform police oversight in Dallas. “I don’t think that my responsibilities are solely in McKinney. I think we’re responsible to bring about change across this country,” Shemwell said.  Activism in the region centers on Dallas, and the impact “trickles down” to its suburbs, he added.

Shemwell said he was “shocked and surprised” there was going to be no period for public comment the night of the board meeting. He had on a blue McKinney shirt at the time, but after being called names by the crowd, he “went into activist mode” and changed into a red T-shirt referencing Amber Guyger’s trial for murdering her black neighbor.

Hall initially tried to kick him and other activists out of the room. Shemwell, meanwhile, attempted to inform her that, thanks to recent Texas legislation, the public had a legal right to a comment period. “I was showing her the actual law on my phone,” he said. “(W)hen your officers have temper tantrums in the street, they usually end in death.” — La’Shadion Shemwell

Hall later apologized, but Shemwell doubts its sincerity and doesn’t think she deserves credit for her handling of the situation, though the meeting shortly resumed and continued without incident.

“It’s convenient that you’re able to apologize after your temper tantrum. However, when your officers have temper tantrums in the street, they usually end in death,” he said.

In 2015, a white McKinney police officer pulled a gun on a group of high schoolers and violently restrained a black 15-year-old girl at a neighborhood pool. A video of the incident posted to YouTube went viral and generated nationwide outrage.

Shemwell was one of the first on the scene, according to a biography posted on the McKinney city website, which describes his path from a childhood in Los Angeles marked by homelessness to community organizer to policymaker.

Since taking office, he’s embraced the dual role of activist and politician. “Sometimes it’s a gift and a curse. A lot of the times I feel like I’m behind enemy lines,” he said.

He’s the only black member of McKinney’s seven-member council. Nearly a third of the city is black or Hispanic.

Because of this, he says he has had to accept small victories. The city recently installed water fountains in parks on the east side of town, where much of the city’s minority community lives. Parks in the richer areas, he noted, already had water bowls for dogs.

He’s also fought for better public transit and services for children and the elderly.

But his city job pays only $200 a month, a situation, he argues, that deters low-income people from seeking office. He still cuts hair out of his McKinney barbershop.

Shemwell’s confrontation with Hall was not his first clash with police. When he first met the McKinney chief of police, he told him he was going to petition online for his removal.

In 2018, he was pulled over for speeding and arrested when he refused to sign the citation, accusing the officer of pulling him over not for speeding but for being black. Shemwell later apologized for the incident. He said he did not believe the officer was racist but was “upholding a racist system.”

Also last year, the McKinney council contemplated easing the path for recalling its members after Shemwell was arrested for the alleged assault of an ex-girlfriend. A grand jury later refused to indict him.

He was also found guilty of assault in 2007 and kidnapping in 2009, again involving violence toward women.

Shemwell said his constituents knew his past when they voted him in. “It makes me somebody that’s imperfect, and that’s OK,” he said, and his experiences in the criminal justice system have informed his activism.

He’s worried by what he saw in the meeting Tuesday, where police officers walked committee members through a PowerPoint presentation outlining their responsibilities. “This is not a police board. This is not a liaison. This is not a partnership. This is an oversight board that should be independent,” he said.

The city needs a board, he said, that represents the people and not the police. “We will continue to show up until we see that happen,” he said.

Lucas Manfield is an editorial fellow at the Observer. He’s a former software developer and a recent graduate of Columbia Journalism School.

Grateful to Have a Job

.Reading time 5 minutes.

I was raised in a blue-collar family, and I will forever give thanks for that upbringing. There were many times when it was said that an extended family member had a good job. Often it was enhanced to say a “good-paying” job. It was also said in a tone that implied there was not a guarantee that the job was going to be there forever. Actually, I distinctly recall an expression of worry that employment could or might end abruptly.

It was also ingrained in me to work hard. All my early jobs were blue-collar or clerical. I learned early on that I could out-work just about everyone around me. That was my security, in a good way. My first new car was a 1967 VW that costs $1,670 with a $47 monthly payment. I was employed as a paint maker and sought some assurances from my boss that my job was secure. He couldn’t promise anything, but he all but said I was as safe as anyone.

Now, well over a half-century later, I find myself still grateful to have a job. I work for myself, but reputation is only as good as my last job serving my client base. I work just as hard as I did at the beginning. I don’t take it for granted that I will have a job or a client base tomorrow. Every day is a gift.

I try hard not to compare myself to the generations that have followed me. But I don’t sense that fear of losing a job, and perhaps not being able to find another one right away. That’s too bad. That “healthy fear” is good motivation. You tend to deliver more than is expected of  you, and often more than you are compensated to do. Everything else being equal, you always want to be the last to be laid off, not the first.

Today most employment evaluations make a distinction between meeting expectations and exceeding expectations. I’ve often wondered why exceeding expectations shouldn’t be what the compensation level is for. Meeting expectations would be an insult to me. I would be bored in a job where all I did is meet expectations. That’s saying average is okay. Not in my DNA.

It was years ago that I ran across a boss at a bank who had 30 years of experience. I quickly realized he actually had 1-year of experience 30 times. That’s being a little harsh, but there comes a point when the second 10-years of experience may not have the incremental added value than the first. And the third decade perhaps a little less. Yet that gets very expensive when there is an expectation that the compensation should rise faster than the added value. That’s bad arithmetic.

Only if you have ever had to make a payroll out of your own personal pocket would you understand or appreciate this seemingly cruel statement.

So, on this day, I want to reach out to anybody who will listen to say thank you! From my paper route as a teenager, to all my blue collar jobs as a janitor and construction laborer and then clerical jobs that prepared me for being a professional: I’m deeply grateful for allowing me to work, to serve and to be compensated fairly. I’m rich beyond belief, and I’m not talking about my bank account. To enjoy what one does is a blessing, and I’ve not been idle, unemployed or unhappy for the entirety of my working life. Just the opposite.

And, in even a deeper gratitude, my analytical skills and interests have not waned. I consider local government as the most wonderful laboratory on Planet Earth. I don’t believe I have reached my pinnacle. It’s always been in front of me. Thank God! Although my energy level isn’t what I once had, my intellectual capabilities are still growing. Believe me, I don’t take anything for granted. I just hope to continue growing until I can’t go any longer.

Thanks to you for being a part of my journey. LFM

The Professional Tea Party Distortionists Keep on Distorting!

.Reading time 8 minutes.

Well, only one person took me up on my offer! It was for a school district. I started off thinking there was a discovery to be made that would be at odds with my expectations, but that was not the case.

Meanwhile, the Tea Party churned out a handful of distorted articles this week such as this one about Tarrant County. The headline reads “Tarrant County Proposes 9 Percent Tax Hike” while the sub-header reads “Tarrant County Commissioner’s proposed property tax rate would raise their average property tax bill 35 percent from just five years ago.”

Don’t miss the picture of the fat hog in the story. How elegant. And inflammatory. And intellectually dishonest. I can just hear the Tea Party Faithful slobbering a joyful yelp of approval. We now know where carnival barkers go when they retire.

Then comes their aha moment. The Average Tax Bill has gone from $348.38 to $512.11 as the Average Taxable Single Family Value has grown from $131,962 to $218,850 in 2019. Woo-hoo! Isn’t that criminal?

Wait a minute! Let’s be fair. I don’t work for Tarrant County nor do I know anybody in government there as far as I know. I just want to look at facts and encourage you to do the same. Here’s my take from the table below. Most of the data is from the statistical section of their FY 2018 CAFR.

Population drives everything! I see that Tarrant County’s population has grown from 1,807,750 to 2,057,926 from FY 2009-2018. That’s 250,176 more people to serve. That’s huge by any yardstick you want to use. But instead of showing off with the total 13.84% like the Tea Party is prone to do, the Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 1.45% is a more fair way to provide a perspective.

Personal Income (2018 values weren’t available) shows an increase of 2.98%, over double the population growth. That’s good. Bond rating agencies look for both ability to pay and willingness to pay. Only the Tea Party could take a healthy financial statistic and turn it into a demonic story. And few even know or acknowledge that the voters are very important, but so are the invisible bondholders (you really don’t want them to become visible!) that have invested over $300 million in TC bonds and over $9 billion for all local government entities in TC.

The Tax Base has grown by 3.61% and the Tax Rate has decreased, but the most important number is the combination of the two, the Tax Levy. That metric has grown at 2.56%. Given that the CPI has grown at 1.75%, the 2.56% appears fairly reasonable. More on that later.

TC has grown from 4,209 employees to 4,385 for the period I’m analyzing. Even in total numbers, that seems reasonable, but it will look even better when put in the proper perspective as I will do shortly.

Total spending (“Tax & Spend, Tax & Spend” in Tea Party jargon), rose from $524,959,000.00 to $640,685,000.00 (add the pennies to make it look scarier) boils down to a CAGR of 2.23%. Again, when adjusted for CPI of 1.75%, what is your conclusion? If you want to be fair.

Now let’s hone in on some of these key metrics when placed on a per 1,000 population basis. The Tax Levy has grown at a CAGR of 1.10%. The number of employees have actually dropped from 2.328 to 2.131. Imagine that! The total expenses have only risen by 0.77%, which means it has actually declined when adjusted for CPI.

I don’t see a single mention of any of these facts in the Tea Party story. It’s being portrayed as journalism. Yeah, I know. Just wanted to get a laugh out of you.

TC2

Oh wait, you thought I had forgotten about those outrageous Average Home Values. No way.

That statistic has risen by 54.25% or 4.93% CAGR. Big? Yes. Distorted? Yes, too. Let me explain why.

While CPI averages 1.75%, the more appropriate construction index is significantly higher at 2.41% annually. But that’s only part of the story.

What isn’t shown is the average size of the single family home. I don’t know that square footage number, but I do know that it has grown over the years.

But the bigger untold story is that these numbers tend to grow because new homes are being added to an existing base. I’m pretty sure that the average TC single family home was built somewhere in the 1970s or early 1980s at best. Yes, this makes the existing homes more valuable, but not to the level of new construction.

In other words, the more TC grows, the more the average single family home value is going to grow since each year adds then-current values to an older base. Look far enough into the future, and you will conclude that the average home will be $300,000 before long, and then $400,000.

And with the North Texas Area growing by 1,000,000 people every 7-8 years, the Tea Party, unable to grasp big numbers as anything other than bad, will have a field day. It’s kind of sad when incendiary statements can be fabricated from nothing more than the size of numbers that may be difficult to place into perspective.

Most people would view that increasing value as good. But the Tea Party makes it look as bad as they possibly can, completely ignorant to natural (and desired) growth in value. I don’t hear anybody complaining that they bought a house at $50,000 some time ago, and now it can be sold for $150,000.

Conclusion

The Tea Party is capitalizing on fear and distorted numbers that make them lock into a “gotcha” mode to inflame their followers. They are doing a disservice to society. They take no responsibility for having any other value in life. Cloaked in self-righteous patriotic armor, they are misleading the public as they validate their purpose by misrepresenting the perspective that more responsible government officials know is simply wrong.

I’ll renew my offer to the Tea Party. Let’s sit down and deal with all the facts with the goal of telling the most accurate and complete story possible. You claim to be all about transparency while demonstrating an obvious opaqueness. I’m calling you out and hope others will do the same. LFM

The Tea Party Distortionists & An Invitation to Same

.Reading time 6 minutes.

It occurred to me the other day that the Tea Party carries no responsibility for providing services to citizens. The only thing they do is distort and inflame.

City Councils get elected to serve the wishes of citizens. They look around. They listen to citizens on phone calls, at the grocery store and at council meetings.

The Tea Party caters to whiners and moaners – most of which make use of city services but don’t want to pay for the services they use or are provided for their use.

Local governments evaluate needs and wants of the citizens plus they have to prioritize to fit with the means of the budget as resources are never sufficient to do everything. They make decisions based on their best knowledge and skills, always within a sense of fairness across generations, geography and social strata.

The Tea Party could care less about the citizens. They have no interest in listening unless it’s someone wanting to complain about paying for services. They only want to step in to play Whack-a-Mole.

It’s easy to destroy rather than to build. It’s easier to lob a grenade than it is to enter into an honest dialogue.

City Council and staffs make great efforts to tell the municipal story accurately and fairly.

The Tea Party consists of Quintessential Distortionists.

Let me provide an example:

Tea Party: “OMG, look at this wasteful spending. The General Fund has doubled in just the last 10 years!”

Local Government: “Yes, but the population has gone up 78% and Inflation has increased to make up 20% of that change. The 2% difference is mostly due to

  • New or expanded programs requested by the citizens and blessed by the council,
  •  Unfunded mandates.
  •  Big-ticket items such as public safety body cameras and similar things approved by the council.
  • Things that didn’t exist 10 years ago, such as investments in IT security to address ransomware attacks.

An Open Invitation to Tea Party Distortionists

Let’s make a deal. How about you and I sit down and analyze a city of your choice. I hope it is one I know little or nothing about so we will be on level ground or maybe I will be disadvantaged.

We will be civil and look only at the facts. You will allow me to analyze historical data through the adopted FY 2020 year budget. We will use audited financial data from FY 2018 backward.

We will both discover, at the same time, the number of employees, the property tax revenues and the total General Fund expenditures that have been when adjusted for population and inflation.

If we cannot tell from public documents, we will then ask city management about any anomalies or jumps or drops to explain what may appear to be deviations from trends. For instance, if there has been the opening of a fire station or recreation center during the study period, we will have an answer to better understand the data.

In addition, and in the same spirit, we will ask the city officials to tell us how growth over a decade came about? How did programs get added or expanded? Who asked for them to be included in the budget, and why did the elected official say yes?

Were any of the budget additions in the past decade due to unfunded mandates? Do you know what those are and how they were imposed on local governments?

Then I will ask you to tell me what part of the budget growth you find wasteful or not of your liking. What part of the city services would you cut? It is unfair for you to blob me or the city with no more than a judgment on the dollar increase over a period of time. We can’t easily respond to blobs. Help us by specifically pointing to the underlying element(s) of your complaint.

Do you attend council meetings, and especially workshops, to learn about the evolution of city services? Tell me how you gain insights that enable you to make statements or draw conclusions about budget growth. That sounds like a critical statement, and I don’t mean for it to be so. I’m simply wanting to understand how you evaluate what a city needs or wants and how you arrive at findings and conclusions.

That is, if you will agree to enter into a dialogue with me so that we can arrive at a reasonable position.

BTW, do you even live in the city for which you are criticizing or making a judgement?

LFM

 

Stop Me If You’ve Heard This

.Reading time 2 minutes.

The Governor, Lt Governor and House Speaker have had a change of heart. They met for a long prayer meeting. It was unclear who initiated the meeting. They came away feeling remorseful about the limitations they imposed on local governments.

In a sense of fairness, they announced their main legislative priorities for the next session:

  • They will cap the basis upon which state severance taxes on oil are computed. They will “rollback” with a cap of only $30 per barrel.
  • They will eliminate the state’s sales taxes on boats and motor vehicles.
  • They will cap their own salaries to 2010 levels with increases capped at 1/10 of the CPI.
  • They will forbid the use of state airplanes with travel limited to commercial coach only.
  • The Governor will only have one security guard, saying public safety is no longer a priority for him.
  • The Governor’s mansion will be sold; however, a small stipend for an apartment will be allowed.
  • The Trio will apologize to the City of Austin for everything bad ever said about the City. Unprecedented cooperation will be the order of the day.
  • The Trio pledges to cover previously unfunded mandates going back for at least 10 years, and will forbid same in the future.
  • All future state congressional hearings will be conducted by a panel of fair judges who will be required by law to listen to the testimony of local officials, professionally evaluated and presented to the Legislature.
  • State incentive money for companies already coming to Texas will be removed from the state budget and given to existing companies that have been productive and faithful contributors in the past.

The announcement of these new sentiments will be at a meeting hosted by the Trio in conjunction with a goodwill gesture embracing the Texas Municipal League and singing kumbaya. The theme will be “Local Government Appreciation Day – We Want To Be Responsible Like You.” LFM

The Whack-a-Mole Citizen

.Reading time 2 minutes.

Imagine a Whack-a-Mole game with the sides removed so you can see the innards. Oh, I know the connotation of a mole, but hang with me for a minute, please.

This is the image I get when I read or see yet another story of the right and self-righteous folks appearing before the City Councils with only one mission in life: to not pay.

The Whackers don’t really have any interest in looking at the workings of government. It would be completely against their nature to listen to citizen requests for services. They don’t have the guts to be there to shout down an elderly citizen asking for their sidewalks to be fixed. They could care less about the wishes of the youth sports representatives wanting more ballfields and for them to be maintained properly.

Nope! Not in their DNA. What they want to do is stand above the responsibilities of governance and simply take the mallet to crack the noggins of the elected body and staff wanting to deal with the most basic of questions. How are we going to pay for all the things our citizens want?

Do you think these things come free? Answer: Whack!

Are you listening to what I am asking? Whack!

Do you have any sense of fairness about you? Whack! Whack!

Would you consider sitting on this side of our jobs and … Whack! Whack!

Are you a robot? Whack!

Have you ever been responsible for running any kind of business? Whack!

Is it your plan to do anything other than wield a mallet? Whack!

Have you ever asked the city to fix a problem?

Have you ever needed the police, fire or EMS?

Do you children participate in any of our recreation programs?

You’re being awfully silent. Are you reconsidering your position? Whack! Whack!

I see.

LFM

 

Putting Opioids in Perspective

.Reading time 6 minutes.

It is imperative that you read the recent story published by the Washington Post. Actually, it is just one of a dozen stories I’ve read in a period of a few weeks. Therefore, I know that opioid abuse is rapidly moving to the forefront as it should. But I’m really burdened by this story. Why? Because of a number. The metric is 5,432,109,644.

What’s that mean? In our society, we see big numbers all the time. In fact, I’m convinced that we don’t grasp the magnitude of the difference between millions and billions any longer. And in many cases we have become numb to what trillions translate to.

There were 5,432,109,644 opioid pills sold between 2006 and 2012. Wow! That’s a big number for the U.S., right? No, no, no! That’s in Texas alone!

It is interesting that the Washington Post had to sue the Drug & Enforcement Agency (DEA) to get the data. And there is still another lawsuit to get more recent data. That’s simply amazing.

Tell Me More

These ugly Texas numbers totaled 602,064,872 for 2006. They climbed to 870,722,919 in 2012 for a compounded annual rate of 6.34%, about 3x the population growth.

Whenever you want numbers to look big, you add up several years. When you want them to look small, you divide by a big denominator. Okay, let’s do that. This billion-pill number equals about 53.75 pills per year for every Texan 18 years and older. Let that sink in for a minute. Do you consider that small?

Gee, Lewis, I’m sure glad you aren’t going to put the spotlight on individual cities!

Oh, but I am. It’s in the database. By city and even right down to the pharmacy or doc buying them from the suppliers.

I lied. I’m not going to show you. Why? Because you will look to see if you are better than average and gleam to know other cities are worse. Or else you will try to make up excuses or even find flaws in the data interpretation. I’ve already done that. Many cities don’t have pharmacies in their towns, making them go to an adjacent city. Interestingly, many of the pills go to veterinarians.

As you can guess, the total number of pills by city is somewhat correlated to the population. But the pills per capita for those over 18 does vary significantly. You will be gravely alarmed by some of the high numbers.

You are welcome to download the database. It’s got 12,108,468 records just for Texas. It won’t fit into Excel. Your IT folks can help you get it downloaded and summarized.

Example: My City

I live in McKinney. The total opioid pills purchased from 2006-2012 were 28,711,325! I almost choked when I saw that number. We are below average on a per capita basis, but that’s nothing we can really brag about. I don’t see a city in Texas that has any boasting rights. Rather, we have everything to fear about the threatening stories embedded in these numbers. We could talk to our school officials, hospitals, social services, police and EMS departments to discover exactly how 28.7 million opioid pills in McKinney translated into headaches, heartaches and costs.

What Are Today’s Counts?

Now, you’re getting my concern. If Texas accounts for 5.4 billion opioid pills in 2006-2012, what do those numbers look like for 2013-now? I have a guess based on the past trends plus population growth, but enough with the numbers. If 5.4 billion won’t get your attention, then you will also be numb when (not if) we go beyond double-digit billions.

Hmmm! Is that why the DEA doesn’t want to release more recent data?

Recommendation

There seems to be plenty of talk, talk, talk. And fortunately, the situation is so deeply into the critical stage that “epidemic” won’t capture the scale. It’s a pandemic. I’m guessing opioids have touched everybody reading this blog. They scare me to death.

How many of your employees are struggling with opioid addiction? Find out! Offer an employee assistance program.

Are there other implications? A prominent Texas City Manager got involved in taking a $25,000 land advisory fee years ago that ended his municipal career. Why did he do this? The answer was he needed to help his brother who had gotten addicted to opioids.

For every story I might have, I bet you have 5-10 or more. Strained relationships. Loss of productivity. Life-threatening situations. They are all around us. Let’s act now. LFM