Thyroid difficulties . . . and the U.S. government

I first wrote the majority of this post last October, but abandoned it when I felt it wasn't quite ready for publication.

Following my post about my encounter with the naturopath, however, I thought I should provide this as a kind of "background"--and, perhaps, as a wake-up call to those who are unaware of the issues I describe, and, finally, perhaps, as useful information for someone who is struggling with thyroid issues.
*******
---The following text was written in October 2009---
I had my thyroid destroyed back in 1984 as a result of a hyper-hyper case of Grave's Disease. --The lab that did the tests said they had never seen thyroxine levels as high as mine; they were "off the charts."

So my doctor gave me the radioactive isotope Iodine-131 to destroy my thyroid gland . . . and a few months later I had none.

I have been taking thyroxin/thyroxine tablets ever since. For some time, now, I've been taking the "natural" stuff sold under the Armour^® brand name by a company named Forest Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals (what, in just the last few days, I found out are desiccated and pulverized pig thyroid glands formed into pills). Most of the time, however, I've been taking synthesized thyroxine sold as generic levothryroxine or a branded product like Synthroid^®.

What's the difference between the two? I mean, physiologically . . . for the person like me who is ingesting the stuff?

I will confess that, for me, I haven't really been able to tell the difference. But then, I haven't been all that attentive to my physical condition until the last couple of years.

For many people, however, the difference between the two concoctions is dramatic, though the majority of doctors seem to believe the difference is all in hypothyroid sufferers' heads.

Happily, only one of my doctors has actively opposed my use of the Armour^® tablets. But despite his opposition, I've been able to use the Armour^® product for the past seven years or so.

This last year, however, I started bumping into supply difficulties. Back in January I was told the pharmacy didn't have 120 mg tablets (the daily dose I needed at the time). . . . Happily, they "simply" gave me the equivalent in the form of two 60 mg tablets per day. No big deal.

Last time I refilled, in late May, I still had almost a month's worth of pills left when I got a three-month supply of 60 mg tablets from our insurer's mail order pharmacy. . . . Then, only a few days after I got my three-month supply, I was told I should reduce my dose to only 90 mg--1½ tablets--a day. So in mid-October, I was just coming to the end of my supply.

Meanwhile, in mid-October I had another blood test to see how my thyroxine levels are.

My doctor wanted to run with the "standard" TSH-only (thyroid stimulating hormone-only) test. I said I believed we really needed the T4 and T3 levels measured as well. (Since then I have found some interesting data on the need for all three tests.)

TSH measures what your body "thinks" it needs in the way of thyroxine. T4 and T3 measure actual thyroxine levels in the blood--and, based on tests I've been having done throughout this past year on the direction of my longevity and vitality doctor, I know that one or more of these numbers can be "out" of range while TSH is "in" range.

My doctor relented.

The tests came back: TSH and T4 levels both indicated a significant deficiency, but T3 was slightly out-of-range on the high end.

"How about bumping your dose back up?" my doctor asked.

"Sounds reasonable," I said. (I had gotten the sense, somehow, that my body was slowing down a bit.)

But what should we make of the T3? Why is that so high?

Is it that kind of anomalous/strange number that got Armour's thyroxine in trouble, here, in the last year [so that it is unavailable for purchase]?

I still have a few weeks' worth of Armour left if I take it at 120 mg/day.

Meanwhile, I asked, "Is there any 'natural' thyroxine that can/will replace Armour while they are out of production?"

I thanked him for any help he could provide.

He replied:

1. I've been in touch with my pharmacologist. She states that since Armour is an animal product, the amount of T3 and T4 will vary from batch to batch which might explain the high T3 and low T4. Synthetic products like synthroid are more consistently dosed.

2. I don't think Kaiser has any of the other brands of the natural thyroid of any kind so we might have to get you to get it elsewhere during the shortage.

Somehow, I had this feeling the pharmacologist was misinformed. I can't imagine Armour/Forest Pharmaceuticals has been able to get away with inconsistent product quality for all these years.

So I did a little research. And then some more. And then a lot more.

I'm astonished at what I have found.

• First--not terribly astonishing, but worth noting: The pharmacist really was "blowing smoke." Armour Natural Thyroid is carefully controlled for potency and purity:
  

  The amount of thyroid hormone present in the thyroid gland may vary from animal to animal. To ensure that Armour Thyroid tablets are consistently potent from tablet to tablet and lot to lot, analytical tests are performed on the thyroid powder (raw material) and on the actual tablets (finished product) to measure actual T4 and T3 activity.
  
  Different lots of thyroid powder are mixed together and analyzed to achieve the desired ratio of T4 to T3 in each lot of tablets. This method ensures that each strength of Armour Thyroid will be consistent with the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) official standards and specifications for desiccated thyroid lot-to-lot consistency. The ratio of T4 to T3 equals 4.22:1 (4.22 parts of T4 to one part of T3).

• Despite these statements by the manufacturer, you can still read claims such as this:
  

  Armour Thyroid was the only treatment for hypothyroidism for about 50 years, but it was found that the amounts of T3 and T4 varied greatly from batch to batch. Eventually, synthetic T4 (Synthroid) was being produced and widely used because it did not have similar problems of standardization in common with the naturally derived Armour Thyroid.

  And even stranger and more inaccurate information from the American Thyroid Association.
  
  But, as Mary Shomom notes in the About.com Guide to Thyroid Disease, there may be good reasons for this kind of disinformation "from the top." Just follow the money--from Abbott Laboratories, maker of Synthroid, to the American Thyroid Association, for example. [Look toward the bottom of this article for the evidence.] --Or how about the payments from all the synthetic hormone manufacturers to the FDA in order to get their products approved in the early 2000s after virtually all of them were found to show "significant stability and potency problems"?
   
• Armour REFORMULATED its thyroid product in the spring of 2009--changing its binders and excipients . . . and causing a bunch of problems for many patients.
   
• Whether Armour thyroid is efficacious or not, it turns out there really is no source of natural thyroid in the United States as of this moment. And, it appears, the FDA may have actually outlawed--or may be in the process of outlawing--the manufacture of this product in the United States, a product that has been on the market and helping people like me for more than 100 years.
  
  The more I have read, the more disturbed I have become at this turn of events.
   
• Despite the shortage here in the United States,
  

  Canada has a generic natural desiccated thyroid drug, referred to as 'Thyroid,' which is made by ERFA Drugs . . . [and s]ome of the foreign pharmacies that ship to the US may have some remaining stock of Nature-Throid, Westhroid, Armour Thyroid, or foreign brands of natural desiccated thyroid like Thyroid-S.

  It took a while, but eventually I discovered the natural thyroid preparation made by Greater Pharma of Thailand: a product that goes by the brand name Thiroyd and available in wholesale quantities at a wonderful price. I also found a Canadian source with very good prices of the ERFA Thyroid and in a wide variety of specific dosages.
  
  I had my doctor write me a highly "generic" prescription for natural thyroid along the lines of the following advice from the http://is.gd/4hhvT article:
  

  During the shortages, ask your doctor to write your prescription for desiccated thyroid as broadly as possible. For example, a prescription for 'desiccated thyroid, 1 grain' can be filled with Armour, Nature-Throid, Biotech, or a generic. But if they write 'Armour Thyroid, 60 mg' for example, you won't be able to get 'Nature-Throid.'

• I should have learned these things years ago, but I just now discovered: the synthetic thyroxines normally prescribed by the medical profession supply only one form of thyroxine, "T4"--tetra­iodothyronine--commonly formulated as levothy­ro­xine sodium (a synthetic thyroxine molecule that contains four molecules of iodine bonded by sodium). Our bodies, however, use T4, T3 (triio­dothy­ro­nine--i.e., thyroxine with three iodine molecules), T2 (diiodothyronine--thyroxine with two iodines), T1 (monoiodothyronine), and something called cal­ci­to­nin, a hormone that participates in and/or regulates calcium loss from bone, calcium levels in the blood, and, possibly (proven in rats and monkeys; not yet demonstrated in humans), satiety.
  
  Not only do our bodies use all five of these hormones, when they are healthy, our bodies manufacture them. If--as happened to me via Iodine-133 therapy--your thyroid has been knocked completely out of commission, the only way you're going to get the T2, T1 and calcitonin is if you take natural thyroid. Yes, your body can convert some T4 to T3, but, I am given to understand, it cannot further break down the T3 to T2, T1, or calcitonin.
   
• An article published in the February 11, 1999 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (1999;340:424-429, 469-470) reports that treatment with thyroxine [T4--the commonly prescribed synthetic levothyroxine/Synthroid hormone] plus triiodothyronine [T3--rarely prescribed by American doctors, but available under the brand name Cytomel] improved the quality of life for most hypothyroid patients. Indeed, "Among 17 scores on tests of cognitive performance and assessments of mood, 6 were better or closer to normal after treatment with thyroxine plus triiodothyronine. Similarly, among 15 . . . scales used to indicate mood and physical status, the results for 10 were significantly better after treatment with thyroxine plus triiodothyronine [i.e., T4 plus T3]."
  
  Of course, that is a dispassionate medical/scientific statement.
  
  A more partisan description comes from the StopTheThyroidMadness website:
  

  [I]n nearly ALL patients on T4 meds, the T4 does NOT convert into an adequate amount of T3, leaving you with symptoms that neither you OR your uninformed doctor realize are related to inadequate treatment—poor stamina compared to others, chronic low grade depression, thinning hair or outer eyebrows, feeling cold when others are warm, cholesterol problems, aches and pains, hard or small stools, easy weight gain, memory problems, foggy thinking, a diagnosis of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or Fibromyalgia, difficulty conceiving . . . the list is long and pathetic. In other words, healthy thyroids are NOT meant to rely solely on T4-to-T3 conversion!

• Despite the fact that the medical profession recently tightened the definition of "normal TSH" to no more than 3.04 mU/l (they used to say "normal" went as high as 5 mU/l), a 1997 article in the British Medical Journal concluded, "Thyroid stimulating hormone concentrations above 2 mU/l are associated with an increased risk of hypothyroidism." --And again the author at StopTheThyroidMadness.com ups the ante:
  

  Around 1973, the TSH lab test was developed. Based on a sampling of several volunteers, a so-called “normal” range was established—.5 to 5.0 (recently lowered to 3.0). But volunteers with a history of family hypothyroid were NOT excluded, leaving us with a range that leans towards being hypothyroid! In fact, the TSH RARELY corresponds to how a patient feels [i.e. to actual hypothyroid symptoms]. There is a large majority of patients who have a “normal” TSH, even in the “one” area of the range, and have a myriad of hypo symptoms. There is a complete chapter on the TSH with more information in the Stop the Thyroid Madness book.

• Nature-Throid and Westhroid have served many people well. But the Armour shortage--together with a shortage of USP desiccated thyroid powder--has now created a shortage of these alternatives.

---End of October 2009 Text---
Yesterday, as I spoke with my naturopath, I was surprised to hear him tell me that the desiccated thyroid products are now readily available in the US.

I have to confess, the mess last year kind of "converted" me away from US suppliers. After a while, when you get hassled every step of the way here in the US, and you find that their price is somewhere around $1 per per day, the easy access and 11- or 12-cent/pill prices of overseas suppliers become pretty attractive. So I hadn't even looked at U.S. suppliers in almost a year (since last I worked on the article above).

One last note: I thought I should at least check on what I wrote last October before simply posting it.

I found the following update in About.com's Thyroid area:

A brief status update on "Current Drug Shortages" posted at the FDA website on March 2, 2010, states that, as of February 12, 2010:

"Forest reports manufacturing issues involving the raw material and RLC reports increased demand. FDA has not ordered Forest or RLC to remove these thyroid (desiccated) tablets from the market. This has been a long term shortage and any new information will be posted as soon as it becomes available. FDA approved levothyroxine products continue to be available from multiple manufacturers."

It's good to see that the FDA felt it necessary to include the brief statement that they have not ordered Forest or RLC to remove these thyroid (desiccated) tablets from the market. This very likely reflects a concern on the part of the FDA that it not be perceived as taking action that can endanger the many thyroid patients who rely on natural thyroid drugs, and may be a response to thousands of inquiries by telephone, email and fax the FDA received from thyroid patients and practitioners regarding concerns about various FDA actions regarding natural desiccated thyroid drugs.

The FDA's statement does not address a critical issue for thyroid patients however. According to the natural desiccated drug manufacturers, the FDA has indicated that they still consider natural desiccated thyroid drugs "unapproved," and intend to call for a new drug application process for natural desiccated thyroid drugs.

This leaves us with several important questions:

• When will the FDA requirement for new drug application for natural desiccated thyroid drugs be issued?
   
• Will the FDA call for the faster (and less costly) abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) or the lengthier, costlier complete new drug application (NDA) process?
   
• Will natural desiccated thyroid drugs be allowed to remain on the market during the ANDA/NDA process?

We still do not have answers to these questions, though manufacturers are still working behind the scenes with the FDA and with their own scientific experts, doing their best to ensure that natural desiccated thyroid drugs will continue to be available in sufficient supply to all patients who need them in the short term, and throughout a federally-mandated approvals process.

--Natural Desiccated Thyroid Drugs: An Update
March 2010 - - Where Are We Now?

Thorough doctor

I continue looking for help with my rheumatoid arthritis.

The other day, Sarita saw an article in The Week about studies that have shown "a link between certain pollutants, including PCBs and DDT, and conditions such as heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis." Moreover, "people who'd lost 22 pounds or more in a decade had the highest levels of pollutants in their bloodstreams."

Hmmmm. I did make an effort, beginning about three years ago, to cut back and lose some weight. Indeed, by the time the rheumatoid started hitting, I had lost a good 30 pounds or so. (The day I hit 199.5, I said to myself, "So far and no further!" I'm now bouncing somewhere between 159 and 163.)

And there is the matter that Jonelle has been going to an ND (Naturopathic Doctor) in hopes of "healing up" or "strengthening up" to be able safely to bring another baby to term.

In evaluating Jonelle's present condition, the doctor discovered she is high in a number of heavy metals . . . and has been giving her certain injections to help remove them from her system. (It's called chelation.)

After reading the article in The Week, Sarita said, "I want you to go to Jonelle's doctor."

So I called the office and set up an appointment, which I kept yesterday afternoon.

Prior to the appointment, however, the doctor sent me a patient profile/health history questionnaire the likes of which I have never seen. Eight pages of fine details.

I thought: "Man! If I didn't have at least a vague idea of why he asks all these questions [except the one where he wants my Social Security #!], I might think he was massively invading my privacy."

After we met, however, I was even more impressed by the thoroughness of his interview and exam. We spent two hours together . . . and I am scheduled to go back in a week for beginning diagnosis and health improvement plan.

*********

While I'm at it, let me share two things he said that struck me during our time together yesterday.

1. "Let me tell you about my philosophy of health. I believe we were created to be healthy. We are supposed to be healthy. We should be able to self-heal . . . if we could only get out of our own way. So when I meet a person who is unhealthy, I ask, 'What is this person doing--or not doing--that is getting in the way?"
   
   He said that he believes good health is based on four legs or foundations:
   
   
   1. What we ingest--i.e., what we eat or don't eat and what we drink or don't drink.
       
   2. Movement or exercise.
       
   3. Sleep--both quantity and quality. And,
       
   4. What he called Interconnectedness--which includes not only social relations, but spirituality. How are we doing in relation to others (which may include God or the spirit world).
       
   "Take that four-legged bench over there," he said. "With four legs under it, you and I could both sit on it and it will hold us comfortably. Because it has four strong legs.
   
   "If I remove a leg, it will still stand. And, in fact, if I am careful, I could even sit on it and it would hold me. But if I sit in the wrong place, I'm going to collapse it.
   
   "And if it has only two legs? It cannot stand any longer. It will collapse.
   
   "So I want to know how you are doing with your four foundation pillars."
    
2. We got onto the subject of thyroxin--a hormone I have had to take ever since I had my thyroid removed back in the mid-80s as a result of Grave's Disease.
   
   I mentioned to him some of the hassles I have faced as a result of seeking to use natural thyroxin (desiccated and processed bovine or porcine thyroid gland) rather than the synthetic variety. (Natural thyroxin contains the full complement of thyroxin variants--T4, T3, T2, T1 and calcitonin, at least, while the standard synthetic contains T4 only. There is an additional synthetic that includes T3. None for T2, T1, calcitonin, or any of the other minor fractions that may be present--and unstudied--in desiccated thyroid gland.)
   
   My regular doctor, for example, is convinced that synthetic is better. He really doesn't want me to be taking the natural stuff. (I had one doctor who refused to treat me if I refused to take the synthetic. My current doctor was unwilling to help me locate natural thyroxin when the FDA made it almost impossible legally to acquire it last year. Happily, though he is obviously critical of my approach, he lets me "do my thing," as it were.)
   
   My naturopath, yesterday, said he has found, in his practice, that 9 out of 10 patients do better on the natural thyroxin, but, for some reason, one out of 10 seems, actually, to do better on the synthetic. (Point--which I had not considered before: I ought not simply to assume natural is better.)
   
   But what really bothered me was what he had to say about why he believes most doctors prefer to prescribe synthetic hormones.
   
   He referenced John Abramson's Overdosed America as his source.
   
   He said that Abramson shows how the Journal of the American Medical Association has a practice (policy?) of printing only those scientific studies that are critical of the non-synthetic hormones or that show them in a bad light. "There are ten studies showing the efficacy of the natural hormones, but JAMA won't talk about them. But when it gets one study that is critical, it will publish that immediately."
   
   Supposing he had accurately recalled Abramson's data, and supposing Abramson is right, he concluded, "With that kind of input, you really can't criticize mainstream medical doctors for believing that natural hormones are ineffective."

And I wonder: Can't we?

My Passport to India

For some reason, I never thought about saying anything about this on my personal blog until just now.

But whether you are the parent of school-age children, or you have some other role in life that puts you in contact with children, or even if you might simply find this interesting . . . I'd like to invite you to check out My Passport to India, a "learning and giving adventure" cosponsored by Sonlight Curriculum, but put together and operated by Mission India.

Here's the original invitation letter that Sarita sent.

But you can skip that and simply jump to watch the wonderful (fun!) 1:30 introductory video. . . .

Henry Ford's $5 Day

Perhaps you, like me, have heard of Henry Ford's $5 day: how Ford more than doubled the pay of his employees--making them, by far, the highest-paid workers in America back in the 1910's.

Perhaps, too, you have heard--as I have--that he did this because he was so far-seeing and so wise that he understood that, by paying his workers such high wages, they would be in a position to purchase his cars: he was, according to this story, almost some kind of utopian.

Today I read an article that explains Ford's thinking in a way that makes a lot more sense to me.

In essence, his wage increase may have helped his workers to afford the purchase of Ford motor cars. But that benefit was secondary. The primary purpose of the wage increases was for more mundane and businesslike.

In 1913, Ford had an employee turnover rate of 380%, which required hiring 52,000 workers annually to maintain a work force of 13,600. In addition to the cost of replacing workers, productivity suffered from a 10% absentee rate, and the workers who showed up were inexperienced and commonly shirked as much as they worked.

Higher wages remedied these problems. Anxious prospects lined up in hopes of being hired by Ford, who employed only those whose personal habits indicated they would be dependable workers as determined through investigations, including home visits, by his personnel department. Ford paid for dependability, and he got it.

In 1915, Ford's turnover rate fell to 16% as productivity soared. He reduced the Model T's price by 10% each year from 1914 to 1916, and his annual profit increased to $60 million from $30 million. Ford was quoted as saying that more than doubling wages "was one of the finest cost-cutting moves we ever made."

Read that last sentence again: Doubling wages was one of the finest cost-cutting moves Ford ever made!

Now, that doesn't mean the same kind of move would yield similar results today. But at least at that time and in those circumstances, the high wages yielded dramatic cost-cutting benefits because they generated dramatic improvements in efficiency and consistency within Ford's labor force.

Having made this key legend-breaking observation, the author of the article I have quoted goes on to make some trenchant observations about America's economy today . . . and about government economic policies. They author says that the lessons we have been taught about Ford's pay raise--that Ford was trying to increase workers' income so that they would be in a position to purchase more--is exactly backwards. But that backwards lesson is what our federal government has used to justify its economic stimulus policy decisions from the 1930s till today.

The prevailing view in the 1930s was that increasing wages . . . would increase purchasing power . . . , and therefore demand.

This view was the justification for polices that raised hourly wages, . . . strengthen[ed] labor unions, shorten[ed] workweeks, . . . restrict[ed] pay cuts, and raised prices by destroying agricultural products and reducing competition.

Unfortunately, the . . . political approach to increasing purchasing power was to reduce production, while Ford's approach was to increase production. The political approach failed because any policy that reduces the production of goods and services that people want to purchase necessarily reduces purchasing power.

This is just as true today as it was in the 1930s. Yet, almost without exception, the Obama administration's hope for economic recovery relies on the demand-side fantasy that purchasing power can be increased with policies that reduce supply by increasing production cost or destroying what has already been produced.

The "Cash for Clunkers" program required the destruction of perfectly good cars. Companies bankrupted by high production costs were bailed out with taxes on the profits of companies that kept production costs under control.

The recently passed health care legislation is poised to increase the cost of doing business in ways that are complex and uncertain. Firms are threatened with proposed legislation that would increase the cost and reduce the productivity of workers by eliminating secret ballots in union elections.

All these policies, and more, are being justified by the Obama administration, at least in part, as a way of increasing purchasing power and generating jobs.

But they are retarding the market adjustments needed to lower production costs and expand the supply of goods . . . [on] which increases in real purchasing power and real wages depend.

A distant butterfly and a subtle quake . . .

From last week's The Week.

Executive editor Francis Wilkinson wrote two brief paragraphs in which he described a cross-street relationship he developed with a female jogger on the way to work each morning over the course of a year or more.

Though we never spoke, I used to see her regularly at the start of my morning commute. Middle-aged, perhaps a few years older than me, she jogged north, against traffic. . . . Her stride was easy, with a kind of singsong quality about it, and as I walked south, on the opposite sidewalk, I would wave and smile. She routinely responded--cheeks blossoming, eyes twinkling, teeth smiling--with a sunniness that could take the chill out of the air. She was a walking--jogging--affirmation of the human race.

Then Wilkinson's schedule changed. He no longer saw her . . . until a couple of weeks ago when, once more, he was walking south while she ran north.

I saw her again. . . . She had a determined, almost grim, air about her, and her facial muscles appeared rigid. The graceful singsong was gone, replaced by a mechanistic, utilitarian motion. Tension seemed to course through her limbs. I lifted my hand to wave, but her head was fixed straight ahead; she didn’t notice. I wondered if a distant butterfly had flapped its wings, sending tremors through the life of this stranger, changing her forever. All I could do was stand and watch as the ground beneath me registered a subtle quake.

--Any distant butterflies affecting your life?

Answering a question

I was reading in Luke 13 this morning and was struck by how Jesus answered--or did he fail to answer?--a direct question. Before we get to the question, I need to give you the immediately preceding segment. I think it provides context for the question. After we've digested the context and the question, then I'd like to remark on the answer:

He said . . . , "What is the kingdom of God like? And to what shall I compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his garden, and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its branches."
And again he said, "To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? 21 It is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, until it was all leavened."

He went on his way through towns and villages, teaching and journeying toward Jerusalem. And someone said to him, "Lord, will those who are saved be few?"

--Luke 13:18-23a, ESV

In context, I think the question makes sense. The Jews had always been taught that they were a special people, set apart by God from everyone else. They were few. The nations were many. So what was this that Jesus was talking about that the kingdom of God would become a tree in which all the birds of the air might make their nests, or a kind of leavening that could leaven a batch of bread so large that it could make a small modern commercial bakery proud.

"So how many are really going to be saved?" someone asks. "Is it many . . . or few?

And then Jesus answers:

And he said to them, "Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, 'Lord, open to us,' then he will answer you, 'I do not know where you come from.' Then you will begin to say, 'We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.' But he will say, 'I tell you, I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you workers of evil!' In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out. And people will come from east and west, and from north and south, and recline at table in the kingdom of God. And behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last."

--Luke 13:23b-30, ESV

What struck me: Jesus doesn't answer the question directly. In some ways, he doesn't answer it at all.

However, he urges his hearers to pay attention to the primary point: "Don't worry about how many, in general. Look to yourself! What are you doing? Where are you going? How are you getting there?"

The impact of a caring teacher . . .

I glanced at the October issue of Reader's Digest that just came to our house and happened across an article that moved me very deeply. In Reader's Digest the article is titled My Mother's Gift. In the Washington Post, from which it comes, it is titled Talented and Gifted: In one year, she taught her students to see the wonders of their talents -- then and forever. It's written by a regular columnist in the Washington Post, Steve Hendrix. Steve's article reminded me of my fifth grade teacher, Mr. Strange. Mr. Strange ran our classroom much the way Mrs. Hendrix ran her classroom for talented and gifted fourth- and fifth-graders about 10 years later.

A big difference: Mrs. Hendrix was teaching in a small town in South Georgia; Mr. Strange was teaching sons and daughters of PhD students and university professors at Stanford University in the late 60s. Escondido Elementary school in Stanford was designed for cutting-edge teaching to help these children of well-educated parents reach their full potential. Mrs. Hendrix's school, by contrast, was unprepared to help students even imagine that college was a worthy goal. But Mrs. Hendrix was. . . .

Before I recount a bit of her story, I should probably note that as I worked on helping to found Sonlight Curriculum 15 to 20 years ago, I often had my classmates at Escondido Elementary in mind. And Mr. Strange was in my mind as well. I wanted to be as creative as Mr. Strange was and to offer students the kind of wondrous opportunity to investigate the world that he gave us. And I wanted to make sure that every Peter Hogness, Philip Scowcroft, Bruce Jaffe, Mark Coombs . . . or John Holzmann--not to mention all our other classmates, male and female, most of whom I can only recall by first name at the moment . . . --I wanted to make sure that all our modern equivalent peers would receive an education that permitted them to develop to the fulness of their potential.

As I read the testimonies of Sonlight moms (see the "Sonlight Moments" in the right sidebar of this blog), I sense that maybe Sarita and I achieved my goal.

But back to the story of Mrs. Hendrix. . . .

The kids selected for [her] class were seven fifth-graders and 14 fourth-graders, all of whom were testing at three or four years above grade level.

"They were taking the tops out of any test we could give them," recalled Patsy Knotts, the [school district]'s curriculum director at the time. "They were bored stiff."

It was just as the gifted education movement was coming into vogue among progressive educators, and Knotts persuaded her superintendent to give it try. At first, not all parents were enthusiastic about pulling their kids out of the regular classroom. One father told Knotts he didn't want his son labeled an egghead. But the kids themselves knew they were already marked -- by their fellow students. They were geeks decades before geeks ruled the economy, culture and eyewear design.

"We were all pretty odd by South Georgia standards," said Frank Lowrey, at that time a fourth-grader. "We didn't hunt or fish. We liked 'Star Trek.' It wasn't always comfortable in other classrooms. We didn't always fit in."

Suddenly, they found themselves in a room where reading wasn't mocked, where being creative, outlandish, even effete didn't risk a punch from a recess tough.

"It was a sanctuary," Christopher said. "Before that, I was hiding out. She looked us each in the eye and knew us as individuals."

During the first month of school, Mrs. Hendrix visited each of her new students at home. She wanted to meet their parents and brace them for the pell-mell year to follow. But mostly she wanted to give the students a chance to see her off that front-of-the-class pedestal.

Mrs. Kipp served cherry pie. While the grown-ups talked, Neill and his new teacher played a game of chess on the couch. At the end of the game and the visit, she looked steadily at Neill and said, "I can tell you're a very patient person."

"It was just a casual compliment," he said. "But I can still picture her saying it. Ever since that moment, I have thought of myself as a patient person." . . .

It was this kind of attention to detail and personal involvement with her students that set Mrs. Hendrix apart from all the other teachers . . . and that made her input in these children's lives memorable even today, 34 years later.

One of the first big class projects, Mrs. Hendrix announced, would be a play. They were going to stage Charles Dickens's "A Christmas Carol." Neill and a fifth-grader named Becky Thurman would direct. Everyone would work on the set. Mothers, of course, would sew the costumes.

The production encompassed almost all their subjects. Building scenery would reveal geometry. Decorating them was art. Decoding the dense English was reading. Dickens's portrayals of class and poverty were portals to social studies. . . .

Brad Ewing, then a fourth-grader, was the town crier in Scrooge's London. That was fine, but what he really got into was his second job, running the spotlight.

"I really loved electronics and taking things apart," Brad said, "and that was not something I had been allowed to do in school much."

Despite his interest in things electronic, Brad was no obvious prodigy. "Based on my grades and test scores, most guidance counselors would say anything but math or engineering."

But Mrs. Hendrix invited him to bring in some of his home-wired gizmos. She let Brad and Frank rig the class bulletin board with working lights. For a lesson in arithmetic, Brad assembled a kind of abacus out of colored blocks, astounding his teacher.

"She said, 'One day, I'm going to be able to say that I knew the person who invented these really cool things,'" Brad recalled. "I became kind of determined to make that come true."

His mother remembers it, too.

"I picked him up one day, and he said, 'I'm going to be an electrical engineer,'" June Ewing said. "He came home happy almost every day from that class. He had so much fun learning, and that has stayed with him."

For Cynthia Counts, it was the mock court.

Forgive me. I'd love to quote more. I'd love to point out how Mrs. Hendrix's use of Dickens' play is a perfect example of the kind of thing I know many masterful homeschoolers do. But I'm going to stop quoting the article at this point and let you read the original.

For the most moving parts, I particularly recommend Page 5 in the online version of the article.

Enjoy!

Back after the better part of a month away . . .

Two weeks in the western Mediterranean, visiting Lisbon, Portugal; Tangier, Morocco; Malaga, Spain (and the Alhambra); Ibeza, Spain; Alicante, Spain (and Seville); Barcelona, Spain; St. Tropez, France; Cannes, France (and a couple of perfumers in Grasse, France); Monte Carlo, Monaco; Portofino, Italy; and, finally, Livorno--and Pisa and Lucca--Italy!

Some wonderful memories.

Then a few days at home followed by a board meeting and a nine-day Family Fun Week (including burial of Gracie Lou's body).

And I'm rarin' to go.

Hopefully, I can take some time here or there to begin blogging again. Maybe I can share some of the highlights (including a few photos) from our Mediterranean trip and, even, from our Family Fun Week.

Meanwhile, I "just" wanted to say "hi" . . . and share a little piece of wonderment.

Take a look at this 30-photo essay of "Awesome College Labs."

Anything look interesting to you?

Becoming more and more sickened . . .

I like to know a bit about my "followers," so I clicked on Jenny's picture (at the moment, the second one in from the left on the top line in my "Followers" box on my blog). Something motivated me to click the link to the first blog she listed as having joined, Commandments of Men.

Yipes!

Subtitle: "Examining the dark, hyper-fundamentalist side of the Christian faith, including movements such as Patriarchy, Quiverfull, Courtship, Family Integrated Churches, Christian Homeschooling, the Religious Right, and many more." Written by "a guy following Christ, intent on knowing His truth alone, dealing with my own wounds and scars from hyper-fundamentalism - having lost my bride on the threshold of our wedding ceremony to a Patriocentric, fundamentalist family, and never being allowed to see her or speak freely to her again."

"What!?!?!!!"

I'm astonished by the guy's controlled and astonishingly mature response to unspeakable . . . --yes, let's call it what it is--abuse.

I'd like to call your attention to a remarkable summary of his story (via commentary on someone else's story of similar abuse) in Between a Rock and a Heart Place.

But check out, too,

• The Patriarchal/Authoritarian Dictionary
   
• Multi-Level Mayhem

. . . and whatever other posts strike your fancy. The author is correct, I'm afraid, when he points to at least a portion of the Christian homeschool movement as encouraging the problem.

Are you familiar with this kind of behavior? Have some insights into how to help victims (including moms and dads who have been sucked into this kind of ideology and behavior) to escape it?

Approval voting

Were coming up to primary election time here in Colorado and I am trying to learn about the candidates in "my" official party.

From what I'm told, this is the first year that "my" party is actually having a primary! And we get to vote in two races!

If you haven't guessed by now, yes, I am registered as something other than Democrat or Republican.

"Oh, no!"

How could I do that? I'm just "splitting" the vote, aren't I?

Well, no. I'm also attempting to express my personal convictions.

It fascinates me how distressing "third-party" really is both for those of us who are members as well as for people who are members of one of the two major parties. Dan Sallis, one of the Libertarian candidates in Colorado, has written an article about this issue titled Voting Libertarian is a Wasted Vote–Wrong! It's an interesting article. I don't like some of his language. (A warning for those who are easily offended.) But I think it makes a lot of sense: The candidates you vote for do NOT have to win for your vote to have an impact. When the numbers change, the major parties do take notice.

More interesting to me, however, than Sallis' article is one written by his opponent, Jaimes Brown: Libertarian Gubernatorial Candidate Comments on Tancredo's Entry in the Race.

In case you're not familiar with the name, Tom Tancredo was a five-time US Congressman from Colorado any one time Republican presidential candidate (2008). He made a name for himself a few years ago through his strong and outspoken positions with respect to immigration into the United States.

Brown comments:

As a Libertarian candidate for governor in Colorado, I have watched with amusement and wonder at the hand wringing that Republicans have gone through over the past two weeks with the entry of Tom Tancredo in the governor's race.

Republicans have come out of the woodwork to condemn Tancredo for "splitting the vote", being a "spoiler" or "wasting your vote". As a Libertarian, we are typically painted with those descriptions, whether it is the perceived taking of votes from Republicans or Democrats.

And . . . ?

Brown suggests a solution I have never heard of before. I am intrigued.

Approval voting allows you to vote for multiple candidates. The candidate with the most votes wins. Pretty simple. This method allows you to vote for your favorite candidate, but also vote for the other "lesser of the evils" if you think that you could prevent the worst candidates from winning.

The whole issue of Tancredo in this race would be a moot point for the Republicans, with approval voting. Plurality voting splits the vote of similar ideologies. Approval voting would encourage the nearly 50% of eligible voters who don't bother voting because the two parties do not represent them.

Can something like this work?

A while, here is what Americans for Approval Voting has to say on the subject:

Approval Voting is similar to the plurality system that is generally used in America today except for one twist: Instead of voting for just one candidate per office, Approval Voting allows you the option of voting for any number of candidates for a given office. The candidate who collects the most votes wins.

Approval Voting in effect allows you to vote up or down on every candidate in every race. The election results are therefore most easily expressed as an "Approval Rating" for each candidate.

Approval Voting in public elections has a long history going back to 12th century Venice. Its use has been growing in recent years. Several private member associations have used Approval Voting to elect officers for over 15 years and are pleased with the system. A form of Approval Voting was also used in the Security Council of the United Nations in 1996 to narrow the list of potential candidates for Secretary General.

Approval Voting has been used for municipal ballot propositions in the United States as well as for internal elections of state political parties in Pennsylvania.

Approval Voting is overwhelmingly supported by mathematicians, political scientists and other specialists in the area of elections. While no system is perfect, Approval Voting is the only easy-to-use and simple-to-explain alternative system that can be used with existing election equipment. Fortunately it has marvelous properties that will dramatically improve elections in the United States.

Check out Americans for Approval Voting and Citizens for Approval Voting for more information.

Taking a survey about world leaders during WWII gets me thinking . . .

An acquaintance of mine wrote on Friday:

I have a theory about Americans' opinions about dictators in other countries, so I'll be using a series of online surveys to see if my hunch is correct. If you think you or your children might find my first survey interesting, please take a look at it. I'm asking few demographic questions so as to not cause any privacy concerns. Thanks.

I took it. I think it may have required about 10 minutes of my time, all told.

The majority of the questions were of the form, "Who was worse, _________ or ________?"

For most of the pairs I had no difficulties answering. But there were a number that caused me to scratch my head.

For example, "Who was worse: Hirohito or Hitler?"

I got thinking:

• How much of my opinion is based on familiarity? (I know of both men; I am at least somewhat familiar with both men; but am I biased toward viewing Hitler as "worse" because his atrocities impacted "my people" while Hirohito's atrocities impacted "others" [particularly the Chinese and Koreans--of which atrocities I am aware but with which I am rather less familiar], and, therefore, am I more likely to judge Hitler more harshly than I will Hirohito?)

And then this thought:

• How much of my (or anyone's) perception is a result of the particular leader's mere opportunity to do evil (he happened to rule a large and/or already powerful country) and how much was the result of some kind of megalomaniacal internal commitment to wicked behavior? . . .
   
• And so forth.

Take the survey yourself and tell me what you think.

By the way, the author of the survey is a woman in her 20s. I asked her if she would provide a little explanation of what she is hoping to do with the survey, what she hopes to achieve . . . as well as explain how participants might hear of her survey's results. Here is her response.

Think the BP oil spill is a major environmental disaster? Perhaps it's time for us to look at our food!

What with three children and several grandchildren who exhibit major reactions to various foods (but particularly wheat); and what with my rheumatoid arthritis diagnosed only just over a year ago--and rather quickly identified as strongly influenced by the ingestion of wheat (not to mention other foods); what with the discovery over this past year of just how difficult it is, in the modern world of processed foods, to acquire almost any food that has not been tainted or tampered with in some manner . . . : I have become more and more aware, especially this past year, of issues related to food and food production.

And with all of these thoughts fairly near the top of my mind, perhaps you can understand my fury at reading this story about Monsanto.

Be prepared to have your blood boil . . . and find your food buying habits slowly alter (as ours have) as you realize there really is something wrong about our modern food production system. . . .

How rich are you?

I was reading a thread on the Sonlight Curriculum forums yesterday about the demise of the middle class. I will confess, I was dismayed to read about how little some of these people are getting by on each year. But then I did a little research this morning using a tool Sarita brought to my attention earlier this week: The Global Rich List.

As the people who that site together explained in a recent blog post,

[T]he Global Rich List, launched in 2003, continues to surprise people with their unexpected financial ranking in the world - which makes them feel instantly better about their income, and in turn puts them in a much happier place to think about giving some of it to a good cause.

 Where do you stand? I think you'll be surprised!

Life . . . and death

I visited Amy and Phil this weekend. Somehow this post by Amy, which I just read a few minutes ago, a post that mentions my visit, seemed peculiarly appropriate to summarize my day.

My sister Miriam asked me this morning to copy about half of my posts about Gracie Lou for her. --There's something about death.

Then, this evening, we went over to Dave and Jonelle's house to celebrate Natalia's second birthday today. --There's something about life.

And then, there's Amy's post--a combination of both.

I guess, maybe, I'm feeling a bit nostalgic tonight.

Happy birthday wishes by classically trained musicians . . . offered to an esteemed mentor

From a birthday tribute concert for pianist Claude Frank at the Curtis Institute of Music: a surprise encore arranged by at least one of Frank's students.

A couple of notes:

1. You'll need to turn up the volume if you want to hear the "apology" at the beginning . . . then turn it down when the music begins at about 1:02.
   
2. Understand that this is presented at a formal classical music concert. Enjoy the music for what it is. You will soon recognize the joke. --Very creative. (By the way: I am told that all the great classical composers--Mozart, Bach, etc.--would play these kinds of musical jokes or games with one another on a regular basis.)

Enjoy!



Viewing on Facebook? "View Full Note," then click on "View Original Post" to see the video.

Honoring moms and dads . . .

Our son Luke and his wife Brittany stopped by last night. While they were here, Luke said we needed to watch a couple of videos. After watching them, I agree with him: they ought to brighten your day..

First, for moms: A heartfelt, highly melodic, and beautifully harmonized ode by Stanford University student Adam Cole to his mother for the amazing biological heritage she has given him. [As you listen, you may wish you had studied your high school (or was it college?) biology a bit more seriously!]



And then . . . an over-the-top rap video about suburban "Dad Life."

"Get down" [or whatever the modern equivalent phrase may be]!



Feel like adding a little more brightness to your day?

Check out "Jessica's Daily Affirmation Song" . . . as sung by Adam Cole and his bluegrass band Nimbleweed . . .



. . . and, then, maybe, view Jessica's original affirmation from which the song was inspired:



For more Nimbleweed bluegrass music videos, check out Adam's YouTube webpage. Best songs in my opinion?

• Wagon Wheel fiddle solo
   
• Okinawa (one mild expletive buried in the middle)
   
• I Believe in a Thing Called Love

What wonderful feel-good music!

Octopuses, octopi, octopodes . . .

I ran into this video on the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary website as I was looking for the appropriate word for a geographical equivalent of anachronism.

[While we're on the subject: An event or object that is out of its appropriate time context is called an anachronism. For example, if a novelist were to suggest that "George had just begun flying his Piper Cub from St. Louis, Missouri, to Berkeley, California, on the morning of April 23, 1823 . . ."--that would be an anachronism. So what is the appropriate word to describe an event or object placed in the wrong geographical context? For example, say, a flea on the tail of a polar bear that is living above the Arctic Circle.--What would you call that? Answer: an anatopism. --For what it's worth. (My first guess was, perhaps, an anageographism or an anageologism. Too bad: I guessed wrong!]

Anyway. I saw this 1:58 video over on the side of the Merriam-Webster web page and thought it was hilarious. Enjoy!

What is the appropriate plural of "octopus"?

By the way, there are a bunch more videos like this on the "Ask the Editor" video archives page on the Merriam-Webster website.

Images from the opposite ends of life

I've never noticed this before, probably because I don't normally read these two sections of scripture in quite such a juxtaposition. But last year, in reading the whole Bible in one year, I felt the mid-section moved so slowly, I re-sequenced things and wound up reading Ecclesiastes 12 and the first few chapters of Song of Songs one right after the other this morning.

I may also have been helped to see this because we watched 17 Again last night. I am a bit more attentive, this morning, to the passage of time and its impact upon one's life.

Ecclesiastes 12 describes old age in highly imagistic terms:

Remember your Creator
   in the days of your youth,
before the days of trouble come
   and the years approach when you will say,
   “I find no pleasure in them”—
before the sun and the light
   and the moon and the stars grow dark,
   and the clouds return after the rain;
when the keepers of the house tremble,
   and the strong men stoop,
   when the grinders cease because they are few,
   and those looking through the windows grow dim;
when the doors to the street are closed
   and the sound of grinding fades;
when men rise up at the sound of birds,
   but all their songs grow faint;
when men are afraid of heights
   and of dangers in the streets;
when the almond tree blossoms
   and the grasshopper drags himself along
   and desire no longer is stirred.
Then man goes to his eternal home
   and mourners go about the streets.

Remember him—before the silver cord is severed,
   or the golden bowl is broken;
before the pitcher is shattered at the spring,
   or the wheel broken at the well,
and the dust returns to the ground it came from,
   and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

--Ecclesiastes 12:1-8 (NIV)

And then, almost like a bookend, I read The Song of Solomon or Song of Songs Chapter 2:

Listen! My lover!
   Look! Here he comes,
leaping across the mountains,
   bounding over the hills.
My lover is like a gazelle or a young stag.
   Look! There he stands behind our wall,
gazing through the windows,
   peering through the lattice.
My lover spoke and said to me,
   “Arise, my darling,
   my beautiful one, and come with me.
See! The winter is past;
   the rains are over and gone.
Flowers appear on the earth;
   the season of singing has come,
the cooing of doves
   is heard in our land.
The fig tree forms its early fruit;
   the blossoming vines spread their fragrance.
Arise, come, my darling;
   my beautiful one, come with me.”

Not sure where I'm going with this. It just struck me how the language of these two passages is so similar, even though they obviously have to do with different ends of life.

I guess, while I'm at it, I should comment on another thought that popped through my mind as I "listened" to these two sections of scripture. I was reminded of a song I have heard on my favorite Pandora station: "Garden in My Room" by Merril Bainbridge.

There's a garden in my room
Would you like to take a look?
There are fascinating things you'll find there

And if you care to come inside
There is nothing I will hide
Come where there is sweet perfume
In the garden in my room

There's a garden in my room
Would you like to take a look?
Rest your body on my velvet roses

Once you've tasted my delights
Many days will turn to nights
There is nothing you won't do
For the garden in my room

Kind of scary lyrics, actually, aren't they? "There is nothing you won't do for the garden in my room"? Yow!

And that reminds me of a few other passages I read only a couple of weeks ago in the Book of Proverbs. Say, like Proverbs 5:

My son, pay attention to my wisdom,
   listen well to my words of insight,
that you may maintain discretion
   and your lips may preserve knowledge.
For the lips of an adulteress drip honey,
   and her speech is smoother than oil;
but in the end she is bitter as gall,
   sharp as a double-edged sword.
Her feet go down to death;
   her steps lead straight to the grave. . . .

Keep to a path far from her,
   do not go near the door of her house,
lest you give your best strength to others
   and your years to one who is cruel,
lest strangers feast on your wealth
   and your toil enrich another man's house.
At the end of your life you will groan,
   when your flesh and body are spent.
You will say, “How I hated discipline!
   How my heart spurned correction!
I would not obey my teachers
   or listen to my instructors.
I have come to the brink of utter ruin
   in the midst of the whole assembly.” . . .

Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress?
   Why embrace the bosom of another man's wife?
For a man's ways are in full view of the Lord,
   and he examines all his paths.
The evil deeds of a wicked man ensnare him;
   the cords of his sin hold him fast.
He will die for lack of discipline,
   led astray by his own great folly.

--Proverbs 5:1-5, 8-14, 20-23 (NIV)

Or Proverbs 7:

My son, keep my words
   and store up my commands within you. . . .
Say to wisdom, “You are my sister,”
   and call understanding your kinsman;
they will keep you from the adulteress,
   from the wayward wife with her seductive words.

At the window of my house
   I looked out through the lattice.
I saw among the simple, . . .
   a youth who lacked judgment.
He was going down the street near her corner,
   walking along in the direction of her house. . . .

Then out came a woman to meet him, . . .
She took hold of him and kissed him
   and with a brazen face she said:

“. . . I have covered my bed
   with colored linens from Egypt.
I have perfumed my bed
   with myrrh, aloes and cinnamon.
Come, let's drink deep of love till morning;
   let's enjoy ourselves with love!
My husband is not at home;
   he has gone on a long journey.
He took his purse filled with money
   and will not be home till full moon.”

With persuasive words she led him astray;
   she seduced him with her smooth talk.
All at once he followed her
   like an ox going to the slaughter,
like a deer stepping into a noose
   till an arrow pierces his liver,
like a bird darting into a snare,
   little knowing it will cost him his life.

Now then, my sons, listen to me; . . .
Do not let your heart turn to her ways
   or stray into her paths.
Many are the victims she has brought down;
   her slain are a mighty throng.
Her house is a highway to the grave,
   leading down to the chambers of death.

--Proverbs 7:1, 4-8, 10, 13, 16-27 (NIV)

Wisdom of the ages -- about money

I've been frustrated.

On the one hand, Sarita and I have been urged to make plans for what wealth we have accumulated so that it (the wealth) will go where we [think God might] want it to go. On the other hand, it seems as if ever since we received that counsel and began acting upon it, the funds we have put aside have been devastated by the stock market crash and the ongoing inability of even "the best" advisors to avoid handing us losses in today's investment climate.

I just received another reminder last night as our investment advisor sent us a bunch of performance statements and, once again, every account suffered losses this past month. . . .

So today I was reading in Proverbs and noticed something that had never caught my eye before:

Do not toil to acquire wealth;
     be discerning enough to desist. (Prov. 23:4)

I took that to be saying (in the context of so much else that the writers of the Proverbs say), "Work hard and long enough to meet your and your family's needs (cf, for example, Prov. 16:26), but don't try to pile up wealth. It's not worth the trouble.

What "the trouble" may entail includes strife and discord (see, for example, Prov. 15:16; 16:8, 19; 17:1; 19:1; 21:9 & 19; 25:24; etc.--all of which generally add up to, "Better to have little--and peace and quiet, than to have much accompanied with yelling and strife"), but "the trouble" may also entail "simple" loss and/or emptiness, or what Solomon called a "chasing after the wind" (ubiquitous in the Book of Ecclesiastes). In Proverbs 23, where I began this meditation, the author follows his admonition about desisting from the pursuit of wealth with this explanation:

Do not toil to acquire wealth;
     be discerning enough to desist.
[Because w]hen your eyes light on it, it is gone,
     for suddenly it sprouts wings,
     flying like an eagle toward heaven. (Prov. 23:4-5)

And all of this together, for some reason, is reminding me of Jesus' words of wisdom in Matthew 6:19-34 (NIV):

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. . . .

No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Safe driving

I received this from our insurance agent last night. I had never heard of this particular law before!

If a patrol car is pulled over to the side of the road with its lights flashing, you have to change to the next lane (away from the stopped vehicle) or slow down by 20 mph below the stated speed limit. Every state except New York, Hawaii, and Maryland, and the District of Columbia has a version of this law.

For more detail, see MoveoverAmerica.com and Snopes.