My first night in Bombay was also at Marine Drive, the beautiful and expensive golden seaside strip where every apartment is worth at least a crore even if it is unpainted, ramshackle and crumbling. If you sit with your back to the sea and your face to the road, you will see the most glamourous cars in India pass by. And if you wait until the city goes to sleep (and this will happen well past midnight), you will find an alarming abundance of bodies stretched out on the sidewalk of the road. You will find them stretched out in the apartment complexes that line that road, in front of the all the expensive cars that are parked inside, arising groggily when they hear a car start and interrupting their much needed rest so that the owner of a vehicle which costs over ten times what they are likely to earn in their entire lives may go out and get some ice-cream late at night without running them over. If you take an elevator up to one of the apartments - the ones which are worth over a crore - you will find that the corridor on every floor has people stretched out and asleep on it. In the morning all the sleeping bodies vanish (except perhaps for the occasional drunk) and Marine Drive is sunlight and humming again.

This is almost insignificant in comparison to other parts of Bombay. Parts where children peddle drugs and huge trafficking rings flourish. Gigantic slums and terrible living conditions.

The International Herald Tribune carries a description of the contrasts of Bombay which is definitely worth a read. An excerpt:

Step outside, and you see sedans reeking of new affluence. Sleeping inside are drivers, many of them asleep because they work 20-hour shifts, waking up at 6 a.m. to catch a train, taking the boss to and from work, then to his dinner, then to drinks, then dropping him home at 1 a.m. and taking a taxi back to the tenements.

On an August 8 interview with ABC News host Bob Woodruff, Sen. Edwards admitted to cheating on his wife of 30 years with a film maker working on his campaign, emphasizing that the affair took place while Elizabeth Edwards' cancer was in remission.

Edwards also denies being the father of 42-year old Rielle Hunter's baby girl, although he has not had a paternity test. Instead, Edwards campaign staffer Andrew Young, who is also married, said he is the father of the child.

Rumors of Edwards' affair surfaced last October when the National Enquirer published the story, just two-and-a-half months after the renewed their wedding vows. Until now, Edwards and his staff had denied the allegations. In the interview, Edwards said his loved ones have known about the affair since 2006.

Still, Edwards denies paying Hunter to keep the affair and the child secret.

As my time in the wonders of northern Ohio wanes, I wanted to make sure to highlight some exceptional local establishments in the Cleveland+ region, as the tourist bureau so deems. Though the "+" may symbolize Cleveland adding itself to other neighbor cities like Akron, Canton, and Youngstown, I like to think of it as the "+" next to a well-deserved "A," at least for effort, at the following places.

I've already expressed my love for Cleveland's trendy Tremont district, the one that houses Lolita, a restaurant whose staff now knows me, much to my embarrassment. Perhaps I've eaten their sumptuous burger one too many times. In effort to escape my comfort zone of comfort food, on a recent visit into the city that never sleeps until after the Browns game, we landed in Ohio City, yet another west-side neighborhood with restaurants to rival my Nabokovian standby. We chose Momocho, a hip Mexican joint with dangerously delicious margaritas and handmade guacamole.

I'm pretty sure Momocho means "Capable of eating 2 entire bags of chips and three bowls of guac" in Spanish, or at least that was my excuse for doing so. Exceptional flavors, like cucumber margaritas and goat cheese guac, not to mention fried grasshoppers, make it easy to forget that Lake Erie is in your backyard. Though I still think Lolita's entrees outmatch those at Momocho, I've been craving their crazy combinations ever since I returned.

Simply driving in and back from Ohio City reveals the full flavor of Cleveland as well. Though the street where Momocho rests is busy with diners and other rather bourgeois restaurants, blocks away sit abandoned houses, grocery stores locked up like Fort Knox, and rather unsavory signs for "Peep Shows." Riding these streets is a bit like going back about 3 decades, since none of the buildings have changed and the characters that walk past look like the stepped out of Times Square in 1973. I swear saw a child prostitute a la Jodie Foster in "Taxi Driver" wearing white bellbottoms and smoking a cigarette. The ride is more bizarre than alarming, as old fashioned saloons and barbershops whiz by, a living metaphor for the city's struggle to develop since its decline in the 1970's and '80s. Yet, with an impeccable pineapple margarita and some blue cheese guacamole resting in my stomach, I recognized that parts of the town had revived enough to support importing grasshoppers. Perhaps these are locally raised, free range grasshoppers, however; I had forgotten to ask.

Feeling a bit like a glutton for gentrification, we strolled further into Cleveland for a stop at another emerging neighborhood: Detroit Shoreway. I say it's "emerging" because I spotted a rainbow flag, a public theater, and an independent coffee shop. Bringing my disposable income, I saddled up to this aforementioned coffee joint, the Gypsy Bean.

The Gypsy Bean is part coffee bar, part bakery, part United Nations, as its internationally themed drinks and decor provide an opportunity to taste a geography bee's worth of worldly treats. This particular coffee shop bakery, so often simply a microwave or toaster at other establishments, is a true bakery easily spied behind the menus. Giant peanut butter cookies, oozing chunks of Jiffy, sat next to baklava and puffy muffins with almond toppings. I went for a "Skinny Londoner," a foamy latte with butter toffee syrup and rum. At $3.50, I could have even been paying in pounds and it wouldn't have been expensive. It certainly didn't taste skinny, though that could have been the cookie I wolfed down with my British treat.

Here, the signs of sprucing up abound, as a new movie theater will open soon across the street and one of Cleveland's best new restaurants, Luxe, is just down the block. Coming from Oberlin, we still pass abandoned factories one after the other, so it's clear that one new java joint slinging mochas can't make up for the post-industrial decline of an entire economy. It has managed to revive a city block, though I don't think demand will grow great enough for it to take over the nearby factory. For now, I'll just enjoy my cup in its shadows.

An open letter to the editor of the Toronto Star:

July 28th, 2008

Dear Editors,

In an eight part series of reports and opinion on crime and the prison system that began July 19th, the Star has done the Canadian public a great disservice. The Star's error, which approaches gross negligence, in publishing this report, stems from the misleading use of statistics as well as a faulty premise.

First the statistics - mentioned repeatedly in the report is the overall drop in crime rates since 1975. Actually violent crimes have increased from 572 per 100,000 in 1977 to 951 per 100,000 - almost double! Combined rates of violent and property crimes have decreased only slightly from 5,038 per 100,000 to 4,539 - about 10%. Further, what the Star does not report is that crime rates had already increased from 1950 to 1975. The Star assumes, incorrectly, that the 1975 rates were acceptable and represented a safe community. Far from it.

Instead of percentages, let's look at the real human impact: at the current combined crime rate for Toronto of 3,209 per 100,000, more than 80,000 Torontonians - men, women and children - will be the victims of crime this year! But the Star calls us "overly frightened". That is criminal. The Star's statistics do not reveal the sense that there is also an increasing number of unreported crimes, from a public that has given up on the system protecting them.  Similarly, the Star's focus on prison inmates and persons charged with crimes do not reflect the number of crimes committed by first offenders before they are apprehended by police.

The Star's major premise is that longer jail terms are no deterrent to crime. The people have news for the Star, incarceration is not meant to deter. It is the underpinning of justice, that is, punishment and penalty. People have the the right to a reasonable expectation of safety through the imprisonment of criminals. Our justice system guarantees this. The punishment of imprisonment removes the offender from society to a place where they can do no harm to the public for the term of the sentence. Longer sentences improve our safety absolutely. Even the limits in personal freedom imposed on criminals through parole are not meant to deter, but to protect the public from re-offenders.

The Star's statistics do not report why rehabilitation is failing in the federal prison system. Statistics will not reveal the answer to the longstanding question since 20th century prison reform began - Can offenders be rehabilitated in prison? How many of the billions in cost of federal prisons is spent on inneffective rehab programs? This doesn't mean you reduce incarceration rates - it means you change the method of rehabilitation. Perhaps move it out of the prison system entirely and make it the keystone of our early release parole programs. Forgiveness and reconciliation does not mean we abandon our rights to personal safety for our families.

If the Toronto Star, as it claims, were truly the voice of the public, they would seek information that would benefit victims of crime. A victim of child abuse, for example, is neither a taxpayer, nor a voter. They care not for your statistics.

Andy Coats
Toronto, On

Aug.8th. NOTE - Re. the Star's recent headline, "Anger Mounts in Girl's Death", how would the Star suggest the accused, if found guilty, should be punished? Katelynn Sampson's life and death is crying out for justice.

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted August 8, 2008.

Big business has prepared a war chest of at least $150 million to stop one of the most progressive pieces of economic legislation in decades.

There is nothing more terrifying to corporate America than the prospect of dealing with its workforce on an even playing field, and, along with allies on the Right, it's pulling out all the stops to keep that from happening. At stake is much more than the usual tax breaks, trade deals and relentless deregulation; corporations are gearing up for a fight to preserve a status quo in which the largest share of America's national income goes to profits and the smallest share to wages since the Great Depression -- in fact, since the government started tracking those figures.

There will be many heated legislative battles if 2008 shakes out with larger Congressional majorities for Democrats and an Obama White House -- fights over war and peace, energy policy, health care reform and immigration. But it may be a bill that many Americans have never heard of that sparks the most pitched battle Washington has seen since the Civil Rights Act. It's called the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) -- a measure that would go a long way toward guaranteeing working people the right to join a union if they so choose -- and it has the potential to reverse more than three decades of painful stagflation, with prices rising and paychecks flat, for America's middle class and working poor.

The Chamber of Commerce, D.C. lobbyists, firms that rely on cheap labor and a host of "astroturf" front groups are building a war chest that could reach hundreds of millions of dollars in an effort to build a firewall against EFCA and other efforts to put a check on corporate power and rebuild a declining middle class. A recent report on the front page of the Wall Street Journal about how Wal-Mart -- the nation's largest employer -- is "mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors" in an effort to discourage its workers from voting Democratic this fall generated quite a bit of controversy. According to a report in the National Journal that received less attention, "several business-backed groups ... (including) two fledgling coalitions fighting labor-supported legislation and the conservative political group Freedom's Watch are trying to raise $100 million for issue advocacy and get-out-the-vote efforts to benefit about 10 GOP Senate races."

It's the EFCA -- the idea that working people who want to join a union can -- that has corporate America quaking in its collective boots. The bill passed the House easily in 2007 -- by 56 votes -- and had majority support in the Senate. But it didn't reach the 60 votes required to kill a GOP-led filibuster, and that massive war chest being amassed by the corporate Right is, in part, an attempt to maintain a firewall of at least 41 anti-union senators -- mostly Republicans joined by a few corporatist Dems -- to kill the bill in the 2009 Congress. President Bush threatened to veto the legislation if it had passed in 2007, but this time around, they fear that a Democrat will be sitting in the White House. Obama was a co-sponsor of the 2007 legislation; McCain opposed it.

The prospect of a filibuster-proof majority that's sympathetic to the needs of ordinary working Americans, according to the National Journal, is making "business groups jittery." Polls show that the economy is Americans' number one concern going into this fall's election; fully 75 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, and these well-funded groups are intent on keeping it firmly on that track.

American Wages and the Law of Supply and Demand

At the heart of the bloody cage match that's likely to come is this: In economic terms, the wages of many -- probably most -- Americans represent a "market failure" of massive proportions. Even the most devout of free-marketeers -- economists like Alan Greenspan and the late Milton Friedman -- agree that it's appropriate and necessary for government to intervene in the case of those failures (they believe it's the only time that such "meddling" is appropriate). But the corporate Right, which claims to have an almost religious reverence for the power of "free" and functional markets, has gotten fat off of this particular market failure, and it's dead-set on continuing to game the system for its own enrichment.

About 1 in 4 Americans has at least a four-year college degree, and many of those degrees are even worth something in the labor market (sorry, art history majors). Others -- Derek Jeter, Bill Gates, a gifted artist or a writer who can turn a decent phrase -- have specialized skills that allow them to command an income that's as high as the market for their scarce talents will bear. There are also people with more common skills who have the scratch (and/or connections) and fortitude to establish their own businesses -- think George W. Bush or a really great mechanic who owns his or her own shop.

That leaves a lot of people (about 80 percent of working America) who are hourly workers -- "wage slaves" in the traditional sense. There's no doubt that their salaries are heavily influenced by the laws of supply and demand. We saw that clearly in the latter half of the 1990s, when, under Bill Clinton, the Fed allowed the economy to grow at a fast clip, unemployment dropped below 4 percent, and for a brief period, a three-decade spiral in inequality was reversed as wages grew for people in every income bracket.

But a common fallacy is that wages are determined by market forces. They're not, for a variety of reasons that require more explanation than space permits. I'll focus on two: what economists call "information asymmetries" and coercion. Both are anathema to a functional free market, and both exist today, in abundance, in the American workplace.

To understand these failures of the free market, one has to go back, briefly, to basic economic theory. In order for a free market transaction to work, both the buyer and the seller need to have a good grasp of what the product being sold -- in this case, people's sweat -- is worth elsewhere, who else is buying and selling, etc. In other words, they have to have more or less equal access to information. There can be no misrepresentation by either the buyer or the seller in a free market transaction. And both parties have to enter into the transaction freely, without being coerced; neither side can exercise power or undue influence over the other, whether implicitly or explicitly, through threats or other means.

Now let's look at how that theoretical construct plays out in the real world of the American workplace. When an individual worker negotiates a price for their time, effort and dedication with any business bigger than a mom-and-pop operation, there's quite a bit of explicit coercion (much of it in violation of our labor laws), which I'll get to shortly. But there's always an element of inherent coercion when an individual negotiates with a company alone, because of the power differential: a company that's shorthanded by one person will continue to function, while a person without a job is up a creek with no paddle, unable to put a roof over his or her head or food on the table.

The "information asymmetries" in such a negotiation are immense -- they're actually more like process asymmetries. Companies spend millions of dollars on human resource experts, consultants, labor lawyers, etc., and they know both the conditions of the market and the ins and outs of the labor laws in intimate detail. While working people with rarified skills are often members of trade associations or guilds, read trade journals and have a pretty good sense of what the market will bear, many low- and semi-skilled workers don't know their rights under the labor laws, don't know how to assert them and (rightfully) fear reprisals when they do. They often have little knowledge of the financial health -- or illness, as the case may be -- of the company to which they're applying for a job, how profitable it is, how much similar workers in other regions or firms earn, etc.

What Would a Free Market Transaction Look Like?

For the majority of Americans who lack scarce talents or a high level of education, negotiating a price for one's time with a firm on an individual basis is anything but a free market transaction. And that's where collective bargaining comes in -- when workers bargain as a group, they do so on a level playing field with employers, and the resulting wages (and benefits) are as high as the market can bear, but no higher.

Unions, like corporations, have a great deal of information about the market. They know how a firm is doing, how profitable it is and where it is relative to the larger industry in which it operates. They know what deals workers at other plants have negotiated. They have attorneys who are just as familiar with the American labor laws as their counterparts in management.

And while an individual has very little leverage in negotiations -- again, most companies can do with one less worker -- collectively, an entire work force has the ability to shut down or at least slow down a company's operations if management chooses not to negotiate in good faith (as is often the case).

It's not difficult to quantify the difference between what most hourly employees take home and what the free market would dictate. Economists Lawrence Mishel and Matthew Walters estimate the "union wage premium" -- the amount of additional pay a unionized worker receives compared with a similar worker who isn't a member of a union -- at around 20 percent (that's in keeping with other studies, using different methodologies, which put the premium in a range between 15 and 25 percent). If one includes benefits -- health care, paid vacations, etc. -- union members make almost 30 percent more than their nonunion counterparts.

Another way of looking at it is this: Millions of American families are scraping by on below-market wages, and if that weren't the case, there wouldn't be such a large group of American families among the "working poor." In economic theory, it's a given that a producer can't sell his or her wares below the cost of production. The equivalent to the cost of producing a gizmo, when we're talking about the sale of someone's working hours, is the cost of providing basic necessities -- nutritious food, safe housing and decent medical care. These are out of reach for the almost 3 million American families who work full-time and live beneath the poverty level. According to the Working Poor Families Project, half of the working poor have no health insurance.

It's important to understand that unionization doesn't just boost the incomes of union members. When an industry has a certain threshold of unionization, all workers, whether unionized or nonunionized, end up with a fairer share of the pie. Mishel and Matthew point out that a high school graduate who doesn't belong to a union but who works in an industry that has a rate of union membership of 25 percent or higher brings home 5 percent more in wages than a similar worker in a less unionized industry.

Unions, Coercion and the Long Decline

Those are the tangibles, but there are intangibles as well. When enough workers are organized, and can speak with one voice, they represent a powerful influence on the political establishment -- one that is largely absent in America today. Inequality, stagnant wages, out-of-reach health care costs, rising prices for food and energy, dwindling opportunities to get an affordable, high-quality education and a host of other issues that have a real impact on most American families are all issues that a healthy labor movement can force politicians to address.

Union members are more likely to vote their economic interests than be dazzled by culture war issues. In 2004, while Bush won the votes of 78 percent of white Evangelical Christians, John Kerry won a slim majority among those who also belonged to union households.

There's a substantial body of research that shows a clear correlation between falling unionization rates, stagnating wages and increases in inequality and poverty. That's true in all countries; data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) -- the "rich countries' club" -- shows that "countries with high levels of union density or collective bargaining coverage are much more equal than countries with low union density, but perform no worse in terms of creating jobs."

The OECD finds that gaps between higher-paid and lower-paid workers are lowest where union density is high, and bargaining is either centralized or closely coordinated. For example, the top 10% of male full-time workers earn at least 4.6 times as much as the bottom 10% in the U.S., compared to 3.7 times as much in Canada, 2.9 times as much in Germany, and just 2.3 times as much in Sweden. High union density also narrows pay gaps between women and men, and between younger and older workers. By narrowing pay gaps, unions counter poverty and make family incomes much more equal than would otherwise be the case.

The United States has seen a precipitous decline in the labor movement over the past three decades or so, and that decline has correlated with painful economic stagnation for all but the top of the economic food chain. Consider the following graph, via the Economic Policy Institute:

(Those rates include government employees -- the private-sector numbers are lower.)

As economists Lawrence Mishel and Ross Eisenbrey wrote, "Wage inequality began to grow at the same time" that the decline in unionization gathered steam in the late 1970s.

Economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty showed that when you lop off those in the top 10 percent of the economic food chain, inflation-adjusted earnings for the overwhelming majority of Americans increased by less than $1,000 dollars over the 28-year period between 1977 and 2005 -- $35 in growth per year -- despite slow but steady economic expansion overall (Excel file).

During this period, the distribution of America's total income has become highly concentrated at the top. In 1977, the top 1 percent of Americans grabbed just under 8 percent of the nation's earnings. By 2005 that number had more than doubled, to almost 18 percent of the pie. These numbers don't include investment income -- just income from working. The top 10 percent grabbed about a third of the nation's income in 1977, and almost 45 percent by 2005.

This was also a period in which economic mobility in the United States essentially became a thing of the past -- true only in American lore; we now live in one of the least upwardly mobile economies in the wealthy world. A good union job was once a ladder up from poverty to the middle class.

None of this is by accident. Union-busting has reached a high art form in the United States. Companies no longer need thugs and gun-toting Pinkertons to keep workers from exercising their legal rights to organize; now they have high-priced, Armani-wearing lawyers to do the job.

The tactics are as subtle as they are insidious. A study by Cornell University labor scholar Kate Bronfenbrenner found that: 9 in 10 employers facing a union campaign force employees to attend closed-door meetings to hear anti-union propaganda; 80 percent train supervisors on how to attack unions and require them to deliver anti-union messages to workers they oversee; half of employers threaten to shut down the plant if workers organize; and 3 out of 4 hire outside consultants to run anti-union campaigns, "often based on mass psychology and distorting the law."

Increasingly, cunning forms of intimidation are often enough to produce a "no" vote. If organizers manage to get and win a vote among workers to unionize, management is able to dispute the outcome, and the case can drag on, often for years. While it's pending, pro-union workers lose their jobs: A study published (PDF) by economists John Schmitt and Ben Zipperer found that "almost one in five union organizers or activists can expect to be fired as a result of their activities in a union election campaign."

That's illegal, but since the Reagan administration, U.S. labor protections have been thoroughly gutted, and companies that cross the line pay only modest penalties that can be written off as part of the cost of remaining union-free. Harvard economist Richard Freeman surveyed a number of studies of working people's attitudes in 2005, and found that more American workers want to join a union than ever before -- 53 percent. It's their right -- guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution -- but even as the number who want to bargain collectively with their bosses has increased, the labor movement has continued its deep decline.

That's a result of coercion, plain and simple, and when there is coercion present in a transaction, that's a rigged market, not a free one.

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is simple: It beefs up penalties for employers who violate workers' rights under the law, creates a mediation and arbitration system for disputes, and allows workers to form a union if a majority simply sign a card saying they want representation. This bill alone won't reverse the long decline of American labor -- union organizers say more is needed to create a truly level playing field -- but it would be a huge step in the right direction.

Fighting to Maintain a Gamed System

In addition to flooding the airwaves with attack ads in states and districts where business-friendly candidates are on the bubble, we can expect millions of dollars from that corporate war chest to go into "issue" ads, part of a concerted effort of anti-union propaganda designed to convince working people that organized labor will cost them wages and jobs, and that union organizers are corrupt and self-serving.

As the AFL-CIO notes, the legislation is under attack by an "anti-union network (that) includes discredited groups such as the Center for Union Facts, led by lobbyist Richard Berman, who is infamous for fighting against drunken driving laws and consumer and health protections, and the National Right to Work Committee and Foundation, the country's oldest organization dedicated exclusively to destroying unions."

Berman, a hired gun who has battled Mothers Against Drunk Driving on behalf of the alcohol industry, fought smoking bans at the behest of the tobacco industry and even defended dangerous levels of mercury in fish, expects to raise $30 million for the fight, according to the National Journal.

The Center for Union Facts is positively Orwellian in its spin: In one instance, Berman cited a Department of Labor report to claim that unions had racked up "$400 million in labor racketeering fines and civil restitution in the last five years." Nate Newman, a pro-labor journalist, dug into the report, only to find that "almost all of the big money associated with the $400 million figure in labor racketeering was committed by private industry against unions, not by union officials." Newman added, "But that's how you lie with statistics." (See his whole post.)

As far as the movement to defeat EFCA, the Big Lie -- which we'll hear repeated ad nauseam from every corner of the right-wing noise machine -- is that the card-check provisions are anti-democratic. The coalition's approach is to make no mention of beefing up penalties for violating workers' rights or creating new dispute-settlement procedures; instead, they seize on a compelling talking point tailored to America's political culture: that the "card-check" provision of the EFCA does away with the secret ballots that Americans have come to expect when casting their votes.

Big Business commissioned a Zogby poll that's dangerously close to the political "push-polls" of campaign infamy. The questions were remarkably dishonest, and the results were what the pollsters and their clients were looking for.

Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Every worker should continue to have the right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether to organize a union."

Nine out of ten respondents agreed, including 87 percent of Democrats. That's to be expected; the strategy is to depict management's assault on the ability to organize as protecting "workers' rights." Seven out of 10 respondents said they'd be less likely to vote for a member of Congress "who voted in favor of taking away a worker's right to have a federally supervised secret ballot election to decide whether to organize a union."

Armed with their push-poll, the Right's noise machine has been typically disciplined; all corners of the conservative movement are on message: Big Labor wants to do away with secret ballots, and it's pulling the Democrats' strings to make it happen.

But as Stalin said, "It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." More importantly, it's how the votes are counted and whether voters are being coerced. The secret-ballot election process is almost impossible in today's anti-union environment, with a National Labor Relations Board -- the body that's supposed to protect workers' rights -- hopelessly stacked with anti-union appointees.

As journalist Jordan Barab noted, as a result of an elections process that disenfranchises millions of working people, "card-check campaigns -- instead of secret ballot elections -- have become labor's main tool for organizing the unorganized." According to AFL-CIO statistics cited by Barab, card checks were used to "sign up roughly 70 percent of the private-sector workers who joined unions (in 2006), compared with less than 5 percent two decades ago."

Anything to Maintain the Conservative Nanny State

In his book, The Conservative Nanny State, Dean Baker, co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, argues that progressives are way off the mark when they accuse the corporate Right of being "free-market fundamentalists." "When we say they're 'market fundamentalists,' he told me in an interview, "we're acting like they're willing to accept market outcomes." In reality, conservatives have "rigged the deck. They've made sure that certain people come out ahead, that income flows upward, and that other people are put at a disadvantage -- and these things are built into the rules of the system."

The rules of the game -- working people's right to negotiate collectively on even ground with employers -- is what will be at stake over the next year. We may well see EFCA and other progressive legislation get shot down, but if not, then there's a potential to halt the systematic dismantling of the New Deal's labor protections that we've witnessed over the past 40 years and reverse the spiraling inequality that's accompanied it.

Whatever the outcome, we're in for a bloody fight.

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

source

And then I had

+

Cos I didnt feel alright.

Its these pills http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibumetin

At work I have one of these sexy beasts.

After work I had one of these

It was really expensive tho, over a

At 12:30 I took the bus home and had lunch. Then I went in moms

To pick up my little brother at his work.

And now Im just being lazy surfing the net. Updating this.

Talk to me on

Tonight I'll have

From the lowbudget company

 with

And watch some

Noice:

Oh, and me and my best friend, who I call my

Are somewhat talking about making a trip to either

Wich is a really nice city in Poland.

Or to

 Or I would love to take a trip on these railways

Oh, and the weather over here sux, for days its been

[ALL pics are GOOGLED]

Have a nice weekend.

Annie

Five year old Naomi lives in Ghana with her mother and 3 siblings.
Naomi likes to sing, jump rope and go running. Meet Naomi:

Ten year old Heaven lives in the aids-affected country of Ethiopia with her mother and 5 siblings. Heaven likes to play volleyball and group games. Meet Heaven:

In a home with only one parent and 3-5 children, what a blessing you will be for these girls and their families! (More of this information is on their Compassion.com pages.)

To sponsor one or both of these girls, click on their names: Heaven / Naomi. If they have already been sponsored, click here to search for other children in need.

Note: In case you wonder, I am NOT affliated with Compassion in any way, except that I sponsor a child myself and want to see more children sponsored in Jesus' Name! :)

The site expands on Bill Gates' talk about creative capitalism in his 2007 Harvard commencement speech, and at the last World Economic Forum. In Time, he says:

"Capitalism has improved the lives of billions of people — something that's easy to forget at a time of great economic uncertainty. But it has left out billions more. They have great needs, but they can't express those needs in ways that matter to markets. So they are stuck in poverty, suffer from preventable diseases and never have a chance to make the most of their lives"

Many of those are the chronically poor. Read the 2008-2009 Chronic Poverty Report here. We recommend increased social protection: put money into the hands of the poor through measures like contingent cash transfers. Then they have more resources with which to shape the markets and societies in which they make their livelihoods and their lives. But watch out for the counter-attack by some of the world's wealthy who don't want the poor to challenge their political power: not everyone is as generous as Bill Gates.

Just came back from Manila on wednesday night after spending just over a week with two amazing people - Mark and Christine Pedder.

Mark and Christine live in Baseco/ Manila - which is 60 acres of reclaimed land with approx 100,000 people living there in incredible poverty.

Mark and Christine daily feed the poor, provide medical care, help set up micro business, rescue abandoned children and pastor 2 church's that they have planted in Baseco.

Check out Mark's blog and see for yourself what God can do through ordinary people who allow God to live and love through them.

Andrew

Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006: -8.4%

Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2000 31.1%

Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 11% (versus 21.4% for the state)

Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000 28.4 minutes

Per capita money income, 1999 $14,717

Persons below poverty, percent, 1999 26.1%

Conclusions?

For a 25 year old man or woman in Detroit, odds are that it takes him/her 30 minutes to get to work, earning less than $15,000 a year and not having a Bachelors degree. And with the cost of living today, you have to wonder how much of that $15k they are able to spend toward simple things like keeping their house from falling apart.

What can we do to help them?In my school, we are taught to care about them and to study hard, so maybe, we will be able to help them someday.

Poverty has been an issue for society since time begun and will probably remain so for thousands years to come. Poverty is one of problems in the world that will never be extinct, no matter how hard we all try. Poverty is seen to be the main cause of individual problems, such as a lack of education, skills, motivation, responsibility and morality. It cannot be solved only by giving them money , The government have to realise that they need education and places to develop their skills. Lot of children who live like this are sometimes isolated by society. For example, those that live in a slum. Most people are untrained and are not able to earn enough money to provide a decent living, as many have children and have to provide for them. Due to this, they do not have the money to learn new skills, which they can pass on to their children, therefore it is a never ending cycle of poverty. Poverty is not for them, who doesn’t have any place to live also for people who their income falls behind that the rest of society. They cannot have what the rest of the society believes to be a minimum necessary for a decent living. There’s still a lot of poverty categories, no matter in which certain category they will always reappear among the poor. And poverty attacks in many ages, the most when they are old, mostly their income for works live isn’t enough to provide the savings retirement. And if they are look forward to look an easy job, it wouldn’t be so easy for they are considered their age. When thinking about poverty we have to thinking how society treat they are, rather than focusing on the personal habits or disabilities of poor people. Society doesn’t treat them equally and offers advantage to some groups and disadvantages to others. So we can say that is possible, government has failed to adapt to the changes to faced and why poverty has increase over time. To fight poverty, we need to improve housing and service for the age and to the needs of single parents and married women in the amount of part time work and facilities for child care available, and free education at least for the primary 9 years. Poverty occur when the communities and government fail to plan with the people in order to insure the proper of amount of service which important for they well being. If its not us who has to stand up to help them who else? Just like a song, “ If we all stand together this one time .Then no one will get left behind. Stand up for life. Stand up for love “ ;)

may God bless you all

]]> http://toban.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/links-for-2008-08-08-deliciouscom/ Fri, 08 Aug 2008 07:30:05 +0000 Toban http://toban.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/links-for-2008-08-08-deliciouscom/

"IPC is pleased to announce a new section on its website: Poverty Networks. This new resource brings together web-based platforms that share development-related publications and initiatives. You will be able to access IPC's collaborating networks on this website".

2 nights ago i was sitting at a sidewalk restaurant at sundown ... and decided to treat myself to a steak ... it was not what we would call a steak back home, but was glorious to my eyes, coated in gravy with a fried egg on top ...

i was about to dig in, when a young boy with a deformity came up to me and asked me for money ... he said he was hungry ... and then he stood and watched me for 10 minutes ...

to survive ... you can't let 'it' get to your heart ... at least not in public ... you need to remain dispassionate, as there is no way a caring heart could manage the breadth of the suffering ...

sometimes ... my defenses just get worn down ...

and when the reality of the situation IS that poverty is getting worse, and that it is the end result of a DELIBERATE, WELL FUNDED, RIGHT-WING POLICY ... SUPPORTED AND ENDORESED BY OUR OWN PRIME MINISTER ...

a policy that sees poor countries today crushed under debt accrued 20 years ago when OUR banks willingly lent brutal dictators billions, at NEGATIVE interest, to create oppressive military regiemes (sp???) ...

for every single dollar you kind hearts out there send to the poor of this world in aid ... the poor of the world send 2 dollars back to the richest and most powerful people in our countries just to pay the interest on these ancient debts ...

it's deliberate ... can you believe that ??? ... why not write a letter to our government ...

why don't YOU ... right now ... take 1 minute out of your day ... go to www.makepovertyhistory.ca ... where they do all the work for you ... and write a letter ...

unless you like people suffering ... which i suppose is your right ...

it's farmers day in mwanza ... i am told there is a big celebration ... if there is one thing people here know how to do ... it's celebrate ...

peace and love

MUMBAI: Here in the Taj Mahal Palace and Tower, the doyen of this city's hotels, what you think of the new India may depend on whether you are the person having soap squeezed onto your hands or the person squeezing the soap.

In every men's washroom at the Taj is a helper. As you approach the sink, he salutes you. Before you can turn on the tap, he does it for you. Before you can apply soap, he presses the dispenser. Before you can get a towel, he dangles one. As you leave, he salutes you again and mutters: "Right, sir. O.K., sir. Thank you, sir."

Step outside, and you see sedans reeking of new affluence. Sleeping inside are drivers, many of them asleep because they work 20-hour shifts, waking up at 6 a.m. to catch a train, taking the boss to and from work, then to his dinner, then to drinks, then dropping him home at 1 a.m. and taking a taxi back to the tenements.

More:

Cambodia exported 2.5 million tonne of rice last year, Hun Sen said, adding that new irrigation methods will soon quadruple rice exports.

"Before Cambodia's gold was rubber trees, but now it is rice," Xinhua news agency quoted him as saying in a local daily Friday.

Hun Sen said better irrigation would allow 2-3 rice crops each year, with more intensive farming methods increasing yields to 3-4 tons per hectare.

In this respect, Cambodia will not only be able to meet its domestic demands, but also will be able to export more than Vietnam does, he claimed.

-- BERNAMA

As part of my job I get the chance to go into classrooms and make children aware of some of the things that are going on around our world. One such topic that I have been focussing on lately is the issue of child labour. The general response from kids has been 'how can this happen?' It is really hard for the children to comprehend HOW children their age can be forced to work for 10-12 hours a day (or more), for very little pay, instead of going to school. They are universally outraged. 

Some Stats and definitions (from World Visions 'Get Connected' magazine.)
"Child labour is any work done by a child that is dangerous, keeps them from getting an education, or is harmful to their health or development."
The International Labour Organisation estimates 218 million children in the world today are involved in child labour. That is one in every six children in the world.
The most common industries employing child labourers are farms, mines, factories (in particular textile and sports equipment), homes and shops.
The greatest number of child labourers is found in Asia, with 122 million children involved right on Australia's doorstep!
Child soldiers also fall under the 'child labour' category.
Every year 22,000 children around the world die in work-related accidents.

A Christian Response?
The question I have been asking myself is, what is a Christian response to Child Labour? When talking about justice, mercy and peace, what role can we take in helping eradicate child labour? Most child labour occurs in countries living in extreme poverty, so obviously the work people are doing in fixing this is making a big difference, but a key area that we can all make a difference in is our shopping habits. Now, this is a 'touchy' area, so I'm not about to state 'this is what we must do', because it wouldn't achieve anything and wouldn't be the right thing to do. What I do want to talk a bit about though is the topic ofFair Trade.

What is Fair Trade and how does it help?
According to the Fair Trade Association of Aus and NZ,

"Fair Trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transperancy and respect, that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalised producers and workers - especially in the South. Fair Trade organisations (backed by consumers) are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness raising and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional, international trade."

Fair trade helps by spreading the money earnt by selling an item evenly across all people involved. Take a soccer ball for example. When you purchase a soccer ball, the money you pay gets spready across an importor, factory, contractor, maker(usually a child), exporter and a retailer. That's a lot of steps! Fair trade ensures that each person along that chain gets 'fair' compensation for their work.

Clothes are another major item we use in the western world where the maker (once again often children) receives as little as 1% (or less) of the final price paid.

Recently a friend of mine returned from a trip overseas, boasting to me how they were able to purchase 4 Soccer jumpers for $10! They look exactly like the ones you buy in Australia for $80. Rather than be impressed, I was sad, because there is only one way somebody could sell a shirt for $2.50 and still make a profit.

I will close this post here, with more to say at a later date. But I will leave it with a question. What are you wearing? Are you wearing the sweat and tears of a child (and before you ask, sadly I have to say I probably am, given 90% of what I am wearing I bought from Target). What role do you think Christians should play in advocating for Fair Trade?

This is fortunate because we have a wonderful opportunity to observe how Paul attempts to persuade the Corinthians to contribute to the needs of a group of people unlike themselves--the potential recipients are economically deprived (poor), ethnically Jewish (racial bias), geographically distant (why should we help people way over there?), and politically distinct (Jerusalem was synonmous with Jewish nationalism). Paul attempts to persuade wealthy Gentiles in Achaia to help poor Jews in Jerusalem. There is tremendous ethnic and nationalistic prejudice lying beneath the surface of this venture. There is much to overcome here.

We have the privildege to overhear how Paul theologically grounds the collection for the saints. We see the inner workings of Paul's theology as he provides a theological-biblical rationale for the collection itself. We see Paul's own hermeneutic at work--its biblical base, theological grounding and specific application.  Perhaps it provides some guidelines (even model?) for how we should do our own hermeneutical work.

What He Does Not Do

He does not command the Corinthians to give.  He explicitly states: "I am not commanding you..." (2 Corinthians 8:8).  It is not a command, but a "test" of the "sincerity of their love."   I think I would rather have a command myself!  Give me a command; give me some specificity; tell me how much.  I can do that.  But to act out of the authenticity of my love is much more demanding.  It calls me to imitate God, to be like God, to share like God.  My selfish heart would rather have a command to tithe.

He does not demand they obey the pattern some think is in 1 Corinthians 16:1-4.  Paul does not remind them of the "prescription" (as some would call it) of his previous letter.  He does not illuminate the pattern.  He does not give details about how this is a pattern within the new covenant, that it is necessary to obey to be a faithful church, and he does not describe the pattern or itemize its particulars. He does not specify the laws that govern this "act of worship" and remind them of the dire consequences of neglecting it. This would have been a perfect opportunity for Paul to explain to the Corinthians (if he had not previously) how their congregation must follow the pattern that God showed Paul just as God showed Moses the pattern for the tabernacle. Perhaps he does not do this because there is no such thing like what God showed Moses.

He does not draw a line in the "fellowship" sand concerning the collection. Paul does not make their contribution a matter of fellowship or communion with him.  Their lack of participation would be an embarrassment, it would be a failing, it would be a lack of grace on their part, but it would not be a violation of some legal pattern.  The failure would be the failure to imitate Jesus and not the failure to practice the pattern many have envisioned.

In other words, Paul does not do what many CEI patternists tend to do and have done on countless Sundays over the past century.  Paul does not say, "you are commanded to give every first day of the week, and if you don't you are not faithful to the pattern God established."  How often have we heard every Sunday, "We are commanded to give on the first day of the week." Historically, Churches of Christ have been concerned to outline the "laws" that govern or regulate the practice of giving; to insist on everyone giving every frist day of the week as part of the assembly because it is part of the pattern for the church. We isolate 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 in order to fit it into the puzzle we are trying to solve, that is, the pattern we are seeking to construct (the patternistic temple we are building).  We treat 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 as a legal prescription that belongs to the exclusive pattern of "five acts of worship" instead of recognizing that it is actually one among many embodiments of the grace of God overflowing through us into the lives of others. The latter is how Paul viewed it, but the former is what Enlightenment Baconian Regulative Constitutional Patternism has created.

What He Does Do

So, what does Paul do hermeneutically to encourage the Corinthians to contribute to the fund for the poor saints in Jerusalem?  This deserves much more attention than I can give in a single post.  Nevertheless, below is a brief outline of Paul's thoughts.

Ultimately, Paul does not use a two-step method such as "This is the legal pattern; do it."  Rather, he calls us to the grace of God, embracing its meaning and embodying its practice.  It is the theology that calls us, not a legal pattern.  Paul's theological exposition, I think, reflects the (1) theological substance of God's own life; (2) the redemptive-historical practice of that life among God's covenant people; and (3) the metanarrative (or symbolic world) that is the story of God among his people.  For a fuller picture of these three categories, read my post that summarizes them.

1.  Fundamental Theological Substance:  Grace.  There are ten occurrences of the term "grace" in these two chapters (8:1,4,6,7,9,16,19; 9:8,14,15)--the highest concentration in the New Testament.  Giving is a "grace" God gives which rebounds to God's own praise and thanksgiving.  Literally, the text affirms that God gives "grace" to us so that we might "grace" others with the result that "grace" is given to God--God graces us to grace others who, in response, grace God.  It flows from God's own life and character to his people so that it might flow through them to others and thus back to God. The purpose of ministry (8:4; 9:13) to the poor is to glorify God.  Whether the poor are known or unknown, Jew or Gentile, is unimportant, the primary motive is the glory of God in mutual fellowship. We do not give to the poor out of mere compassion for the poor as if it were some humanistic duty, but that God might be glorified and that we might participate in God's own life and ministry. God's own grace (creation, providence, redemption; cf. 8:9, 9:8-11,15), and the glory that will rebound to him, are the theological values which motivate gifts to the poor.  Giving to the poor embodies a commitment to the grace of the gospel itself (9:13).

2.  Redemptive-historical application:  Reading the Christian story through the lens of Israel. Paul draws on redemptive history in at least three ways in this text.  (1) God's gift of manna in the wilderness exhibits the principle of equity: the needy will be supplied out of the abundance of the wealthy so that all may have what they need (8:13-15).  (2) He quotes Psalm 112:9 (2 Corinthians 9:9)--the paradigm of the "blessed person"--as a model for the wealthy sharing with the poor, that is, God has given us seed (wealth) to be scattered. The redeemed community should imitate God's own scattering of his gifts to the poor (Psalm 111 blesses God and the righteous person of Psalm 112 is a mirror image of God's attributes described in Psalm 111). (3) Deuteronomy 15 lurks in the background as the language is very similar. Just as God had blessed Israel so that there should be no poor among them, Israel should give generously without a grudging heart (Deuteronomy 15:10; 2 Corinthians 9:7). Paul uses the language of Deuteronomy 15 to encourage the Corinthians.

The redemptive story continues among the churches of God. Paul draws on the model of the Macedonian disciples in order to convict the Corinthians and wants the Corinthians to be an example to others (8:24). The on-going story of God among the Macedonians teaches the Corinthians too!

3.  Theological Center: The Christ Event. The incarnation itself, however, is Paul's primary paradigm--Christ became poor that we might become rich (8:9) which is God's indescribable gift (9:15).  He does not command in this text but tests their love because they should know the love of Christ who became poor for their sakes.  If Christ did this for the Corinthians, then they should do this for the saints in Jerusalem. We follow Jesus into poverty in order that the needs of others might be supplied.

Conclusion

We see Paul's hermeneutic at work here.  He does not lay down a pattern--"This is the way the church ought to do 'X' as a legal pattern; so, do it this way."  Rather, he seeks to instill in his readers a theological dynamic--a way of looking at the world through the eyes of God--which moves them to give as God gives.  No pattern is offered except what God himself has done. This is what we emulate; this is what we imitate.  We imitate God; we imitate Jesus who is the image of God.

Paul calls the Corinthians to imitate the theology embedded in the Moasic law and redemptive history. God has always been the same--he loves the poor, calls his people to care for the poor, and share their resources with the poor so that there are no poor among the people of God. Paul calls the Corinthians to imitate the Macedonians because they display that theological dynamic.  We are not called to reproduce or duplicate the churches of the New Testament. Rather, we are called to imitate them as they imitate Jesus who is the image of God. That, to me, is the essence of a more simple hermeneutic.

How do we follow Paul's hermeneutic or use it as a guideline for our own thinking?  What does that look like? More to come.....stay tuned.

Brazil is a land of incredible beauty mingled amongst pain of the deepest kind. In many places, it is a tropical paradise, but underneath the lush palms are barracos (shacks) nailed together with the trash the more wealthy throw away. Beside the banana trees are water wholes filled with musqitos dug out for that little lady to wash her clothes. Looking up in the city of Recife, you can enjoy a beautiful skyline and respect the creativity of the architecture, but once your eyes lower, you'll be staggered at the street kids, wanting to sell you fruit and wash your windows so that they can eat or buy some glue to huff. Brazil is poverty and riches!

But in some ways, I feel that in thier poverty that are more rich than us in our prosperity. They have a calm life. They don't have the rush and anxiety. There isn't the constant call of cell phones and email. (I'm speaking of the poorer areas). They have real community. They know each other. They know their neighbors.  They speak to one another on the street. They seem to be truly human. They have joy!

This year I traveled with a friend from my church, Justin Shutlz, whose parents were missionaries in Brazil for 34 years. So, Brazil was his home before moving to the states. One night after a day filled with ministering to a slum community outside of the city of Salvador, he said to me, "Why would anyone leave this?" This lifestyle he meant, this poverty. This coming from someone who had experienced both cultures.

I don't know if I'll ever forget that question, but I do know that I understood what he was saying. In the business of life, sometimes we miss life altogether. When we pull into our garage and our neighbors never even see us. When in our rush, we miss an opportunity to enjoy the company of someone created in God's image. Thinking our agenda is more important, we sidestep a chance to share the hope and healing of the gospel with a lost person.

There are more important things, "Therefore, I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing (Matthew 6:25)?" In the true community-the kingdom of God, Jesus' insutrction for us is not to be anxious with the things of life, the things he mentions. The reason is there is more to life than worrying about these things and when we do we really miss out on life and show that his kingdom is not what are hearts are fixed on.  We can learn a lesson from our brothers and sisters in Brazil. Let's not miss true prosperity by chasing after poverty!  

[Justin Shultz and a Brazilian baby stroller]

Many lawmakers believe that prostitution should remain illegal based on moral and religious beliefs alone. What these people fail to realize is the very religion they are using to ban prostitution also emphasizes that humans are not to judge each others sins. The Bible clearly states that all men are born with free will, and the choices we make can only be judged by God at the end of time. Crimes like rape and murder need to be punished by man because innocent people are hurt. With prostitution however, both parties want to be involved. It is a moral crime, not a legal one, and the government has no business interfering with it.

As far as I can tell, many great benefits could come out of the legalization of prostitution. Killing two birds with one stone, legalization and regulation could also help to heal many of our societies health, economic and poverty problems.

I came home today after conducting a workshop for my yearbook class to get a head start on the year.  Of the 14 students I invited (who have registered for the class), four showed up.  I had worked so hard in preparing for this workshop and getting materials ready.  Now, I'm going to have to spend the first week of school doing it all over again.  

I found this article that made me realize I work too hard for the results I get, and I need to stop.

Holiness too is the selfless living for others. Do we have an extra dollar to spare? Do we have time for help? Do we have the moment in this life to lift someone else up? I know that this is not the preaching of the prosperity preachers and their perverted gospel, but it is the preaching of Christ who Himself served as the example of a life lived in service to others.

This article touched me, I must admit, and I hope that it gets to you a bit too.

A love that scares us in its purity and suffering - PD Opinion - Editorial views and columns from The Plain Dealer.

WASHINGTON -- In a recent investigative profile, the Associated Press tells the depressingly familiar story of televangelist Kenneth Copeland. His ministry's private jet and lakeside mansion. The complex web of ranching, oil and media interests that benefits his extended family. In this case, there is no taint of hypocrisy. Copeland practices what he preaches -- a doctrine that God wants his followers to prosper in very material ways.

This prosperity gospel combines two of the most powerful forces on Earth: the profit motive and the power of positive thinking. At its best, it inspires hard work, generosity and the avoidance of life-destroying vices. At its worst, it is religiously infantile.

"I believe God wants to give us nice things," says evangelist Joyce Meyer.

"I think God wants us to be prosperous," pastor Joel Osteen assures us. "I think He wants us to be happy."

Whatever ethical problems such leaders may or may not have, they face a large theological challenge. A religious system that promises happiness and "nice things" is difficult to reconcile with the faith whose founder had "no place to lay his head," urged his followers not to store up "treasures on earth," and called on them to deny themselves and take up a cross of suffering.

This has never made the best marketing message: What company would adopt the electric chair or the hangman's noose as its logo? Christianity has always dealt in hard truths -- that God is not a means to our own ends, and that suffering is unavoidable in lives bounded by mortality and often wrecked by failure.

Suffering for the sake of suffering is useless; it is merely masochism. But when suffering cannot be escaped as the health-and-wealth preachers promise -- or even nobly endured as the Stoics promise -- it may perhaps be transformed. "If you and I can share our pain," said the late theologian Henri Nouwen, "suddenly we find grace and joy coming in. In your tears and anguish and struggle, you suddenly discover community, you suddenly discover friendship, you suddenly discover affection, you suddenly discover forgiveness, you suddenly discover healing. All these things come through vulnerability."

And in this odd faith where the poor in spirit are blessed, the highest ideal is suffering for others -- though most of us do precious little of it. This model of spiritual leadership has nothing to do with conventional measures of success and influence. It is found in the medical missionary who buries his or her life in the forgotten relief of forgotten suffering. In the dying pope who speaks for the vulnerable by exposing his own shocking vulnerability.

One of the most vivid literary pictures of this leadership comes from a strange source -- a self-loathing, self-described "Catholic agnostic," prone to prostitutes, opium and suicide attempts. In Graham Greene's "The Power and the Glory," set in the 1930s, Mexico's authorities destroy churches and hunt down priests for execution. An unnamed whiskey priest -- disguised and constantly moving -- doggedly performs his sacramental duties while knowing he is a spiritual failure. He has a mistress, a child and a problem with alcohol.

But stripped of dignity, respect and possessions, he discovers an identification with the poor around him. "When you visualized a man or woman carefully," he observes, "you could always begin to feel pity -- that was a quality God's image carried with it. When you saw the lines at the corners of the eyes, the shape of the mouth, how the hair grew, it was impossible to hate. Hate was just a failure of imagination."

Having reached safety in a neighboring state, the whiskey priest returns, knowing he will be captured and killed, to deliver the last rights to a murderer. The priest is driven by suffering and sin down to the level of his fellow men, until he is worthy to die for them. During this hard descent into sainthood, he finds that God's love is often different from what we expect. "It would be enough to scare us -- God's love. It set fire to a bush in the desert, didn't it, and smashed open graves and set the dead walking in the dark. Oh, a man like me would run a mile to get away if he felt that love around."

But ultimately, this love offers a hope greater than health and prosperity: that even our flawed and halfhearted lives may, perhaps, be redeemed -- and even used as an instrument to redeem others.

Gerson is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a columnist for the Washington Post.

The food at the house is home cooking, and Laura and her staff in the kitchen keep us well fed with wonderful Brazilian cuisine. The fruit down here is to die for. The coffee is so good I don´t know how I am going to adjust to the brown water they call coffee in New York when I return. The Ice Cream is heaven, absolutely the best I have ever had. And the volunteer house is a convenient walk to one of the worlds most beautiful beaches

To get back to the volunteers, we are diverse. There are a bunch of twenty somethings in college or just out of college, and they are all very substantial, there majors are nursing, teaching, medicine, international relations. Yes, they came to have a good time, but they also see a world that needs changing and are doing their part. It makes me feel good and I am humbled by their enthusiasm. We also have a family who is doing this volunteer work as their vacation, Kip, Yvette, Colin, Carter, and Jack, and a father and daughter team.  Together we are working with children and the elderly from the poorest sections of Salvador.  We are also getting some language immersion and cultural immersion. Two nights ago, I got to witness Brazil´s true religion - soccer for my American readers, football for the rest of the world. Last night, before dinner, I had a Portuguese lesson and the teacher Marina made it fun by having us play BINGO in Portuguese. A great way to learn the numbers.

I can´t say enough about the staff of CCS Brazil and their professionalism and welcoming attitude. They are so helpful and encourage us in our volunteer work and help us navigate the city and make suggestions for cultural activities and culinary delights. 

I am now about to head to the beach for a while, and then tonight I will attend the Ballet Folkclorico de Bahia, a dance performance that is not traditional ballet, but reflects the African culture that is highly predominant in Bahia, and Salvador in particular. So tomorrow´s post I hope to have some photos of my little kids from the day care center.  I can almost guarantee you will fall in love.  I may just have to bring a few of them back to me and declare them at customs.  Well, it´s off to the Beach and then the Ballet, and tomorrow, my final day at my volunteer placement. Tomorrow´s ´plan is to have the kids color something for Father´s Day, which is the second Sunday of August in Brazil

Ate logo from Bahia