So our parish has a sizeable scholarship fund. That’s a good thing. A Catholic education can be very expensive, particularly here in California. To send a kid to Catholic elementary school costs about $5K per year and high school can be $8K+ if you’re not good at a sport. (I don’t think sailing counts either…) A Catholic college can be $25K-$35K.

So, we have a scholarship fund. As I said, that’s a good thing. However, the group that runs the fund leaves much to be desired. I’ll enumerate:

-They usually have about $10K in scholarships each year. Instead of giving meaningful scholarships to a few individuals, they seem to divvy it up to nearly everyone who applies and gives out about $500 each. That’s not going to make much of a dent for just about anyone when they’re trying to come up with $8K+ (I don’t know if elementary school kids are eligible and most of the winners are seniors on their way to college).
-Despite the fact that this scholarship is for parishioners only and therefore supposedly bound up in one’s faith, how active one is in their faith seems not to be relevant to whether someone gets a scholarship. People who show up at Christmas and Easter seem just as likely to get a scholarship as the leader of the teen group.
-Despite the fact that there are tons of scholarships for every level of education based on “need”, this scholarship also takes into account the financials of the parents as well. (Despite the fact that a $25K a year college is a significant burden on a $75K a year family and that they aren’t eligible for other “need” based scholarships.)

These points have been true for as long as the committee has been around but this year they decided to up the ante.

It used to be that most of the funding for the scholarships came from a golf tournament and that they were able to get about $20K in profit from (about half goes to scholarships and half goes to an endowment fund for future scholarships). This was a good wholesome event that cost $100 for participants and used corporate sponsorship to increase the revenue.

Now, $20K isn’t good enough for this committee (and in fairness to them, there are a lot of deserving kids). So instead of adding to the great golf tournament, their scraping the tournament (yes you read that right, it will be no more) and instead appealing to everyone’s greed. That’s right, gambling here we come!

First prize (for your $100 ticket, I might add) is a brand new yellow mustang (and it was parked on the walkway to the main entrance to the church this morning)! Or if you don’t want the car, you can take $15,000 in cash! 2nd prize is $1500 and 3rd is $1000. Plus if you buy your tickets by October 15th, you’ll get another chance to win in our $1500 early bird drawing!

Excuse my language but…

WHAT THE FUUUC…DDD…GGGEEE!?! Yeah, what the FUDGE!?!

OK, I know the American Church has a history at using minor gambling (bingo nights) to raise funds, but at least with the old stereotypical bingo night it was a big social gathering (stereotypically for the old ladies). One could wash the gambling under the table as it was only one aspect of what was overall a fundraising effort. The winnings were small to not enough to be praying on anyones greed. This car raffle doesn’t have any of those caveats to save it. This is an outright, simple gambling ploy based on the desire to fleece money from people based on their greed for a cool looking car. If that’s not enough it has the following downsides:

1. The money I would give to help a family get their kid through Catholic school will be significantly reduced by paying for the prizes (which will statistically go to the person who gives the most to the auction and hence should least needs that car).
2. The whole “you can just donate the money instead of getting a raffle ticket” compromise is BS. If everyone but three people do that it won’t change the fact that the total money given will be reduced by $20K for the prizes. The only difference will be that the actual raffle will be a big loss. The only upside here is that they’re very unlikely to do the raffle next year.
3. Also, with the raffle we lose all of the corporate sponsorship money. There’s no ability to put signs on the golf course (or equivalent) with sponsors. We lose a big avenue for revenue. (See point #7 for an aspect of why this is important.)
4. $100 per ticket is WAY too much. What about those who can only afford $20 this year? By setting the number that high you’re trying to hard-sell people into giving more. It’s like the charitable giving requests in the mail that have $10K, $5K and $1K checkboxes and anything smaller has to be a write-in amount. See point #2 about just “donating” $20. Plus the person who can only donate $20 is most likely to make good use of that car. Also, it is not the same as the $100 entry fee for the golf tournament as a round of golf on the weekend costs $50+. So in reality the donation is only $50 (if that). Plus I’m pretty sure they invited those who didn’t play (either because they couldn’t afford $100 or didn’t play golf) but donated whatever they could to the reception.
5. Even if they’re going to do this raffle, why scrap the golf tournament that everyone loved? Why can’t you do two things!?! It’ll increase the likelihood that you’ll net more income for the scholarships.
6. If you still insist on the raffle, why do the prizes have to be so big for any other reason that appealing to people’s greed? Why not give away a top prize around $1000 (plane trip to Hawaii for the family?) and 2nd and 3rd place prizes in the few hundred dollar range (TV set, DVD player, computer, etc.). This would make it so much more of the revenue would actually make it into the scholarship fund. It would also be easier to do if the tickets weren’t $100 each…
7. $20K (really $40K if you consider the gross revenue vs. net revenue) from a parish every year is A LOT of money. Remember that there are tons of other causes that these parishioners are giving to (feeding the poor, etc.) not to mention what they’re giving the parish in tithing (we just completed a $2 million dollar expansion). Just because there is more need for scholarships doesn’t mean that we should be doing anything and everything possible to fleece people of more money. There is a limit to what people can afford to give. This is particularly true because half of the families in the parish have school age children. So every dollar you get from those parents is robbing Peter to pay Paul, so to speak (pretty funny since it is Ss. Peter and Paul parish…).
8. Along the lines of $40K being a lot to raise, how much did the golf tournament cost us? In other words, how much of the money donated didn’t make it into the scholarship fund? I have a hard time believing it was $20K. I’d guess more like $10K (Quick math, 150 golfers * $50 = $7500 plus $2500 for food & reception type stuff. That seems like a pretty generous estimate too (as they’d likely get a discount for the rounds of golf and that’s one hell of a banquet at $2500).) So it would only take $30K from the parish (and maybe less considering the corporate sponsorships we got) to raise $20K.

Do I need to continue? Good, because I’m running out of good complaints. Needless to say, both the committee and our pastor will be getting a big long letter about this.

God forgive us!

Boy, the priest who gave the homily (that’s the Catholic equivalent of a sermon for those not in the know) at Mass this morning must be reading my blog because his homily seemed like a perfect defense of my position about selfishness down in the family statistics comment thread. Every 5th word out of his month was selfish and he tied it very strongly to marital issues. I believe the quote went something like this:

“If you’re getting married to be happy, it won’t work. If you’re getting married to make your spouse happy, it’ll work.”

Booya! (Is that really how that is spelled?)

According to Matt Hayes of the Sporting News, Mr. Booya (Joe Ayoob) has lost his starting job to Nate Longshore. Ayoob is the highly touted JC transfer from SF City College. Longshore is the redshirt freshman. It seems (according to this reporter) that Tedford liked Longshore all along but was worried about his lack of mobility in the pocket. Longshore worked tirelessly in the offseason to improve in this regard and has improved to the degree to get the starting nod from Tedford.

Very interesting… if it is true.

Now back to our regularly scheduled Catholic programming.

OK, it’s starting to be college football time again, so this blog is going to mix-it-up a little bit and add some secular discussion to the mix. Some starting thoughts:

1. This is straight from an analysis of UCLA this year: “Defensively, the Bruins could not stop anybody on the ground last year, giving up 210 yards per game. With five of the front seven back, this number should go down dramatically.” Or to paraphrase: Last year these guys stunk but with the same guys on the team this year they should be much better. Only in college football can you get away with that kind of analysis.

2. Stanford can only go up… or stay right where they are. They’re picked last in the Pac-10 by just about everyone and were one of only two Pac-10 teams not to get ESPN poll votes. And that’s even with the new highly touted coach they took from Pittsburg (for us Californian’s that’s a team in the Big East conference, not a mislocation of De La Salle High School in Concord (although as my brother said, we’d all probably have more respect for the De La Salle guy)).

3. We’ve got GREAT seats for the Cal Bears game this year. Middle height? check: rows 44 and 45. Seats close to the exit: check: 38 is the exit row. Isle seats? check: seats 1-3 and 1-2 in those rows respectively. Two rows instead of one long row so that we’re all closer together, have more leg room through cooperation and my boys can kick they’re legs all they want without dirty looks from the grump in front of me (unless you want to call my brother a grump): check. 50 yard line… er… yeah… that’s where section DD is.

4. My brother still owes me $220 for his ticket (look who’s the grump now)!

5. And most importantly, it looks like it is going to be a good year in Berkeley! People are already touting the Cal vs. USC game as the Pac-10 game of the year with $10 general adminision tickets going for $70 a piece on E-Bay and reserved tickets going for $100-$300.

I was listening to the radio this morning and they were talking about a new survey that showed that for the first time single households out number families. I couldn’t find the survey online and it was unclear from the radio discussion what cohabitating couples counted as, but divorced, single parent and widowed people all fell under the single category, which is a little unfair to each of those groups as they are vastly different, especially the widows.

In any case, inevitably during the discussion a lady (from Davis, surprise, surprise, Berkeley’s mini-me) called in and asked why this is a bad thing.

For me, that pretty much sums up why it is a bad thing, because most people don’t see anything wrong with it. I mean, do I even need to justify my position? It feels like a waste of blog space to defend the need for families. It should be self evident. It’s about a ridiculous as needing to explain why a down trend in the amount of food being produced by farmers and ranchers is a bad thing.

But, just so it is on record:

The current reproduction rate in Europe is about 1.5. The current reproduction rate in the US of native born citizens is right around 2.0 and falling fast. We need a number around 2.2 for a stable population size. A shrinking population has TONS of problems including the overwhelming burden on younger people to support the elderly and a VERY unstable economy (lacking consumers).

There, and I didn’t even need to get into the social/religious values of the family to defend this one. As I said, it is pretty obvious. Just like we need food to survive (which is the answer to the why farmers are important question above for any EXTREMELY challenged readers), we need to reproduce to survive as a society. Any other questions?

OK, I know everyone is amazed that this is the 3rd post today, but I’ll keep rolling while I can. I was introduced to a new blog today called Musum Pontificalis. I think it will be funny to most people, but I’m pretty sure the vast majority of conservative Catholics will find it hilarious. It’s a spoof site pretending to be the musings of Pope Benedict XVI. Here are some highlights to convince you to go over and read it:

The ‘About Me':
“Basically, I’m just your average Joe. I like to drink beer and muse like everyone else. I love the Good Lord with all my heart and He has blessed me immensely, for which I am eternally grateful.”

On HTML:
“I am really enjoying my vacation. So far, the better part of it has been spent trying to figure out this darn HTML code stuff. They made it so you can use both < "i"> and < "em"> tags, yet I have found that they don’t always work together. Relativists! They frustrate me to no end.”

On Seinfeld:
“A few co-workers and I were standing around the water-cooler discussing Seinfeld reruns when the conversation switched gears and became a heated debate. I don’t want to be a namedropper, but these colleagues were Cardinals Ruini and Mahony.”

On Beer:
“A very dear and thoughtful friend brought me a gift from the United States. Not to be a namedropper, but it was Archbishop Levada. I was honored by his gesture and humbly accepted his generous gift. The gift was a much-appreciated case of Budweiser. I thought to myself, “ah, how exciting; it’s been a while since you’ve enjoyed a good pilsner, Joey.”

That evening, after work, I cracked one open. Having fond memories of drinking Budweiser that had been smuggled in from Czechoslovakia, I was anxious to experience that poetic dance of barley and hops upon my palate once again.

What a surprise I was in for. Far from being the smooth, yet complex pilsner I was accustomed to fifty years ago, I found it utterly repugnant and it instantly gave me a headache. For a moment I had even wondered if certain Jesuits had poisoned me.

I began to reflect on the situation and realized that my negative experience was the expected consequence of Relativism. You see; this is precisely what happens in a Relativistic society. Terms like “good beer” become subjective. In this case, even the word “beer” seems to be subjective. Society can no longer trust labels and there is no honor to a man’s word.”

On modern technology:
“I marvel at modern technology and what can be done with it; if it were only used for good the world would be a much better place. As I am musing to you via my Blackberry, I was struck by how modern technology, particularly computer code, demonstrates to us how unworkable the Relativist system is.
…
Anyway, the stewardess has just informed me that I am not allowed to use cellular devices on the plane, so I have to go.”

On web browsers:
“You see, dear children, your Papa was unwittingly operating contrary to the principles laid out in the encyclical by Pope Leo XIII of happy memory, Rerum Novarum. In using the browser that came packaged with my computer’s operating system, I was supporting the efforts of a monopoly bent on dictating the market and denying computer programmers their dignity to create and market superior products that will benefit all of society, especially the poor.

As is so often the case with issues of social injustice, you can find Relativism in operation behind the scenes. Considering the web browser issue, the relativist would say the common good is defined by whoever controls the market. To them, the only operating principle is the power to control, and there are no principles directing the means to gain that control.

The resulting consequences are price gouging, lack of innovation, inconsistently applied standards and their forfeiting of security in order to maintain their dual monopoly in the market place.

For this reason, Fr. Norbert is going to install something called Firefox. He informs me that it will change the way I browse forever. He has also assured me that it is the product of benevolent individuals working for the common good, rather than the fruits of a monopoly or some socialist utopian scheme thought up by some Jesuits.”

On his brother:
“You see dear children, when George and I were young, we used to play priest. Oh what fun we had! One day when we were playing, George said that he just got word from Rome, that there was a conclave and the cardinals elected him pope, and that as his first pontifical act he was going to excommunicate me for using his football without asking (that is a soccer ball to you Americans).

I was so upset that I was beside myself. I begged him to lift the excommunication, but he refused. He held that thing over my head for years it seemed. It may not seem like a big deal now, but at the time I was traumatized over the whole thing. What is beautiful about Providence is that there really was a conclave and take a wild guess as to who was elected pope? That’s right – your Papa Ratzi. Perhaps when George is released from the hospital and we know everything is OK, I’ll remind him of the time he “borrowed” my bicycle without asking.”

Great stuff, don’t you think?

Well, it looked at the start of the season like this might be a bad year in Oakland. It turns out, all we needed to do was be patient and wait. Unlike the Giants who are in a death spiral of steriod withdrawls (without Barry “I didn’t inhale, or at least know what I was inhaling” Bonds), the A’s are red hot!

How hot are they? They’ve won 34 of their last 42 (that’s 34-8 for a winning percentage of .810 for the math challenged out there) since the end of May.

Or said another way, they’re so hot I was disappointed when they lost their first game in over a week on Wednesday, to only take 3 of 4 in the Metrodome. 3 month’s ago I would have been happy (and I mean HAPPY) to get a split of a 4 game series there.

Way to go A’s!

OK, we all know how much of a fan I am of The Play. (See my old posts here, here, here and here if you’ve forgotten or are a new visitor).

Well yesterday was ESPN’s day in California (they’re touring the 50 states one day at a time, highlighting the sports history/trivia of each as they go). What did they show parts of not once (to open the show), not twice (as a teaser), but THREE times (during the actual bit on great plays in California)? You guessed it: The Play!

At least from ESPN’s perspective, California consists of X-Games (tomorrow on ESPN), the Peanut guy at Dodger stadium, Barry Bonds (700th homerun), Joe Montana (The Catch), USC (Matt Lienart throwing an anonymous TD) and of course The Play!

Further proof that it is truly the most exciting finish in the history of college football.

Since we’re on the theme of movies, I watched Hotel Rwanda a few week back and was very moved by it. I’m not so sure the movie itself was great, but it was definitely good. The story on the other hand merits a lot of introspection.

So what are we to do with the problems of the world, even problems as big as genocide? What is our obligation to the world both in a secular sense and in a religious sense? In the end, that’s what this movie challenges us about. The movie obviously comes down on the side of the need for intervention and it makes a good case for it. How can we turn our backs on a million people who are being killed because of their race (or for any reason for that matter)? To watch this genocide through the movie’s perspective takes a great toll on one’s conscience.

However, this type of injustice has happened for all of human history. It continues to happen with such frequency in the modern world that for a nation or set of nations to militarily try to prevent all of them would be a MASSIVE strain, if not unbearable one, on those countries.

So what are we to do? Turn our back? Only provide humanitarian aid? Selectively pick the ones we care enough about to take military action based on our sympathies and personal interests? (This seems to be the current strategy.) Set a threshold above which we will intervene in any conflict? Get involved in every conflict in which civilians are being slaughtered? Get involved in any conflict with significant loss of live (military or otherwise)?After watching this movie I didn’t have an answer (although there are options I’ve listed that are not acceptable to me). I don’t know if I ever will have an answer.

What I do know is that I took away from the movie is that there is a great need for a sense of honesty in what we’re willing to do. We often hear the UN issue strong condemnations and embargos and the such that aren’t actually backed up. The movie pointed very strongly to the disasters that can result from having the UN there under the impression that they’re going to keep the peace but unwilling to actually get involved when all hell breaks loose. Many people’s lives were put in jepordy because a false set of expectations surrounded the UN’s role and their willingness to get involved.

This is not to say that it’s an all or nothing proposition. What I am saying is that if the UN’s role is just to monitor the situation, then that better be all it does and it better make it clear that is what it is there for. Or said more generally, when it enters a situation it needs to make clear what it’s role is and be willing to actually follow through on that role.

I think the big reason the UN (and the US as well) doesn’t make clear it’s role is because it itself can not determine what it wants its role to be. Until we go through the process of deciding what we want our role to be (and make the decision decisively) we are guaranteed to put others in jeopordy, those who are counting on us to follow through on our commitments or our principles and are let down.

Hopefully movies like Hotel Rwanda will help us have the discussion necessary to make those decisions at least at the federal level if not at the UN level.

I recently watched the movie In Good Company and was very impressed. Impressed enough to give it 5 stars on Netflix (which I rarely do). What amazed me is how little press and excitement this movie had. It only made $45 million.

The setup is that a magazine company gets bought by company that is known for its “sexy” business strategy and using words like synergy constantly. The head of the sales department is a man in his early 50’s (played by Dennis Quiad) and he is demoted so that a young 26 year old executive can take over the department and revamp things. This includes increasing revenue by 20% and reducing costs dramatically.

The resulting story, that follows the lives of both the old and new department heads is a great one. It’s not bitter, it’s not sappy, it’s just real and it speaks to one of the greatest failures of our modern society: our companies objectifying employees to be “assets” to be bought and sold.

Watch it! Anyone who’s been stuck in coorporate American will both identify with the story and either learn something or have their beliefs reinforced. (For me it was a little bit of both.)