My limited understanding beats out your knowledge and expertise any time!

No, readers, this is not a political post!  (But don't get started in that area!)

This is not my real attitude, but experience with an employer's (yes, readers, I now I have an employer!) blog software made think of this experience. You've seen it in choir rehearsals--"My high school choir director taught me to do it this way in 1952, and you'll never convince me to do it any other way! I don't care about unity--all the audience will know that I alone am doing it right!" That, along with "What? You mean the English language hasn't always functioned the way we understand it today?!" both amaze me.

Back to the topic at hand. As a favor (because, believe me, David doesn't write copy for data entry wages!) I helped edit a couple of blog posts written by someone whose native language is not English. My understanding is that he had grabbed information from other sources and glommed it together. Well, after my best efforts, the software gave me red lights for both SEO recognition and readability. SEO-schmay-zee-oh! If someone searches for Persian rugs or Oriental rugs they'll find the blog posts and learn about the business. (Link. Yes, they need my help with their web site, too.) But the readability business really irritated me. You see, I knows something about writing.

I don't know which was more irritating--the fact that this software continually recommended bad style choices, or that the fellow I was helping out simply refused to move forward until both SEO and readability lights were green. I know something about the English language. I have been writing for publication for a little while now. I had very good training in English grammar while I was in school. (Something I'm sure the public schools in North Carolina are far too busy with accountability and running away from shooters to offer nowadays!) I can understand that the software likes simpler sentences that I often use. I can understand that it doesn't like passive voice. (I actually did edit out a lot of passive voice language in the original posts, and the ratings got better.) But using what they call "transitional words" in every other sentence? Let us establish now that I think "therefore" is overused and more often than not used incorrectly. (I also think "forever" is used far too often, and don't get me started on "zero" vs. "no" or "none"!) Someone who is searching for this topic is probably able to read my sentences. Someone who isn't able to read them will likely be paying someone else to do the online research for him.

Why do I have such an emotional response? As they say, if it's hysterical, it's historical. Tell me I'm not smart and I'll hurt you bad. I'm not kidding. I guess it's hard for me to remove myself from these suggestions that I am a bad writer. Surely it resonates with other things in my life, past and present. I'll work on that and I'll keep you posted. Unless the six or eight hours daily of data entry drive me to jump off a building or something.

The poor will be with you always

Autumn is almost upon us, and that brings with it all the predictable fall activities:  schools opening, football season starting, and church stewardship campaigns starting up.

Most of us know the source of the quote in my title.  (Interesting comparison of sources and interpretations here.)  When Mary Magdalene wanted to comfort Jesus with soothing oils, certain disciples railed at the expense.  Jesus said, "The poor will be with you always, but the Son of Man, not so much."  OK, maybe not in those words, but who knows what His actual words were?  It took me many years to understand that saying, and even now I don't think "understand" is the right word. I might have gained some insight, however, from all those years in the choir loft trying to ignore the sermons.

I am reminded of a law enforcement television show when the police officers were instructed in their priorities: First, themselves. They could help no one if they were dead or injured.  Second, their partners/teammates. Same reasoning. Third, the public they were there to serve.

Well, guess what?  The same is true of the rest of us.  If we can't take care of ourselves, we certainly can't take care of anyone else.  I don't care if that means a designer outfit or a Lexus or a nice meal out occasionally, if you can still spare a dime to help the needy.  However you take care of yourself spiritually and emotionally.  That is not as easily measured by price tag. Some might object to stained glass windows or professional church musicians, but we need these things.  St. Francis said, "God, you are beauty!"  To my extremely grammatical mind, that means beauty and God are one.  If those stained glass windows or beautiful anthems bring us closer to God, we are better prepared to serve the world, aren't we?

My point?  Yes, give what you can to the church, to social welfare organizations, to medical research and education and animal welfare charities.  Give 'til it hurts.  Bring coffee from home to skip that bought cup of coffee.  Buy a smaller SUV or television than you've been dreaming of.  The usual advice.  If you are reading this article, if you have food in the cabinet, if you have a roof over your head, you understand what I mean.

If you are shopping for charities at Walmart, you have missed the point completely.  Recognize that not all gifts are tangible. Those stained glass windows, that beautiful music, those television commercials that make you cry--those things are necessary.  They bring value that is not measured in dollars and cents.  To paraphrase a quote, the purpose of the church/charity/etc. is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.  I have my doubts about whether quarterly reports are an accurate means of measuring the success of that goal, but I have no doubt as to whether keeping in fit spiritual condition allows me to serve my fellow man.