OVER COFFEE 1997 ARCHIVE SITCOMS WORTH REMEMBERING I have always been a big fan of TV. I have never subscribed to the philosophy that television will rot your brain or make you stupid. In fact, television has the potential of doing just the opposite - although that potential is far from actually being completely realized. My favorite type of show is the sitcom - situation comedy. I will admit, the premise of some of these shows vacillates between the ridiculous and the totally stupid, but sometimes one can find a nugget of gold among the plastic rhinestones. A few of the true comedic gems, at least in my opinion, include The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Newhart, the Bob Newhart Show, Frazier, Home Improvement, Soul Man, The Wonder Years, Barney Miller, and The Simpsons. There are others, but these stand out as being some of my very favorites. Other classic sitcoms that most people seem to have enjoyed over the years, but which are way out of range of what I perceive to be enjoyable TV, include such shows as I Love Lucy, The Honeymooners, The Beverly Hillbillies, I Dream of Jeanie, and worst of all, Bewitched. In fact, Bewitched is my least favorite show of all time. It is totally inane. I'm not a violent person, but I would love to clunk dimwitted Darren on the side of the noggin. If I were married to a supernatural being who could give me anything and everything I ever wanted, don't you think I would take full advantage of it? You bet I would! The Beverly Hillbillies started off funny. They were funny their first season, and mildly amusing their second. But after that, the show became just plain dumb. How could anyone, no matter how far back in the sticks they came from, not learn anything at all about the big city after living there for several years? The Clampets never learned anything. Each episode ended without their gaining any insight into city life at all. The movie was far better than the TV show. Have you ever noticed how some shows get worse as they linger on for several seasons, while other shows get better? Some age like fine wine; others age more like soup broth. The Hillbillies was definitely in the latter category. One good show that seemed to lose some of its luster as one season led to another was The Mary Tyler Moore Show, whose Happy Homemaker character played by Betty White really stank up the last couple of seasons of that show. Rhoda should have stuck around. She was much better on Mary than she was on her own show. On the other hand, shows such as M*A*S*H, Barney Miller, and Newhart improved over the years. In each, the characters became more real and the episodes became less silly with each passing season. In my opinion, Newhart was probably the best sitcom that ever graced the small screen. It certainly had the best final episode. One of the best shows in production today is The Simpsons. This animated series is as fresh and funny as it was its first season - probably more so. It, along with new arrival, King of the Hill, are not only funny, they continually bowl me over with their biting political and social satire. One of the best lines in all of television history was when Hank Hill commented, "What kind of country is it when the only people you're allowed to hate are white males?" That line ranks right up there with Lou Grant's retort to Mary Richards - "You've got spunk." (Pause) "I HATE spunk." WHERE'S THE CAFFEINE-FREE SOFT DRINKS? People who drink soft drinks can be divided into two main groups: Those who drink sugar-sweetened beverages, and those who drink diet beverages. And so, most convenience stores and pop machines that sell refrigerated, single-serving cans and bottles of pop sell a large variety of sugary drinks and a large variety of diet pop. But there is a sub-category of pop drinkers that often gets forgotten. I'm referring to those of us who must drink the sugar-free AND caffeine-free beverages. For me, and probably most others who drink diet, caffeine-free soft drinks, it's not just a preference; it's a necessity. I can remember years ago wondering why my dad always drank decaffeinated coffee and caffeine-free soft drinks. Caffeine seemed to have no effect on me at all back then. But more recently, that has not been the case. It must be a genetic thing. Anyway, whatever the reason, I prefer to avoid caffeine as much as possible. So I connected to the Internet to see if I could find out some information about the amount of caffeine in beverages. What I found surprised me a little. Did you know that regular perked coffee has well over 100 milligrams per cup - sometimes as much as 150 milligrams. That's not the surprising part. I knew coffee was high in caffeine. But I was a bit surprised to see just how high it was compared to all other beverages. A cup of hot tea contains only about half as much caffeine as coffee. And those caffeine-enriched soft drinks, like Jolt Cola, contain only slightly more caffeine than tea - about 71 milligrams per can. (Although Surge contains less than Mountain Dew.) What was most surprising was the disparity in the amount of caffeine between Coca-Cola and Pepsi. I'd always assumed they contained approximately equal amounts. Not so. Pepsi contains about 35 milligrams whereas Coke contains about 46 milligrams. That would explain why I can tolerate drinking a can of Diet Pepsi, but a can of Diet Coke makes me jittery. Colas are not the only soft drinks with caffeine. Mountain Dew contains 55 milligrams and Sunkist Orange contains 40 milligrams. Somewhat surprisingly, most brands of root beer contain none, (except Barq's which contains 23 milligrams). For an extensive list of caffeine amounts in beverages, log on to http://wilstar.net/caffeine.htm. So it's not hard to see that a person who must drink diet and caffeine-free soft drinks might have a difficult time trying to sort it all out at the convenience mart. Unfortunately, the variety of sugar-free, caffeine-free soft drinks is not large. In fact, I consider myself lucky to be able to find anything that meets the criteria. Diet Sprite or 7-Up, Caffeine-Free Diet Coke or Pepsi, and Diet Rite Cola are the most common offerings, but I occasionally find myself craving for some slightly more exotic flavor - one that is abundant among the sugary, caffeine-rich products. I can seldom find a caffeine-free diet orange or grape soda, for example, (although Cracker Barrel has a diet variety of Stewart's Orange Soda that has no caffeine). I would love to find a nice diet, caffeine free cream soda. Most often, convenience stores do not even sell diet root beer, (try Huck's), let alone some of the newer and more exotic flavors. No, most of us who drink diet and caffeine-free drinks must select from the old stand-bys. And some places, such as Revco, do not offer any diet, caffeine-free brands at all. And convenience stores are not the only problem. Have you ever asked for a diet, caffeine-free soft drink in a restaurant? In Edinburgh, Bertha's Place and Roscoe's have them, but most fast-food restaurants do not. I've learned to just order a cup of ice water at most of these places - or perhaps a glass of milk. (I know - milk contains some sugar, but it's lactose, which enters the blood stream slowly). Remember a few years ago when all the rage was those little bottles of Perrier Water, or the many knock-offs. Personally, I like club soda. But try to find a cold bottle on the shelves on any convenience mart. You won't. Dairy Queen has it as a fountain drink, and Thornton's sells 32-ounce bottles of it that are cold, but those are the only places I've been able to find it in years. But there is shelf after shelf of plain old tap water. Sure, it might say something like "pure spring water," or "ultra- filtered." But tests would show it to be not much different than regular Edinburgh tap water. What a racket these bottled-water companies have. They can sell a plain bottle of water for the same price as they can sell a bottle of Coke! Well, enough ranting. Probably not many of you fall into the same category as I do when it comes to soft drink preference. But to those of you who do, you know what I'm talking about - don't you? DON'T TAKE OLESTRA AWAY Ever since Proctor & Gamble introduced their new fat substitute, olestra, in certain test markets, their have come forth those who have advocated that it be removed from grocers' shelves. The protests are led by a consumer group called Science in the Public Interest. What motivates these people to attempt to ban a product that many others have wished for, for a long time? Olestra is a fat substitute that can cause minor abdominal cramps and loose stools in a small minority of consumers. Products containing olestra have a warning label saying as much. But that's not good enough for these protesters. They want the product banned. But if it causes abdominal distress in certain people, then those people shouldn't buy the product. They should not try to outlaw it so millions of other people who can tolerate the product can't get it. There are hundreds of products available for consumption that may potentially cause certain symptoms. Eating a lot of high-fiber cereal might cause cramps. Eating sugar-free chocolate candy containing sorbitol might cause cramps. Eating too many bananas might cause abdominal distress. And the list goes on. So why is the Center for Science in the Public Interest targeting olestra products? Many people are impatient for Proctor & Gamble to market its fat-free fat in more products, including cooking oil. It is a wonderful product, especially for overweight people or those trying to keep from becoming overweight. To those who want it banned, back off! Go find a product that is really harmful to protest against. Cigarettes come to mind. GAYS IN THE MILITARY In declaring unconstitutional a policy by the U.S. Military of "don't ask; don't tell" with regards to its gay members, a federal judge in New York has shown that he is not at all constitutionally savvy. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Eugene Nickerson said that the policy by the military "discriminates against gays." But there is no protection for homosexuals built into the constitution. The government, the military, nor private industry cannot discriminate against someone based upon their religion, their national origin, their sex, or even their physical disabilities. But there is no prohibition against discrimination against deviant sexual practices. Judge Nickerson seems to believe there is. The policy was meant to maintain morale and order in the military ranks. It was a good policy. But the judge said, "It is hard to imagine why the mere holding of hands off base and in private is dangerous to the mission of the armed forces if done by a homosexual but not if done by a heterosexual." Well, imaging this, Judge Nickerson: What if a heterosexual couple were seen holding hands off base and then the female member of that couple came back on base to bunk with the guys? Would they not feel uncomfortable, (or perhaps aroused)? Why would it be different if a known gay man were seen kissing or holding hands with another male only to return to his troop to bunk with them? If a heterosexual man were allowed to bunk with women, and to shower with them, get dressed in front of them, and so forth, would that not be uncomfortable for the women? If a known homosexual is allowed to bunk and shower with the men, many of whom he may find attractive, why would those men also not feel offended or otherwise uncomfortable? The only way that gays in the military should be permitted is if they have separate sleeping quarters. But that is not a real solution, because it would be like allowing men and women to bunk together, and it would be cost-prohibitive to build an extra set of barracks for gays. No, the only real solution, other than barring all gays outright, is the "don't ask; don't tell" policy. THE CLONING DEBATE In the late '60's, I remember a debate was raging in my high school regarding the morality of transplanting a human heart. In the '80's, I remember a similar debate regarding the morality of producing "test tube" babies. Now, there is a debate going on regarding the morality of human cloning -- even though it has never been attempted. Today, heart transplants are almost commonplace. In vitro fertilization is a viable alternative for couples who can't have children naturally. And genetic engineering has made the treatment of diseases such as diabetes more reliable. Many technologies that were once feared, or labeled "immoral" are now embraced. Human cloning may also one day be embraced as well. I am very concerned about a possible Congressional knee-jerk reaction against human cloning. I see great promise in the cloning of embryos for research. But, too, I also see promise in the ability, sometime in the future, for a married couple who may be incapable of having children normally, to produce a baby through the cloning of one parent. Or someone who wishes to become a single parent may use cloning as the preferred method of procreation. Cloning might eventually become just another alternative from which to choose for those who want a child but can't have one. And, when the day arrives that human cloning is as common as artificial insemination, we will look back on this current debate and ask ourselves, "What were we all worried about?" THE ONE TRUE RELIGION? Some of my faithful readers may have picked up on the fact that I like a good debate occasionally. I hesitate to say "argument;" it's too negative. Most debates center on politics, trends, or other societal issues. But this past week, I had a debate with a friend of mine on that one subject that few people ever win a debate on -- religion. Knowing full well the odds against converting him to my views on the subject, I nevertheless, felt up to the challenge, if for no other reason than to allow him the chance to convince ME of his opinions. His argument was that truth is relative and there is no universal "truth." My counterpoint was that Christianity has in its founder, Jesus Christ, the one unerring "truth" from which all else can be measured. "But how can you say to a Muslim, a Hindu, or a Jew that Christianity is the one true religion," he asked. "Followers of those religions staunchly believe that their religion is the right one." "But the foundation of Christianity is faith," I replied. "You have to accept the tenets of Christianity on faith in the word of God as found in the Bible." "But followers of other religions have faith, too. Are you saying that just because they choose to believe in a different religion that they will all be condemned to hell?" he asked. "Who am I to say," I responded. "'Judge not that ye be not judged.' Only God can judge them and their motives -- not me." "But you are judging them," he replied. "You're saying that Christianity is the only religion that counts and that, therefore, everybody who doesn't believe in it is a second-class citizen, condemned to hell." "I can judge a religion without judging its followers," I said. "I'll leave that up to God." "But how do you know for sure that Christianity is correct, and that Jesus is the Son of God and was resurrected?" he asked. "I've looked, and I can find no proof -- nothing to convince me it is true." "And you're searching in vain," I replied. "There is no proof. If there were proof, then there would be no competing religions. It's simply a matter of faith." This had my friend a little puzzled, because he knew that I was one of the most logical-minded people he knows. "How can you accept something like that on blind faith when everything else you do is based on pure logic? he asked. "It doesn't make sense. Where's the simplicity of it?" "The simplicity of it is fairly complex," I said, with some admiration of the irony. "When you can logically reason that logic doesn't apply, then you must, logically, arrive at the decision to throw out logic in favor of faith." "But faith in what?" he asked. "Christians are no better at keeping the peace than any other religion has ever been," he said. "If the word 'jihad' strikes fear in the hearts of Christians, the the word 'crusade' will surely strike fear in the hearts of Muslims." "Don't judge Christianity by the actions of most Christians," I said. "To be Christian is not only to be a believer in Christ, it is also to be 'Christ- like.' And no one has mastered that since Christ himself. The important thing is to set that as a goal to strive for, knowing that you will never actually achieve it completely." "And then what, you go to heaven?" he asked with a touch of sarcasm. "I'm not sure I buy into this heaven and hell stuff. I think that it's more important to do what's right and what's ethical and be kind to your fellow man, not because of fear of going to hell, but just because it's the right thing to do. I believe there is some kind of heaven, or reward, for anyone, regardless of their religion, as long as they live a just life," he said. "Oh, so you do admit that there might be life after death?" I asked. "And you believe it is available to those who earn it, rather than simply given to those who believe in Christ?" "Yes," he replied. "It makes a whole lot more sense than thinking only those who believe in some arbitrary religion will be the 'chosen few.'" "You're back to using logic again," I said. "Remember, logic doesn't work with matters of faith. But if you insist, try this reasoning: If you concede that their may be a Heaven, and if you concede that Jesus may have been able to heal or perform some of the 'miracles' mentioned in the Bible, then you obviously believe that miracles are possible, and that there may be a place called Heaven. And if miracles are possible, then why limit your beliefs to those miracles that are convenient for you to believe in, or that fit what you think religion should be? If you believe a little of it, why not believe it all?" "I'm still not totally convinced. I want to keep an open mind, but I don't think that Christianity is the only true religion," he said. "And what if you ARE wrong?" I asked. "What if you erred in your logic and you find yourself at the gates of Heaven and can't get in; what will you say THEN?" He thought a minute, shrugged his shoulders, and said, "Oops!" WOULD YOU BUY THIS PRODUCT? Here's a test for the consumer: What if a salesman came to your door and made the following sales pitch. Would you buy his product? "Hi there. I have a wonderful product for you. Actually, it's pretty awful, but I couldn't find a job so I thought I'd try selling this thing. But it's available in almost any store! Unfortunately, it has absolutely no useful purpose? It won't nourish your body, make you look better, clean your skin, hold your hair in place, make you smell better, nor even give you an artificial high." "But wait; before you make your decision, let me tell you more about this fine product.. It not only has no useful purpose, but it produces many negative consequences. It will probably give you cancer, heart disease, and bad breath. It may cause birth defects in your children. And it will make you stink." "The price? Well it's really not very affordable. It will cost you about $500 per year for the rest of your life. But I guarantee it will make your life shorter!" "So how about it? Do we have a deal?" If that salesman came to your door, would you buy his product, or throw him out? If you smoke cigarettes, you have already bought it. R.J. AND THE WEED I've never been very successful at writing fiction. Maybe it's because I can't come up with a good plot that hasn't been done before. But then, that never stopped most TV sitcom writers. Anyway, I just find it difficult to come up with a good plot outline that resolves itself in a logical manner. Allow me to experiment a little here.... Once upon a time.... (I know; it's been done!) Anyway, back in the days just after the dinosaurs, (about 65 million years after), when people liked living in caves, there was a young boy, named R.J., who liked having friends and liked to "fit in" with his group. They liked doing things together, but, being the younger of the three in his social clique, he often felt a little left out and insecure. One day the two older "friends" decided to test their slightly-younger playmate. As a sort of rite of acceptance, they concocted a plan to see how loyal their young friend was to the group. They found this sun-dried weed where it had been growing near their Cape Code style cavern. They picked it, ground it up, and rolled it up into a long cylinder, surrounding it with a section of another leaf from the same plant. When R.J. met with them later that day, they gave him this weed stick and told him that, if he was truly a friend, then he must set the end of it on fire while holding the other end in his mouth. Then, he must suck on it, so that the smoke would go down into his lungs. He must do this until the weed stick was completely burned up. R.J. thought they were nuts! "But we do it all the time," said one of the older boys. R.J. agreed to give it a try, to prove he was as good as they were. So he lit the stick and started sucking. He coughed and hacked and gasped for breath. He got a little sick. But he finished burning the weed stick. His friends told him the next one would be much better. "Next one?", R.J. questioned. "How many of these sticks do I have to burn?" They told him at least 20 every day. "That's how many we burn," they said. Not wanting to be the odd ball, R.J. agreed to give it a try. After a few weeks of huffing and puffing, the two older boys noticed that R.J. was no longer bothered by the smoke. In fact, he seemed to look forward to lighting up another weed stick. So they decided to try smoking one themselves. Like R.J., they too eventually became hooked. But they realized they had a good thing. Since they were hooked, if they could only coax other cave boys into trying the weed, they could mass produce the weed sticks and sell them to the addicted customers and make a bundle! But R.J. wasn't buying it. He had been rolling the weed sticks himself for over two months, and he thought he could do a better business with the weeds, because his father had some experience in merchandizing Cave-O-Matic wall designers. So he had some business experience. So R.J. and his father went into business in competition with his former friends, Philip and Morris. They sold their weed sticks far and wide. Over the next several years, all three entrepreneurs developed a chronic, nagging cough. They had no idea it was caused by their weed sticks, so they continued selling them. But, after they eventually died from various pulmonary ailments, their descendents kept their business alive. They eventually caught on that there was a link between sucking on a weed stick and dying prematurely of lung disease, but since it was a good, profitable business, they decided to continue selling them. They just wouldn't tell anybody about the nasty side effects. Well, that's my story, and you see the plot does not completely resolve itself. I always thought a good story should end with, "...and they lived happily ever after." But in my story, that phrase doesn't seem to fit very well. HISTORY VS. THE BIBLE To be religious, one must have faith -- by definition. To be a Christian, one must have faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who allowed himself to be Crucified for the sins of mankind. Unfortunately, many Christians substitute faith for logic and good judgment. Although having faith in God is certainly laudable, one must not let that faith blind them to the realities of the world. The Bible is a collection of manuscripts written by many different men over the span of about 1000 years. It was compiled into a single book by a committee of men, and approved by a bishop, in the 4th century. There was disagreement between members of the committee as to which works should be included in the Bible. There are a number of books that are in the Bible that many felt should not be part of the Holy scripture. And there were other books left out of the Bible that many thought should be included. As a whole, the Bible is a collection of great literature. It is a literary masterpiece. But the Bible is almost entirely allegorical in nature. According to the best real evidence in existence, many (if not most) of the stories told in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, never really happened. Does that mean the Bible is full of lies, half truths, and innuendoes? If some of the stories of the Bible did not happen exactly as described does that discredit it in any way? Of course not. The Bible's purpose was never to record history; there are other works that do that much better. Rather, the Bible was always meant to be a spiritual guide. The fact that some of the stories may have been highly embellished takes nothing at all away from the meaning of those stories. The Bible is a timeless book. It was written thousands of years ago by writers who had absolutely no knowledge of the things we understand to be true today. They, therefore, could not include such scientific principals as evolution, cosmology, or relativity. Those ideas were not to be thought of until hundreds of years later. The writers of the Bible wrote only what they knew. They wrote using methods that captured the attention and held the interest of the readers in that day and age. Although all of the spiritual guidance provided by the Bible applies just as well today as it did a thousand years ago, the pool of knowledge about nature is much greater today than it was then. And just as one would not search through a cookbook to learn how to repair a car, one should not search the Bible to find the answers to questions about history, science and nature. All the conflict that apparently arises between science and religion can be resolved if one would use the Bible strictly for spiritual guidance, and not as a historical account of Creation. For the true method God chose for our Creation was not known to the author of Genesis. LOOKING FOR SIGNS Are you one of those believers who have received or seen a "sign from above" recently? Seldom does a week go by that a group of people haven't claimed to have seen a divine sign or image somewhere. Many claim them to be miracles. Others scoff. A year or so ago, the Hubble Space Telescope sent back stunning images of a far-away nebula. Within the nebula there can be seen what many claim to be the face of Jesus Christ. And sure enough, if you look at just the right angle and use a little imagination, you can pick out an image of a man's face. And it does look like what we have come to accept as Jesus' appearance. More recently, there have been apparitions of the Virgin Mary, appearing on buildings as diverse as churches and banks. Throughout history there have been many apparent "miracles" of the Virgin Mary appearing in diverse locations. Every time somebody witnesses what they interpret to be an image of Jesus or of the Virgin Mary, thousands of Christians from all over the world flock to the location to hopefully get a glimpse of the miracle. But are they miracles? Is God trying to send us a sign in these images? Are they the real thing, or just figments of the imagination of the masses? Although I'm sure many will disagree, my vote is for the latter. Why? For several reasons. First of all, nobody really knows what Jesus looks like. There were no portraits painted of Christ during His time on Earth. The images and paintings that you find in Bible book stores and elsewhere come from an artist's conception of Him, first painted hundreds of years following His Crucifixion. The same thing is true of the Virgin Mary. Secondly, and probably more importantly, God used prophets and signs to provide information to the people in Old Testament times. But God's last sign to us came in the form of his Son, Jesus. In Jesus, God provided all the signs and all the information that we need. There is no need for any further communication to us, except of a personal level through Jesus. The fact that so many people respond to all these so-called signs and wonders that appear proves that they really WANT to believe, but that they need something more than faith. They need something tangible that they can see or feel. But there will be none of that. It takes faith, and faith alone. There are no "signs from above;" there are no images of Christ, or of the Virgin Mary. They are all figments of the imagination of a gullible and needy populous. They all want the signs, but they do not need them. When you have faith, there is no need for further assurance in the form of obscure images. THE GIFT OF GIVING The holiday season is behind us once again. But does that mean the season for giving is over as well? It shouldn't. As Christmas approaches, a sense of "Good will toward men" takes hold of many of us. But charitable organizations, such as the Salvation Army, report drops in donations in recent years. Some of the decrease may be attributed to economic factors, but that probably plays a smaller role than one might think. What might be more important in a person's decision to donate to charity is the spirit with which his or her donation is accepted. Acknowledging that there is a danger of over-generalizing here, it sill can be said that many receivers of charitable donations do not accept those donations with the appropriate amount of humility. That's not to say that those in need must humble themselves to the rich or well-to-do; not at all. But anyone, regardless of socioeconomic standing must put on the mask of humility when accepting anything from anyone. Too often those who are on the receiving end of a charitable donation do so with the attitude that they have it coming to them; that they deserve it, or better. If the donation is less than what they believe they deserve, they may even become angry or rude. An example can be drawn from a high school in Indiana whose Student Council took on an annual project of collecting cans of food to distribute to the underprivileged families in the community during Christmas. The project went on for several years. Sometimes thousands of cans of food and packaged goods were brought in by the students in an inter-classroom competition. On the last day before Christmas vacation, the student council would separate the food into "food baskets," each containing similar amounts and varieties of food. The council would also purchase hams or small turkeys to supplement the cans and packaged foods. The baskets would then be distributed by numerous student runners to those families appearing on the free-lunch program, or who had been referred by others. During a four-year period, the council members heard several complaints from the recipients of these food baskets. Either there was not as much food as last year, or someone had not received a ham this year, or another wanted a ham instead of a turkey. Most of the recipients said nothing at all, which was far better than hurling complaints. But during that same period of time, only one family -- just ONE -- took the time and effort to send a thank-you card to the student council. The student council had not begun the project to receive praise. The students did not expect to hear "thanks." But it would have been nice if more of the recipients had offered thanks. Perhaps there should be voluntary guidelines that all donors and donees should abide by. If you are a charitable donor, try to follow these simple rules: Don't wait until Christmas to give. Be generous all year. Give cheerfully and non-grudgingly. Do not expect to receive any thanks. Give anonymously when possible. Give useful items that are in good condition, not just the ones you are tired of or have no more use for. If giving money, give as much as you feel you can afford. Give to those whom you believe need it most, not to those whom you like the best. Look on your donation as though it were a universal obligation rather than something coming from your great generosity. And if you are a receiver of a charitable contribution... Accept each donation with humility, even if you know it was given begrudgingly or with arrogance. Do not simply refuse a charitable gift if you don't want it, but rather humbly suggest an alternative recipient. Always thank the giver, if you know who it is. A card would be nice. Never complain about the gift you have been given, even if it is not what you want or think you deserve. No matter how poor you are, try to share part of your gift with someone else who is even poorer than you. Remember, the purpose of giving is not to make you feel better, but to help others who are less fortunate than yourself.