Of all the Bible references with the word "meditate" or "meditation", I think the 19th Psalm is the primary passage on biblical meditation. The author of this song is King David, the father of biblical meditation. The key verse is #14, which reads,
"Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in Your sight, O LORD, my strength and my redeemer" ( Psalm 19:14).
Based on this psalm, let's develop 4 points about the discipline of biblical meditation: the arena of meditation; the audience of meditation; the aim of mediation; access through meditation.
1. The Arena of Meditation: Worship is the arena of meditation. You cannot meditate until your mind enters the sphere of worship, where you begin to focus on spiritual things.
As David entered into worship, he set his mind to meditate on three important areas or angles of his life.
(a) Creation (vv. 1-6). David could not meditate on creation without thinking about the Creator. When he raised his head and looked at the sky, he saw the handiwork, the signature of Elohim, the God of creation. The heavens reminded him of God's glory. With his eyes up there, David zoomed in on the morning sun rising, comparing it to a bridegroom marching in splendor and majesty towards his bride on wedding day.
=> Meditation will help you "see" the environment and the beauty of God's creation. Which is your favorite part of creation? For David, it was sunrise. For you it might be sunset, the moon, a bloom of flowers, trees, a butterfly, the beach, a rainbow. Why not focus on that, see what thoughts come to your mind, then speak those thoughts as your praise to the Creator. That's meditation.
(b) Next, David meditates on God's Word (vv. 7-11). He values the Law of God above "gold", which represents all earthly possessions. He says God's word, like food, tastes sweeter to him than "honey", which symbolizes all the pleasures of life.
=> What is your favorite portion of Scripture? Is it the 23rd Psalm? Is it John 3:16? Focus on the key words and phrases of that text from the Bible. Now mentally begin to squeeze some meaning from the text. Speak the thoughts that come to you. That's meditation.
(c) Finally, David meditates on himself, his character. He takes personal inventory of himself. He does some self-reflection, self-examination (vv. 12-13). The word of God serves as a mirror that shows David his real self, not the King David that his subjects know, but David as he truly is, naked in God's sight. David sees some good in himself, just as a mirror will show you what's right about you. But the mirror of the Torah (God's Law) also reveals David's flaws and faults. And when David confronts his not-so-great parts, he realizes his need for soul cleansing that God alone can provide. So he asks God to deal with his little sins in order to protect him from the big sins, the "great transgression".
=> What image of yourself has God's word shown you? Where in your character are you making progress? Where are you more Christlike? Praise God for that. Where do you need some cleanup? Ask God to purify your character. Such a spiritual cleansing is part of meditation.
2. The Audience of Meditation: God is the main audience of meditation. We know that from David's words, "O LORD (Yahweh)". This means the most important reason and purpose for meditation is to connect with God and to commune with God. Yahweh is the One David is talking to and thinking about as he meditates.
When you meditate, you should speak directly to God, not to yourself. Speak to God in the second person, "You". Think on God, not on yourself and your problems. Meditation is not being absorbed with self and your concerns and interest. To meditate is to preoccupy your mind the Almighty and to speak your thoughts as you muse on God.
3. The Aim of Meditation: David says, "Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart". What is a person trying to achieve when s/he meditates? To bring about a union of mouth and mind. To unify tongue and thoughts. To join your words to your thoughts and emotions. To get your mouth and heart to sing from the same sheet of music. In the Bible, "heart" and "mind" are closely linked. According to Scripture, you think in your heart (See Proverbs 23:7; Matthew 9:4). Meditation reaches its highest form when and where the wholesome words of your mouth kiss the pure thoughts and emotions of your heart. In meditation you aim to purify your heart, your thoughts and emotions, which in turn will purify your words. This will help to develop you into a better, brighter character.
When you meditate, your primary desire is for God to be pleased with your speaking, thinking, and feeling: "be acceptable in Your sight". That word "acceptable" is the word for "pleasure". That was David's desire: "God, I want the words I say, the thoughts I think, and the emotions I feel to please You. I want You to look upon my words, thoughts and emotions, and nod. It is important to me that You are pleased with what I say, what I think, and how I feel."
4. Access through Meditation: David's words are, "O LORD, my strength and my Redeemer!" Meditation is a medium, a means to an end, a path to a destination. Through meditation, you can access divine resources, God's supplies for your life. That's why it is crucial for you to first connect with the Divine. David mentions two resources you can access through meditation: strength and redemption.
One of the chief goals of meditation is to receive strength from God. The word translated "strength" here is the word for "rock". David is calling God his Rock, his foundation, the constant of his life.
Strength from God or divine empowerment is one of the greatest benefits of meditation. To meditate is to acknowledge and admit that you don't rely on yourself or other people for inner strength. When you meditate you are telling yourself, "I need a power greater and higher than myself to be the best and most I can be as a person. My strength runs out, and I need my strength renewed regularly." You tap into God's unlimited strength through meditation. (For God's ability to give you new strength, read Psalm 46:1; Proverbs 18:10; Isaiah 40:29-31.)
David addresses Yahweh as "my redeemer". The meditator regards Yahweh as the Redeemer. The word "redeem" basically means to "buy back". In our day, it roughly corresponds to "recoup, recover, make up for losses".
For example, due to the steep drops in the stock market, some retirees have lost millions of dollars in the retirement accounts. If the market was to reverse course, and those retirees were to recoup all of those losses, we would say the retirees or their accounts have been redeemed.
In this Psalm, David is saying, God has the ability to recoup or buy back what we have lost. He can make up for our losses. He can reverse the trend. How? When we look to God rather than rely on ourselves, the Almighty can empower us to achieve in 5 months what might have taken us 5 years to recover. When we team up with God, we can double up and recover much more quickly. God is the Redeemer, the Maker Upper.
Meditation is one powerful way to tap into this divine power to redeem, recoup, recover, restore whatever you may have lost.
But it gets even better. Not only can Yahweh redeem our losses, He can redeem us! David says, "my Redeemer". He is not just the Redeemer of my time, my relationships, the resources I may have lost. He is "MY Redeemer". He redeems ME. God has the power to buy me back when I am lost, when I have lost it, when I have lost myself, whenever I have sold myself out. Meditation is the spiritual currency that makes such a transaction possible.
How useful, how powerful meditation can be! It is God's prescription for your sanity, a sound mind. Meditation is medication. Try it today.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Learning from the Father of Biblical Meditation
The Book of Psalm is the Bible's hymnbook, a book of praises and prayers. And the person who wrote half of the 150 Psalms was the man named David. Known to many from the "David and Goliath" Bible story, David became Israel's greatest and most beloved king.
The 19th Psalm, whose theme is meditation, was written by David. David's life experiences show us how or why he became the master of meditation. Though many of the prophets, apostles and saints of the Bible were students and practitioners of meditation, I think it is to David that we should award the title "Father of Biblical Meditation".
What are some of the details of life that must have drawn him to meditation?
(a) David was the last of 8 sons born to Jesse, a man from Bethlehem in the tribal land of Judah. David was not seen by his dad as leadership material. That could be why Jesse never brought David to the family gathering when the Prophet Samuel came to town to anoint one of Jesse's sons to be the next king.
=> David might have used mediation to comfort himself as the black sheep of the family.
(b) David was the shepherd of the family's flock. Keeping sheep out there in the fields must have been a lonely and dangerous job, especially for a young boy. David tell of an incident when a bear came after his sheep, and another occasion when the encroaching predator was a hungry lion. Both times the young shepherd put his life on the line and saved his sheep from the teeth of the beasts.
=> Through the discipline of meditation, David was able to overcome the fears associated with his job.
(d) David became a poet, songwriter, harpist and singer. As a young man, he was so good at composing and playing inspired music that King Saul, the first monarch of Israel, hired David to give the king music therapy to relieve Saul's chronic stress and depression (1 Samuel 16:14-23).
=> David used his music as a means for meditation. It was wise of him to meditate through music. Musical meditation is mystical medication for the soul.
(e) Later in life, David, after he was anointed by Samuel, became the target of King Saul's envy, anger and murder plots. For the most part of 20 years, David was on the run, hiding from Saul.
=> During those years of wandering and running for his life, David encouraged his heart and soothed his soul through the art of meditation.
(f) After Saul died, and David became King of Israel, he still had many battles to fight, especially with the Philistines, Israel's mortal enemies for much of David's reign. David had to function as a warrior-king.
=> As a warrior with battle plans to lay out, and as a monarch with administrative duties, David found much wisdom in meditation.
(g) Also, despite all his achievements on the national and global stage, David had a dysfunctional family. Apparently, David was neither a great father nor a wonderful husband. The biggest moral failure of his life was his affair with Uriah's wife. After the adultery, which resulted in pregnancy, King David went on to plot the death of this loyal soldier on the battlefield. The guilt and stain of that double sin of adultery-murder haunted David's conscience for months, if not years.
Furthermore, David witnessed incest among his children. One of his sons raped one of David's daughters. That sister's brother (Absalom) murdered the brother who raped his sister. Eventually, Absalom, David's most handsome and beloved son, plotted a revolt that gain steam. King David was forced to flee the city and hide out in the country. In the process of this coup attempt, the rebellious prince engaged in broad-day sex with his father's women (concubines or half-wives).
=> In and through all of those difficult national and personal situations, the discipline of meditation was probably one of David's most used secret weapons. It was how he got through each day, whether as a boy in his family, as a shepherd in the desert, as a fugitive on the run from King Saul, as the warrior-king of Israel, and as a struggling husband and father.
The life of David, the Father of Meditation, teaches us that the busier you are, the more suited you are for meditation. The more responsibilities you have, the more you need to practice meditation. Meditation can be the most potent tool for a leader's mind. Take it from King David. Meditate.
The 19th Psalm, whose theme is meditation, was written by David. David's life experiences show us how or why he became the master of meditation. Though many of the prophets, apostles and saints of the Bible were students and practitioners of meditation, I think it is to David that we should award the title "Father of Biblical Meditation".
What are some of the details of life that must have drawn him to meditation?
(a) David was the last of 8 sons born to Jesse, a man from Bethlehem in the tribal land of Judah. David was not seen by his dad as leadership material. That could be why Jesse never brought David to the family gathering when the Prophet Samuel came to town to anoint one of Jesse's sons to be the next king.
=> David might have used mediation to comfort himself as the black sheep of the family.
(b) David was the shepherd of the family's flock. Keeping sheep out there in the fields must have been a lonely and dangerous job, especially for a young boy. David tell of an incident when a bear came after his sheep, and another occasion when the encroaching predator was a hungry lion. Both times the young shepherd put his life on the line and saved his sheep from the teeth of the beasts.
=> Through the discipline of meditation, David was able to overcome the fears associated with his job.
(d) David became a poet, songwriter, harpist and singer. As a young man, he was so good at composing and playing inspired music that King Saul, the first monarch of Israel, hired David to give the king music therapy to relieve Saul's chronic stress and depression (1 Samuel 16:14-23).
=> David used his music as a means for meditation. It was wise of him to meditate through music. Musical meditation is mystical medication for the soul.
(e) Later in life, David, after he was anointed by Samuel, became the target of King Saul's envy, anger and murder plots. For the most part of 20 years, David was on the run, hiding from Saul.
=> During those years of wandering and running for his life, David encouraged his heart and soothed his soul through the art of meditation.
(f) After Saul died, and David became King of Israel, he still had many battles to fight, especially with the Philistines, Israel's mortal enemies for much of David's reign. David had to function as a warrior-king.
=> As a warrior with battle plans to lay out, and as a monarch with administrative duties, David found much wisdom in meditation.
(g) Also, despite all his achievements on the national and global stage, David had a dysfunctional family. Apparently, David was neither a great father nor a wonderful husband. The biggest moral failure of his life was his affair with Uriah's wife. After the adultery, which resulted in pregnancy, King David went on to plot the death of this loyal soldier on the battlefield. The guilt and stain of that double sin of adultery-murder haunted David's conscience for months, if not years.
Furthermore, David witnessed incest among his children. One of his sons raped one of David's daughters. That sister's brother (Absalom) murdered the brother who raped his sister. Eventually, Absalom, David's most handsome and beloved son, plotted a revolt that gain steam. King David was forced to flee the city and hide out in the country. In the process of this coup attempt, the rebellious prince engaged in broad-day sex with his father's women (concubines or half-wives).
=> In and through all of those difficult national and personal situations, the discipline of meditation was probably one of David's most used secret weapons. It was how he got through each day, whether as a boy in his family, as a shepherd in the desert, as a fugitive on the run from King Saul, as the warrior-king of Israel, and as a struggling husband and father.
The life of David, the Father of Meditation, teaches us that the busier you are, the more suited you are for meditation. The more responsibilities you have, the more you need to practice meditation. Meditation can be the most potent tool for a leader's mind. Take it from King David. Meditate.
Meditation: Rediscover a Spiritual Discipline
How important is meditation? Think of it this way.
What would driving be like if there were no stop signs and traffic lights, if vehicles did not have brakes on them, if you did not refuel or service your car?
No stop signs and no traffic lights would mean chaos in the streets. Far more accidents. Many more motor vehicle deaths. No brakes on vehicles would make driving one of the most dangerous activities around. If drivers did not refuel or service their cars, most cars would be parked somewhere, rather than be in traffic on the road.
Living can be like driving in traffic. You are the car, van, bus or truck. Just like a car needs brakes. You need time to pull off the road to fill up, serviced by the mechanic of your soul. You need stoppage time, fill-up time, and service time. You need to put on the brakes, sometimes the parking brakes.
The alternative is greater stress. High anxiety levels. Embattled relations. Broken links between family and friends. More dysfunctional households. Upswing in frustrations. Frequent complaining, fussing, quarreling, fights. More burnouts. Faster wears and tears. Even greater likelihood of suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, actual suicides.
There is a spiritual discipline designed to put the brakes on when you need to stop. Fill up your spiritual tank when you need new fuel. Service your soul when you're burnt out, worn out, torn up, tired, weary. Open that stress valve and drain the pressure out to a trickle. Rejuvenate your inner self and get going again with new power, new energy, that new umph. Meditation.
Meditation and Personal Development
The major difference between how I react to insults, failure and disappointment now and how I used to react can be credited to the time I have learned to spend in meditation over the years. Without meditation I am edgy, irritable, short-fused, easily stressed out, worried. Mediation has made the difference in how I manage anger, stress, anxiety. How I deal with fear. How I handle failure. How I respond to disappointment. Meditation has helped to grow my spiritual life like few other good habits I've developed.
A Different Kind of Meditation
When you hear the word "meditation" these days, you may be thinking New Age, Yoga, or Eckankar, which calls itself "The Religion of the Light and Sound of God." The Eckankar practitioner believes that s/he can use meditation to see the light of God and hear the sound of God. The basic idea is to tap into your subconscious, so your soul can travel through the act or art of meditation.
Transcendental meditation is what some people think of when they hear the term meditation. No matter which New Age form of spirituality you take, when it comes to meditation, they all emphasize how you position your body in order to chant or do certain breathing exercises in order to expand your spiritual horizon. That can be useful.
However, the idea and practice of meditation we find in the Bible is quite different from the New Age version. Biblical meditation goes far beyond body position, breathing techniques, chanting or humming, though every one of those aspects can be used in the type of meditation I'm talking about. Biblical meditation is quite simple, yet it can be so powerful. So beneficial. So life changing.
Meditation, the Biblical Version
Christians have short changed themselves by hardly exploring the practice of meditation, by leaving New Agers and Eastern religionists to be the leading practitioners and experts on meditation. It does not have to be that way. Meditation is very much a vital part of biblical faith. The prophets, the apostles, the saints of the Bible were well versed in the art of meditation.
Through meditation, many Old Testament saints became giants of true faith. Abraham heard the call of God, and God showed him the fame of his future. Isaac used to meditate at sunset; he took a quiet walk in the woods. Moses spent as many as 40 days meditating on a mountain, as he listened to God and received special instructions from the Great One. Joshua led the tribes of Israel to conquer and settle Canaan, the Promise Land, by making meditation a daily habit. Joshua meditated on the Torah, the Law of God. Through meditation, Samuel the priest, judge and prophet helped to transition Israel from a loose tribal confederacy to a unified monarchy. By meditation the Prophet Elijah heard God in a fresh new way. In a "still small voice". Through meditation, David overcame great odds and was able to shepherd the Kingdom of Israel in challenging times.
New Testament saints continued the practice of meditation. John the Baptizer gave up the soft pleasures of city life to meditate with the Qumran faith community on the banks of the Dead Sea. John the Baptizer lived on a simple diet. He didn't mind having a wardrobe of camel hair clothing. Jesus Christ, at the start of His public ministry, spent 40 days in the desert, where He meditated, encountered the evil one and won over Satan by wielding the weapon of Scriptures He had meditated on in the quiet of the wilderness. Simon Peter meditated in an upstairs room in the city of Joppa, where God showed him a vision to shatter Peter's lifelong prejudice. Without meditation the Apostle Paul could not have been so inspired to write more than half of the books found in the New Testament portion of the Christian Bible. Paul spent about three years in the Arabian Desert, probably spending much of that time in a meditative state. It was via meditation that John the Beloved received the end-time message of hope and encouragement known as the Book of Revelation.
Both in recent religious history and in our own day, the shining examples of spirituality have been meditators, if we can use or invent that word for the purpose of our discussion. Stepping in the footsteps of those saints, every follower of Jesus Christ needs to learn and practice biblical meditation. We'd do well to add meditation to our arsenal of spiritual disciplines, practices, resources.
Any Bible believer who practices biblical meditation will find that the best and brightest days of his/her personal, spiritual experiences lie not beneath the dust of the past but yet await him/her on a pedestal up yonder. And that future of spiritual bliss and boon can begin today. Enjoy your life of faith more than ever before. Enjoy spirituality to the fullest. Ready to elevate?
What would driving be like if there were no stop signs and traffic lights, if vehicles did not have brakes on them, if you did not refuel or service your car?
No stop signs and no traffic lights would mean chaos in the streets. Far more accidents. Many more motor vehicle deaths. No brakes on vehicles would make driving one of the most dangerous activities around. If drivers did not refuel or service their cars, most cars would be parked somewhere, rather than be in traffic on the road.
Living can be like driving in traffic. You are the car, van, bus or truck. Just like a car needs brakes. You need time to pull off the road to fill up, serviced by the mechanic of your soul. You need stoppage time, fill-up time, and service time. You need to put on the brakes, sometimes the parking brakes.
The alternative is greater stress. High anxiety levels. Embattled relations. Broken links between family and friends. More dysfunctional households. Upswing in frustrations. Frequent complaining, fussing, quarreling, fights. More burnouts. Faster wears and tears. Even greater likelihood of suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, actual suicides.
There is a spiritual discipline designed to put the brakes on when you need to stop. Fill up your spiritual tank when you need new fuel. Service your soul when you're burnt out, worn out, torn up, tired, weary. Open that stress valve and drain the pressure out to a trickle. Rejuvenate your inner self and get going again with new power, new energy, that new umph. Meditation.
Meditation and Personal Development
The major difference between how I react to insults, failure and disappointment now and how I used to react can be credited to the time I have learned to spend in meditation over the years. Without meditation I am edgy, irritable, short-fused, easily stressed out, worried. Mediation has made the difference in how I manage anger, stress, anxiety. How I deal with fear. How I handle failure. How I respond to disappointment. Meditation has helped to grow my spiritual life like few other good habits I've developed.
A Different Kind of Meditation
When you hear the word "meditation" these days, you may be thinking New Age, Yoga, or Eckankar, which calls itself "The Religion of the Light and Sound of God." The Eckankar practitioner believes that s/he can use meditation to see the light of God and hear the sound of God. The basic idea is to tap into your subconscious, so your soul can travel through the act or art of meditation.
Transcendental meditation is what some people think of when they hear the term meditation. No matter which New Age form of spirituality you take, when it comes to meditation, they all emphasize how you position your body in order to chant or do certain breathing exercises in order to expand your spiritual horizon. That can be useful.
However, the idea and practice of meditation we find in the Bible is quite different from the New Age version. Biblical meditation goes far beyond body position, breathing techniques, chanting or humming, though every one of those aspects can be used in the type of meditation I'm talking about. Biblical meditation is quite simple, yet it can be so powerful. So beneficial. So life changing.
Meditation, the Biblical Version
Christians have short changed themselves by hardly exploring the practice of meditation, by leaving New Agers and Eastern religionists to be the leading practitioners and experts on meditation. It does not have to be that way. Meditation is very much a vital part of biblical faith. The prophets, the apostles, the saints of the Bible were well versed in the art of meditation.
Through meditation, many Old Testament saints became giants of true faith. Abraham heard the call of God, and God showed him the fame of his future. Isaac used to meditate at sunset; he took a quiet walk in the woods. Moses spent as many as 40 days meditating on a mountain, as he listened to God and received special instructions from the Great One. Joshua led the tribes of Israel to conquer and settle Canaan, the Promise Land, by making meditation a daily habit. Joshua meditated on the Torah, the Law of God. Through meditation, Samuel the priest, judge and prophet helped to transition Israel from a loose tribal confederacy to a unified monarchy. By meditation the Prophet Elijah heard God in a fresh new way. In a "still small voice". Through meditation, David overcame great odds and was able to shepherd the Kingdom of Israel in challenging times.
New Testament saints continued the practice of meditation. John the Baptizer gave up the soft pleasures of city life to meditate with the Qumran faith community on the banks of the Dead Sea. John the Baptizer lived on a simple diet. He didn't mind having a wardrobe of camel hair clothing. Jesus Christ, at the start of His public ministry, spent 40 days in the desert, where He meditated, encountered the evil one and won over Satan by wielding the weapon of Scriptures He had meditated on in the quiet of the wilderness. Simon Peter meditated in an upstairs room in the city of Joppa, where God showed him a vision to shatter Peter's lifelong prejudice. Without meditation the Apostle Paul could not have been so inspired to write more than half of the books found in the New Testament portion of the Christian Bible. Paul spent about three years in the Arabian Desert, probably spending much of that time in a meditative state. It was via meditation that John the Beloved received the end-time message of hope and encouragement known as the Book of Revelation.
Both in recent religious history and in our own day, the shining examples of spirituality have been meditators, if we can use or invent that word for the purpose of our discussion. Stepping in the footsteps of those saints, every follower of Jesus Christ needs to learn and practice biblical meditation. We'd do well to add meditation to our arsenal of spiritual disciplines, practices, resources.
Any Bible believer who practices biblical meditation will find that the best and brightest days of his/her personal, spiritual experiences lie not beneath the dust of the past but yet await him/her on a pedestal up yonder. And that future of spiritual bliss and boon can begin today. Enjoy your life of faith more than ever before. Enjoy spirituality to the fullest. Ready to elevate?
Friday, October 17, 2008
What You and Joe the Plumber Have in Common
During the first 10 minutes of the third and final debate between Obama and McCain, someone named "Joe the plumber" was mentioned 13 times, according to Philip Elliott of The Associated Press. Fox News says, the now famous plumber's name was mentioned by McCain and Obama a total of 26 times throughout the debate.
Already, every major news organization has done a piece on Joe the Plumber. He's been interviewed by CNN, Fox News, and the rest. And there's more to come. In fact, I just came across this on the Fox News website:
"Joe Wurzelbacher will appear on FOX News Channel's Huckabee program in an exclusive prime time interview to air this Saturday at 8 p.m. ET. The show will re-air on Sunday night, also at 8 p.m. ET. Wurzelbacher will appear on the program with his son and father."
During the October 15th debate, McCain injected Joe into the debate by telling Obama, "Joe wants to buy the business that he has been in for all of these years, worked 10, 12 hours a day. And he wanted to buy the business but he looked at your tax plan and he saw that he was going to pay much higher taxes... You were going to put him in a higher tax bracket, which was going to increase his taxes, which was going to cause him not to be able to employ people, which Joe was trying to realize the American dream."
Isn't it ironic that someone from an Obama campaign event ended up being McCain's best hope for points in the debate? Politics is a game of sudden twists.
McCain grabbed onto the Joe thing with bulldog tenacity, sensing that Joe gave him a golden opportunity to dress up the tax issue in flesh and bone. Later in the debate, McCain, said with emphasis, his eyes fixed on the camera, "Joe, I want to tell you, I'll not only help you buy that business that you worked your whole life for and I'll keep your taxes low and I'll provide available and affordable health care for you and your employees. And I will not stand for a tax increase on small-business income."
That came across as quite effective, and it probably scored the most points for McCain in the whole debate. Joe the Plumber might have become a winning ticket for McCain the Candidate.
Who is this average Joe, who has become the standard bearer for America's middle class, and an effective weapon on McCain's lips, if not the anchor of the senator's presidential hopes?
His full name is Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher, and he is a plumber who lives in Ohio. The plumber attended an Obama rally in Toledo. At the event, Joe told the Democrat nominee that Obama's plan to raise taxes on those making $250,000 or more would prevent him from buying the plumbing business, where he currently works. Obama responded to Joe by using the phrase "spreading the wealth", words which McCain seized upon to drive home his point that Obama's tax plan is bad for small business. Joe said Obama's response made him "uneasy".
Joe the Plumber is not saying who he'll vote for. To those who are curious to know how Joe will vote, the plumber says, "That's for me and a button to know."
Obviously, Joe the Plumber has given voice to those who are troubled by Obama's plan to increase the tax burden on individuals and businesses making $250K and higher. To make matters worse, Obama has not yet explained if his $250,000 ceiling refers to gross or net income. That clarification could mean a world of difference to so many Americans, and could mean votes too. That's important.
When asked later about his new-found national fame, Joe replied, "It's pretty surreal, man, my name being mentioned in a presidential campaign." Then he indicated that he might just capitalize on his popularity for his plumbing career.
All the tabloid juice aside, here is the really important question for those who care about higher taxes on anyone. What happens if Joe decides to buy the plumbing business, begins to make $250,000 per year, and President Obama raises his taxes?
He will do exactly what every "rich" business person does every time they have to pay more in taxes: Joe will reckon the new taxes as additional cost of doing business. Then he will find a way to pass that cost on to his customers by charging them more for his plumbing service. That's the way it works in the real world of business, and that's what it means when you hear people say, "Rich people don't pay taxes."
Every entrepreneur went into business to make a profit. While higher taxes may reduce the profit margin, a true entrepreneur will always find a way to "trickle down" the tax burden in the same way that the business passes down the cost when the business owner has to pay more for supplies, equipment, real estate or anything having to do with operating the business.
The same math magic works in the fuel industry: Say, politicians raise taxes on Exxon Mobil, the rich oil company. OK. All right. What does Exxon Mobil do? Don't worry, Exxon Mobil knows the game. Here it goes: raise the price gas stations pay for their supply of fuel. What will the owner of the gas station down your street do? That's right: raise your gas price at the pump.
So who ends up paying for the higher tax that Obama will levy on "Joe the Plumber" (the typical business)? You and I do. How? The next time you need a plumber, you'll pay for fixing your kitchen sink or unclogging your bathtub.
In a free market economy, higher taxes on business always mean higher prices for consumers who pay for goods and services.
One more point: If it does not make business sense for Joe the Plumber to raise the price on consumers, then he'll cut cost, say, by laying off an employee or two, or by not hiring a new worker. Also, the employer can respond to a tax hike by not giving employees a pay raise or a promotion that might require higher pay. Whatever way you cut it, it's the little guy who ends up paying the burden of higher taxes "on the rich". Beware!
Bottom line is whenever Uncle Sam raises taxes on Joe the Plumber (small or big business), we all end up paying more or losing more. That's what the rich and the politician have figured out, and what everybody else has yet to.
Actually, Joe the Plumber is not a licensed plumber yet. He has to take his state test first. That means his question to Obama was little more than a hypothetical, though the same cannot be said of Obama's response. Anyway, Joe the Plumber is the one Joe that's no longer an average Joe. Not bad for a guy who became famous at an event he never attended, a debate to which he was not even invited.
Already, every major news organization has done a piece on Joe the Plumber. He's been interviewed by CNN, Fox News, and the rest. And there's more to come. In fact, I just came across this on the Fox News website:
"Joe Wurzelbacher will appear on FOX News Channel's Huckabee program in an exclusive prime time interview to air this Saturday at 8 p.m. ET. The show will re-air on Sunday night, also at 8 p.m. ET. Wurzelbacher will appear on the program with his son and father."
During the October 15th debate, McCain injected Joe into the debate by telling Obama, "Joe wants to buy the business that he has been in for all of these years, worked 10, 12 hours a day. And he wanted to buy the business but he looked at your tax plan and he saw that he was going to pay much higher taxes... You were going to put him in a higher tax bracket, which was going to increase his taxes, which was going to cause him not to be able to employ people, which Joe was trying to realize the American dream."
Isn't it ironic that someone from an Obama campaign event ended up being McCain's best hope for points in the debate? Politics is a game of sudden twists.
McCain grabbed onto the Joe thing with bulldog tenacity, sensing that Joe gave him a golden opportunity to dress up the tax issue in flesh and bone. Later in the debate, McCain, said with emphasis, his eyes fixed on the camera, "Joe, I want to tell you, I'll not only help you buy that business that you worked your whole life for and I'll keep your taxes low and I'll provide available and affordable health care for you and your employees. And I will not stand for a tax increase on small-business income."
That came across as quite effective, and it probably scored the most points for McCain in the whole debate. Joe the Plumber might have become a winning ticket for McCain the Candidate.
Who is this average Joe, who has become the standard bearer for America's middle class, and an effective weapon on McCain's lips, if not the anchor of the senator's presidential hopes?
His full name is Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher, and he is a plumber who lives in Ohio. The plumber attended an Obama rally in Toledo. At the event, Joe told the Democrat nominee that Obama's plan to raise taxes on those making $250,000 or more would prevent him from buying the plumbing business, where he currently works. Obama responded to Joe by using the phrase "spreading the wealth", words which McCain seized upon to drive home his point that Obama's tax plan is bad for small business. Joe said Obama's response made him "uneasy".
Joe the Plumber is not saying who he'll vote for. To those who are curious to know how Joe will vote, the plumber says, "That's for me and a button to know."
Obviously, Joe the Plumber has given voice to those who are troubled by Obama's plan to increase the tax burden on individuals and businesses making $250K and higher. To make matters worse, Obama has not yet explained if his $250,000 ceiling refers to gross or net income. That clarification could mean a world of difference to so many Americans, and could mean votes too. That's important.
When asked later about his new-found national fame, Joe replied, "It's pretty surreal, man, my name being mentioned in a presidential campaign." Then he indicated that he might just capitalize on his popularity for his plumbing career.
All the tabloid juice aside, here is the really important question for those who care about higher taxes on anyone. What happens if Joe decides to buy the plumbing business, begins to make $250,000 per year, and President Obama raises his taxes?
He will do exactly what every "rich" business person does every time they have to pay more in taxes: Joe will reckon the new taxes as additional cost of doing business. Then he will find a way to pass that cost on to his customers by charging them more for his plumbing service. That's the way it works in the real world of business, and that's what it means when you hear people say, "Rich people don't pay taxes."
Every entrepreneur went into business to make a profit. While higher taxes may reduce the profit margin, a true entrepreneur will always find a way to "trickle down" the tax burden in the same way that the business passes down the cost when the business owner has to pay more for supplies, equipment, real estate or anything having to do with operating the business.
The same math magic works in the fuel industry: Say, politicians raise taxes on Exxon Mobil, the rich oil company. OK. All right. What does Exxon Mobil do? Don't worry, Exxon Mobil knows the game. Here it goes: raise the price gas stations pay for their supply of fuel. What will the owner of the gas station down your street do? That's right: raise your gas price at the pump.
So who ends up paying for the higher tax that Obama will levy on "Joe the Plumber" (the typical business)? You and I do. How? The next time you need a plumber, you'll pay for fixing your kitchen sink or unclogging your bathtub.
In a free market economy, higher taxes on business always mean higher prices for consumers who pay for goods and services.
One more point: If it does not make business sense for Joe the Plumber to raise the price on consumers, then he'll cut cost, say, by laying off an employee or two, or by not hiring a new worker. Also, the employer can respond to a tax hike by not giving employees a pay raise or a promotion that might require higher pay. Whatever way you cut it, it's the little guy who ends up paying the burden of higher taxes "on the rich". Beware!
Bottom line is whenever Uncle Sam raises taxes on Joe the Plumber (small or big business), we all end up paying more or losing more. That's what the rich and the politician have figured out, and what everybody else has yet to.
Actually, Joe the Plumber is not a licensed plumber yet. He has to take his state test first. That means his question to Obama was little more than a hypothetical, though the same cannot be said of Obama's response. Anyway, Joe the Plumber is the one Joe that's no longer an average Joe. Not bad for a guy who became famous at an event he never attended, a debate to which he was not even invited.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Rush Limbaugh’s Many Names for Barack Obama
When it comes to the politics of name-calling intended to belittle, demonize and smear, few influential figures do a better job than radio talk host Rush Limbaugh, who has been doing what he does best for 20 years now, dating back to 1988.
While there is much liberal talk radio just as addicted to smear talk, there is no liberal talk radio host who commands anywhere near Rush's audience of around 20 million per week.
We used to think that the years of President Bill Clinton would have been the peak of Limbaugh's harshest partisan attacks, as the uncontested master of the politics of personal destruction. But along came Barack Obama, and Rush has taken attack politics to a whole new level. He has even gone after Obama's wife and underage daughters. You don't dig any lower than that.
Rush Limbaugh salivated when Gov. Sarah Palin was contracted by Senator John McCain to join the ticket and save the McCain campaign in her role as McCain's vocal culturally conservative veep. Ever since Palin's arrival on the national stage, Rush has been re-energized like we've never heard him in years. Before then he had to settle for a sweet lemon attitude towards the moderate, maverick John McCain. But now, Limbaugh truly has a dog in this fight. With his own mouth, Rush said to Gov. Palin on his radio program, "I admire you so much!"
With Palin going to the cemetery to exhume Bill Ayres and wrap him like a corpse around Obama's neck, Rush is playing his part, covering the airwaves with the kind of animus that has made him the beloved of the hard right, with the millions of dollars that go with being the national hit man for all causes conservative.
You may ask why a politically independent guy like me would use my time to tune the AM dial on my radio to the Rush Limbaugh Show Monday through Friday for going 17 years now. Well, I do so for the same reason I watch or listen to the liberal media: to hear both sides out, so I can protect inner being from the kind of partisanship that blinds the heart and mind, the slam game that makes enemy combatants out of one's political opponents.
As a Rush listener, I have been keeping a tab on the various names, titles and descriptions that Limbaugh has attached to Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama.
1. Empty Suit: This tag means that Obama lacks substance. He's a puff of air. His speeches use words like "change" and "hope", but say nothing. Those who are taken in by "Barry Hussein's" fluffy orations of nothingness are emptier suits themselves, gullible souls to be pitied by the super-intelligent Limbaugh.
2. The Messiah: Rush used this title to say that Obama supporters regard the candidate as their political savior, like Jesus the Messiah. He also means that Obama sees himself as a God-size figure, who is shocked by disagreement, who despises those who challenge or criticize with him. Many Christians were offended by Limbaugh's sarcastic use "Messiah" for Obama, but their objections did little to restrain the conservative giant's fiery tongue from festering his twisted form of sacrilege.
3. Squirrel: With that tag, Rush describes Obama not only as crafty and sneaky, but to tie him with ACORN (Association Of Community Organizations For Reform Now), that group that seems to be practicing what conservatives are already calling "voter registration fraud". As a squirrel feeds on acorn, Obama is benefiting from the efforts of ACORN. Acorn feeds squirrel; ACORN works for Obama. Got it?
4. Liar: Rush often calls Barack a liar outright. According to Rush, Obama is not telling the truth about what he heard or didn't hear from Rev. Jeremiah Wright at Trinity United Church of Christ, where Obama attended for 20 years. Obama lies about his association with Bill Ayres. Obama is not telling the American people about his true liberal ideas. Guess who has picked up this theme? Sarah Palin is correct, who is a Rush Limbaugh listener, as she intimated in her interview with Mr. Limbaugh on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.
5. Radical: Though Obama has all but bypassed the political platform and tactics of a typical black politician, Limbaugh insists that Barack's liberal ideas will radically change America as we know it. Rush fails to mention how radically the current administration, run by one of his guys, has "radically" changed America!
6. Extremist: Rush does not regard Obama as a run-of-the-mill liberal. No, Obama is something far worse, and Limbaugh cites MoveOn.org and other ultra-liberal backers of Obama as proof that the man is an extremist, the same label that some American politicians apply to Islamic/Muslim extremists. In other words, Obama is no less dangerous to the welfare of America than the terrorists are.
7. Socialist: Limbaugh believes that Obama's healthcare plan and tax policies will turn America into a socialist country. But Rush has a difficult case to make in this case, since the takeover of the financial sector of the US economy has been under the auspices of a Republican administration, with Barack often being a reluctant go-along. Much of the socialization of the American economy is already in place, without Barack in the White House.
8. The Most Liberal Person Whoever Ran for the Presidency: This one is like the catchall stigma with which Mr. Limbaugh intends to shock American voters as far away from Obama as they can go.
There may be and there will be other titles coming from the wordy lips of Rush Limbaugh, whether or not Obama wins the White House. But the sum total of all the name-calling is this: "You should be scared of Barack Hussein Obama. Be very afraid!"
No wonder, for fear is the weapon of choice for political underdogs.
To Rush Limbaugh and others who share his disdain for Barack Obama, let me post this warning: Wait till Barack becomes President Obama. Then you may need a regular dose of Maalox or that antidepressant Limbaugh's doctor used to give him under the table. Watch Rush loose his sanity, watch his health take a nose dive, if Obama becomes president. In that nightmare scenario for the conservative juggernaut, the only hope will be another round of addiction to unprescribed prescription drugs for the biggest mouth in talk radio. Pity the man.
While there is much liberal talk radio just as addicted to smear talk, there is no liberal talk radio host who commands anywhere near Rush's audience of around 20 million per week.
We used to think that the years of President Bill Clinton would have been the peak of Limbaugh's harshest partisan attacks, as the uncontested master of the politics of personal destruction. But along came Barack Obama, and Rush has taken attack politics to a whole new level. He has even gone after Obama's wife and underage daughters. You don't dig any lower than that.
Rush Limbaugh salivated when Gov. Sarah Palin was contracted by Senator John McCain to join the ticket and save the McCain campaign in her role as McCain's vocal culturally conservative veep. Ever since Palin's arrival on the national stage, Rush has been re-energized like we've never heard him in years. Before then he had to settle for a sweet lemon attitude towards the moderate, maverick John McCain. But now, Limbaugh truly has a dog in this fight. With his own mouth, Rush said to Gov. Palin on his radio program, "I admire you so much!"
With Palin going to the cemetery to exhume Bill Ayres and wrap him like a corpse around Obama's neck, Rush is playing his part, covering the airwaves with the kind of animus that has made him the beloved of the hard right, with the millions of dollars that go with being the national hit man for all causes conservative.
You may ask why a politically independent guy like me would use my time to tune the AM dial on my radio to the Rush Limbaugh Show Monday through Friday for going 17 years now. Well, I do so for the same reason I watch or listen to the liberal media: to hear both sides out, so I can protect inner being from the kind of partisanship that blinds the heart and mind, the slam game that makes enemy combatants out of one's political opponents.
As a Rush listener, I have been keeping a tab on the various names, titles and descriptions that Limbaugh has attached to Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama.
1. Empty Suit: This tag means that Obama lacks substance. He's a puff of air. His speeches use words like "change" and "hope", but say nothing. Those who are taken in by "Barry Hussein's" fluffy orations of nothingness are emptier suits themselves, gullible souls to be pitied by the super-intelligent Limbaugh.
2. The Messiah: Rush used this title to say that Obama supporters regard the candidate as their political savior, like Jesus the Messiah. He also means that Obama sees himself as a God-size figure, who is shocked by disagreement, who despises those who challenge or criticize with him. Many Christians were offended by Limbaugh's sarcastic use "Messiah" for Obama, but their objections did little to restrain the conservative giant's fiery tongue from festering his twisted form of sacrilege.
3. Squirrel: With that tag, Rush describes Obama not only as crafty and sneaky, but to tie him with ACORN (Association Of Community Organizations For Reform Now), that group that seems to be practicing what conservatives are already calling "voter registration fraud". As a squirrel feeds on acorn, Obama is benefiting from the efforts of ACORN. Acorn feeds squirrel; ACORN works for Obama. Got it?
4. Liar: Rush often calls Barack a liar outright. According to Rush, Obama is not telling the truth about what he heard or didn't hear from Rev. Jeremiah Wright at Trinity United Church of Christ, where Obama attended for 20 years. Obama lies about his association with Bill Ayres. Obama is not telling the American people about his true liberal ideas. Guess who has picked up this theme? Sarah Palin is correct, who is a Rush Limbaugh listener, as she intimated in her interview with Mr. Limbaugh on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.
5. Radical: Though Obama has all but bypassed the political platform and tactics of a typical black politician, Limbaugh insists that Barack's liberal ideas will radically change America as we know it. Rush fails to mention how radically the current administration, run by one of his guys, has "radically" changed America!
6. Extremist: Rush does not regard Obama as a run-of-the-mill liberal. No, Obama is something far worse, and Limbaugh cites MoveOn.org and other ultra-liberal backers of Obama as proof that the man is an extremist, the same label that some American politicians apply to Islamic/Muslim extremists. In other words, Obama is no less dangerous to the welfare of America than the terrorists are.
7. Socialist: Limbaugh believes that Obama's healthcare plan and tax policies will turn America into a socialist country. But Rush has a difficult case to make in this case, since the takeover of the financial sector of the US economy has been under the auspices of a Republican administration, with Barack often being a reluctant go-along. Much of the socialization of the American economy is already in place, without Barack in the White House.
8. The Most Liberal Person Whoever Ran for the Presidency: This one is like the catchall stigma with which Mr. Limbaugh intends to shock American voters as far away from Obama as they can go.
There may be and there will be other titles coming from the wordy lips of Rush Limbaugh, whether or not Obama wins the White House. But the sum total of all the name-calling is this: "You should be scared of Barack Hussein Obama. Be very afraid!"
No wonder, for fear is the weapon of choice for political underdogs.
To Rush Limbaugh and others who share his disdain for Barack Obama, let me post this warning: Wait till Barack becomes President Obama. Then you may need a regular dose of Maalox or that antidepressant Limbaugh's doctor used to give him under the table. Watch Rush loose his sanity, watch his health take a nose dive, if Obama becomes president. In that nightmare scenario for the conservative juggernaut, the only hope will be another round of addiction to unprescribed prescription drugs for the biggest mouth in talk radio. Pity the man.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Before You Bash Judas: How Much is 30 Pieces of Silver?
The worst betrayal of innocent blood in human history took place during Passover week in A.D. 33, when Judas Iscariot, one of the 12 apostles of Jesus Christ, connived with the enemies to sell Jesus out.
As the treasurer of the group that travelled with Jesus of Nazareth, Judas was in tune with the value of money. On one occasion a female admirer of Jesus took a bottle of costly perfume and smeared Jesus with it from head to toe.
The extravagance got Judas so upset that he convinced the other disciples to rebuke Jesus and the woman for such a waste of costly perfume and precious currency.
Judas became so obsessed with money that he began to see "dollar signs" everywhere. As the moneyman, Judas realized that the religious establishment really wanted Jesus out of the way. "Wonder how much they'll pay for Jesus?" Judas might have thought. Judas reckoned that if the religious elite wanted Jesus dead badly enough, they would probably be willing to pay to get it done. But Judas also knew it would be nearly impossible for the high priest and his ilk to get a hold of Jesus without insider information. They needed an informant within the ranks of Jesus' close friends.
Aha, Judas saw his chance to strike it rich. In short order, he scheduled a secret meeting with the religious authorities, and he revealed to them the perfect plot to hand Jesus over with one kiss. Soon the religious leaders were all over Judas' plan, and they eagerly offered him 30 pieces (shekels) of silver on the spot. Judas had become their hit man. But how much money was 30 pieces (shekels) of silver? Was it that big a deal?
In Bible days, 30 shekels of silver was the price of a slave. The amount equaled 120 Roman denarii (plural). A denarius (singular) was one day's pay for a laborer. So 120 denarii equaled a worker's salary for 120 days or 4 months' pay.
But still, how much is 30 thirty pieces of silver in "dollars and cents"? Well, I checked some websites, including Gospel Mysteries, and here is what I found. If you convert 30 pieces of silver to dollar, it comes to about $950. According to the Professional Coin Grading Service, if you adjust the amount for inflation over the last 2,000 years, it becomes a whopping $250,000. "Such a sum likely would have purchased a small farm. Quite a bribe for the time"
So, what could you do with $250,000 cash in Kentucky, where I live? I can buy a brand new house cash down. With what's left, I can purchase one green vehicle (hybrid, electric or CNG) for cash. Next, I can put some money in a CD (certificate of deposit) or money market account to earn interest for months or years to come. (I wouldn't touch the stock market right now may be later.)
Just like the bribe was attractive to Judas, it would be most sumptuously tempting to the typical follower of Jesus Christ today. And it doesn't have to be blood money either.
Look, how many Christians would not accept $250,000 to never set foot in a church again, to never read the Bible again, or to flat out say, "I'm no longer a follower of Christ"?
The offer would become even more attractive if it came from someone of a different religion, asking you to switch from Christianity to their religion, or from mainline Christian faith to a cult that claims to be Christian.
People jump religious ship all the time for far less than 30 pieces of silver, for amounts much smaller than $250,000. All it may take is a scholarship, a job offer, an opportunity to work for double overtime on Sunday instead of going to church. It may take as little as one month's utility bill to get some Christians to shack up and hook up, switch loyalty, or hop from one church to another!
Selling Jesus out is easier and more frequent than we may want to think.
So before we get down on Judas, let's check our own hearts to see how tempting a $250,000 bribe would be to us today. Many of us might do the same thing, if we knew we could take the money and sell Jesus out without paying any obvious price or without being caught.
Hey, hey, don't forget the rest of the story: Judas was caught. With a rope around his neck. He hanged himself.
Betrayal can be fatal.
As the treasurer of the group that travelled with Jesus of Nazareth, Judas was in tune with the value of money. On one occasion a female admirer of Jesus took a bottle of costly perfume and smeared Jesus with it from head to toe.
The extravagance got Judas so upset that he convinced the other disciples to rebuke Jesus and the woman for such a waste of costly perfume and precious currency.
Judas became so obsessed with money that he began to see "dollar signs" everywhere. As the moneyman, Judas realized that the religious establishment really wanted Jesus out of the way. "Wonder how much they'll pay for Jesus?" Judas might have thought. Judas reckoned that if the religious elite wanted Jesus dead badly enough, they would probably be willing to pay to get it done. But Judas also knew it would be nearly impossible for the high priest and his ilk to get a hold of Jesus without insider information. They needed an informant within the ranks of Jesus' close friends.
Aha, Judas saw his chance to strike it rich. In short order, he scheduled a secret meeting with the religious authorities, and he revealed to them the perfect plot to hand Jesus over with one kiss. Soon the religious leaders were all over Judas' plan, and they eagerly offered him 30 pieces (shekels) of silver on the spot. Judas had become their hit man. But how much money was 30 pieces (shekels) of silver? Was it that big a deal?
In Bible days, 30 shekels of silver was the price of a slave. The amount equaled 120 Roman denarii (plural). A denarius (singular) was one day's pay for a laborer. So 120 denarii equaled a worker's salary for 120 days or 4 months' pay.
But still, how much is 30 thirty pieces of silver in "dollars and cents"? Well, I checked some websites, including Gospel Mysteries, and here is what I found. If you convert 30 pieces of silver to dollar, it comes to about $950. According to the Professional Coin Grading Service, if you adjust the amount for inflation over the last 2,000 years, it becomes a whopping $250,000. "Such a sum likely would have purchased a small farm. Quite a bribe for the time"
So, what could you do with $250,000 cash in Kentucky, where I live? I can buy a brand new house cash down. With what's left, I can purchase one green vehicle (hybrid, electric or CNG) for cash. Next, I can put some money in a CD (certificate of deposit) or money market account to earn interest for months or years to come. (I wouldn't touch the stock market right now may be later.)
Just like the bribe was attractive to Judas, it would be most sumptuously tempting to the typical follower of Jesus Christ today. And it doesn't have to be blood money either.
Look, how many Christians would not accept $250,000 to never set foot in a church again, to never read the Bible again, or to flat out say, "I'm no longer a follower of Christ"?
The offer would become even more attractive if it came from someone of a different religion, asking you to switch from Christianity to their religion, or from mainline Christian faith to a cult that claims to be Christian.
People jump religious ship all the time for far less than 30 pieces of silver, for amounts much smaller than $250,000. All it may take is a scholarship, a job offer, an opportunity to work for double overtime on Sunday instead of going to church. It may take as little as one month's utility bill to get some Christians to shack up and hook up, switch loyalty, or hop from one church to another!
Selling Jesus out is easier and more frequent than we may want to think.
So before we get down on Judas, let's check our own hearts to see how tempting a $250,000 bribe would be to us today. Many of us might do the same thing, if we knew we could take the money and sell Jesus out without paying any obvious price or without being caught.
Hey, hey, don't forget the rest of the story: Judas was caught. With a rope around his neck. He hanged himself.
Betrayal can be fatal.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Everything Men Know About Women
I consider myself an expert on women. Why? Because I've been around women for most of everyday of my life. Being a middle-age guy, that's a load of experience and expertise.
To start with, I spent 9 months inside the tummy of a woman, or was it inside her belly? I know everything about mothers.
Then after I was born, I found out I had a sister, who beat me to the birth. I know a whole lot about sisters.
During my school days, everyone I ever dated was female. I know girlfriends like the face of my watch.
I was engaged thrice. Guess to whom? Ladies! So I know all about fiances too.
At age 28, I married a beautiful woman, one I call the Queen of Africa. Of course, I know all about wives.
While I was away in the United States, my wife gave birth to our daughter in Ghana, West Africa. Our daughter is a teenager now. Then late in the family planning game, boom, another daughter, who turns four in October 2008. You bet, I know all about daughters.
As you can see, it is no exaggeration, when I say I am an expert on women. From my vast experience inside a woman, around women, beside women, and with women, I have learned, and I now know everything there is to know about women, any woman.
Well, I know so much about women, it could take at least 60 months to lay out my findings for the benefit of my fellow male sub-species living off Mother Earth. But as the quintessential expert on anything and everything female, why would I need that much time? It just takes me 60 seconds to spell it all out.
Here -- everything men know about women.......
To start with, I spent 9 months inside the tummy of a woman, or was it inside her belly? I know everything about mothers.
Then after I was born, I found out I had a sister, who beat me to the birth. I know a whole lot about sisters.
During my school days, everyone I ever dated was female. I know girlfriends like the face of my watch.
I was engaged thrice. Guess to whom? Ladies! So I know all about fiances too.
At age 28, I married a beautiful woman, one I call the Queen of Africa. Of course, I know all about wives.
While I was away in the United States, my wife gave birth to our daughter in Ghana, West Africa. Our daughter is a teenager now. Then late in the family planning game, boom, another daughter, who turns four in October 2008. You bet, I know all about daughters.
As you can see, it is no exaggeration, when I say I am an expert on women. From my vast experience inside a woman, around women, beside women, and with women, I have learned, and I now know everything there is to know about women, any woman.
Well, I know so much about women, it could take at least 60 months to lay out my findings for the benefit of my fellow male sub-species living off Mother Earth. But as the quintessential expert on anything and everything female, why would I need that much time? It just takes me 60 seconds to spell it all out.
Here -- everything men know about women.......
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
6 Other Ways to Say "Barack Obama is Black"
A recent CNN report begins with a line similar to this: Race still matters in America, the question is How much will race matter in the 2008 presidential elections?
As an African I am very grateful for how far America has come in race relations. My gratitude to those who shed capital, much heartache, sweat and blood, allowing us to eat at any restaurant, sleep at any hotel, sit anywhere on a bus, train, subway or plane, without seeing signs like "For Whites Only".
Things have changed so much that my children can date, engage or even marry whites, if they choose to.
In our lifetime, the biggest evidence of America's leapfrog progress in race relations is the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama, who would not be where he is today without the active support and actual votes of millions of whites, Hispanics, Jews, Asians and others, beginning with the Democratic primary elections.
Despite all the progress, however, it can be said that race remains the wild card, the X-Factor in the 2008 presidential elections in these United States of America. No matter how far ahead Obama may be ahead of Senator John McCain in the polls, there is no room or reason for comfort for him, because of the so-called "Bradley effect", less commonly known as the "Wilder effect".
According to Wikipedia, "the Bradley effect refers to a tendency on the part of voters -- black as well as white -- to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a Black candidate, and yet, on election day, vote for his/her white opponent."
But that is not the only tide Obama has to swim against. There are also non-blacks who have learned to conceal their unlikelihood of voting for a black candidate in the wrappings and trappings of some really clever talking points. These are what may be called "Other ways to say He's Black".
1. "He's just too liberal." "He's too liberal for me." "He's too liberal for this country." These people don't see that John McCain is not that conservative; he has signed on to so many liberal policies.
2. "He makes me nervous." "I'm uncomfortable with him." "He makes me uncomfortable."
3. "I'm scared of him being in that White House." "He could be dangerous to our national security."
4. "He sympathizes with terrorists like Bill Ayres."
5. "He's a Muslim, but he won't tell you that." "He's Arab." "His middle name is Hussein. He's Barack Hussein Obama." That probably ranks as the favorite of them all -- the religious litmus test. Is it anti-American to be Muslim? Is being "Christian" a requirement for the presidency of the United States?
6. "I can't vote for him, and it's not because I'm racist. I would vote for General Collin Powell for president." That's easy to say when General Powell is not running.
Of course, there are some elderly whites who still say it the old fashion way: "I can't vote for that black boy."
You know what, I think I prefer the straight talk kind. At least, we don't have to guess or second guess what they mean. It's the ones who "speak in tongues" that worry me.
For the vast majority of Americans who have conquered "the skin thing", let's hope that race will not be a major factor on November 4th.
As an African I am very grateful for how far America has come in race relations. My gratitude to those who shed capital, much heartache, sweat and blood, allowing us to eat at any restaurant, sleep at any hotel, sit anywhere on a bus, train, subway or plane, without seeing signs like "For Whites Only".
Things have changed so much that my children can date, engage or even marry whites, if they choose to.
In our lifetime, the biggest evidence of America's leapfrog progress in race relations is the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama, who would not be where he is today without the active support and actual votes of millions of whites, Hispanics, Jews, Asians and others, beginning with the Democratic primary elections.
Despite all the progress, however, it can be said that race remains the wild card, the X-Factor in the 2008 presidential elections in these United States of America. No matter how far ahead Obama may be ahead of Senator John McCain in the polls, there is no room or reason for comfort for him, because of the so-called "Bradley effect", less commonly known as the "Wilder effect".
According to Wikipedia, "the Bradley effect refers to a tendency on the part of voters -- black as well as white -- to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a Black candidate, and yet, on election day, vote for his/her white opponent."
But that is not the only tide Obama has to swim against. There are also non-blacks who have learned to conceal their unlikelihood of voting for a black candidate in the wrappings and trappings of some really clever talking points. These are what may be called "Other ways to say He's Black".
1. "He's just too liberal." "He's too liberal for me." "He's too liberal for this country." These people don't see that John McCain is not that conservative; he has signed on to so many liberal policies.
2. "He makes me nervous." "I'm uncomfortable with him." "He makes me uncomfortable."
3. "I'm scared of him being in that White House." "He could be dangerous to our national security."
4. "He sympathizes with terrorists like Bill Ayres."
5. "He's a Muslim, but he won't tell you that." "He's Arab." "His middle name is Hussein. He's Barack Hussein Obama." That probably ranks as the favorite of them all -- the religious litmus test. Is it anti-American to be Muslim? Is being "Christian" a requirement for the presidency of the United States?
6. "I can't vote for him, and it's not because I'm racist. I would vote for General Collin Powell for president." That's easy to say when General Powell is not running.
Of course, there are some elderly whites who still say it the old fashion way: "I can't vote for that black boy."
You know what, I think I prefer the straight talk kind. At least, we don't have to guess or second guess what they mean. It's the ones who "speak in tongues" that worry me.
For the vast majority of Americans who have conquered "the skin thing", let's hope that race will not be a major factor on November 4th.
Conservatives Will Vote for John McCain Anyway; Here is Why
In a previous article, I highlighted 8 reasons proving that John McCain looks more like a Democrat than a Republican. For practical purposes, Senator McCain is a Democrat in disguise.
That is one of the main reasons why the senator's presidential race with Barack Obama remains a close one. He's running as a moderate Democrat, similar to what Hillary Clinton did during the latter part of the primary election season. By the way, former President Bill Clinton used the same strategy; he ran as a moderate Democrat.
Worse than being a Democrat impostor, Senator McCain has been consistently bashing and blasting President Bush, the real conservative and current standard bearer of the Republican Party. McCain is running against Bush, as though Bush were his opponent or enemy. As one who voted for President Bush, the "compassionate conservative", I really have a problem with McCain's angry Bush bashing.
So, if McCain is more like a Democrat, and he's dumping on the Republican President Bush, why are millions of conservative Republicans gearing up to vote for this man, rather than holding him accountable for betraying his party and conservative principles, and turning on the leader of his own party under the cover of "maverick"? Here are some reasons...
1. Conservative voters have talked themselves into the "lesser of two evils" philosophy. McCain is a lesser evil than Obama. What a smooth way to compromise your core principle!
2. Conservatives don't want to be branded "single-issue voters". They've believed conservative radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity that, in the 2008 elections, winning is everything. Even if we conservatives have to vote for an alien, let's do so; at least that's not Obama.
3. Conservatives have nowhere else to go, short of not voting at all. But if you really stand for principle, shouldn't you be able to do just that some times? Or at least, you should vote for a third-party candidate, who may not win, but you would have not sold your soul in the name of voting the party line. Whatever happened to "our conservative principles"?
4. Conservatives are betting on McCain for the sake of judicial appointments. They have convinced themselves that John McCain will appoint "strict constructionists", who will "interpret the constitution", not "legislate from the bench". That means pro-life judges, of course. Good talking points, but how do they know McCain will keep his campaign promise on this? If the man has flip flopped on numerous issues before, who's to say he won't do so when it comes time to appointing judges?
5. Many conservatives will vote McCain, because they say Obama is "Muslim", which may be code for "He's black." (Check out the article, "6 Other Ways to Say 'He's Black'.) These conservatives' fear of or hatred for Obama drives them into the arms of McCain, who is actually ashamed to be lumped together with conservative Republicans, except for their votes come elections day.
6. Millions of conservative voters are hoping that a vote for John McCain is actually a de facto proxy ballot for Sarah Palin, the true conservative. These conservatives see McCain as merely a front, a figurehead, the shortest route to electing President Sarah Palin. Now, they may be onto something there, when you take Senator McCain's age and health into account. If elected, it is likely McCain may not serve out his term(s), and when that happens, the conservative grassroots will get their big wish of keeping the White House.
For these and other reasons, our conservative fellow citizens don't mind leaving this country in the hands of the party that has brought us this low, with our international reputation in the trash bin, our economy in the dumps, our president having no clue of how to fix any of it.
That is one of the main reasons why the senator's presidential race with Barack Obama remains a close one. He's running as a moderate Democrat, similar to what Hillary Clinton did during the latter part of the primary election season. By the way, former President Bill Clinton used the same strategy; he ran as a moderate Democrat.
Worse than being a Democrat impostor, Senator McCain has been consistently bashing and blasting President Bush, the real conservative and current standard bearer of the Republican Party. McCain is running against Bush, as though Bush were his opponent or enemy. As one who voted for President Bush, the "compassionate conservative", I really have a problem with McCain's angry Bush bashing.
So, if McCain is more like a Democrat, and he's dumping on the Republican President Bush, why are millions of conservative Republicans gearing up to vote for this man, rather than holding him accountable for betraying his party and conservative principles, and turning on the leader of his own party under the cover of "maverick"? Here are some reasons...
1. Conservative voters have talked themselves into the "lesser of two evils" philosophy. McCain is a lesser evil than Obama. What a smooth way to compromise your core principle!
2. Conservatives don't want to be branded "single-issue voters". They've believed conservative radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity that, in the 2008 elections, winning is everything. Even if we conservatives have to vote for an alien, let's do so; at least that's not Obama.
3. Conservatives have nowhere else to go, short of not voting at all. But if you really stand for principle, shouldn't you be able to do just that some times? Or at least, you should vote for a third-party candidate, who may not win, but you would have not sold your soul in the name of voting the party line. Whatever happened to "our conservative principles"?
4. Conservatives are betting on McCain for the sake of judicial appointments. They have convinced themselves that John McCain will appoint "strict constructionists", who will "interpret the constitution", not "legislate from the bench". That means pro-life judges, of course. Good talking points, but how do they know McCain will keep his campaign promise on this? If the man has flip flopped on numerous issues before, who's to say he won't do so when it comes time to appointing judges?
5. Many conservatives will vote McCain, because they say Obama is "Muslim", which may be code for "He's black." (Check out the article, "6 Other Ways to Say 'He's Black'.) These conservatives' fear of or hatred for Obama drives them into the arms of McCain, who is actually ashamed to be lumped together with conservative Republicans, except for their votes come elections day.
6. Millions of conservative voters are hoping that a vote for John McCain is actually a de facto proxy ballot for Sarah Palin, the true conservative. These conservatives see McCain as merely a front, a figurehead, the shortest route to electing President Sarah Palin. Now, they may be onto something there, when you take Senator McCain's age and health into account. If elected, it is likely McCain may not serve out his term(s), and when that happens, the conservative grassroots will get their big wish of keeping the White House.
For these and other reasons, our conservative fellow citizens don't mind leaving this country in the hands of the party that has brought us this low, with our international reputation in the trash bin, our economy in the dumps, our president having no clue of how to fix any of it.
John McCain, A Democrat in Disguise; Here Is Proof
We know John McCain. A conservative he ain't. And conservatives know that. McCain is what Democrats typically used to be in the 1960s, what some Southern Democrats still are. Today, to shield the true identity of such politicians, we call them moderate, or in McCain's case, "maverick".
What's the evidence that Senator McCain is a moderate Democrat rather than a conservative Republican? I could give you a long list, but let's cite the major points.
1. Joe Liberman would not passionately support a true conservative. The only difference between John McCain and his pal, Joe Liberman, is party tag. To be fair, McCain has a pro-life voting record, but since he does not campaign on that record, we could assume that he votes pro-life as membership due in the hierarchy of the Republican Party.
2. Until John McCain flip flopped on illegal immigration, he was for putting undocumented immigrants on the path to citizenship. That's a Democrat position.
3. Until John McCain converted, he had been against offshore drilling for years. That's a liberal stance. Now, he's all "drill, baby, drill" or "drill here, drill now, pay less."
4. John McCain supports embryonic stem cell research. That's a liberal posture. Truly pro-life conservatives are set against the destruction of human embryos for stem cell research.
5. John McCain agrees with Al Gore that global warming is man-made. That is a liberal ideology. Conservatives who accept the notion that the global climate is warming do not attribute the rise in temperature to human activity. So McCain sides with liberals in this debate.
6. Since the Wall Street melt down, Senator McCain has railed against greed on Wall Street. If you didn't know he was a Republican, you would think the man is a populist like liberal John Democrat John Edwards.
7. John McCain says practically nothing for the pro-life agenda, which is the holy grill of Christian conservatives. Again, it seems like he doesn't want America to know that he's pro-life. Oh yeh, he mentions that he's against abortion, when he's behind closed doors with conservatives.
8. Senator McCain's latest liberal stunt came during his debate with fellow Democrat Barack Obama on October 7, 2008, at Belmont University. McCain proposed to spend $300 billion of taxpayer money to buy all the bad home mortgages in America. This new proposal seals McCain's Democrat credentials. This, in addition to the $700 billion bailout that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson got from Congress. Wow! McCain wants to get the federal government $1 trillion deep into the home mortgage business? What is fiscally conservative about that? Based on this stunt, who's the greater liberal, who's the socialist, Barack Obama or John McCain? I say, John McCain wins the label hands down!
This idea did not originate with McCain by any means. It's been talked about and written about by some economists and regular people alike, in fact by Search Warp's own Terry Mitchell. And let me add that I really like the proposal to help out homeowners by buying up their distressed mortgages in order to restructure their loans. I just want to point out that this plan does not fit the profile of the fiscal conservative that McCain claims to be. He may be putting forth this plan as a way to resurrect his falling poll numbers, but the fact remains that McCain doesn't mind winning this election as a pseudo conservative, an actual liberal.
Yes, he's still talking tax cut, but what national politician is not offering to cut our taxes these days?
So if John McCain has so little in common with conservative Republicans, why will they vote for him? Well, that's the subject of the next article, "Conservatives Will Vote for McCain Anyway; Here is Why."
What's the evidence that Senator McCain is a moderate Democrat rather than a conservative Republican? I could give you a long list, but let's cite the major points.
1. Joe Liberman would not passionately support a true conservative. The only difference between John McCain and his pal, Joe Liberman, is party tag. To be fair, McCain has a pro-life voting record, but since he does not campaign on that record, we could assume that he votes pro-life as membership due in the hierarchy of the Republican Party.
2. Until John McCain flip flopped on illegal immigration, he was for putting undocumented immigrants on the path to citizenship. That's a Democrat position.
3. Until John McCain converted, he had been against offshore drilling for years. That's a liberal stance. Now, he's all "drill, baby, drill" or "drill here, drill now, pay less."
4. John McCain supports embryonic stem cell research. That's a liberal posture. Truly pro-life conservatives are set against the destruction of human embryos for stem cell research.
5. John McCain agrees with Al Gore that global warming is man-made. That is a liberal ideology. Conservatives who accept the notion that the global climate is warming do not attribute the rise in temperature to human activity. So McCain sides with liberals in this debate.
6. Since the Wall Street melt down, Senator McCain has railed against greed on Wall Street. If you didn't know he was a Republican, you would think the man is a populist like liberal John Democrat John Edwards.
7. John McCain says practically nothing for the pro-life agenda, which is the holy grill of Christian conservatives. Again, it seems like he doesn't want America to know that he's pro-life. Oh yeh, he mentions that he's against abortion, when he's behind closed doors with conservatives.
8. Senator McCain's latest liberal stunt came during his debate with fellow Democrat Barack Obama on October 7, 2008, at Belmont University. McCain proposed to spend $300 billion of taxpayer money to buy all the bad home mortgages in America. This new proposal seals McCain's Democrat credentials. This, in addition to the $700 billion bailout that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson got from Congress. Wow! McCain wants to get the federal government $1 trillion deep into the home mortgage business? What is fiscally conservative about that? Based on this stunt, who's the greater liberal, who's the socialist, Barack Obama or John McCain? I say, John McCain wins the label hands down!
This idea did not originate with McCain by any means. It's been talked about and written about by some economists and regular people alike, in fact by Search Warp's own Terry Mitchell. And let me add that I really like the proposal to help out homeowners by buying up their distressed mortgages in order to restructure their loans. I just want to point out that this plan does not fit the profile of the fiscal conservative that McCain claims to be. He may be putting forth this plan as a way to resurrect his falling poll numbers, but the fact remains that McCain doesn't mind winning this election as a pseudo conservative, an actual liberal.
Yes, he's still talking tax cut, but what national politician is not offering to cut our taxes these days?
So if John McCain has so little in common with conservative Republicans, why will they vote for him? Well, that's the subject of the next article, "Conservatives Will Vote for McCain Anyway; Here is Why."
Obama and McCain Break Even in Second Presidential Debate
With barely 28 days before the November 4th presidential election, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, just about broke even in their second debate that took place on Tuesday, October 7, 2008 at Belmont University, a Christian (Baptist) institution in Nashville, Tennessee. Tom Brokaw of NBC served as moderator.
The candidates were asked 21 excellent questions, to which they responded with fewer specific answers but more talking points from their campaign trails. Some of the questions were asked by members from a special audience of 80 undecided voters, who enjoyed special seating in the debate hall. I have listed the questions here, with the answers or no-answers from the candidates.
1. From the audience: What's the fastest and best way to help Americans suffering from the economic crisis?
=> Obama: general response
=> McCain will use $300 billion of taxpayer money to buy up all bad mortgages. This is a new plan from the McCain camp.
2. Who would you appoint as Treasury Secretary?
=> McCain: somebody Americans can trust.
=> Obama: William Buffett is one possibility.
3. From Oliver Clark: What's in the bailout package that will actually help American homeowners?
=> McCain: "You call it a bailout; I call it a rescue package." He spoke about how the Democrat-run Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the current economic crisis.
=> Obama said without the package, credit would dry up, companies would be unable to borrow and meet payroll, and that may lead to job losses.
4. Do you think the economy will get worse before it gets better?
=> Obama: the bailout will help.
=> McCain praises the strength and ingenuity of American workers.
5. From Teresa Finch: How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got us into this crisis?
=> Obama: I understand your frustration and cynicism. He contrasts the economy under President G.W. Bush with that under former President Clinton. Obama says his targeted spending will result in net spending cuts. (Independent sources dispute that claim.)
=> McCain: "I understand why you feel cynicism and mistrust." He recites his record of bipartisanship, saying solving our problems will require reaching across the aisle to work with members of all parties. He calls Obama a liberal, who has proposed $850 billion in new spending.
6. What will be your order of priorities: health care, energy, and entitlements (Social Security and Medicare)?
=> McCain: "We can do them all at once." He then recounts his bipartisan record that will help him do all of the above without giving one priority over the other.
=> Obama: "We're going to have to prioritize just like families do." He'll prioritize not just spending but taxes as well. His priority order is energy, $15 billion per year over 10 years; health care; education. He'll eliminate programs that don't work.
7. What sacrifices will you ask every American to make to ease the economic crisis?
=> McCain will implement a spending freeze; will cut defense spending.
=> Obama will provide incentives for Americans to buy fuel-efficient cars. He will double the size of the Peace Corps, so young people can serve.
8. How do Americans break the bad habit of too much debt and easy credit?
=> Obama agrees with the premise of the question, but he does not answer the question; goes on to spout unrelated talking points.
=> McCain says Obama wants to raise taxes. "I'll leave tax rates alone." He will increase child tax credit to $7,000 per dependent child. (That dodges the question too.)
9. Will you give Congress a date (2 years) to reform Social Security and Medicare?
=> Obama: we can't fix entitlement programs without addressing taxes. He will cut taxes for anyone making $250,000 or less.
=> McCain: "It's easy to fix Social Security; it's not hard." Medicare will be tougher to fix. It will take bipartisan effort. He says Obama has voted 94 times to raise taxes and has never in his political career supported a bill to lower taxes.
10. From Ingrid Jackson: What would you do within your first 2 years on the environment?
=> McCain bemoans the seriousness of a "damaged planet". He says the best fix is nuclear power, which does not pollute. He favors drilling for oil here at home, which will lower energy cost for Americans, though the use of petro may further pollute the environment.
=> Obama will create a new energy economy that will hire 5 million new workers. He sees the energy issue as a national security issue, because using alternative fuel will mean not buying petro from nations that mean us harm. He will invest in solar, wind, and other alternatives to petroleum. He says McCain voted 23 times against alternative fuel.
11. Should we fund one big energy project or several alternative energy efforts?
=> McCain will use a government effort coupled with the private sector.
=> Obama: no answer
12. Do you think health care should be treated as a commodity?
=> Obama speaks of lowering health care cost by using electronic records. No one should be excluded from coverage because of pre-existing condition.
=> McCain supports using online record too. He will set up community health care centers. He says Obama will impose mandates and fines on small businesses and families, if they don't participate in the Obama health care plan. McCain will give health care tax credit of $5,000, which people can use to shop around, even across state borders, for the best health care deals.
13. Is health care a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?
=> McCain: health care is a responsibility for every individual.
=> Obama: health care is a right for every American. He says the $5,000 tax credit that McCain promises will be taken back from the taxpayer through payroll deductions. "What the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away."
14. How will the recent economic distress affect the U.S. ability to be peacemakers?
=> McCain: The United States is the greatest force for good in the world in history.
=> Obama agrees with McCain's statement on America being a force for good.
15. What is your doctrine for using the U.S. military for humanitarian purposes?
=> Obama: We should use our military for humanitarian reasons, but we must work in concert with our international allies, because we can't be everywhere.
=> McCain: We should temper our decision to use the military with our ability to beneficially affect the situation. We don't want a repeat of what happened in Somalia.
16. From Katie Hamm: Should the U.S. respect Pakistani sovereignty or ignore it to pursue Al Qaeda?
=> Obama won't cuddle a dictator like the Bush administration did for General Musharraf, former leader of Pakistan, who received American money but was signing peace agreements with the Taliban. If Osama bin Laden is in sight, and Pakistan won't get him, we should act to kill him within the borders of Pakistan.
=> McCain: We won't telegraph our punches. He dismisses Obama's tough talk, which McCain says will turn the local population against the U.S.
17. How will you reorganize the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan?
=> Obama will withdraw troops from Iraq to send to Afghanistan. He'll work to have an Afghan government that is responsive to its people.
=> McCain agrees with Obama that more troops are needed. He won't abandon Afghanistan like the U.S. did in the past.
18. From Terry Shirey: How can we apply pressure on Russia without restarting a cold war?
=> McCain wants Russia to understand there will be penalties for aggressive behavior, like what Russia did recently by invading neighboring Georgia. He will support effort to bring former soviet democracies into NATO.
=> Obama will do more than give moral support to those nations. He will help them rebuild their countries. We must anticipate problems before they happen; we have been reactive. Russia is using petro money to intimidate her neighbors. When the U.S. and those other nations around Russa switch to alternative energy, Russia will have less money from petroleum to use against her neighbors.
19. Is Russia under Putin an "Evil Empire"?
=> Obama: No, but there are nationalists within the government.
=> McCain: No. "I looked in Putin's eyes and saw three letters: a K, a G, and a B." Putin still operates like the KGB that he was.
20. From the audience: If Iran attacks Israel, would you commit U.S. troops to support Israel?
=> McCain: Yes, even though that will mean we'll have to sort out some issues with China and Russia, who will not like our military action in support of Israel.
=> Obama: We don't give the U.N. veto power over what America would do in such a situation. But we must keep all options on the table, including talking to our enemies.
21. What don't you know and how will you learn it?
=> Obama will learn from his wife, Michelle, what he doesn't know. (A joke, I think.) He says the challenge of the presidency is not what you know but the problems you don't expect that can consume your time and energy.
=> McCain: "What I don't know is what all of us don't know." He says there will be new challenges, there will always be the unexpected.
Conclusion
=> The town hall setting is home turf for McCain, who enjoys engaging members of the audience. McCain was not as condescending towards Obama in this debate. This time, he did not repeat too many of those "Obama doesn't understand, Obama is naive, Obama's foreign policy is dangerous." And he did manage to say once, "I agree with Senator Obama", or something to that effect. Coming from McCain, that was huge. But he might have erased his points on congeniality when he referred to Obama as "that one". McCain needed to win big if he is to regain momentum in the national polls, but he probably fell short of that threshold.
=> Obama drastically cut back on his many instances of "I agree with John McCain, and John McCain is right" on foreign policy discussions. Also, Obama seems to be mastering the art of connecting with individual persons who ask him specific questions. It seems like Obama is behaving like former President Clinton in his personal touch and eye contact with voters. Obama is also Clintonesque in looking like a teacher-politician, who simplifies the issues. Either Mr. Clinton has been coaching Obama, or the latter has been watching Clinton campaign and debate tapes. There is just too much Clintonian similarity in Obama's style to be incidental.
=> Strikingly, McCain did not bring up Obama's association with Bill Ayres, an issue that the McCain camp has recently resurrected. Similarly, Obama bypassed McCain's link to the S&L scandal. A game of chicken there -- seems like either man was waiting for the other to go first on this line of mud-slinging attacks.
=> Over all, I grade the debate as a tie, but I do give Obama the edge simply, because McCain failed to dominate the town hall style that is his cup of tea, and Obama was able to hold his own on foreign policy. It should be pointed out that McCain is demonstrating greater knowledge of economic issues, and when he chooses to, he is naturally better at giving short, direct answers to questions than Obama.
The third debate between the candidates is scheduled for Wednesday, October 15, at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. The theme of that final debate will be domestic and economic policy. Bob Schieffer will be the moderator. Many believe that theme should favor Obama in lieu of the current economic meltdown. But don't count Senator McCain out just yet; he's been doing much better at discussing economic issues. Keep in mind that McCain has made several comebacks in this campaign, not to mention the dramatic comebacks that form the narrative of his exceptional life.
The candidates were asked 21 excellent questions, to which they responded with fewer specific answers but more talking points from their campaign trails. Some of the questions were asked by members from a special audience of 80 undecided voters, who enjoyed special seating in the debate hall. I have listed the questions here, with the answers or no-answers from the candidates.
1. From the audience: What's the fastest and best way to help Americans suffering from the economic crisis?
=> Obama: general response
=> McCain will use $300 billion of taxpayer money to buy up all bad mortgages. This is a new plan from the McCain camp.
2. Who would you appoint as Treasury Secretary?
=> McCain: somebody Americans can trust.
=> Obama: William Buffett is one possibility.
3. From Oliver Clark: What's in the bailout package that will actually help American homeowners?
=> McCain: "You call it a bailout; I call it a rescue package." He spoke about how the Democrat-run Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the current economic crisis.
=> Obama said without the package, credit would dry up, companies would be unable to borrow and meet payroll, and that may lead to job losses.
4. Do you think the economy will get worse before it gets better?
=> Obama: the bailout will help.
=> McCain praises the strength and ingenuity of American workers.
5. From Teresa Finch: How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got us into this crisis?
=> Obama: I understand your frustration and cynicism. He contrasts the economy under President G.W. Bush with that under former President Clinton. Obama says his targeted spending will result in net spending cuts. (Independent sources dispute that claim.)
=> McCain: "I understand why you feel cynicism and mistrust." He recites his record of bipartisanship, saying solving our problems will require reaching across the aisle to work with members of all parties. He calls Obama a liberal, who has proposed $850 billion in new spending.
6. What will be your order of priorities: health care, energy, and entitlements (Social Security and Medicare)?
=> McCain: "We can do them all at once." He then recounts his bipartisan record that will help him do all of the above without giving one priority over the other.
=> Obama: "We're going to have to prioritize just like families do." He'll prioritize not just spending but taxes as well. His priority order is energy, $15 billion per year over 10 years; health care; education. He'll eliminate programs that don't work.
7. What sacrifices will you ask every American to make to ease the economic crisis?
=> McCain will implement a spending freeze; will cut defense spending.
=> Obama will provide incentives for Americans to buy fuel-efficient cars. He will double the size of the Peace Corps, so young people can serve.
8. How do Americans break the bad habit of too much debt and easy credit?
=> Obama agrees with the premise of the question, but he does not answer the question; goes on to spout unrelated talking points.
=> McCain says Obama wants to raise taxes. "I'll leave tax rates alone." He will increase child tax credit to $7,000 per dependent child. (That dodges the question too.)
9. Will you give Congress a date (2 years) to reform Social Security and Medicare?
=> Obama: we can't fix entitlement programs without addressing taxes. He will cut taxes for anyone making $250,000 or less.
=> McCain: "It's easy to fix Social Security; it's not hard." Medicare will be tougher to fix. It will take bipartisan effort. He says Obama has voted 94 times to raise taxes and has never in his political career supported a bill to lower taxes.
10. From Ingrid Jackson: What would you do within your first 2 years on the environment?
=> McCain bemoans the seriousness of a "damaged planet". He says the best fix is nuclear power, which does not pollute. He favors drilling for oil here at home, which will lower energy cost for Americans, though the use of petro may further pollute the environment.
=> Obama will create a new energy economy that will hire 5 million new workers. He sees the energy issue as a national security issue, because using alternative fuel will mean not buying petro from nations that mean us harm. He will invest in solar, wind, and other alternatives to petroleum. He says McCain voted 23 times against alternative fuel.
11. Should we fund one big energy project or several alternative energy efforts?
=> McCain will use a government effort coupled with the private sector.
=> Obama: no answer
12. Do you think health care should be treated as a commodity?
=> Obama speaks of lowering health care cost by using electronic records. No one should be excluded from coverage because of pre-existing condition.
=> McCain supports using online record too. He will set up community health care centers. He says Obama will impose mandates and fines on small businesses and families, if they don't participate in the Obama health care plan. McCain will give health care tax credit of $5,000, which people can use to shop around, even across state borders, for the best health care deals.
13. Is health care a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?
=> McCain: health care is a responsibility for every individual.
=> Obama: health care is a right for every American. He says the $5,000 tax credit that McCain promises will be taken back from the taxpayer through payroll deductions. "What the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away."
14. How will the recent economic distress affect the U.S. ability to be peacemakers?
=> McCain: The United States is the greatest force for good in the world in history.
=> Obama agrees with McCain's statement on America being a force for good.
15. What is your doctrine for using the U.S. military for humanitarian purposes?
=> Obama: We should use our military for humanitarian reasons, but we must work in concert with our international allies, because we can't be everywhere.
=> McCain: We should temper our decision to use the military with our ability to beneficially affect the situation. We don't want a repeat of what happened in Somalia.
16. From Katie Hamm: Should the U.S. respect Pakistani sovereignty or ignore it to pursue Al Qaeda?
=> Obama won't cuddle a dictator like the Bush administration did for General Musharraf, former leader of Pakistan, who received American money but was signing peace agreements with the Taliban. If Osama bin Laden is in sight, and Pakistan won't get him, we should act to kill him within the borders of Pakistan.
=> McCain: We won't telegraph our punches. He dismisses Obama's tough talk, which McCain says will turn the local population against the U.S.
17. How will you reorganize the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan?
=> Obama will withdraw troops from Iraq to send to Afghanistan. He'll work to have an Afghan government that is responsive to its people.
=> McCain agrees with Obama that more troops are needed. He won't abandon Afghanistan like the U.S. did in the past.
18. From Terry Shirey: How can we apply pressure on Russia without restarting a cold war?
=> McCain wants Russia to understand there will be penalties for aggressive behavior, like what Russia did recently by invading neighboring Georgia. He will support effort to bring former soviet democracies into NATO.
=> Obama will do more than give moral support to those nations. He will help them rebuild their countries. We must anticipate problems before they happen; we have been reactive. Russia is using petro money to intimidate her neighbors. When the U.S. and those other nations around Russa switch to alternative energy, Russia will have less money from petroleum to use against her neighbors.
19. Is Russia under Putin an "Evil Empire"?
=> Obama: No, but there are nationalists within the government.
=> McCain: No. "I looked in Putin's eyes and saw three letters: a K, a G, and a B." Putin still operates like the KGB that he was.
20. From the audience: If Iran attacks Israel, would you commit U.S. troops to support Israel?
=> McCain: Yes, even though that will mean we'll have to sort out some issues with China and Russia, who will not like our military action in support of Israel.
=> Obama: We don't give the U.N. veto power over what America would do in such a situation. But we must keep all options on the table, including talking to our enemies.
21. What don't you know and how will you learn it?
=> Obama will learn from his wife, Michelle, what he doesn't know. (A joke, I think.) He says the challenge of the presidency is not what you know but the problems you don't expect that can consume your time and energy.
=> McCain: "What I don't know is what all of us don't know." He says there will be new challenges, there will always be the unexpected.
Conclusion
=> The town hall setting is home turf for McCain, who enjoys engaging members of the audience. McCain was not as condescending towards Obama in this debate. This time, he did not repeat too many of those "Obama doesn't understand, Obama is naive, Obama's foreign policy is dangerous." And he did manage to say once, "I agree with Senator Obama", or something to that effect. Coming from McCain, that was huge. But he might have erased his points on congeniality when he referred to Obama as "that one". McCain needed to win big if he is to regain momentum in the national polls, but he probably fell short of that threshold.
=> Obama drastically cut back on his many instances of "I agree with John McCain, and John McCain is right" on foreign policy discussions. Also, Obama seems to be mastering the art of connecting with individual persons who ask him specific questions. It seems like Obama is behaving like former President Clinton in his personal touch and eye contact with voters. Obama is also Clintonesque in looking like a teacher-politician, who simplifies the issues. Either Mr. Clinton has been coaching Obama, or the latter has been watching Clinton campaign and debate tapes. There is just too much Clintonian similarity in Obama's style to be incidental.
=> Strikingly, McCain did not bring up Obama's association with Bill Ayres, an issue that the McCain camp has recently resurrected. Similarly, Obama bypassed McCain's link to the S&L scandal. A game of chicken there -- seems like either man was waiting for the other to go first on this line of mud-slinging attacks.
=> Over all, I grade the debate as a tie, but I do give Obama the edge simply, because McCain failed to dominate the town hall style that is his cup of tea, and Obama was able to hold his own on foreign policy. It should be pointed out that McCain is demonstrating greater knowledge of economic issues, and when he chooses to, he is naturally better at giving short, direct answers to questions than Obama.
The third debate between the candidates is scheduled for Wednesday, October 15, at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. The theme of that final debate will be domestic and economic policy. Bob Schieffer will be the moderator. Many believe that theme should favor Obama in lieu of the current economic meltdown. But don't count Senator McCain out just yet; he's been doing much better at discussing economic issues. Keep in mind that McCain has made several comebacks in this campaign, not to mention the dramatic comebacks that form the narrative of his exceptional life.
Monday, October 6, 2008
How Would Jesus Vote?
Since the 1990s, Christians, interested in imitating the example of Jesus Christ, have been reading books with such titles as "What Would Jesus Do?" "What Would Jesus Think?", and even "What Would Jesus Eat?" (That last book revolutionized my health in a most rewarding way.)
Those questions are easier asked than answered. Why? Because it is never that easy to lay Jesus out and crop Him around the corner, leaving us with nice and neat edges, a Jesus that suits our whims just right. So, while it's taken us more than a decade to answer such well-meaning questions as the above, why don't we complicate our lives further, the political animals that we are, by adding one more question to our interrogation box? "How Would Jesus Vote?"
Allow me to use one character from the pages of the New Testament Gospels to derive an answer to the question, "How would Jesus vote?"
The prophet who introduced Jesus to the world was John the Baptist (John the Baptizer). Jesus and John were cousins, and John was born 6 months before Jesus. In fact, Mary, the mother of Jesus, visited Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, in the 6th month of Elizabeth's pregnancy.
In the spirit of the Old Testament prophets, John preached in a way that was directly political. In his preaching, he told tax collectors to stop their corruption. He confronted soldiers, telling them not to intimidate people. He looked over the crowd that came to him to be baptized, and he called them "brood of vipers", a bunch of snakes.
At age 30, Jesus approached John at the Jordan River, asking John to baptize Him. John felt humble and inadequate to baptize the One who was superior to him, the One who, unlike John, was sin-free. But Jesus urged John to fulfill his duty, and John finally complied. It was during this baptismal ceremony that John officially introduced Jesus and presented the Messiah to the nation of Israel in particular and to the world in general. That climaxed John's ministry.
However, after this peak experience, John's interest in the morality of politicians remained strong. The vassal king named Herod Antipas had married his brother's wife, whose name was Herodias. The historical record from the first century shows that Herodias was King Herod's niece. Well, John could not stand the sight of such blatant immorality in political high places. So he marched to Herod's palace and laid it on the line: "It is immoral for you to marry your brother's wife!"
That's what you call political preaching. Herod responded to John's public rebuke by arresting and jailing the prophet. And there in the dungeon, the mighty forerunner of Jesus sat, hoping that the Messiah he had proclaimed to the masses would take necessary action to liberate him from prison. But Jesus did absolutely nothing to rescue John. All John heard was that his Messiah-Cousin was doing great miracles for multitudes of people. Stunned, the heart-broken John call two of his disciples to his cold cell and sent them to ask Jesus a pointed question: "Are you the Coming One (the Messiah), or should we look for another?"
By his question, you can see easily read John's impression of Jesus at that time. John was convinced Jesus was failing in His Messianic mission to be the Liberating of God's people. Jesus' message to John brought little or no relief to the prophet, as John struggled with his dilemma, doubt and disappointment about Christ. Jesus told the messengers to recount more details of the miraculous works He was doing throughout the land. And none of those miracles had a thing to do with the politics of overthrowing the Roman government and ushering in the Messianic Kingdom.
John and Jesus never met or spoke again until John was beheaded by King Herod. It may not be mistaken to assume that John the Baptist died a broken and discouraged man.
The above account reveals a whole lot about the real Jesus of the Gospels, the unfiltered Jesus Christ. John's experience gave Jesus ample time and opportunity to function as a political Messiah, or at least, as a social activist in the worthy cause of getting the innocent man, John, released from jail. Jesus could have used His influence to put in a word with King Herod or with one of the officials in Herod's government for John's release.
Strangely, Jesus passed on the chance. What? Yes, Jesus did not take political action on John's behalf. Jesus did not cast His vote, if you will.
Like John the Baptist, many contemporary Christians would be disappointed in the Jesus of the Gospels. We would want Him to join our political cause to advance our liberal or conservative agenda. But Jesus might tell us exactly what He told John: Focus on My divine mission, not on your political agenda for Me. You are interested in My vote for your side, but that's not why I came. I came to earth to establish the Father's Kingdom, not your partisan kingdom. Your party may lose the election, but the Kingdom of God marches forth. Tell the liberals and conservatives the same thing I told Cousin John over 2,000 years ago,
"The blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the wretched of the earth learn that God is on their side. Is this what you were expecting? Then count yourselves most blessed!" (Matthew 11:5-6, The Message).
From Jesus' dealing with John, it appears that when it came to political involvement, Jesus remained a hesitant, reluctant player, in fact, a nonparticipant. It's probably safe to conclude that, if He were physically walking the earth today, Jesus would still be a political no-show.
So "How would Jesus vote?" How about a better question? "Would Jesus vote?" And what if the answer is, "No!"? Would we be pleased to leave the Messiah out of our partisan, divisive, earth-bound politics? Would we let Jesus be nothing less than King of kings and Lord of lords, nothing less than Standard Bearer of the Kingdom of God, and not the almighty sponsor or supporter of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?
Those questions are easier asked than answered. Why? Because it is never that easy to lay Jesus out and crop Him around the corner, leaving us with nice and neat edges, a Jesus that suits our whims just right. So, while it's taken us more than a decade to answer such well-meaning questions as the above, why don't we complicate our lives further, the political animals that we are, by adding one more question to our interrogation box? "How Would Jesus Vote?"
Allow me to use one character from the pages of the New Testament Gospels to derive an answer to the question, "How would Jesus vote?"
The prophet who introduced Jesus to the world was John the Baptist (John the Baptizer). Jesus and John were cousins, and John was born 6 months before Jesus. In fact, Mary, the mother of Jesus, visited Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, in the 6th month of Elizabeth's pregnancy.
In the spirit of the Old Testament prophets, John preached in a way that was directly political. In his preaching, he told tax collectors to stop their corruption. He confronted soldiers, telling them not to intimidate people. He looked over the crowd that came to him to be baptized, and he called them "brood of vipers", a bunch of snakes.
At age 30, Jesus approached John at the Jordan River, asking John to baptize Him. John felt humble and inadequate to baptize the One who was superior to him, the One who, unlike John, was sin-free. But Jesus urged John to fulfill his duty, and John finally complied. It was during this baptismal ceremony that John officially introduced Jesus and presented the Messiah to the nation of Israel in particular and to the world in general. That climaxed John's ministry.
However, after this peak experience, John's interest in the morality of politicians remained strong. The vassal king named Herod Antipas had married his brother's wife, whose name was Herodias. The historical record from the first century shows that Herodias was King Herod's niece. Well, John could not stand the sight of such blatant immorality in political high places. So he marched to Herod's palace and laid it on the line: "It is immoral for you to marry your brother's wife!"
That's what you call political preaching. Herod responded to John's public rebuke by arresting and jailing the prophet. And there in the dungeon, the mighty forerunner of Jesus sat, hoping that the Messiah he had proclaimed to the masses would take necessary action to liberate him from prison. But Jesus did absolutely nothing to rescue John. All John heard was that his Messiah-Cousin was doing great miracles for multitudes of people. Stunned, the heart-broken John call two of his disciples to his cold cell and sent them to ask Jesus a pointed question: "Are you the Coming One (the Messiah), or should we look for another?"
By his question, you can see easily read John's impression of Jesus at that time. John was convinced Jesus was failing in His Messianic mission to be the Liberating of God's people. Jesus' message to John brought little or no relief to the prophet, as John struggled with his dilemma, doubt and disappointment about Christ. Jesus told the messengers to recount more details of the miraculous works He was doing throughout the land. And none of those miracles had a thing to do with the politics of overthrowing the Roman government and ushering in the Messianic Kingdom.
John and Jesus never met or spoke again until John was beheaded by King Herod. It may not be mistaken to assume that John the Baptist died a broken and discouraged man.
The above account reveals a whole lot about the real Jesus of the Gospels, the unfiltered Jesus Christ. John's experience gave Jesus ample time and opportunity to function as a political Messiah, or at least, as a social activist in the worthy cause of getting the innocent man, John, released from jail. Jesus could have used His influence to put in a word with King Herod or with one of the officials in Herod's government for John's release.
Strangely, Jesus passed on the chance. What? Yes, Jesus did not take political action on John's behalf. Jesus did not cast His vote, if you will.
Like John the Baptist, many contemporary Christians would be disappointed in the Jesus of the Gospels. We would want Him to join our political cause to advance our liberal or conservative agenda. But Jesus might tell us exactly what He told John: Focus on My divine mission, not on your political agenda for Me. You are interested in My vote for your side, but that's not why I came. I came to earth to establish the Father's Kingdom, not your partisan kingdom. Your party may lose the election, but the Kingdom of God marches forth. Tell the liberals and conservatives the same thing I told Cousin John over 2,000 years ago,
"The blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the wretched of the earth learn that God is on their side. Is this what you were expecting? Then count yourselves most blessed!" (Matthew 11:5-6, The Message).
From Jesus' dealing with John, it appears that when it came to political involvement, Jesus remained a hesitant, reluctant player, in fact, a nonparticipant. It's probably safe to conclude that, if He were physically walking the earth today, Jesus would still be a political no-show.
So "How would Jesus vote?" How about a better question? "Would Jesus vote?" And what if the answer is, "No!"? Would we be pleased to leave the Messiah out of our partisan, divisive, earth-bound politics? Would we let Jesus be nothing less than King of kings and Lord of lords, nothing less than Standard Bearer of the Kingdom of God, and not the almighty sponsor or supporter of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?
16 Reasons Why I Write Articles for Search Warp, and Why You Should
As a writer, you will find it quick and easy to publish your article on Search Warp, and you will enjoy the experience and the journey as well.
This article you are reading is number 61 for me on Search Warp. My initial goal is to publish 100 articles. Beginning August of 2008, I made it a practice to write one article per day, 7 articles per week, or 30 articles per month for Search Warp.
Search Warp gives you the greatest opportunity to practice your writing skills in a informal environment. Search Warp understands that the Internet is the forum where everyday people can shine. It is not necessary to become an expert before you can publish your writing for hundreds of readers to see.
Besides my love for writing, there are other great reasons why I write for Search Warp, and why I encourage you to write articles for Search Warp. In fact, I will briefly give you several reasons why I'm a Search Warp author.
Reason #1: When you finish writing your article and click the "Save "button, it will take just 2 hours (sometimes sooner than that) to go public. That's right -- just 2 hours and your article is published. This makes it easy for you to write about current events and get your writing published while the news is still hot.
Reason #2: Search Warp does not require an article summary. Search Warp will use the beginning of your article as the introductory summary.
Reason #3: You don't need to type in keywords, labels or tags. Search Warp applies keywords to your article automatically.
Reason #4: Enthusiastic readers await your writing. Sometimes, I write and post an article, and in 4 hours or less, it has already been viewed numerous times. One article I posted on September 16, 2008, has been viewed more than 2,200 times about 20 days later.
Reason #5: Some of the readers at Search Warp like to leave comments, if they really like your article. Those readers' comments create buzz and give you a reason to chat with your readers.
Reason #6: The Search Warp control panel is very simple for you to set your author preferences.
Reason #7: You can join the Reader's Club, where you can review other writers' articles, and they can do the same for yours.
Reason #8: I like the "View Article Statistics" feature. There, you will see a list of your articles, how many times each article has been viewed, how many times Internet users have searched terms that led them to your article, and other details.
Reason #9: "Your Popularity History" shows a graph of where you rank on the Search Warp site. Currently, my popularity stands at 17,491. Just one popular article can send your popularity rating through the roof.
Reason #10: Search Warp also has "Fan Clubs", which are great for establishing contacts with other writers. When you read an article that you like, you can click near the heading of the article to join the writer's "Fan Club", and other writers can join your fan club.
Reason #11: Search Warp does not restrict you to publish your article on their website alone, unless you choose to give them that right. You have the freedom to publish your article elsewhere.
Reason #12: After you publish your article on Search Warp, you can edit your live article for instant republishing -- no waiting for re-review and re-approval. Just click on "Save", and your article remains live.
Reason #13: You can create your own blog website, using your articles at Search Warp. Just click on "Blog Settings" within your author area, and Search Warp will set up your blog in seconds.
Reason #14: There is even opportunity to earn small amounts of money with your Search Warp articles, with the use of in-text ads that insert links within selected words of your article. (For example, see the links in this article.)
Reason #15: Because Search Warp knows about search engine optimization, it is likely that Internet users will find your article when they type search terms into Google, Yahoo, and other search engines.
Reason #16: You can choose to use a pen name instead of your real name. It's easy. In fact, you can switch back and forth between your real name and your pen name. My real name is Moses Garswa Matally (M. Garswa Matally or M.G. Matally), but my pen name is "mogama".
There, some reasons great reasons why I'm crazy about being a Search Warp writer. Besides, the practice you get writing for Search Warp could prepare you to write your own book later or sooner, or you could just have fun sharing your feelings and thoughts with the rest of the online world.
Sign up as a new author today! Fill out this simple registration form to get started, http://SearchWarp.com/Register.asp
This article you are reading is number 61 for me on Search Warp. My initial goal is to publish 100 articles. Beginning August of 2008, I made it a practice to write one article per day, 7 articles per week, or 30 articles per month for Search Warp.
Search Warp gives you the greatest opportunity to practice your writing skills in a informal environment. Search Warp understands that the Internet is the forum where everyday people can shine. It is not necessary to become an expert before you can publish your writing for hundreds of readers to see.
Besides my love for writing, there are other great reasons why I write for Search Warp, and why I encourage you to write articles for Search Warp. In fact, I will briefly give you several reasons why I'm a Search Warp author.
Reason #1: When you finish writing your article and click the "Save "button, it will take just 2 hours (sometimes sooner than that) to go public. That's right -- just 2 hours and your article is published. This makes it easy for you to write about current events and get your writing published while the news is still hot.
Reason #2: Search Warp does not require an article summary. Search Warp will use the beginning of your article as the introductory summary.
Reason #3: You don't need to type in keywords, labels or tags. Search Warp applies keywords to your article automatically.
Reason #4: Enthusiastic readers await your writing. Sometimes, I write and post an article, and in 4 hours or less, it has already been viewed numerous times. One article I posted on September 16, 2008, has been viewed more than 2,200 times about 20 days later.
Reason #5: Some of the readers at Search Warp like to leave comments, if they really like your article. Those readers' comments create buzz and give you a reason to chat with your readers.
Reason #6: The Search Warp control panel is very simple for you to set your author preferences.
Reason #7: You can join the Reader's Club, where you can review other writers' articles, and they can do the same for yours.
Reason #8: I like the "View Article Statistics" feature. There, you will see a list of your articles, how many times each article has been viewed, how many times Internet users have searched terms that led them to your article, and other details.
Reason #9: "Your Popularity History" shows a graph of where you rank on the Search Warp site. Currently, my popularity stands at 17,491. Just one popular article can send your popularity rating through the roof.
Reason #10: Search Warp also has "Fan Clubs", which are great for establishing contacts with other writers. When you read an article that you like, you can click near the heading of the article to join the writer's "Fan Club", and other writers can join your fan club.
Reason #11: Search Warp does not restrict you to publish your article on their website alone, unless you choose to give them that right. You have the freedom to publish your article elsewhere.
Reason #12: After you publish your article on Search Warp, you can edit your live article for instant republishing -- no waiting for re-review and re-approval. Just click on "Save", and your article remains live.
Reason #13: You can create your own blog website, using your articles at Search Warp. Just click on "Blog Settings" within your author area, and Search Warp will set up your blog in seconds.
Reason #14: There is even opportunity to earn small amounts of money with your Search Warp articles, with the use of in-text ads that insert links within selected words of your article. (For example, see the links in this article.)
Reason #15: Because Search Warp knows about search engine optimization, it is likely that Internet users will find your article when they type search terms into Google, Yahoo, and other search engines.
Reason #16: You can choose to use a pen name instead of your real name. It's easy. In fact, you can switch back and forth between your real name and your pen name. My real name is Moses Garswa Matally (M. Garswa Matally or M.G. Matally), but my pen name is "mogama".
There, some reasons great reasons why I'm crazy about being a Search Warp writer. Besides, the practice you get writing for Search Warp could prepare you to write your own book later or sooner, or you could just have fun sharing your feelings and thoughts with the rest of the online world.
Sign up as a new author today! Fill out this simple registration form to get started, http://SearchWarp.com/Register.asp
Redefining Education: What It Means to Be Educated In the 21st Century
Few years ago, I saw the first Internet ad offering me a chance to earn my master's or doctorate without attending one class on any campus. I thought it was some kind of scam, but I was wrong.
Though the traditional classroom still has its advantages, the trend is that brick-and-mortar classrooms will continue to merge, mix, and mingle with virtual learning sites.
Many of the teachers at my daughter's high school now have their students go online to do their homework and other assignments. And the Internet-savvy grade student can complete her portfolio or write a paper, using online sources, without setting foot in a library.
What does this mean for education? For one thing, it means that the age of the walking library or the human encyclopedia is over. The time is fast coming when high IQ will mean little in deciding who the smart people are. You will be able to determine how smart you can become, thanks to the Internet.
It is true that rote memory, the ability to recall information is still too much a part of the world's education systems. But the trend is moving away from recalling information to researching information or interacting with information.
Because of the power of the Internet to deliver content to the average person, experts in some fields will see their clout dip and decline. The experts most affected will be those in the social sciences, where research rather than technical skill is the key to establishing oneself as an authority in the field.
The days of "experts worship" are nearing their sunset. Who needs an expert when you can research the same information available to experts, and learn to spit out facts and figures along with corresponding analysis of those facts and figures? All you really need is a normal human brain, and you've got all the tool you need to become an expert on most topics you set your mind to researching. Now, the experts in these fields are not really going to like that, and many of them will strive to justify our need of them, but they themselves know and can feel the obvious: their reign is in jeopardy, their dominion is limited.
With the Internet bringing the knowledge base of the universe to anyone who knows how to read and has access to the World Wide Web, the education playing field has been leveled like never before. If there is a library in your town and you have a library card, you won't be missing out on much if you turn in your library card, if your primary reason for visiting the library is to research.
You can do just about all your research online now. There are free dictionaries, free encyclopedia, millions of articles and ezines. If you are new to online research, start your research, for example, by typing into the Google or Yahoo search box the words "free online encyclopedia", and bingo, over 8 million results to choose from, including encyclopedia.com.
Of course, every major newspaper or news organization has a presence on the Internet. You can even do without most newspaper and magazine subscriptions, unless you have some special reasons to keep your subscriptions. Now you can use the money you once paid for subscriptions to pay for your Internet service, and you will get so much more information for your money. Even some blogs (web logs) can contain quality information backed by research.
People, the Internet has redefined education. Education is no longer how much a teacher or student knows. Education has become how well you can research what you need to know or want to know. If you know WHERE and HOW to find the information you need, you are educated.
Education is no longer the learning of content as an end in itself. Education for the sake of education does not seem to make sense anymore. Education in the 21st century will come down to this: The truly educated person is one who has learned how to learn. Learning how to learn will soon become the essence of real education. That means the best teachers of this generation are those who train their pupils in the skills of research, teachers who coach their students to master the art of learning.
Here is the bottom line for what it means to be educated in the 21st century:
Though the traditional classroom still has its advantages, the trend is that brick-and-mortar classrooms will continue to merge, mix, and mingle with virtual learning sites.
Many of the teachers at my daughter's high school now have their students go online to do their homework and other assignments. And the Internet-savvy grade student can complete her portfolio or write a paper, using online sources, without setting foot in a library.
What does this mean for education? For one thing, it means that the age of the walking library or the human encyclopedia is over. The time is fast coming when high IQ will mean little in deciding who the smart people are. You will be able to determine how smart you can become, thanks to the Internet.
It is true that rote memory, the ability to recall information is still too much a part of the world's education systems. But the trend is moving away from recalling information to researching information or interacting with information.
Because of the power of the Internet to deliver content to the average person, experts in some fields will see their clout dip and decline. The experts most affected will be those in the social sciences, where research rather than technical skill is the key to establishing oneself as an authority in the field.
The days of "experts worship" are nearing their sunset. Who needs an expert when you can research the same information available to experts, and learn to spit out facts and figures along with corresponding analysis of those facts and figures? All you really need is a normal human brain, and you've got all the tool you need to become an expert on most topics you set your mind to researching. Now, the experts in these fields are not really going to like that, and many of them will strive to justify our need of them, but they themselves know and can feel the obvious: their reign is in jeopardy, their dominion is limited.
With the Internet bringing the knowledge base of the universe to anyone who knows how to read and has access to the World Wide Web, the education playing field has been leveled like never before. If there is a library in your town and you have a library card, you won't be missing out on much if you turn in your library card, if your primary reason for visiting the library is to research.
You can do just about all your research online now. There are free dictionaries, free encyclopedia, millions of articles and ezines. If you are new to online research, start your research, for example, by typing into the Google or Yahoo search box the words "free online encyclopedia", and bingo, over 8 million results to choose from, including encyclopedia.com.
Of course, every major newspaper or news organization has a presence on the Internet. You can even do without most newspaper and magazine subscriptions, unless you have some special reasons to keep your subscriptions. Now you can use the money you once paid for subscriptions to pay for your Internet service, and you will get so much more information for your money. Even some blogs (web logs) can contain quality information backed by research.
People, the Internet has redefined education. Education is no longer how much a teacher or student knows. Education has become how well you can research what you need to know or want to know. If you know WHERE and HOW to find the information you need, you are educated.
Education is no longer the learning of content as an end in itself. Education for the sake of education does not seem to make sense anymore. Education in the 21st century will come down to this: The truly educated person is one who has learned how to learn. Learning how to learn will soon become the essence of real education. That means the best teachers of this generation are those who train their pupils in the skills of research, teachers who coach their students to master the art of learning.
Here is the bottom line for what it means to be educated in the 21st century:
- Reading comprehension & writing skill -- be able to read and understand what you're reading; be able to write well; be able to type. Yes, it still helps to read and write well, for that is the great equalizer in the education zone.
- Communication skill -- be able to speak clearly and listen closely to others.
- Technology literacy -- be able to use a computer; use email; use the Internet not only to conduct business but to do basic research; do more with a cell phone than make a phone call.
- Cultural awareness -- be able to relate to people from other cultures; travel is one vital course on your cultural education curriculum.
- Market literacy -- have a basic knowledge of the economy as it relates to investing and health issues.
- Research skill with a hunger and thirst for knowledge -- it's worth repeating; you are educated when you've learned to learn, and it's a bonus if you enjoy learning.
Bailout Sellout: Bailout Will Fail; Surge Will Be Needed
The Wall Street bailout that Congress passed and the President Bush signed was probably the most oversold scheme of its kind in the history of the American economy. Outside of economics, the only other venture that comes close to being as oversold was the War with Iraq, for which faulty intelligence was used to take America to an unnecessary war that continues to sap the life out of our national budget.
The Iraq War and the Wall Street bailout may share one more thing in common: the need for a "surge". When the war in Iraq became a flop, the Bush administration came up with "the surge" to redeem itself, in hopes of claiming victory by all means. Instinct tells me that the government will propose an economic equivalent of "the surge" to fix the mess that this bailout will make. If a military surge meant thousands of additional soldiers, then what will an economic surge require? You guessed it: billion$ of dollar$ more. Then some hero will emerge, like a congressman, to claim full or partial credit for "the surge strategy" that finally saved Wall Street. Whoopie!
Initially, the bailout may knock some of the panic out of the market. But once traders and other Wall Street players realize that the bailout left the root causes of the recession intact, the market will become skeptical of the bailout package, and thuse resume its sluggish, downward momentum.
Why do we predict that the bailout will fail?
For starters, the sheer size of the bill is reason for much suspicion. The bailout started out as a 3-page proposal from the Treasury Secretary. The bill that Congress passed took those 3 pages, churned them and turned them into a voluminous 450-page document!
How come the bill swelled to that size? One word: Pork! In addition to the initial price tag of $750 billion, lawmakers stuck another $150 billion to the taxpayers, making the bailout $850 billion to start with. Wait till you see the final cost of this animal. One trillion dollars will be a most conservative figure on what the bailout will finally cost American taxpayers.
Though Republican presidential candidate John McCain pretended to bemoan all the earmarks and pork with which his colleagues were stuffing the bailout gravy train, when it came down to taking a stand for the people, Mr. McCain did less than hold his nose to vote Yes for the pork-packed bill. He actually claimed and proclaimed victory for the leadership he provided to make the bailout a reality. Of course, he may come back later to propose and take credit for "the surge" that will clean up the mess -- months or years down the road, if he's still alive.
Democrat Barack Obama was no better than McCain. Though he insisted on including homeowners in the bailout package, he voted Yes, though there was nothing in the bill for the millions of homeowners who may lose their homes because of the troubles in the mortgage sector.
Call it the bailout sellout. Most politicians connected with the bailout sold out their principles. Fiscal conservatives voted for a near government takeover of the market, tantamount to a socialized economy. Liberals voted to cover the nakedness of the wealthy and powerful, with nothing but lip service for concerns of struggling homeowners.
Any wonder why millions of Americans no longer take our politicians seriously? Any wonder why we expect them to lie to us over and again? If McCain and Obama can compromise their principles so easily and quickly on the bailout, why are we to think that either man will do any different on their campaign promises about the economy?
According to Lawrence Officer, professor of economics at the University of Illinois, the crisis on Wall Street was two-fold: a "crisis of credit" coupled with a "crisis of confidence". And the bailout bill fixes neither of those. On the credit crisis, banks remain reluctant to lend; this will continue to dry up credit. On the confidence front, do you really think Wall Street suddenly trusts Washington to hold the remedy to the economy? Thus, after the bill has been signed into law, Wall Street still faces the same "crisis of credit" and a "crisis of confidence". In fact, Professor Officer thinks the bailout may actually make the credit crunch worse. So much for a drive-thru solution to a serious problem.
Another important reason why the bailout is doomed is that it does NOT include a reform of the financial sector/system. For example, the laws governing credit cards need to be reformed NOW. A system that screws the middle class and is so skewed towards lining the pockets of banks cannot continue to be the norm, not if we expect things to change on Wall Street in a way that will benefit Main Street. Just last year (2007), American consumers doled out a whopping $12 billion of their hard-earned money to banks and credit card companies in the form of late fees and finance charges, according to CNN. Actually, it was the lenders picking the pockets of borrowers.
Yet when the question of the need for reform came up during Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's testimony before Congress, Mr. Paulson basically told lawmakers, "bailout now, reform later". So Congress went along and passed the bailout with no reform strings attached. That means the same bad regulations that paved the way for the credit and confidence crises remain the rules of the Wall Street money game.
You can bet on this: This administration used fear to oversell the war in Iraq. What happened? That war became a disaster, and the administration demanded a surge to control the damage. The same administration has used the same weapon of fear to oversell the bailout. What will happen? You don't need a crystal ball to forecast that doom will be the fate of the Wall Street bailout. And when it fails, expect a million reasons why we need a surge, few more rounds of fixes.
The Iraq War and the Wall Street bailout may share one more thing in common: the need for a "surge". When the war in Iraq became a flop, the Bush administration came up with "the surge" to redeem itself, in hopes of claiming victory by all means. Instinct tells me that the government will propose an economic equivalent of "the surge" to fix the mess that this bailout will make. If a military surge meant thousands of additional soldiers, then what will an economic surge require? You guessed it: billion$ of dollar$ more. Then some hero will emerge, like a congressman, to claim full or partial credit for "the surge strategy" that finally saved Wall Street. Whoopie!
Initially, the bailout may knock some of the panic out of the market. But once traders and other Wall Street players realize that the bailout left the root causes of the recession intact, the market will become skeptical of the bailout package, and thuse resume its sluggish, downward momentum.
Why do we predict that the bailout will fail?
For starters, the sheer size of the bill is reason for much suspicion. The bailout started out as a 3-page proposal from the Treasury Secretary. The bill that Congress passed took those 3 pages, churned them and turned them into a voluminous 450-page document!
How come the bill swelled to that size? One word: Pork! In addition to the initial price tag of $750 billion, lawmakers stuck another $150 billion to the taxpayers, making the bailout $850 billion to start with. Wait till you see the final cost of this animal. One trillion dollars will be a most conservative figure on what the bailout will finally cost American taxpayers.
Though Republican presidential candidate John McCain pretended to bemoan all the earmarks and pork with which his colleagues were stuffing the bailout gravy train, when it came down to taking a stand for the people, Mr. McCain did less than hold his nose to vote Yes for the pork-packed bill. He actually claimed and proclaimed victory for the leadership he provided to make the bailout a reality. Of course, he may come back later to propose and take credit for "the surge" that will clean up the mess -- months or years down the road, if he's still alive.
Democrat Barack Obama was no better than McCain. Though he insisted on including homeowners in the bailout package, he voted Yes, though there was nothing in the bill for the millions of homeowners who may lose their homes because of the troubles in the mortgage sector.
Call it the bailout sellout. Most politicians connected with the bailout sold out their principles. Fiscal conservatives voted for a near government takeover of the market, tantamount to a socialized economy. Liberals voted to cover the nakedness of the wealthy and powerful, with nothing but lip service for concerns of struggling homeowners.
Any wonder why millions of Americans no longer take our politicians seriously? Any wonder why we expect them to lie to us over and again? If McCain and Obama can compromise their principles so easily and quickly on the bailout, why are we to think that either man will do any different on their campaign promises about the economy?
According to Lawrence Officer, professor of economics at the University of Illinois, the crisis on Wall Street was two-fold: a "crisis of credit" coupled with a "crisis of confidence". And the bailout bill fixes neither of those. On the credit crisis, banks remain reluctant to lend; this will continue to dry up credit. On the confidence front, do you really think Wall Street suddenly trusts Washington to hold the remedy to the economy? Thus, after the bill has been signed into law, Wall Street still faces the same "crisis of credit" and a "crisis of confidence". In fact, Professor Officer thinks the bailout may actually make the credit crunch worse. So much for a drive-thru solution to a serious problem.
Another important reason why the bailout is doomed is that it does NOT include a reform of the financial sector/system. For example, the laws governing credit cards need to be reformed NOW. A system that screws the middle class and is so skewed towards lining the pockets of banks cannot continue to be the norm, not if we expect things to change on Wall Street in a way that will benefit Main Street. Just last year (2007), American consumers doled out a whopping $12 billion of their hard-earned money to banks and credit card companies in the form of late fees and finance charges, according to CNN. Actually, it was the lenders picking the pockets of borrowers.
Yet when the question of the need for reform came up during Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's testimony before Congress, Mr. Paulson basically told lawmakers, "bailout now, reform later". So Congress went along and passed the bailout with no reform strings attached. That means the same bad regulations that paved the way for the credit and confidence crises remain the rules of the Wall Street money game.
You can bet on this: This administration used fear to oversell the war in Iraq. What happened? That war became a disaster, and the administration demanded a surge to control the damage. The same administration has used the same weapon of fear to oversell the bailout. What will happen? You don't need a crystal ball to forecast that doom will be the fate of the Wall Street bailout. And when it fails, expect a million reasons why we need a surge, few more rounds of fixes.
Things Money Can, Can't Buy
Remember those MasterCard TV commercials? Their theme is what money can buy, and what money can't buy. One of them goes, "28 laughs, 9 hugs, 52 smiles, 2 contented sighs: $0 (zero dollars). A free day to take them all in: priceless."
One man asked, "How much does it take to satisfy us?" And he answered his own question by saying, "A little bit more than we have!" But Seneca, the Roman sage, once said, "Money has never yet made anyone rich."
Is money important? Yes. But it is easy to overrate money's power. As necessary as money is in our world and in our lives, we do well to remind ourselves every now and then that money is limited in some significant ways.
The following exercise may help to control our greed and curb the spirit of materialism, that insatiable hunger and thirst for more and more.
You've probably done this exercise before, whether in your mind, by words, or on paper. The game is called "Things Money Can't Buy". And they come in no particular order.
Money can buy food, but money cannot buy appetite or taste. Money can buy livelihood; money cannot buy life. Money can buy healthcare and medication, but money cannot buy health, healing and wellbeing. Money can pay for transportation and mobility, but money cannot buy the strength to move around. Money can buy a diet or membership in a health-and-fitness club, but money cannot buy the discipline and self-control needed to stay in shape. Money can buy clothes but not the feeling of satisfaction you feel from wearing clothes.
Money can buy books and access to a good school, but money cannot buy intelligence, a higher IQ, or the drive to learn. Money cannot buy wisdom and common sense. Money can buy work, but it cannot buy work ethic and the fulfillment that comes from work.
Money can buy a house; it cannot buy a home and that inner sense of family. Money can buy a nice bed with the right kind of mattress, even a Sleep Number Bed or Tempur-Pedic mattress, but money can never buy sleep, a good night rest, and sweet dreams.
Money can buy a diamond ring for engagement. Money can buy marriage license. Money can buy an impressive wedding gown and ceremony. Money can buy a shiny gold ring as a symbol of the couple's matrimony. But money cannot buy marriage, and money cannot buy fidelity, faithfulness and commitment to one sex partner.
Money can buy fun, humor and entertainment; money cannot buy happiness, joy and enjoyment. Money can purchase a ticket to hear a motivational speaker, but money cannot buy the motivation you need to take action.
Money can buy cleaners; money cannot buy cleanliness. Money can buy sex and porn, but money cannot buy love and affection. Money can buy pictures, photos, audios and videos of you or your loved ones, but money cannot buy those precious memories that keep a loved one close to the heart for years to come.
Money can buy attention from others; money cannot buy their appreciation of you. Money can buy a great neighborhood; money cannot buy good neighbors.
Money can buy silence or agreement that comes with a bribe or appeasement, but money cannot buy forgiveness and a clear conscience. Money can buy a deal and the signature to a contract, but money cannot buy honesty and commitment to the terms of the deal.
Money can buy position, power and influence, but money cannot buy character, respect, and the ability to lead. Money can buy a good plan, but it cannot buy the push or drive to implement the plan to a rewarding end.
Money can buy gifts and donations, but money cannot buy generosity, that spirit of charity and philanthropy. Money can pay the salary of an exceptional coach; money cannot buy team spirit.
Other things money cannot buy: compassion, faith, hope, confidence and trust (Continue the list; add your priceless items.)
King Solomon said, "Money answers everything." Yes, but notice that he said "thing"; money is only the solution when you are talking about a tangible "thing". There is a price to every "thing", but the true treasures of life are "priceless". The things that money can buy are not the most important things in life. In fact, the most important things in life are not things.
One man asked, "How much does it take to satisfy us?" And he answered his own question by saying, "A little bit more than we have!" But Seneca, the Roman sage, once said, "Money has never yet made anyone rich."
Is money important? Yes. But it is easy to overrate money's power. As necessary as money is in our world and in our lives, we do well to remind ourselves every now and then that money is limited in some significant ways.
The following exercise may help to control our greed and curb the spirit of materialism, that insatiable hunger and thirst for more and more.
You've probably done this exercise before, whether in your mind, by words, or on paper. The game is called "Things Money Can't Buy". And they come in no particular order.
Money can buy food, but money cannot buy appetite or taste. Money can buy livelihood; money cannot buy life. Money can buy healthcare and medication, but money cannot buy health, healing and wellbeing. Money can pay for transportation and mobility, but money cannot buy the strength to move around. Money can buy a diet or membership in a health-and-fitness club, but money cannot buy the discipline and self-control needed to stay in shape. Money can buy clothes but not the feeling of satisfaction you feel from wearing clothes.
Money can buy books and access to a good school, but money cannot buy intelligence, a higher IQ, or the drive to learn. Money cannot buy wisdom and common sense. Money can buy work, but it cannot buy work ethic and the fulfillment that comes from work.
Money can buy a house; it cannot buy a home and that inner sense of family. Money can buy a nice bed with the right kind of mattress, even a Sleep Number Bed or Tempur-Pedic mattress, but money can never buy sleep, a good night rest, and sweet dreams.
Money can buy a diamond ring for engagement. Money can buy marriage license. Money can buy an impressive wedding gown and ceremony. Money can buy a shiny gold ring as a symbol of the couple's matrimony. But money cannot buy marriage, and money cannot buy fidelity, faithfulness and commitment to one sex partner.
Money can buy fun, humor and entertainment; money cannot buy happiness, joy and enjoyment. Money can purchase a ticket to hear a motivational speaker, but money cannot buy the motivation you need to take action.
Money can buy cleaners; money cannot buy cleanliness. Money can buy sex and porn, but money cannot buy love and affection. Money can buy pictures, photos, audios and videos of you or your loved ones, but money cannot buy those precious memories that keep a loved one close to the heart for years to come.
Money can buy attention from others; money cannot buy their appreciation of you. Money can buy a great neighborhood; money cannot buy good neighbors.
Money can buy silence or agreement that comes with a bribe or appeasement, but money cannot buy forgiveness and a clear conscience. Money can buy a deal and the signature to a contract, but money cannot buy honesty and commitment to the terms of the deal.
Money can buy position, power and influence, but money cannot buy character, respect, and the ability to lead. Money can buy a good plan, but it cannot buy the push or drive to implement the plan to a rewarding end.
Money can buy gifts and donations, but money cannot buy generosity, that spirit of charity and philanthropy. Money can pay the salary of an exceptional coach; money cannot buy team spirit.
Other things money cannot buy: compassion, faith, hope, confidence and trust (Continue the list; add your priceless items.)
King Solomon said, "Money answers everything." Yes, but notice that he said "thing"; money is only the solution when you are talking about a tangible "thing". There is a price to every "thing", but the true treasures of life are "priceless". The things that money can buy are not the most important things in life. In fact, the most important things in life are not things.
Ninja Loans: The Root Cause That the Bailout Failed to Address
It is beyond incredible when the American government seeks to bailout or rescue the financial (mortgage) sector of the economy without addressing the root causes that led to the slump in the first place.
Since the politicians chose to completely ignore or disregard the underlining causes for the demise of investment banks, along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, why don't we lesser souls at least remind them of the job they failed to do?
How did we get here? Objective analysts and experts, not the blind partisans, have exposed the root causes of the breakdown in the American, and by extension, the global economy. In plain language, here they are:
Liberal politicians had a hand in it. Dating back to the Jimmy Carter administration, the liberals wanted to increase home ownership among Americans, and they wanted this to happen by all means necessary. To reach the goal of home ownership by the masses, some stringent lending rules had to be changed, making it easier for just about any potential borrower to qualify for a home loan. Those would have been borrowers who would otherwise not qualify for mortgage loans under normal circumstances. Under President Bill Clinton, more was done to ditch out homes to Americans with poor credit. The liberals succeeded in turning home ownership into another big government program.
Conservative politicians played their part too. Under Ronald Reagan, the conservatives moved to deregulate the financial markets. The fiscal conservatives wanted to let the free market take its course. Call it a "hands off" approach, the gospel of the free enterprise evangelists.
Of course, all of the politicians liberal and conservative alike had good intentions for changing the rules of Wall Street. The liberals did it in order to level the playing field for home ownership (compassion, if you will). And the fiscal conservatives relaxed the rules (deregulation) for Wall Street in order to promote free market capitalism (the market is always right).
But all the big-hearted politicians overlooked one little thing: that "minor" flaw that lurks in the heart of every profit-driven capitalist and communist, and socialist, for that matter. That flaw is greed. With the beast of greed added to the mix, another block was put in place.
Investment banks securitized home loans. That meant, they could now buy and sell mortgage loans in the same way that investors buy and sell stocks in companies. Soon, a group of people known as mortgage brokers appeared on the scene. These mortgage brokers, some of whom disguised themselves as home builders, had one job description: originate home loans, then turn right around and sell those loans to other lenders. They would sell a family a house for $1 down, then few weeks later, that family would receive a letter from Country Wide or some other lender, saying, "We are your new mortgage lenders now. The terms of your loan remain the same. Send your next payment to us."
Loose lending laws coupled with greed soon resulted in the proliferation of NINJA loans. NINJA stands for "No Income, No Job, No Assets". That meant, a lender could qualify a borrower for a home loan even if that borrower did NOT have any reliable income, job or assets to provide concrete evidence that the new home owner was financially able to repay the loan. In the banking community, the official name for NINJA loans is "subprime loans". I like NINJA loans better.
Why did lenders make NINJA loans? For one simple reason: That lender's money was not on the line. All they had to do was to initiate the loan and get the borrower to sign the papers. Next, they would sell the loan to another lender or investor.
Also, wanton greed paved the way for excessive salaries for Chief Executive Officers and money managers, who earned their lofty perks by generating and flipping as many new NINJA loans as possible.
The demand for "loan shares" kept driving the prices of homes up all across America, creating the housing bubble. Once those millions of broke mortgagees began to default on their adjustable rate mortgage loans, the prices of homes started to tank. In the end, even responsible borrowers, who were repaying their loans, suffered the consequences of falling home prices, as they found themselves in upside-down situations, with their homes worth less than what they originally "bought" them for.
Today, after the bailout has been signed into law, millions of mortgagees are still holding NINJA loans and are likely to lose their homes.
In view of all this, can you believe that there is nothing in the 450-page Wall Street bailout bill that will change this bleak picture for these desperate homebuyers? Neither is there is anything in that bill that will stop the prices of homes from continuing to trend downward. How dare these politicians do such a thing? Because they can get by with it, the American people having given up on good leadership from their government officials.
Well, guess what? The politicians are already saying, "Yes, we passed that bill and the president signed it with lightning speed, we're not yet done. We've got to do more."
Our question is, Why pass the bailout package in a hurry only to tell us that you didn't finish the job? And why say the bailout will help Main Street too when you did not care to include direct help for Main Streeters in the bill?
Since the politicians chose to completely ignore or disregard the underlining causes for the demise of investment banks, along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, why don't we lesser souls at least remind them of the job they failed to do?
How did we get here? Objective analysts and experts, not the blind partisans, have exposed the root causes of the breakdown in the American, and by extension, the global economy. In plain language, here they are:
Liberal politicians had a hand in it. Dating back to the Jimmy Carter administration, the liberals wanted to increase home ownership among Americans, and they wanted this to happen by all means necessary. To reach the goal of home ownership by the masses, some stringent lending rules had to be changed, making it easier for just about any potential borrower to qualify for a home loan. Those would have been borrowers who would otherwise not qualify for mortgage loans under normal circumstances. Under President Bill Clinton, more was done to ditch out homes to Americans with poor credit. The liberals succeeded in turning home ownership into another big government program.
Conservative politicians played their part too. Under Ronald Reagan, the conservatives moved to deregulate the financial markets. The fiscal conservatives wanted to let the free market take its course. Call it a "hands off" approach, the gospel of the free enterprise evangelists.
Of course, all of the politicians liberal and conservative alike had good intentions for changing the rules of Wall Street. The liberals did it in order to level the playing field for home ownership (compassion, if you will). And the fiscal conservatives relaxed the rules (deregulation) for Wall Street in order to promote free market capitalism (the market is always right).
But all the big-hearted politicians overlooked one little thing: that "minor" flaw that lurks in the heart of every profit-driven capitalist and communist, and socialist, for that matter. That flaw is greed. With the beast of greed added to the mix, another block was put in place.
Investment banks securitized home loans. That meant, they could now buy and sell mortgage loans in the same way that investors buy and sell stocks in companies. Soon, a group of people known as mortgage brokers appeared on the scene. These mortgage brokers, some of whom disguised themselves as home builders, had one job description: originate home loans, then turn right around and sell those loans to other lenders. They would sell a family a house for $1 down, then few weeks later, that family would receive a letter from Country Wide or some other lender, saying, "We are your new mortgage lenders now. The terms of your loan remain the same. Send your next payment to us."
Loose lending laws coupled with greed soon resulted in the proliferation of NINJA loans. NINJA stands for "No Income, No Job, No Assets". That meant, a lender could qualify a borrower for a home loan even if that borrower did NOT have any reliable income, job or assets to provide concrete evidence that the new home owner was financially able to repay the loan. In the banking community, the official name for NINJA loans is "subprime loans". I like NINJA loans better.
Why did lenders make NINJA loans? For one simple reason: That lender's money was not on the line. All they had to do was to initiate the loan and get the borrower to sign the papers. Next, they would sell the loan to another lender or investor.
Also, wanton greed paved the way for excessive salaries for Chief Executive Officers and money managers, who earned their lofty perks by generating and flipping as many new NINJA loans as possible.
The demand for "loan shares" kept driving the prices of homes up all across America, creating the housing bubble. Once those millions of broke mortgagees began to default on their adjustable rate mortgage loans, the prices of homes started to tank. In the end, even responsible borrowers, who were repaying their loans, suffered the consequences of falling home prices, as they found themselves in upside-down situations, with their homes worth less than what they originally "bought" them for.
Today, after the bailout has been signed into law, millions of mortgagees are still holding NINJA loans and are likely to lose their homes.
In view of all this, can you believe that there is nothing in the 450-page Wall Street bailout bill that will change this bleak picture for these desperate homebuyers? Neither is there is anything in that bill that will stop the prices of homes from continuing to trend downward. How dare these politicians do such a thing? Because they can get by with it, the American people having given up on good leadership from their government officials.
Well, guess what? The politicians are already saying, "Yes, we passed that bill and the president signed it with lightning speed, we're not yet done. We've got to do more."
Our question is, Why pass the bailout package in a hurry only to tell us that you didn't finish the job? And why say the bailout will help Main Street too when you did not care to include direct help for Main Streeters in the bill?
7 Reasons Why Wall Street Got the Bailout
Having made it through the United States Senate yesterday (October 2, 2008), the Wall Street bailout package sailed through the House of Representatives today (October 3, 2008) with a vote of 263 in favor and 171 against. A total of 58 representatives switched their votes from the Nay to the Yea column. President Bush signed the bill within hours, or was it minutes?
How remarkable was the speed with which the bailout sailed through Congress and across the President's desk? Very fast.
According to one news report, only two other major bills of national consequence have raced through Congress and by American president that quickly. One was the 1941 bill authorizing President Franklin D. Roosevelt to declare war, leading the United States into World War II. The other fast bill was the 1964 Civil Rights Act, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson.
Here is a rule of life: Whatever people do fast they are likely to do wrong. Stated another way, whatever you do too quickly, you will usually regret. A Liberian maxim says, "Hurry, hurry bursts trousers." And my late father used to say, "The faster you go the slower you get." There are few exceptions to this rule, of course.
So what gave lawmakers the guts to reverse themselves and approve the bailout after they voted it down just days earlier?
Reason #1: Americans can no longer endure a fight that lasts more than two rounds. Prior to the first vote on the bailout, American voters flooded the offices of their representatives with calls largely against bailing out Wall Street fat cats. Those same voters lost steam when the bailout returned for round two of the same economic war. By the way, this same lack of endurance is one reason why America may not win the so-called "War On Terror". Americans are too quick to back down and back off.
Reason #2: Politicians attributed the 777 points stock market plunge on Monday to the failure of the bailout to pass Congress. But the plunge could just as well have been due to uncertainty in the global financial market.
Reason #3: The politicians added to the bailout some "sweeteners" other wise known as earmarks and pork barrel. The bailout became the latest legislative Christmas tree for members of Congress to attach their pet projects. Why do you think the bailout bill is some 450 pages long? It's packed with pork, and yet John McCain voted for it, while he's decrying earmarks on the campaign trail.
Reason #4: Fear mongering by politicians, from the President to the presidential candidates, was the driving force behind the bill. Because we are being punished with lazy minds in public offices, we are stuck with being scared out of our shoes, whenever our non-creative leaders want to shove something down our throats. These weak leaders lack what it takes to motivate those they lead, so fear becomes their weapon of choice. "If we don't do this, if we don't do something, it's Armageddon." Scaring your own citizens is not leadership. It's sick, pathetic, wrong.
Reason #5: Deceptive rhetoric won the day. Our politicians realized that Americans rightly recognized the bailout as an attempt to reward irresponsible behavior on Wall Street. So the sneaky politicians contrived a mantra: "This is not a bailout; it is a rescue. This is not just for Wall Street; it is for Main Street." By intersecting Wall Street and Main Street, the politicians found their winning scheme. It's the political equivalent of "name it, claim it." In American politics, whoever can reframe the issue, owns the issue and wins the day.
Reason #6: Whining by bankers and other credit-based business people helped to tip the scale in favor of the bailout. These quasi capitalists could almost be heard sobbing on the phones as they pleaded with their elected officials. "Ohoh, ohoh. Help us, please. We can't get loans to buy cars to sell, and our buyers can't get loans to buy from us. Please, please help! Bail us out. Will you come to our rescue? How do you think we'll find the money to contribute to your next campaign for re-election, to attend your election fundraising banquet?"
Reason #7: High-pressure tactics by presidential candidates helped in no small way. John McCain placed calls to members of Congress who had voted against the bailout. Good move by McCain, because he stands to gain much from the passage of the bailout. It may help to change the subject, so McCain can talk about other things and regain traction in the polls that have been showing him falling behind.
Barack Obama also made arm-twisting phone calls. It did not matter that the bailout failed to meet one of Obama's key conditions rescue for homeowners facing foreclosure because of the mortgage crisis.
The bailout passed, because too many of our politicians lack integrity, and they are no longer ashamed of it. They flip flop on their principles at the flip of a dime in this case, at the dip of the stock market.
For the most part, the bailout passed for all the wrong reasons. Will it help the economy? May be, but only may be.
How remarkable was the speed with which the bailout sailed through Congress and across the President's desk? Very fast.
According to one news report, only two other major bills of national consequence have raced through Congress and by American president that quickly. One was the 1941 bill authorizing President Franklin D. Roosevelt to declare war, leading the United States into World War II. The other fast bill was the 1964 Civil Rights Act, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson.
Here is a rule of life: Whatever people do fast they are likely to do wrong. Stated another way, whatever you do too quickly, you will usually regret. A Liberian maxim says, "Hurry, hurry bursts trousers." And my late father used to say, "The faster you go the slower you get." There are few exceptions to this rule, of course.
So what gave lawmakers the guts to reverse themselves and approve the bailout after they voted it down just days earlier?
Reason #1: Americans can no longer endure a fight that lasts more than two rounds. Prior to the first vote on the bailout, American voters flooded the offices of their representatives with calls largely against bailing out Wall Street fat cats. Those same voters lost steam when the bailout returned for round two of the same economic war. By the way, this same lack of endurance is one reason why America may not win the so-called "War On Terror". Americans are too quick to back down and back off.
Reason #2: Politicians attributed the 777 points stock market plunge on Monday to the failure of the bailout to pass Congress. But the plunge could just as well have been due to uncertainty in the global financial market.
Reason #3: The politicians added to the bailout some "sweeteners" other wise known as earmarks and pork barrel. The bailout became the latest legislative Christmas tree for members of Congress to attach their pet projects. Why do you think the bailout bill is some 450 pages long? It's packed with pork, and yet John McCain voted for it, while he's decrying earmarks on the campaign trail.
Reason #4: Fear mongering by politicians, from the President to the presidential candidates, was the driving force behind the bill. Because we are being punished with lazy minds in public offices, we are stuck with being scared out of our shoes, whenever our non-creative leaders want to shove something down our throats. These weak leaders lack what it takes to motivate those they lead, so fear becomes their weapon of choice. "If we don't do this, if we don't do something, it's Armageddon." Scaring your own citizens is not leadership. It's sick, pathetic, wrong.
Reason #5: Deceptive rhetoric won the day. Our politicians realized that Americans rightly recognized the bailout as an attempt to reward irresponsible behavior on Wall Street. So the sneaky politicians contrived a mantra: "This is not a bailout; it is a rescue. This is not just for Wall Street; it is for Main Street." By intersecting Wall Street and Main Street, the politicians found their winning scheme. It's the political equivalent of "name it, claim it." In American politics, whoever can reframe the issue, owns the issue and wins the day.
Reason #6: Whining by bankers and other credit-based business people helped to tip the scale in favor of the bailout. These quasi capitalists could almost be heard sobbing on the phones as they pleaded with their elected officials. "Ohoh, ohoh. Help us, please. We can't get loans to buy cars to sell, and our buyers can't get loans to buy from us. Please, please help! Bail us out. Will you come to our rescue? How do you think we'll find the money to contribute to your next campaign for re-election, to attend your election fundraising banquet?"
Reason #7: High-pressure tactics by presidential candidates helped in no small way. John McCain placed calls to members of Congress who had voted against the bailout. Good move by McCain, because he stands to gain much from the passage of the bailout. It may help to change the subject, so McCain can talk about other things and regain traction in the polls that have been showing him falling behind.
Barack Obama also made arm-twisting phone calls. It did not matter that the bailout failed to meet one of Obama's key conditions rescue for homeowners facing foreclosure because of the mortgage crisis.
The bailout passed, because too many of our politicians lack integrity, and they are no longer ashamed of it. They flip flop on their principles at the flip of a dime in this case, at the dip of the stock market.
For the most part, the bailout passed for all the wrong reasons. Will it help the economy? May be, but only may be.
The Politics of Jesus: Was Jesus Liberal, Conservative, Or Independent?
I have always been intrigued with this question, "If Jesus were alive today and living in America, how would He vote? Would Jesus vote with the Liberals? Or would He go with the Conservatives instead?"
For some Evangelical Christians, the question is clear cut. "Of course, Jesus would vote________", they say. So these brothers and sisters in Christ, do such things as conduct voters drives and voters registration in their church buildings. Others are much direct: They endorse one candidate over another. Some pastors make it clear by their words, which way they want their church members to vote. Even more bluntly, some preachers tell their parishioners in so many words, "I don't see how you can be a Christian and vote for so and so."
To me, the answer to the question, "How would Jesus vote?", is not that cut and dry. Not that I'm chicken, or don't want to take a stand. It's just that from the written accounts (Gospels) we have of Jesus in the New Testament, we cannot give one certain answer to the question, "Was Jesus Conservative or Liberal?"
The record shows that on moral issues, Jesus was clearly Conservative. Jesus believed in a standard of right and wrong set forth by God. He did not shy away from using the word "sin" for bad behavior. In some of His parables, Jesus recommended doing business for profit. He preached about Heaven and Hell. Jesus believed there was only one way to God, and He claimed to be the way, the truth and the life. Jesus believed in a literal resurrection of the body. Like a conservative, Jesus believed in creation and in God as the Creator.
Yet on social issues, Jesus remained Liberal. He saw part of His mission as liberating the oppressed of society. His compassion drew Him to the poor. He never spoke one word in favor of war. Instead, He taught His followers to turn the other cheek, to overcome evil with love.
At times, Jesus blended His Liberal and Conservative sides in perfect balance. One example was when He asked the woman accused of adultery, "Where are your accusers? Has no one condemned you?", and the woman answered, "No one, Lord." Jesus told her, "Neither do I condemn you; from now on, sin no more." The Liberal Jesus did not condemn the woman, but the Conservative Jesus called her behavior "sin", which she needed to stop.
When it came right down to partisan issues, Jesus decided to be Independent, choosing only to represent the Kingdom Of God, which is higher than our politics. Throughout His life, Jesus did not allow Himself to be pinned down by the parties within Judaism. He refused to choose sides with the Conservatives (Pharisees) or Liberals (Sadducees). They asked Him if it was right to pay taxes to the Roman government; He answered, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and give unto God what is God's." When some people told Jesus that Herod was planning to kill Him, He replied by calling Caesar "that fox". Governor Pilate asked Jesus at His trial, "Are you a king?" Jesus replied, "My kingdom is not of this world."
What's my point? Simply this: Anyone who claims to follow the Jesus of the Gospels will find it hard to remain just a Liberal or Conservative in every election cycle. The politics of Jesus requires us to search our hearts every time, forcing us to stake our hopes not on any particular party or candidate but on the Lord and His Kingdom. I wish that on Election Day, the options were as simple as which candidate is pro-choice or pro-life, which candidate has compassion or lacks compassion for the poor. But frankly the Lord has not made it that easy on me, though I respect those who think otherwise. So I cast each vote, with the faith that Christ will be well pleased with me. And if He's not, well, then I'll just have to throw myself on His mercy...once again.
For some Evangelical Christians, the question is clear cut. "Of course, Jesus would vote________", they say. So these brothers and sisters in Christ, do such things as conduct voters drives and voters registration in their church buildings. Others are much direct: They endorse one candidate over another. Some pastors make it clear by their words, which way they want their church members to vote. Even more bluntly, some preachers tell their parishioners in so many words, "I don't see how you can be a Christian and vote for so and so."
To me, the answer to the question, "How would Jesus vote?", is not that cut and dry. Not that I'm chicken, or don't want to take a stand. It's just that from the written accounts (Gospels) we have of Jesus in the New Testament, we cannot give one certain answer to the question, "Was Jesus Conservative or Liberal?"
The record shows that on moral issues, Jesus was clearly Conservative. Jesus believed in a standard of right and wrong set forth by God. He did not shy away from using the word "sin" for bad behavior. In some of His parables, Jesus recommended doing business for profit. He preached about Heaven and Hell. Jesus believed there was only one way to God, and He claimed to be the way, the truth and the life. Jesus believed in a literal resurrection of the body. Like a conservative, Jesus believed in creation and in God as the Creator.
Yet on social issues, Jesus remained Liberal. He saw part of His mission as liberating the oppressed of society. His compassion drew Him to the poor. He never spoke one word in favor of war. Instead, He taught His followers to turn the other cheek, to overcome evil with love.
At times, Jesus blended His Liberal and Conservative sides in perfect balance. One example was when He asked the woman accused of adultery, "Where are your accusers? Has no one condemned you?", and the woman answered, "No one, Lord." Jesus told her, "Neither do I condemn you; from now on, sin no more." The Liberal Jesus did not condemn the woman, but the Conservative Jesus called her behavior "sin", which she needed to stop.
When it came right down to partisan issues, Jesus decided to be Independent, choosing only to represent the Kingdom Of God, which is higher than our politics. Throughout His life, Jesus did not allow Himself to be pinned down by the parties within Judaism. He refused to choose sides with the Conservatives (Pharisees) or Liberals (Sadducees). They asked Him if it was right to pay taxes to the Roman government; He answered, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and give unto God what is God's." When some people told Jesus that Herod was planning to kill Him, He replied by calling Caesar "that fox". Governor Pilate asked Jesus at His trial, "Are you a king?" Jesus replied, "My kingdom is not of this world."
What's my point? Simply this: Anyone who claims to follow the Jesus of the Gospels will find it hard to remain just a Liberal or Conservative in every election cycle. The politics of Jesus requires us to search our hearts every time, forcing us to stake our hopes not on any particular party or candidate but on the Lord and His Kingdom. I wish that on Election Day, the options were as simple as which candidate is pro-choice or pro-life, which candidate has compassion or lacks compassion for the poor. But frankly the Lord has not made it that easy on me, though I respect those who think otherwise. So I cast each vote, with the faith that Christ will be well pleased with me. And if He's not, well, then I'll just have to throw myself on His mercy...once again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
