Who dat Hillary Rosen? Never heard of her before she shot off on Ann Romney.
Of course all the Dems are defending her and re-explaining her potshot that Ann Romney
never held a job. And all the Reps are saying that Ann has had breast cancer, MS, and 5 boys (hopefully that is in the order of difficulty).
But what I find fascinating is that no one takes on the premise that a stay-at-home doesn’t
know about economic difficulties. Preposterous! Have you not read “The
Millionaire Next Door”, Hillary? The researchers who wrote that best-seller of 2000, noted that there were 3 million millionaires in USA at the time. Well
over 90% of them got rich slowly, by accumulating. Very few get rich quickly via lottery winning
or professional athletics or inheritance. Most millionaires got rich by continually increasing their pot of gold and giving very little of it to the government (smart tax strategies). They are unassuming and most people are surprised at their wealth. They look like ordinary
people next door. The authors looked for correlation between jobs and ethnicity and other things and found very little. Then they noted that 80% of wealthy couples had wives at home. That
compares with 33% stay-at-home moms among the general population. Well, they thought, that’s just because these people are wealthy and wives didn’t have to work outside the home. Not true! Over 50% of the spouses chose not to work from the get-go. When they were
still poor and living on peanut butter, the women chose to stay at home. Why?
The researchers started interviewing the women and realized that they were an
integral part of the plan. As one woman explained, “Say you have a group of people and they all make $40,000 ayear. And all spend $40,000 a year. They all look somewhat the same, living
similar lifestyles. But suppose there is one couple in which the homemaker is astute and knows how to have champagne living on a beer budget. She manages to provide a $40,000 life on $30,000 expenses each year. They can salt away $10,000 every year for
retirement. Her adventurous and fun frugality are key to providing long term security. And her husband and children learn to catch onto her fun frugality.” Thus
accumulation happens.
Such women are the enablers of success. And keeping the home economics efficient and productive is a first step in launching husbands into a successful business. Lucy and
Mrs. Cleaver and Edith Bunker are not the dingbats of the world but are the among
the geniuses. The MND authors also found these women oftimes have dual careers with their husbands, lending a skill where it is needed in a family business.
And thus Ann Romney is not unlearned on economics of the real world,
Hillary, she is the consultant you would want as a candidate.
Now of course, not all the MND couples were like this. And every person should have the opportunity to succeed at what they love. Also circumstances like health or
divorce dictate that wives work. But to say that a stay-at-home mom is a dummy is about as dumb as it gets.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Mormon supression
Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC had an absolute hatchet job on Mormonism, explaining the
religion as nothing more than the founder getting caught in an affair with the
maid. Then Jake Tapper of ABC played up
a big interview question with Rick Warren in which Warren pointed out an obvious
thing. Some Christians have a concern
about Mormonism because it is not strictly Trinitarian. Of course, it’s not that O’Donnell or Tapper are pietistic systematic theologians. I’d bet you never heard either of them
give any kind of testimony of their faith --on or off the air. But by raising big warning flags about
Mormonism, they can attack Romney quite cleverly and obliquely. Chris Matthews of MSNBC was absolutely gleeful. No, that’s too weak a
word. Matthews was Ecstatic about the
possibility that Evangelical turnout might be reduced this fall. He even chortled that Evangelicals “would all
stay home.” Matthews is no dummy. He has been in many campaigns for Democrats
and he understands that turnout is a far larger effect than the often-repeated
foolishness of appealing to the independents.
Suppressing conservative turnout is the name of the game among
Dems.
Here’s why. In any given general election 58-69% of registered
voters do. And you have probably heard
that R’s and D’s have something like 40 and 42% of those registered. Lets make it 40-40 just for discussion
purposes. That means 20% are
Independents. (Fewer I’s in
midcontinent—about 10%-- and larger on the coasts—about 30%) But Independents
as a group are only half as likely to vote as partisans who vote 75% of the
time. So in our election we would have
30 % R’s + 30% D’s + 7% I’s = 67% turnout.
Then they
poll asking if someone is liberal, moderate, or conservative. Among registered
voters, they are 20% liberal, 30% moderate and 40% conservative (last 10% are
“none-of-the-above”). Republicans are
80% conservative and about 15% moderate (plus 5% ‘none-of-the-above’). That means that of the 40 percentage points
that R’s comprise, 32 are conservative and 6% moderate. But 40% of the registered say they are
conservative, so the other 8 points of conservatives are about 4% in the
independent column and 4% in the Dems.
In an election, if the R’s run a conservative, almost all their base
will vote for the conservative. This is
not the case with Dems and liberals.
Remember D’s comprise 40% but liberals only account for 20% of voters. So the 40% D’s break down as about 18%
liberal (2% goes to Independents) and 18% moderate and 4% conservative. (Leaving Independents at 4% conservative, 2%
liberal, 6% moderate and 8% none of the above) Thus Dems must play a game of
pretending to be centrist and moderate while being liberal in order to attract
base votes, or they must be indeed be somewhat centrist like Bill Clinton and
rely on libs having nowhere else to go—which is not a good turnout situation. Instead of ideology, Dems often play group
politics demonizing R’s as anti-black or anti-hispanic or anti-women or
whatever group they are trying to target.
Thus they get the base to turn out based on an emotional group-think
rather than a political philosophy. And
that is why media pundits—who are shown to vote 89% Democrat—always talk about
being centrist, appealing to moderates and independents, and homophobia and
racism. From their perspective, that is
how to win. And usually with a media barrage, this occurs every October when
polls show a phenomena of “Democrats coming home”.
The great
fear of Dems is when R’s go conservative and not only get their own conservs to
vote but win the independents and even steal the conservative D’s (“Reagan
Democrats”). Work the math to see how
this happens. You only need about 35% of
registered voters to get a majority of the 67% who actually vote. So if you turn out ¾ of 32 Republican
Conservative points (24) plus 3/8 of 4 points conservative independents (almost
2) plus ¾ of 4 points of crossover Dem conservatives (3) plus the remaining ¾
of 8 points of moderate and other R’s, then that candidate has won with a
substantial margin. And that is why Rush Limbaugh points out that whenever a
conservative is running they almost always win.
And that is why Jimmy Carter won with 51% and Obama won with 53%, a
paltry “best” of Democrats since LBJ. Furthermore,
if the conservative R candidate merely splits the independent moderate vote
(3/8 of 6) and gets a couple more points from crossover Dem moderate voters,
he/she has won by a landslide.
Where does
that leave the 20% Independent voters? Independents
are not a very pure philosophy group. 1/5 of them are closet partisans who vote
always for a particular party but want to keep their identity secret. 1/5 are careful-consideration moderates. 1/5 are turned off at politics in general and
tend to vote by lashing out. 1/5 are not
into politics at all and likely to vote for some sideline issue. 1/5 are out-of-sync with the parties—perhaps
a guy with Playboy Philosophy but fiscally conservative. They are hard to lump into a particular
scheme and you can see why they vote less often. Hence swing (partisan) voters are often
considered more important and targetable than independents. Pundits who say
that Indies are the key to the election, are either not being truthful or
clueless. Turnout of base is far more important.
A big part
of Democrat strategy has to be to suppress the conservative Republicans lest
they vote. And my guess is that they are
going to try to do that with attacks on Mormonism. Look for more Lawrence O’Donnell pulpit
talk. Like Greg Gutfield noted
sarcastically, “Isn’t not voting for a guy because his Mormon founder had questionable
sins like not voting for an Episcopalian because of the sins of Henry VIII?”
religion as nothing more than the founder getting caught in an affair with the
maid. Then Jake Tapper of ABC played up
a big interview question with Rick Warren in which Warren pointed out an obvious
thing. Some Christians have a concern
about Mormonism because it is not strictly Trinitarian. Of course, it’s not that O’Donnell or Tapper are pietistic systematic theologians. I’d bet you never heard either of them
give any kind of testimony of their faith --on or off the air. But by raising big warning flags about
Mormonism, they can attack Romney quite cleverly and obliquely. Chris Matthews of MSNBC was absolutely gleeful. No, that’s too weak a
word. Matthews was Ecstatic about the
possibility that Evangelical turnout might be reduced this fall. He even chortled that Evangelicals “would all
stay home.” Matthews is no dummy. He has been in many campaigns for Democrats
and he understands that turnout is a far larger effect than the often-repeated
foolishness of appealing to the independents.
Suppressing conservative turnout is the name of the game among
Dems.
Here’s why. In any given general election 58-69% of registered
voters do. And you have probably heard
that R’s and D’s have something like 40 and 42% of those registered. Lets make it 40-40 just for discussion
purposes. That means 20% are
Independents. (Fewer I’s in
midcontinent—about 10%-- and larger on the coasts—about 30%) But Independents
as a group are only half as likely to vote as partisans who vote 75% of the
time. So in our election we would have
30 % R’s + 30% D’s + 7% I’s = 67% turnout.
Then they
poll asking if someone is liberal, moderate, or conservative. Among registered
voters, they are 20% liberal, 30% moderate and 40% conservative (last 10% are
“none-of-the-above”). Republicans are
80% conservative and about 15% moderate (plus 5% ‘none-of-the-above’). That means that of the 40 percentage points
that R’s comprise, 32 are conservative and 6% moderate. But 40% of the registered say they are
conservative, so the other 8 points of conservatives are about 4% in the
independent column and 4% in the Dems.
In an election, if the R’s run a conservative, almost all their base
will vote for the conservative. This is
not the case with Dems and liberals.
Remember D’s comprise 40% but liberals only account for 20% of voters. So the 40% D’s break down as about 18%
liberal (2% goes to Independents) and 18% moderate and 4% conservative. (Leaving Independents at 4% conservative, 2%
liberal, 6% moderate and 8% none of the above) Thus Dems must play a game of
pretending to be centrist and moderate while being liberal in order to attract
base votes, or they must be indeed be somewhat centrist like Bill Clinton and
rely on libs having nowhere else to go—which is not a good turnout situation. Instead of ideology, Dems often play group
politics demonizing R’s as anti-black or anti-hispanic or anti-women or
whatever group they are trying to target.
Thus they get the base to turn out based on an emotional group-think
rather than a political philosophy. And
that is why media pundits—who are shown to vote 89% Democrat—always talk about
being centrist, appealing to moderates and independents, and homophobia and
racism. From their perspective, that is
how to win. And usually with a media barrage, this occurs every October when
polls show a phenomena of “Democrats coming home”.
The great
fear of Dems is when R’s go conservative and not only get their own conservs to
vote but win the independents and even steal the conservative D’s (“Reagan
Democrats”). Work the math to see how
this happens. You only need about 35% of
registered voters to get a majority of the 67% who actually vote. So if you turn out ¾ of 32 Republican
Conservative points (24) plus 3/8 of 4 points conservative independents (almost
2) plus ¾ of 4 points of crossover Dem conservatives (3) plus the remaining ¾
of 8 points of moderate and other R’s, then that candidate has won with a
substantial margin. And that is why Rush Limbaugh points out that whenever a
conservative is running they almost always win.
And that is why Jimmy Carter won with 51% and Obama won with 53%, a
paltry “best” of Democrats since LBJ. Furthermore,
if the conservative R candidate merely splits the independent moderate vote
(3/8 of 6) and gets a couple more points from crossover Dem moderate voters,
he/she has won by a landslide.
Where does
that leave the 20% Independent voters? Independents
are not a very pure philosophy group. 1/5 of them are closet partisans who vote
always for a particular party but want to keep their identity secret. 1/5 are careful-consideration moderates. 1/5 are turned off at politics in general and
tend to vote by lashing out. 1/5 are not
into politics at all and likely to vote for some sideline issue. 1/5 are out-of-sync with the parties—perhaps
a guy with Playboy Philosophy but fiscally conservative. They are hard to lump into a particular
scheme and you can see why they vote less often. Hence swing (partisan) voters are often
considered more important and targetable than independents. Pundits who say
that Indies are the key to the election, are either not being truthful or
clueless. Turnout of base is far more important.
A big part
of Democrat strategy has to be to suppress the conservative Republicans lest
they vote. And my guess is that they are
going to try to do that with attacks on Mormonism. Look for more Lawrence O’Donnell pulpit
talk. Like Greg Gutfield noted
sarcastically, “Isn’t not voting for a guy because his Mormon founder had questionable
sins like not voting for an Episcopalian because of the sins of Henry VIII?”
Monday, April 9, 2012
Sator squares
I’m
learning that one of the interesting learnings about the early Christian church
is the new stuff about the spread of the gospel by the Roman military. Of course, we have known for a long time that
the Romans strictly would not tolerate a Christian in their army. And that 2nd century Christians
would not allow a soldier to convert while on active duty since soldiers
pledged absolute loyalty to the Roman gods and fought for “the greater glory of
Rome!”
Not so fast. The appeal of Christianity which believed in the resurrection and a triumphal life after death was enormous for a guy who laid his life on the line day after day. And then there is that little passage in Phillipians 1:13 “so that my imprisonment I the cause of Christ has become well known throughout the whole praetorian guard and to everyone else,” The praetorian guard was Caesar’s crack and loyal division who surrounded him with protection. What business was the gospel with such SS men? Was there some sort of secret bunch of followers?
Apparently archeologists have discovered what at first appeared as a game in Roman
camps. Almost solely in Roman military camps is found a 5X5 inscription at odd places—on walls, pillars, scratched into pavement, etc.
The inscription is
SATOR
AREPO
TENET
OPERA
ROTAS
They call
it the Sator Square. You’ll notice that
it spells "sator" either forwards or backwards all around the edges and arepo is
just opera spelled backwards. Apparently
Romans loved angiograms and often scratched random letter arrangements with the
challenge to find words in the mélange.
But this particular 5X5 has meaning and every line is a word. Sator means ‘sower’. Arepo is evidently a name. Tenet means ‘holds’. Opera means ‘working’. Rotas means ‘wheel’ So “Sower Arepo (or Arepo the sower) holds the working wheels.” Well, so what? Is this like ‘the quick brown fox…”
Experts in
Roman games say that this 5X5 is different in that it is completely symmetric and
doesn’t hide words. So it seems not so much a game as an inscription meant to
look like a game.
And
wherever it is found and dated, a Christian community seems to magically appear
in the locale within 20 or 30 years. Sator squares followed by Christian churches is found in places as far removed as Hadrian’s Wall in Scotland to barracks in Spain to Egyptian training facilities.
Then
someone thought, hey, you know after the time of Augustus, the empire grew so
large that the Italian Roman army had to recruit all over the empire with the incentive
of gaining Roman citizenship if you served a full term of 20 years. (true Romans
had to serve 8 years). And these foreign guys knew Greek as the universal language and Latin but as second languages. Their spelling and grammar wasn’t too good. Who was the mysterious Arepo? There is no known Roman name like that.
But the Greek has a word, “alepo” which means “almighty” and
pronunciation is almost the same with ‘r’ and ‘l’ being quite similar as said
by ancient Greeks and Romans. Maybe
someone just substituted arepo for alepo since they needed an ‘r’ for symmetry. And so the phrase would be more meaningful, “The almighty sower holds the working of the wheels”. That is to say, God in heaven holds all within His plan.
Then they
found a stone with the Sator square on it and somebody had nearby carved into the shape of a cross that said (both ways),
PATERNOSTRES
and surrounded by a pair of AO'S
Same
letters as the Sator square, rearranged into a cross and “Pater Nostres” is “Our Father” the
beginning words of the Lord’s prayer.
And the leftover A’s and O’s?
Those in Greek would be the Alpha and Omega, signifying Christ. Clearly a Christian got hold of the Sator
square.
But then
they found the baker in Pompeii. The city
was destroyed in 70AD by the Vesuvius eruption and dumped a sudden toxic gas
cloud onto the city and covered it with many feet of volcanic ash. The funny thing about volcanic ash is that as
rainwater percolates through it, it tends to petrify anything organic,
replacing carbons with silicons in a perfect reducing environment. So the delicate fresco paintings were often
preserved, as were dead bodies. The
baker’s shop was obvious. There was a big oven and loaves of bread petrified on
the counters. And the fresco of the
owner and his wife were still proudly smiling over the shop. The owner was not Italian, but a former
foreign soldier, 25 year active, shown proudly clutching his citizenship papers
and named an Illyrian name. Stunningly
enough, he is a Christian. He had carved
a cross above the oven and at various places around the store. Outside, there were some older base
reliefs of those typical Roman porn which
had been plastered over with Christian symbols.
And then in the storage room was a Sator square, along with some
Christian writings around them, referring to the military.
Elsewhere we have found Sator Squares with Christian fish symbols written nearby.
So
apparently to some extent we still don’t know, the Roman army had a secret sect
of Christians who spread the faith far and wide. And the Sator Square seems to have been their clandestine symbol.
learning that one of the interesting learnings about the early Christian church
is the new stuff about the spread of the gospel by the Roman military. Of course, we have known for a long time that
the Romans strictly would not tolerate a Christian in their army. And that 2nd century Christians
would not allow a soldier to convert while on active duty since soldiers
pledged absolute loyalty to the Roman gods and fought for “the greater glory of
Rome!”
Not so fast. The appeal of Christianity which believed in the resurrection and a triumphal life after death was enormous for a guy who laid his life on the line day after day. And then there is that little passage in Phillipians 1:13 “so that my imprisonment I the cause of Christ has become well known throughout the whole praetorian guard and to everyone else,” The praetorian guard was Caesar’s crack and loyal division who surrounded him with protection. What business was the gospel with such SS men? Was there some sort of secret bunch of followers?
Apparently archeologists have discovered what at first appeared as a game in Roman
camps. Almost solely in Roman military camps is found a 5X5 inscription at odd places—on walls, pillars, scratched into pavement, etc.
The inscription is
SATOR
AREPO
TENET
OPERA
ROTAS
They call
it the Sator Square. You’ll notice that
it spells "sator" either forwards or backwards all around the edges and arepo is
just opera spelled backwards. Apparently
Romans loved angiograms and often scratched random letter arrangements with the
challenge to find words in the mélange.
But this particular 5X5 has meaning and every line is a word. Sator means ‘sower’. Arepo is evidently a name. Tenet means ‘holds’. Opera means ‘working’. Rotas means ‘wheel’ So “Sower Arepo (or Arepo the sower) holds the working wheels.” Well, so what? Is this like ‘the quick brown fox…”
Experts in
Roman games say that this 5X5 is different in that it is completely symmetric and
doesn’t hide words. So it seems not so much a game as an inscription meant to
look like a game.
And
wherever it is found and dated, a Christian community seems to magically appear
in the locale within 20 or 30 years. Sator squares followed by Christian churches is found in places as far removed as Hadrian’s Wall in Scotland to barracks in Spain to Egyptian training facilities.
Then
someone thought, hey, you know after the time of Augustus, the empire grew so
large that the Italian Roman army had to recruit all over the empire with the incentive
of gaining Roman citizenship if you served a full term of 20 years. (true Romans
had to serve 8 years). And these foreign guys knew Greek as the universal language and Latin but as second languages. Their spelling and grammar wasn’t too good. Who was the mysterious Arepo? There is no known Roman name like that.
But the Greek has a word, “alepo” which means “almighty” and
pronunciation is almost the same with ‘r’ and ‘l’ being quite similar as said
by ancient Greeks and Romans. Maybe
someone just substituted arepo for alepo since they needed an ‘r’ for symmetry. And so the phrase would be more meaningful, “The almighty sower holds the working of the wheels”. That is to say, God in heaven holds all within His plan.
Then they
found a stone with the Sator square on it and somebody had nearby carved into the shape of a cross that said (both ways),
PATERNOSTRES
and surrounded by a pair of AO'S
Same
letters as the Sator square, rearranged into a cross and “Pater Nostres” is “Our Father” the
beginning words of the Lord’s prayer.
And the leftover A’s and O’s?
Those in Greek would be the Alpha and Omega, signifying Christ. Clearly a Christian got hold of the Sator
square.
But then
they found the baker in Pompeii. The city
was destroyed in 70AD by the Vesuvius eruption and dumped a sudden toxic gas
cloud onto the city and covered it with many feet of volcanic ash. The funny thing about volcanic ash is that as
rainwater percolates through it, it tends to petrify anything organic,
replacing carbons with silicons in a perfect reducing environment. So the delicate fresco paintings were often
preserved, as were dead bodies. The
baker’s shop was obvious. There was a big oven and loaves of bread petrified on
the counters. And the fresco of the
owner and his wife were still proudly smiling over the shop. The owner was not Italian, but a former
foreign soldier, 25 year active, shown proudly clutching his citizenship papers
and named an Illyrian name. Stunningly
enough, he is a Christian. He had carved
a cross above the oven and at various places around the store. Outside, there were some older base
reliefs of those typical Roman porn which
had been plastered over with Christian symbols.
And then in the storage room was a Sator square, along with some
Christian writings around them, referring to the military.
Elsewhere we have found Sator Squares with Christian fish symbols written nearby.
So
apparently to some extent we still don’t know, the Roman army had a secret sect
of Christians who spread the faith far and wide. And the Sator Square seems to have been their clandestine symbol.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Jesus as a kid
A good topic for Easter...
My Young Families class has often brought up the topic of “What do we know about Jesus when he was a child?” Standard theological answer is that we know nothing except for his astounding Temple visit when he was 12 found in Luke 2:41ff. But I think we can derive a lot about Jesus from his parables, and the recent knowledge we have of life in the first century. I will warn you however, that I am not of the mind that Jesus simply “knew everything” as if by magic. Many people assume that because he was divine, he was merely omniscient. I am more of the point of view of Phil. 2:5 “he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” Surely Jesus didn’t lie in his manger thinking, ‘well, shall I have a dirty diaper? After all, I know all about potty training already.” No, I think he learned just like you and I, as it alludes to in Hebrews.
First observation is that Joseph is poor. He is by occupation a ‘Tekton’ Greek for ‘builder’. That gets translated “carpenter” in most earlier translations, including Luther’s Bible. (German word for carpenter is “Zimmerman”, so when the other folks in his hometown said “Er ist nicht der Zimmerman”…) Tekton was probably more like a stonemason than a woodworker, although some have suggested a handyman. The tektons found building work where they could and worked for farmers for food as well. They were landless peasants and least well-off of the society of the time. Mary was said by Polycarp, early Christian Father who was the understudy of John, to have been 16 when she had Jesus and Joseph was 40. Figures. Joe had to save up for years to get a decent dowry. Joe was alive when Jesus was 12 making him about 52. Anybody older than 50 was said by Hebrews to be ‘elderly’. So it is likely that Joseph died soon after the Luke 2 story of Jesus in the Temple. Jesus has extraordinary sympathy for families where breadwinner’s died like when Lazarus died (Luke 10)leaving behind two sisters—and women couldn’t earn a living like a man. See Widow’s mite story during last week of his life. This may also explain why such a promising youth as Jesus wasn’t bat mitzvahed at about age 16—he had to earn a living for his family. Bat Mitzvah would have meant that he would have learned to write and been a scribe. But Jesus warns scribes and Pharisees about their attitude repeatedly (See Matt. 23:1). Jesus could read and write of course because he wrote in the dirt when a woman caught in adultery was brought to him. But he was no scribe trained in stylus and ink.
So Jesus had to earn a living for the family as the oldest son, probably at an early age of about early teens. But he worked with his dad since the earliest age. Could he build? You betcha! He knew some builder secrets. In Matt. 7 and Luke 6 he tells about a wise man who built his house on a rock and a foolish man who built on sand. This might not make sense to someone raised in a temperate climate. In the desert the standard surface is the desert pavement which looks like gravel. It is stone that has fractured into gravel by heat/cold and sun but since there is no rain to make chemical action and soil, it is just gravel. But of course no one lives out there. There are boulders and rock outcroppings and then along dried stream beds there is sand and silt. When it rains in the desert it’s usually flash flood, a disaster that would carry over into a semi-arid climate as well. Do people build on the sandy areas? Foolishly they do. Just take a flight over Las Vegas suburbs and trace the dried stream beds. Once every 30 years they’ll get wiped out. Jesus shows in this story that he knows the idiocy of building on sand deposits in a dry land, whereas even today, some builders don’t. In the Rejected Building Stone, he shows that he understands that a rough-hewn stone vs. a cornerstone is just in the tooling.
Could Jesus farm? You betcha! His parable of the sower occurs in all three synoptic gospels (See Mark 4:3-20) wherein he knows what happens to seed that falls into all types of conditions. Then in Mark 4:26-29 he talks about darnels in wheat. In Mark 13 he talks about how to take care of an old fig tree (figs usually bear like crazy so a barren fig is unusual). In the prodigal son story, he knows how to survive on pig feed fodder, the sort of thing a poor family would do in extreme famine conditions. In the Lost Sheep (Matthew 18), he clearly knows all about tending sheep, in the Weeds (Matt. 13) he knows all about how weeds grow, and in New Wine (Matt. 9, Luke 5) he understands the way poor folks made wine—as compared with Greek vats and barrels to age after fermentation. And he knew all about mustard seeds. And how crucial daily bread was.
Thirdly, most peasant farmers farmed their own subsistence land and had no hired men. But Jesus grew up as a hired man’s son and probably hired himself out as well. His stories show a well traveled guy looking for work and understanding of what managers were looking for. He travels from town to town without fear, walking about 2500 miles in 3 years, it is estimated--physically fit as well. Jesus clearly is well-versed on the hiring and firing for not just agriculture, but also in the trades. And he knows debt as shown in the unforgiving servant story of Matt. 18. In the parable of the Wise Master (Luke 12), he understands business and commerce of the time intimately and in that same chapter he describes a rich fool who tries to store what won’t last. And in the parable of the Talents and the Pearl of Great Value, he shows keen insight into business risk-taking, an understanding that is all too lost on many people outside of the business world.
It is written that Jesus had 4 brothers and according to some early Christian writers Mary had as many as 8 children. Jesus’ insights into the parable of the Ten Virgins (Matt. 25) shows he understood well the village weddings and female banter where half the young girls forget to carry enough oil for their lamps. In the Two Sons (Matt. 21) he clearly knows what it is like to interact with an obstinate or devious brother. And in the Banquet (Luke 14) he catches the poignancy of the relief of a life of hard labor by getting invited into the great feast. His love of children and his parable of the kids playing ‘marketplace’ reflects, not a loner, but a child who grew up with many peers, brothers and sisters. As the Wedding at Cana shows, Jesus was well-versed on the responsibility of being the family decision maker, probably from a young age.
So what do we have in Jesus? I think an extraordinarily responsible young man, hard working, and a peasant who understood from life the mysteries of faith. His parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector shows not just his insights into the desperate faith of a tax collector and the pride of a Pharisee, but also his intense heart for the real meaning of Jewish faith. He is the peasant kid who ‘got it’—from God’s judgment in the coming age to His Mercy, from how faith makes your handling of money to the way it affects your prayers. And he was able to transmit his message, not just to other common folks of his day, but right down to us today.
My Young Families class has often brought up the topic of “What do we know about Jesus when he was a child?” Standard theological answer is that we know nothing except for his astounding Temple visit when he was 12 found in Luke 2:41ff. But I think we can derive a lot about Jesus from his parables, and the recent knowledge we have of life in the first century. I will warn you however, that I am not of the mind that Jesus simply “knew everything” as if by magic. Many people assume that because he was divine, he was merely omniscient. I am more of the point of view of Phil. 2:5 “he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” Surely Jesus didn’t lie in his manger thinking, ‘well, shall I have a dirty diaper? After all, I know all about potty training already.” No, I think he learned just like you and I, as it alludes to in Hebrews.
First observation is that Joseph is poor. He is by occupation a ‘Tekton’ Greek for ‘builder’. That gets translated “carpenter” in most earlier translations, including Luther’s Bible. (German word for carpenter is “Zimmerman”, so when the other folks in his hometown said “Er ist nicht der Zimmerman”…) Tekton was probably more like a stonemason than a woodworker, although some have suggested a handyman. The tektons found building work where they could and worked for farmers for food as well. They were landless peasants and least well-off of the society of the time. Mary was said by Polycarp, early Christian Father who was the understudy of John, to have been 16 when she had Jesus and Joseph was 40. Figures. Joe had to save up for years to get a decent dowry. Joe was alive when Jesus was 12 making him about 52. Anybody older than 50 was said by Hebrews to be ‘elderly’. So it is likely that Joseph died soon after the Luke 2 story of Jesus in the Temple. Jesus has extraordinary sympathy for families where breadwinner’s died like when Lazarus died (Luke 10)leaving behind two sisters—and women couldn’t earn a living like a man. See Widow’s mite story during last week of his life. This may also explain why such a promising youth as Jesus wasn’t bat mitzvahed at about age 16—he had to earn a living for his family. Bat Mitzvah would have meant that he would have learned to write and been a scribe. But Jesus warns scribes and Pharisees about their attitude repeatedly (See Matt. 23:1). Jesus could read and write of course because he wrote in the dirt when a woman caught in adultery was brought to him. But he was no scribe trained in stylus and ink.
So Jesus had to earn a living for the family as the oldest son, probably at an early age of about early teens. But he worked with his dad since the earliest age. Could he build? You betcha! He knew some builder secrets. In Matt. 7 and Luke 6 he tells about a wise man who built his house on a rock and a foolish man who built on sand. This might not make sense to someone raised in a temperate climate. In the desert the standard surface is the desert pavement which looks like gravel. It is stone that has fractured into gravel by heat/cold and sun but since there is no rain to make chemical action and soil, it is just gravel. But of course no one lives out there. There are boulders and rock outcroppings and then along dried stream beds there is sand and silt. When it rains in the desert it’s usually flash flood, a disaster that would carry over into a semi-arid climate as well. Do people build on the sandy areas? Foolishly they do. Just take a flight over Las Vegas suburbs and trace the dried stream beds. Once every 30 years they’ll get wiped out. Jesus shows in this story that he knows the idiocy of building on sand deposits in a dry land, whereas even today, some builders don’t. In the Rejected Building Stone, he shows that he understands that a rough-hewn stone vs. a cornerstone is just in the tooling.
Could Jesus farm? You betcha! His parable of the sower occurs in all three synoptic gospels (See Mark 4:3-20) wherein he knows what happens to seed that falls into all types of conditions. Then in Mark 4:26-29 he talks about darnels in wheat. In Mark 13 he talks about how to take care of an old fig tree (figs usually bear like crazy so a barren fig is unusual). In the prodigal son story, he knows how to survive on pig feed fodder, the sort of thing a poor family would do in extreme famine conditions. In the Lost Sheep (Matthew 18), he clearly knows all about tending sheep, in the Weeds (Matt. 13) he knows all about how weeds grow, and in New Wine (Matt. 9, Luke 5) he understands the way poor folks made wine—as compared with Greek vats and barrels to age after fermentation. And he knew all about mustard seeds. And how crucial daily bread was.
Thirdly, most peasant farmers farmed their own subsistence land and had no hired men. But Jesus grew up as a hired man’s son and probably hired himself out as well. His stories show a well traveled guy looking for work and understanding of what managers were looking for. He travels from town to town without fear, walking about 2500 miles in 3 years, it is estimated--physically fit as well. Jesus clearly is well-versed on the hiring and firing for not just agriculture, but also in the trades. And he knows debt as shown in the unforgiving servant story of Matt. 18. In the parable of the Wise Master (Luke 12), he understands business and commerce of the time intimately and in that same chapter he describes a rich fool who tries to store what won’t last. And in the parable of the Talents and the Pearl of Great Value, he shows keen insight into business risk-taking, an understanding that is all too lost on many people outside of the business world.
It is written that Jesus had 4 brothers and according to some early Christian writers Mary had as many as 8 children. Jesus’ insights into the parable of the Ten Virgins (Matt. 25) shows he understood well the village weddings and female banter where half the young girls forget to carry enough oil for their lamps. In the Two Sons (Matt. 21) he clearly knows what it is like to interact with an obstinate or devious brother. And in the Banquet (Luke 14) he catches the poignancy of the relief of a life of hard labor by getting invited into the great feast. His love of children and his parable of the kids playing ‘marketplace’ reflects, not a loner, but a child who grew up with many peers, brothers and sisters. As the Wedding at Cana shows, Jesus was well-versed on the responsibility of being the family decision maker, probably from a young age.
So what do we have in Jesus? I think an extraordinarily responsible young man, hard working, and a peasant who understood from life the mysteries of faith. His parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector shows not just his insights into the desperate faith of a tax collector and the pride of a Pharisee, but also his intense heart for the real meaning of Jewish faith. He is the peasant kid who ‘got it’—from God’s judgment in the coming age to His Mercy, from how faith makes your handling of money to the way it affects your prayers. And he was able to transmit his message, not just to other common folks of his day, but right down to us today.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Trayvon
I hate crime and courtroom media. I know a lot of folks love to judge the cases themselves and love to listen. But how could one accurately judge without knowing all the facts, like a jury that sits through hours of testimony? And so I have been trapped by Trayvon this week. That’s all you can listen to on talk radio or TV. Since everyone seems to think they know what happened, I will add my two cents—or if you are in Canada, that rounds down to nothing, zip, nada, free.
If a boy has no father or has no relationship with his father, he is 400 times as likely
to engage in juvenile delinquency and 25 times as likely to join a gang. With 70% of births among Afro-descendant Americans being out of wedlock, this is why they have such a high rate of
delinquency and crime as young men. (49% of incarcerated males are Afro and almost ¾ of reported violent crimes are committed by Afros.) The reason for this is that a
young guy yearns to make his mark, be accepted among other males as having measured
up. When a kid has a father or close father image, he will argue and fight, crab, bitch and bellyache at the old man but nothing makes him happier than when dad tells him in some way that he has measured up. Alternatively a young warrior can get this affirmation from a group of men who have already measured up, like the military or some competitive group. Women cannot give this kind ofaffirmation. Only other guys.
But when there is no father, no army, no coach, the gang of peers becomes the
substitute. Yet the gang members are all members who have not made their own mark either. There is wild, erratic behavior trying to impress the peers—who have only a foggy idea about what they should be impressed over. Gangs lead to violence, sexual exploitation, race-baiting and substance abuse. This kind of thing gives only contempt to a real man, but insecure gang members think it is somehow cool. And the problem in Afro culture is that although you might have had a good father, there are all those other misfit gangsta guys. Thus the great men of fame, like Colin Powell and Clarence Thomas talk about grandparents and mentors who were such strong influences that they were in some sense insulated from the fray.
For thousands of years, fathers have taught sons the skills of professions, the
philosophy of a knight, the ways of a warrior. Once a young man realizes he measures up and is now a warrior, the world begins to look different. He is quietly confident of his abilities, but golly, the world is a really big place. It would be nice to have a partner, a mate, a
companion who is really close. Thus, unless a young guy measures up and finds his place, he won’t be ready to seek out a true love. Gangstas don’t love. They are too insecure. They try to act tough to cover their insecurity, the kind of bravado that would make a Trayvon turn and try to beat up some old guy who was trying to watch what he was doing. The true warrior would have strode on by, confident and happy that somebody was watching and concerned. For he is at the top of his game, a young lion headed for the title of Lion King.
And without being able to love, gangstas leave behind fatherless children, thus perpetuating the problem.
If the leaders were truly a warriors, lovers, and Lion Kings, they would be angry with the gangs, not trying to insinuate racism into the game. The Lion King would be calling for investigative justice, not ‘blood in the streets and mobs if we don’t get our way.’ The Lion King would aim squarely at the problem of absentee dads.
If a boy has no father or has no relationship with his father, he is 400 times as likely
to engage in juvenile delinquency and 25 times as likely to join a gang. With 70% of births among Afro-descendant Americans being out of wedlock, this is why they have such a high rate of
delinquency and crime as young men. (49% of incarcerated males are Afro and almost ¾ of reported violent crimes are committed by Afros.) The reason for this is that a
young guy yearns to make his mark, be accepted among other males as having measured
up. When a kid has a father or close father image, he will argue and fight, crab, bitch and bellyache at the old man but nothing makes him happier than when dad tells him in some way that he has measured up. Alternatively a young warrior can get this affirmation from a group of men who have already measured up, like the military or some competitive group. Women cannot give this kind ofaffirmation. Only other guys.
But when there is no father, no army, no coach, the gang of peers becomes the
substitute. Yet the gang members are all members who have not made their own mark either. There is wild, erratic behavior trying to impress the peers—who have only a foggy idea about what they should be impressed over. Gangs lead to violence, sexual exploitation, race-baiting and substance abuse. This kind of thing gives only contempt to a real man, but insecure gang members think it is somehow cool. And the problem in Afro culture is that although you might have had a good father, there are all those other misfit gangsta guys. Thus the great men of fame, like Colin Powell and Clarence Thomas talk about grandparents and mentors who were such strong influences that they were in some sense insulated from the fray.
For thousands of years, fathers have taught sons the skills of professions, the
philosophy of a knight, the ways of a warrior. Once a young man realizes he measures up and is now a warrior, the world begins to look different. He is quietly confident of his abilities, but golly, the world is a really big place. It would be nice to have a partner, a mate, a
companion who is really close. Thus, unless a young guy measures up and finds his place, he won’t be ready to seek out a true love. Gangstas don’t love. They are too insecure. They try to act tough to cover their insecurity, the kind of bravado that would make a Trayvon turn and try to beat up some old guy who was trying to watch what he was doing. The true warrior would have strode on by, confident and happy that somebody was watching and concerned. For he is at the top of his game, a young lion headed for the title of Lion King.
And without being able to love, gangstas leave behind fatherless children, thus perpetuating the problem.
If the leaders were truly a warriors, lovers, and Lion Kings, they would be angry with the gangs, not trying to insinuate racism into the game. The Lion King would be calling for investigative justice, not ‘blood in the streets and mobs if we don’t get our way.’ The Lion King would aim squarely at the problem of absentee dads.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
1983
Rainy day. Worked on books and needed a break and started watching a special on Military Channel about the 1983 near-catastrophe with USSR. Didn’t know it was going to take all afternoon, but it is an absorbing documentary. They say this is not in any book yet.
It was largely Soviet paranoia based on psychological projection and nobody in the
West realized how close we came to nuclear war until after it was over. Old
hard-line Soviets thought that since they believed in a universal revolution to
rid the world of capitalism-- “Workers of the world unite!”— the West must
think the same about them. They didn’t understand free speech and when Reagan called them an evil empire, they saw that as a good possibility that NATO was going to launch a pre-emptive strike. I have heard Reagan-bashers say that his harsh rhetoric caused this near-war but the military folks don’t pull political spin. Just the facts.
During Ford/ Carter/ Nixon, Soviets built up a huge 10,000 missle mobile line of SS-20
missles aimed at European cities. NATO had nothing like this. So Reagan
announced that USA was going to deploy a number of Pershing mid-range units and
this sparked widespread protests among the peaceniks of Europe, fomented by communist
infiltrators working in cooperation with the KGB. The Russians had been stunned by the fact
that Pershings could hit Moscow in 8 minutes, and this left them completely vulnerable
instead of advantaged. KGB was run by a guy whose name looks like Khruschev, (Kryuchkov??) call him K, who is now in his 80’s. He was (and still is!) convinced that NATO was going to strike and told his agents to gather observations to support this. That led to a self-feeding
intel where agents were scared to not to report imminent attack.
When Beirut barracks was bombed and all US forces were put on alert, Russians
interpreted this as a cover-up for imminent attack. When Grenada was invaded, Thatcher got mad at Reagan and chewed him out for invading a Brit commonwealth country over her
encrypted hotline. Russians couldn’t read this and surmised that she as communicating war plans. They got trigger happy and paranoid and shot down a Korean airliner which got lost over their waters even after it had turned around. But, proud communists, they refused to admit blame and grew cock-sure that the West was testing their defenses and prompting an excuse to attack.
What most Western experts didn’t realize was that the Soviets, though distrustful and
paranoid, didn’t want war. They were old guys who had lived through the horrors of the World Wars and the loss of half the adult male population of Russia. What they feared most was a replay of the disaster of 1941 when surprise attack by Germany nearly destroyed the country.
In November 1983, NATO scheduled war games. Andropov was new Soviet President, who immediately fell gravely ill with kidney failure which Russians publicly dismissed as “a cold”. Just like K, he believed war was coming. On the second day of the war games, the
Russian central satellite warning system gave alarms of a missle launch by USA,
then another, then 3 more. The Russian Colonel Petrov in charge was just cool-headed enough to be suspicious of computer error, and he manually overrode the computer.
In the interview, he told how he reasoned that if USA was really launching missles, they would launch not 5 but 500. Sure enough, there was a line of thunderstorms in mid-America whose cloud tops had reflected setting sunlight into a Soviet satellite and the signal went away in minutes. Nonetheless, Petrov was dismissed from the military the next day—after he had done the right thing!
In USSR there were 3 men who could launch missles, not one President like in America. And all three sat with fingers on the trigger while Russians listened to the war games.
The war game was entirely communications-related and no troops or missles were activated. Messages were prefixed by “Exercise, exercise, exercise” but still the Soviets thought the games were just going to be a cover-up of a real launch. Finally it was the Russian spies and double agents who called a stand-down by reporting ‘nothing is happening’, especially a super-mole named Topaz (Rainier Rupp) who was a German NATO official. There were about 10 Russians who were US moles and all but one was assassinated/hung by the Russians thereafter. That one guy, Olegiesky, gave a report to NATO, Reagan and McFarlane that illustrated the paranoia of the old Soviets and was spirited to safety by the Brits. This caused Reagan to go from rhetoric to engagement with the new Soviet boss, Gorby. Andropov had gotten progressively
worse with his ‘head cold’ “and dropped-off” a month after the incident.
Neither side wanted war but distrust and Russian paranoia caused a near disaster. The
paranoia was despite a number of socialist-sympathizing governments in NATO. So it was likely to happen no matter who was US Prez. The fact that both sides were so reluctant to push the button is in contrast to Iran today where their theology makes them want to push the button. And the Russian spies and KGB guys interviewed warned strenuously about this.
It was largely Soviet paranoia based on psychological projection and nobody in the
West realized how close we came to nuclear war until after it was over. Old
hard-line Soviets thought that since they believed in a universal revolution to
rid the world of capitalism-- “Workers of the world unite!”— the West must
think the same about them. They didn’t understand free speech and when Reagan called them an evil empire, they saw that as a good possibility that NATO was going to launch a pre-emptive strike. I have heard Reagan-bashers say that his harsh rhetoric caused this near-war but the military folks don’t pull political spin. Just the facts.
During Ford/ Carter/ Nixon, Soviets built up a huge 10,000 missle mobile line of SS-20
missles aimed at European cities. NATO had nothing like this. So Reagan
announced that USA was going to deploy a number of Pershing mid-range units and
this sparked widespread protests among the peaceniks of Europe, fomented by communist
infiltrators working in cooperation with the KGB. The Russians had been stunned by the fact
that Pershings could hit Moscow in 8 minutes, and this left them completely vulnerable
instead of advantaged. KGB was run by a guy whose name looks like Khruschev, (Kryuchkov??) call him K, who is now in his 80’s. He was (and still is!) convinced that NATO was going to strike and told his agents to gather observations to support this. That led to a self-feeding
intel where agents were scared to not to report imminent attack.
When Beirut barracks was bombed and all US forces were put on alert, Russians
interpreted this as a cover-up for imminent attack. When Grenada was invaded, Thatcher got mad at Reagan and chewed him out for invading a Brit commonwealth country over her
encrypted hotline. Russians couldn’t read this and surmised that she as communicating war plans. They got trigger happy and paranoid and shot down a Korean airliner which got lost over their waters even after it had turned around. But, proud communists, they refused to admit blame and grew cock-sure that the West was testing their defenses and prompting an excuse to attack.
What most Western experts didn’t realize was that the Soviets, though distrustful and
paranoid, didn’t want war. They were old guys who had lived through the horrors of the World Wars and the loss of half the adult male population of Russia. What they feared most was a replay of the disaster of 1941 when surprise attack by Germany nearly destroyed the country.
In November 1983, NATO scheduled war games. Andropov was new Soviet President, who immediately fell gravely ill with kidney failure which Russians publicly dismissed as “a cold”. Just like K, he believed war was coming. On the second day of the war games, the
Russian central satellite warning system gave alarms of a missle launch by USA,
then another, then 3 more. The Russian Colonel Petrov in charge was just cool-headed enough to be suspicious of computer error, and he manually overrode the computer.
In the interview, he told how he reasoned that if USA was really launching missles, they would launch not 5 but 500. Sure enough, there was a line of thunderstorms in mid-America whose cloud tops had reflected setting sunlight into a Soviet satellite and the signal went away in minutes. Nonetheless, Petrov was dismissed from the military the next day—after he had done the right thing!
In USSR there were 3 men who could launch missles, not one President like in America. And all three sat with fingers on the trigger while Russians listened to the war games.
The war game was entirely communications-related and no troops or missles were activated. Messages were prefixed by “Exercise, exercise, exercise” but still the Soviets thought the games were just going to be a cover-up of a real launch. Finally it was the Russian spies and double agents who called a stand-down by reporting ‘nothing is happening’, especially a super-mole named Topaz (Rainier Rupp) who was a German NATO official. There were about 10 Russians who were US moles and all but one was assassinated/hung by the Russians thereafter. That one guy, Olegiesky, gave a report to NATO, Reagan and McFarlane that illustrated the paranoia of the old Soviets and was spirited to safety by the Brits. This caused Reagan to go from rhetoric to engagement with the new Soviet boss, Gorby. Andropov had gotten progressively
worse with his ‘head cold’ “and dropped-off” a month after the incident.
Neither side wanted war but distrust and Russian paranoia caused a near disaster. The
paranoia was despite a number of socialist-sympathizing governments in NATO. So it was likely to happen no matter who was US Prez. The fact that both sides were so reluctant to push the button is in contrast to Iran today where their theology makes them want to push the button. And the Russian spies and KGB guys interviewed warned strenuously about this.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Retirement Info
I want to pass this along in case someone reading may have retirement questions. If you were on e of the many Conoco (or Phillips) employees laid off before you were 50, you stand to have a separation retirement if you were retirement vested (worked 5 or 10 years). That is generally true of any company where an employee is retirement vested by whatever rules govern that. Find out about your situation! A friend of mine who worked for the company 25 years was 49 when he was laid off and didn't know he had a pension coming. That is because the outplacement folks at the time were often clueless and untrained to speak about pensions. Often they told the laid off folks that they didn't think there was anything pensionwise. If you are a former Conoco or Phillips employee, go to hr.conocophillips.com and check things out. There are contact phone numbers for companies and various subsidiaries under the menu guide. You have to register for upcoming retirement with them. And in behalf of a number of folks around here who have wondered about which of the 2 new companies will be handling their pension (Is it CP or P66??), the HR guys haven't found out yet--announcement coming in May or June. They don't even know how their department will be split yet. So stay tuned. However, no concerns whether pensions will still be paid. The company has a legal requirement to pay them and can't duck the requirement. Only in event of bankruptcy, does the governement Pension Guarantee Corp. take over.
My friend who had the 25 years service and who said he struggled two years with what-do-I-do-with-my-life-now questions, it turns out will get nearly $2000 a month pension.
My friend who had the 25 years service and who said he struggled two years with what-do-I-do-with-my-life-now questions, it turns out will get nearly $2000 a month pension.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)