|
| I'm not totally up on what a "sub-prime" loan is, but I know that is
has something to do with people who buy houses that they can't afford
and wind up defaulting on their mortgages. I'm also not completely sure
how the national debt works, but I do know that the word "debt" means
you have borrowed beyond your natural means to pay for something. And
I'm not entirely certain how government budget deficits work, but I
know that deficit occurs when you don't budget enough money to cover
your expenses.
I only bring all this up because of a news report
I heard on the way in to work this morning, which described how "The
Fed" (God, I hate it when people shorten the names of things...) was
about to slash interest rates again to try and boost the housing
market. Apparently, part of this equation involves people who have
gotten in over their heads financially being able to take advantage of
lower interest rates to get back on their feet. The real kicker of this
story, though, came when they began discussing the effects of this drop
on those who had actually saved their money and were looking to invest
it in options like CDs (not compact discs, just in case you were
wondering). If you were looking to invest, the report said, you'd
better do it now, before all the rates go down and diminish your
returns (or something like that. I was an English major, for Pete's
sake.)
So, in essence, what this report is saying is, "If you've
been stupid with your money and gotten in over your head, here's good
news for you! If you've been responsible and saved up and want to
invest, you're going to have to sacrifice for the greater good of these
stupid people." Actually, stupid is probably too strong a word. I mean,
my wife and I (unfortunately) accumulated some credit card over the
holidays. I realize how quickly someone can lose focus and wind up in
debt. On the other hand, our credit card debt is going to be gone by
the end of the month, and we're still making our house payments on
time. Have I had help here and there? Yes. From the government? No.
In
a world where fiscal responsibility seems to be dwindling, the
government continues to be the worst offender. If I had billions of
dollars in debt, I'd be in jail, not trying to pass legislation that
would give out free money to everybody and their brother. I live in a
state that has a multi-million dollar budget deficit, but no one has
stood up and said, "We were fiscally irresponsible. We promised too
many things that we didn't have enough money for." I, on the other
hand, get charged an extra fee if I keep my DVD rental an extra day.
I'm
torn over this "economic stimulus" package. On the one hand, I could
really use the money (Who couldn't?). On the other hand, how is this
really any different than Hillary Clinton wanting the government to pay
for everybody's health care? Why is one "socialism" and the other a
boost to the economy? Either way, it's the government giving out money
it really doesn't have, because it owes so much to the national
deficit.
Have we gone too far to turn back? I certainly hope
not. It's became frighteningly apparent, though, that just because
you're a senator or congressman, you don't necessarily have a good
grasp on financial planning. Maybe a debtless world is a thing of the
past, but we can at least take some steps to whittle it down. If not,
we're going to have to compensate for the over-spenders more and more,
while the savers are going to have to keep paying the price. | | |
| A friend reminded me the other day that I posted a blog on here around
Christmas about my dad being in the hospital ... and then I never put
anything else on here about it. Here's the quick update: He's been
going through speech and physical therapy for the last couple of weeks
at Lourde's Hospital in Paducah, and he's more than likely going to be
coming home sometime tomorrow. He's getting around pretty good, but
there's still a long way to go mentally. He's very aware, but he
doesn't always seem to be getting everything. Plus, his speech isn't
even close to being all the way back yet, so there's the communication
barrier. We're still waiting to hear what the home health scenario is
going to be like. Just keep us in your prayers (especially my mom!).
---
THIS is my Super Bowl?!?
I
lamented the fact last year that I didn't have any kind of Super Bowl
party to go to, and that watching the game at home with family was just
no fun. This year, though, I think I'm just going to bypass the thing
altogether. On one side, we've the New England Cheaters ... er,
Patriots, and on the other side we've got whiny Eli and the New York
Giants. I'm sure this is the kind of matchup ESPN and other news
organizations are salivating over because it's all up north, but I
couldn't care less. I think I'll just turn in early this year and get
some sleep.
---
I
had a chance to go to a really big non-denomination church this
weekend. They had probably the most flawless sound system I've ever
heard in a church, and, of course, they had it pumped to maximum
volume. Now, I used to be one of these people that would complain that
my church wasn't doing enough new music. I thought we did too much old,
soft music. After this weekend, though, I think I was probably wrong to
complain about that.
I mean, look around your church at the
people who go there. If it's a healthy church, you're going to have
people of all ages there. Can you imagine being 60 and having Hillsong
blasted into your ears at ridiculously high volumes for an hour? Would
you enjoy that? I don't think I would, but that's what you get in a
"relevant" church today. What ends up happening is you actually divide
the body just based on musical preference. I had just gotten together
with a friend who's a Reformed Presbyterian the night before I went to
this church, and he sat around with his acoustic guitar playing Keith
Green songs. Does that make him less relevant or spiritual? I don't
think so. But he sure wouldn't have been very hip where I was this
weekend. | | |
| I never really got into the whole "Purpose Driven Life" thing. A friend
of mine bought it for me a few years ago, and I was pretty surprised by
how simplistic it was. Simplistic sells books, though, and now a lot
more people are reading Rick Warren than, say, R.C. Sproul (I bet you
don't even know who that is.).
I know Warren's done some kind of
controversial things lately, like inviting Hillary Clinton to speak at
his church's AIDS conference. Something that kind of slipped under the
radar, though, caught my eye on the Internet yesterday. An ariticle on
the Christianity Today Web
site yesterday detailed how Warren had given an address at the Union
for Reform Judaism's biennial convention in San Diego. Apparently, the
thrust of the presentation was about recruitment and retention of
people to the group's religious communities. The complete article is
linked below.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/rick.warren.counsels.jews.on.recruiting.congregants/15651.htm
I
was compelled to investigate this group a little further after reading
the article, which detailed Warren handing out such inspired bits of
wisdom as "Just be nice to people. Smile." I went first to the group's
official Web site (www.urj.org). As I sort of suspected, there's no
mention of Jesus on the site anywhere, which answered my question about
whether the URJ consisted of Messianic Jews. As I delved a little
deeper, I ended up at a site about reformed judaism at www.rj.org. As I
scrolled down this page, I was struck by the following statement:
"Reform
Jews are also committed to the full participation of gays and lesbians
in synagogue life as well as society at large."
Wow. Let's read that again, shall we?
"Reform
Jews are also committed to the full participation of gays and lesbians
in synagogue life as well as society at large."
So, first of
all, we've got one of Christianity's most revered authors and public
figures at a function for a group that does not preach the deity of
Jesus - not just attending, but speaking on how this group can increase
its numbers. Maybe Warren can start renting himself out to radical
Muslim groups next. "You might want to lay off talk about jihad for the
first few meetings. That could scare people away."
Secondly,
we've got a group that not only has no problem with the issue of
homosexuality, but also endorses the participation of those who are in
its services. If I'm not mistaken, homosexuality was probably one of
the big factors that was discussed at Warren's AIDS conference. I'm
curious to know his personal stance on the issue, as I've never heard
him say anything about it.
I just can't wrap my head around
this. You claim to believe one way, then you go and give tips on growth
to a group that does not represent those beliefs? Doesn't this
undermine what you're saying, since if you're encouraging growth in
another organization, you're taking away from your own? What kind of
bizarro reasoning is this?
I also wondered if Warren's church
knows who he's going out and speaking to. Actually, if the church is
like I think it might be, they probably do, but he just doesn't care if
they like it or not. Oh, wait, that wouldn't facilitate growth very
well, now would it? | | |
| So, yesterday we were all treated to Mitchell Joke ... er, Report ...
which was supposed to shine a light on the dark and nefarious steroid
abuse that is threatening to derail the national pasttime. In the
report, we got names. Boy,
did we ever get names! Roger Clemens, David Justice, Barry Bonds... The
light has now been shone on the seedy underbelly of baseball!
Puh-lease...
Let
me get this straight: Bud Selig (quite possibly the worst commissioner
any major U.S. sport has ever had) commissions his buddy George
Mitchell (who is associated with the Boston Red Sox) to conduct a "fair
and impartial" study of steroid abuse in baseball (something every man,
woman, and child in America has been aware of for the past five years,
at least). Mitchell basically finds two sources who will talk to him
(one of whom happens to be a trainer for the New York Yankees), rounds
up some check stubs, and begins dropping names like there's no tomorrow.
Now,
interesting point number one to me is the fact that no Red Sox players
appear in this report. Both Selig and Mitchell have repeatedly brushed
off complaints of a conflict of interest (Selig should know, as he
still maintains an interest in the Brewers. Luckily for the rest of
baseball, he's too stupid to know how to use that to his team's
advantage.), but this is blatantly obvious. You mean to say that not one player for the Red Sox used banned substances? Nobody you talked to could even think of one? This is nothing short of miraculous.
The second (and most troubling) aspect of this report is that it does and proves nothing.
Surely someone with the courtroom experience Mitchell has would realize
that heresay evidence is completely useless with physical evidence to
back it up. That evidence does not exist, though, because Selig was too
busy turning a blind eye to the sport's problems to mandate drug
testing. I highly doubt any player wrote in the memo section of their
checks "illegal steroids", so the checks are probably useless. You have
no positive (or negative, for that matter) drug tests before the last
couple of years. You really think Roger Clemens - perhaps the most
dishonest man in baseball ("I'm playing for Houston to be closer to my
family. What's that, Mr. Steinbrenner? More money? Hello, New York!") -
would keep using once the heat started coming down? Or that after this
report he's going to come out and say, "Oh, yeah, you caught me. Sorry
about that."
This just continues to reflect on the idiocy of Bud
Selig. The only thing I can even remotely think of he's done right is
the wild card playoff system, but even that started out as a blatant
post-season money grab. He's ruined the All-Star Game, acted like a
spineless coward in the face of Bonds breaking the home run record,
flip-flopped so much on Pete Rose that Rose actually confessed to
gambling because he thought he was getting back into baseball, and let
the players' union lead him around like a dog. His speech yesterday was
utterly ridiculous, talking about a new day for testing in baseball.
Even I knew the steroid
situation was bad in baseball five years ago. He just flat buried his
head in the sand, and he was using Mitchell to try and bail him out.
Selig
is a disgrace to the game of baseball and all of sports. The only
person I can think of off-hand that's more deserving of a firing is
Isaiah (spelling?) Thomas, and I'm not even sure he can compete. My
lasting image of Selig is still from the infamous All-Star Game tie,
where he's standing in the front row shurgging his shoulders, palms
facing the sky. It's indicative of his whole term as commissioner, and
it's time for this absurdity to end once and for all. | | |
| A few weeks ago (In my conception of time, everything is either "A
couple of days ago..." or "A few weeks ago..."), I finally watched the
movie Facing The Giants. At
the time, I actually liked it quite a bit, even though it was probably
one of the most predictable movies I'd ever seen. It made me feel good,
gave me hope about some things I was going through, and even made me
laugh a few times. "Really good movie," I thought to myself at the time.
As the weeks went by, though, something about the movie started to bother me. Every little thing worked out.
The team started winning; the wife became pregnant; the kid with the
crippled dad kicked the winning field goal. Heck, they even lost a game
and had the outcome overturned because of a rules violation by the other team. The coach also got a new truck, a pay raise, and a fixed-up house. It was nice ... but was it real?
This past weekend, I watched the movie Amazing Grace,
which dealt with the efforts of William Wilberforce to end the slave
trade in England. Wilberforce knew the Lord. He also got very sick and
exhausted from his efforts. His bills to end the slave trade were
defeated for several years, and the first victory he did win he had to
kind of slide through the side door. His mentor, John Newton, the
writer of the hymn the movie's title is taken from, is totally blind by
the end of the movie. In the end, though, the slave trade was
abolished, Newton's soul was cleansed from the guilt he suffered from
his year's as a slave trader himself, and Wilberforce knew his efforts
had not been in vain.
Now, let's contrast things for a moment here. Facing The Giants = new baby, new truck, and a pay raise. Amazing Grace
= years of failure, stomach illness, and blindness. Was someone not
doing something right? I mean, if you're following God by the Giants model,
everything works out great. The Wilberforce model? Eh, not so much ...
unless you look at the end result. Is God more concerned with your
personal comfort or with the carrying out of his purposes for good on
the Earth?
I felt bad as I watched Giants because
I thought the story would've been better if the wife hadn't gotten
pregnant. Show how people have to deal with the things that don't happen. I know more people going through that scenario than the prosperity track Giants seems
to be hinting at. Wilberforce nearly gave up his fight entirely before
circumstances came about for his efforts to succeed. His health never
did get much better. What he did, though, was pour himself out for the
sake of others.
I don't mean to rip on Giants.
It really is a feel-good kind of movie. I just worry about the message
it's sending. Like the Rolling Stones used to say, "You can't always
get what you want." For every Joel Osteen, there's a Mother Theresa. If
we think everything's going to come up roses every time, I'm afraid
we're setting ourselves up for some pretty deep disappoint. If we can
keep our eyes on Jesus, though, we can walk through the times when
everything's not working out. At least, that's how I'm looking at it
today. And, really, that's about all anybody can do. | | |
|
