Has anyone else noticed that nearly all of the advertisements for Mayor/Governor (MG) Bredesen are attack ads against Marsha Blackburn? The only thing that he has announced is his intention to pursue a rejection of the border wall. He claimed to support Kavanaugh, but further research indicated that he was less than candid in that statement. His own campaign workers revealed that it was merely a ploy.
Marsha Blackburn, on the other hand, has openly declared how she will vote on most of the critical issues facing the country. She will support secure borders, continuing the tax cuts, and original intent interpretation of the Constitution.
MG Bredesen has proclaimed that he will be “nobody’s stooge.” He will vote his own mind. He is not like some voters, he assumes, wishy washy and on the fence until they see which way to vote for a winner. And I believe him. Unfortunately, if he is elected, his “mind” seems to be at odds with the best interests of the country.
Incidentally I do not believe that the majority of voters are in that “bucket.” They are aware enough to see through his subterfuge and will vote accordingly.
It is time to retire, MG.
Friday, October 19, 2018
Sunday, October 14, 2018
Midnight Inspiration Current Politics on Gubernatorial and Senatorial Races
Midnight inspiration has struck again and I will not sleep until these ideas are reduced to binary code and cached on my computer hard drive. So here goes. A couple of clarifications immediately arise. It is not quite midnight. It is more like 3:33 AM, and the inspiration may be viewed as partisan obsession. However it is perceived, this needs to be recorded.
History provides unique insights into current political contests. And, in this instance, it offers special revelations into two concurrent races. First the historical context. Then-Governor, Phil Bredesen proposed and ultimately cut TNCare in 2008 in light of the reality that the bloated medical system was consuming an untenable and unsustainable portion of the State’s budget. This was not only an act of fiscal responsibility, it was one of self preservation. Tennessee would have very quickly become insolvent and ultimately bankrupt.
That event and its implications impinges on two current races: first the contest to replace the retiring Senator Corker and second the race to succeed Governor Haslam. Consider first, Bredesen’s claim of fiscal responsibility in light of federal budget shortfalls. Behind Bredesen’s “rescue” of the State by draconian budget cuts is the fact that Bredesen created the medical monster in the first place.
His current support for expanding Medicaid seems to indicate that he is of the opinion that an expanded TNCare would have and can now survive with the aid of the federal dollar tree. The assumption is unending, unrestricted federal dollars. He and the current candidate for Governor neglect to inform the voters that the federal bucks behind the expansion are immediately decreasing and will be ultimately terminated. This will plunge the State of Tennessee back into the budget morass that Bredesen faced in 2008. Once the federal support ceases, the expanded TNCare budget will be a significant percentage of the State’s overall revenue outflow, squeezing out a myriad of other necessary programs.
Candidate Dean is subjecting himself or a succeeding administration with the same uncomfortable and decimating decision Bredesen faced. Bill Lee, on the other hand, opposes the expansion, explaining that expanding a faulty and flawed system will not solve its problems. A superior option is to reform or completely restructure the program to make it both workable and sustainable.
The second implication is that Bredesen’s support of the Medicaid’s expansion buttresses the view that he perceives the federal “money tree” as both unlimited and unending. This leads to the conclusion that Bredesen is neither fiscally conservative nor moderate in his political inclinations. It also supports the claims by Marsha Blackburn that his seeming political bipartisan stance on the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh was merely a ploy to mislead the politically unsophisticated voters into believing that he can indeed change the partisan climate in Washington.
Rather, his near socialistic preference for “revenue sharing” reveals his underlying motive to add one more liberal Democratic vote to the Senate. History prescribes that we relegate former Mayor, former Governor Bredesen to the retirement that he so richly deserves. He should be treated like a beloved, but senile Grampa and eased out of the spotlight and public view. We, the Tennessee voters elevated a liberal Nashville mayor to the Governorship once and TNCare’s bloated budget nearly bankrupted the state once. A second former mayor is running for the same seat, proposing the same Medicaid expansion. What part of the previous failure does he not understand?
And Mayor number one is attempting to add his liberal viewpoint to the United States Senate. Listen to history. Don’t repeat it.
History provides unique insights into current political contests. And, in this instance, it offers special revelations into two concurrent races. First the historical context. Then-Governor, Phil Bredesen proposed and ultimately cut TNCare in 2008 in light of the reality that the bloated medical system was consuming an untenable and unsustainable portion of the State’s budget. This was not only an act of fiscal responsibility, it was one of self preservation. Tennessee would have very quickly become insolvent and ultimately bankrupt.
That event and its implications impinges on two current races: first the contest to replace the retiring Senator Corker and second the race to succeed Governor Haslam. Consider first, Bredesen’s claim of fiscal responsibility in light of federal budget shortfalls. Behind Bredesen’s “rescue” of the State by draconian budget cuts is the fact that Bredesen created the medical monster in the first place.
His current support for expanding Medicaid seems to indicate that he is of the opinion that an expanded TNCare would have and can now survive with the aid of the federal dollar tree. The assumption is unending, unrestricted federal dollars. He and the current candidate for Governor neglect to inform the voters that the federal bucks behind the expansion are immediately decreasing and will be ultimately terminated. This will plunge the State of Tennessee back into the budget morass that Bredesen faced in 2008. Once the federal support ceases, the expanded TNCare budget will be a significant percentage of the State’s overall revenue outflow, squeezing out a myriad of other necessary programs.
Candidate Dean is subjecting himself or a succeeding administration with the same uncomfortable and decimating decision Bredesen faced. Bill Lee, on the other hand, opposes the expansion, explaining that expanding a faulty and flawed system will not solve its problems. A superior option is to reform or completely restructure the program to make it both workable and sustainable.
The second implication is that Bredesen’s support of the Medicaid’s expansion buttresses the view that he perceives the federal “money tree” as both unlimited and unending. This leads to the conclusion that Bredesen is neither fiscally conservative nor moderate in his political inclinations. It also supports the claims by Marsha Blackburn that his seeming political bipartisan stance on the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh was merely a ploy to mislead the politically unsophisticated voters into believing that he can indeed change the partisan climate in Washington.
Rather, his near socialistic preference for “revenue sharing” reveals his underlying motive to add one more liberal Democratic vote to the Senate. History prescribes that we relegate former Mayor, former Governor Bredesen to the retirement that he so richly deserves. He should be treated like a beloved, but senile Grampa and eased out of the spotlight and public view. We, the Tennessee voters elevated a liberal Nashville mayor to the Governorship once and TNCare’s bloated budget nearly bankrupted the state once. A second former mayor is running for the same seat, proposing the same Medicaid expansion. What part of the previous failure does he not understand?
And Mayor number one is attempting to add his liberal viewpoint to the United States Senate. Listen to history. Don’t repeat it.
Monday, October 1, 2018
Tampon Tax
The previous weeks and posts have been ridiculously strenuous and taxing. (Note the pun for the astute reader.) This will break the tension.
Tampon Tax
Is “over exaggerate” a legitimate descriptor? If you exaggerate, can you do more than that? If it is, the letter on “tampon tax” in Monday’s Tennessean (10/1) is an overexaggeration. ( I coined the word to emphasize its import.) The key issue was that feminine hygiene products are taxed. The impact of this tax was quoted as $1800 per person over a lifetime. The author did admit that the entire cost was not the tampon itself, but did not carry the analysis any farther.
The argument that this is a tax on a vagina was “colorful” or at least descriptive, but highly inflammatory. “Just because they are women, they have to pay more.” Well, the actual complaint is not with the tax, but on the cultural and hygienic constraints placed on females.
The actual “tampon tax” would, at most, be ten percent of the total “lifetime cost.” That would amount to $180 for the lifetime tax burden. Estimating a period of need (excuse the pun) of 40 years, the tax would be $4.50 per year. And, dividing by 12, it would be less than $0.40 per month, or about the price of a cappuccino every year.
Forty cents is not a terribly onerous burden for most people. The cost of ink to print the article was probably close to that. Let’s pick a serious problem upon which to expend our energies. It is pretty clear that the states are not balancing their budgets on the backs of menstrual females.
Maybe we should have Obamacare or Medicaid cover hygiene materials. That would be a more meaningful pursuit, and with a $45 per year benefit, would help poor people to leave poverty. (Sorry, could not resist.)
Tampon Tax
Is “over exaggerate” a legitimate descriptor? If you exaggerate, can you do more than that? If it is, the letter on “tampon tax” in Monday’s Tennessean (10/1) is an overexaggeration. ( I coined the word to emphasize its import.) The key issue was that feminine hygiene products are taxed. The impact of this tax was quoted as $1800 per person over a lifetime. The author did admit that the entire cost was not the tampon itself, but did not carry the analysis any farther.
The argument that this is a tax on a vagina was “colorful” or at least descriptive, but highly inflammatory. “Just because they are women, they have to pay more.” Well, the actual complaint is not with the tax, but on the cultural and hygienic constraints placed on females.
The actual “tampon tax” would, at most, be ten percent of the total “lifetime cost.” That would amount to $180 for the lifetime tax burden. Estimating a period of need (excuse the pun) of 40 years, the tax would be $4.50 per year. And, dividing by 12, it would be less than $0.40 per month, or about the price of a cappuccino every year.
Forty cents is not a terribly onerous burden for most people. The cost of ink to print the article was probably close to that. Let’s pick a serious problem upon which to expend our energies. It is pretty clear that the states are not balancing their budgets on the backs of menstrual females.
Maybe we should have Obamacare or Medicaid cover hygiene materials. That would be a more meaningful pursuit, and with a $45 per year benefit, would help poor people to leave poverty. (Sorry, could not resist.)
Thursday, September 20, 2018
Disingenuous
Don’t you love the word, “disingenuous?” Well, yes, except when it is applied to treatment directed at me. (Don’t know what it means? Go ahead, check it out. I’ll wait.) An intriguing example of disingenuous actions is playing out in the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh.
“GOP accused of rushing the confirmation.” That was the headline in the Tennessean. (9/19) The terrible charge of sexual harassment was hurled into the arena. Now, in a normal setting, this would be a cause to stop and consider the nuances carefully. But this is far from a normal setting.
We must consider that it would be desirable to complete the confirmation before the first of October, so the new judge could sit on the Supreme Court for the entire term. A last minute challenge could, logically, derail that time frame. However, a second, salient, and to many minds, damning, consideration is that this “last minute challenge” has been known and nursed since July. Over a month has passed since the Democratic leaders became aware of it.
And here is where, disingenuous becomes a critical component of the deliberations. If the opposition were solely interested in a thorough vetting and investigation of the allegation, why was it not presented on “day one?” If their reason was to investigate and confirm the validity of the charges, the supporting evidence should accompany the charge. And the existence of the “problem” should have been exposed when it was initially discovered.
The call for a “thorough FBI investigation” at this late date, considering that this question could have been researched and answered easily within the elapsed time, reveals this tactic as not a “search for truth,” but a stall and delay maneuver. In short, it is disingenuous. But, the facts must be aired.
And, according to the preliminary reports that I have seen, about 20 minutes of testimony will thoroughly answer this allegation. There seems to be an abundance of credible evidence and motivation to identify this as an obvious attempt to derail the nomination, as opposed to exposing the truth. A few minutes of exculpatory exposition and this whole fiasco will be relegated to the trash bin of history, assuming that what I have read so far is accurate.
But why wait until Monday? If the researchers that I read have already turned up controverting and clarifying information, just report that, and get on with the process.
But, but but! Didn’t the Republicans extend the process for Judge Merritt? Absolutely. And they were perfectly within their rights and responsibilities. The election validated their decision. And they were forthright in their statements that the nomination would be deferred until a new President was selected. They did not stall, then at the last minute, before a vote, hurl a supposed damning accusation at the nominee. But that is for another day.
Expose the facts, flush out the disingenuity, and confirm the Judge.
“GOP accused of rushing the confirmation.” That was the headline in the Tennessean. (9/19) The terrible charge of sexual harassment was hurled into the arena. Now, in a normal setting, this would be a cause to stop and consider the nuances carefully. But this is far from a normal setting.
We must consider that it would be desirable to complete the confirmation before the first of October, so the new judge could sit on the Supreme Court for the entire term. A last minute challenge could, logically, derail that time frame. However, a second, salient, and to many minds, damning, consideration is that this “last minute challenge” has been known and nursed since July. Over a month has passed since the Democratic leaders became aware of it.
And here is where, disingenuous becomes a critical component of the deliberations. If the opposition were solely interested in a thorough vetting and investigation of the allegation, why was it not presented on “day one?” If their reason was to investigate and confirm the validity of the charges, the supporting evidence should accompany the charge. And the existence of the “problem” should have been exposed when it was initially discovered.
The call for a “thorough FBI investigation” at this late date, considering that this question could have been researched and answered easily within the elapsed time, reveals this tactic as not a “search for truth,” but a stall and delay maneuver. In short, it is disingenuous. But, the facts must be aired.
And, according to the preliminary reports that I have seen, about 20 minutes of testimony will thoroughly answer this allegation. There seems to be an abundance of credible evidence and motivation to identify this as an obvious attempt to derail the nomination, as opposed to exposing the truth. A few minutes of exculpatory exposition and this whole fiasco will be relegated to the trash bin of history, assuming that what I have read so far is accurate.
But why wait until Monday? If the researchers that I read have already turned up controverting and clarifying information, just report that, and get on with the process.
But, but but! Didn’t the Republicans extend the process for Judge Merritt? Absolutely. And they were perfectly within their rights and responsibilities. The election validated their decision. And they were forthright in their statements that the nomination would be deferred until a new President was selected. They did not stall, then at the last minute, before a vote, hurl a supposed damning accusation at the nominee. But that is for another day.
Expose the facts, flush out the disingenuity, and confirm the Judge.
Thursday, September 13, 2018
Kavanaugh and the Senators
Sometimes you read something that is so egregious that it just jumps out of the page at you. Erin MacArthur hit the jackpot on Wednesday. (Nashville Tennessean 9/12) Her beginning comments were typical anti-Kavanaugh, along with her appeal to Senators Alexander and Corker. Then she lobbed the bombshell. She claimed to “see the disregard of their constituents’ requests and pleas.”
Three things just leaped out of the page. The statement was arrogant. It was presumptuous. And it was ignorant. (No offense.) It was arrogant in the sense that only her presonal positions are important and our Senators should ignore everyone else.
It was presumptuous in that she assumed, by her language, that the majority, if not all, of the constituents were begging for the rejection of the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh. And if that was not the presumption, then the statement reflects an abysmal level of ignorance.
It is ignorant first, because not only is her opinion not the exclusive one, it is the minority one. If she does not recognize that there is not much need to proceed with a logical refutation. And the ignorance extends to an understanding of our representative government. Our elected envoys to Congress are not ciphers or atomatons who merely accumulate the numbers of support or rejection for a given subject, and vote accordingly.
This is a federal republic. The representatives are not slaves or mere repeaters of the majority opinion. They are selected based on their world view and expressed values to act in the behalf of their constituents. And to reject Judge Kavanaugh based on two or three specific opinions misses the import of the position. The American Bar Association gave Judge Kavanaugh a unanimous, well qualified rating.
This is a lifetime appointment and he will deal with literally hundreds if not thousands of issues. To generate an opinion based on two or three specific issues is very short sighted. And this is particularly germane since one of her complaints was a hypothetical instance.
Her chief objection was about “women’s health access,” which is double speak for abortion. It is also called “women’s health care.” Abortion harms many women, as illustrated by several investigations. And in roughly half of the instances, abortion murders a woman/girl. How can protecting the “right to terminate” a female be protecting women’s health interests?
The final shot was that we, constituents, need Senators Corker and Alexander to act in their best interest. Not sure if the interest here is the C-group, or the Senators, but either way, Judge Kavanaugh seems to be well suited. He is their constituents’ best interest.
Three things just leaped out of the page. The statement was arrogant. It was presumptuous. And it was ignorant. (No offense.) It was arrogant in the sense that only her presonal positions are important and our Senators should ignore everyone else.
It was presumptuous in that she assumed, by her language, that the majority, if not all, of the constituents were begging for the rejection of the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh. And if that was not the presumption, then the statement reflects an abysmal level of ignorance.
It is ignorant first, because not only is her opinion not the exclusive one, it is the minority one. If she does not recognize that there is not much need to proceed with a logical refutation. And the ignorance extends to an understanding of our representative government. Our elected envoys to Congress are not ciphers or atomatons who merely accumulate the numbers of support or rejection for a given subject, and vote accordingly.
This is a federal republic. The representatives are not slaves or mere repeaters of the majority opinion. They are selected based on their world view and expressed values to act in the behalf of their constituents. And to reject Judge Kavanaugh based on two or three specific opinions misses the import of the position. The American Bar Association gave Judge Kavanaugh a unanimous, well qualified rating.
This is a lifetime appointment and he will deal with literally hundreds if not thousands of issues. To generate an opinion based on two or three specific issues is very short sighted. And this is particularly germane since one of her complaints was a hypothetical instance.
Her chief objection was about “women’s health access,” which is double speak for abortion. It is also called “women’s health care.” Abortion harms many women, as illustrated by several investigations. And in roughly half of the instances, abortion murders a woman/girl. How can protecting the “right to terminate” a female be protecting women’s health interests?
The final shot was that we, constituents, need Senators Corker and Alexander to act in their best interest. Not sure if the interest here is the C-group, or the Senators, but either way, Judge Kavanaugh seems to be well suited. He is their constituents’ best interest.
Friday, September 7, 2018
Abortion Letter to editor
Dr. Frank Boehm (9/6/18) is back and his hobby horse is still abortion. It almost seems like a obstetrics and gynecology professional shilling for abortion is equivalent to an oncologist advertising cigarettes. I guess Dr. Boehm will focus on the mother and ignore the baby. But wait, if it isn’t a baby, is she a mother? He will focus on the woman.
As I read the article, I noticed the orderly way he laid out his arguments for abortion. I was struck with the same notion that nearly equivalent arguments could be made for another “woman’s issue.” What if we were to defend sexual harassment and assault using those same rationales? Go paragraph by paragraph. (Please note that this is not to condone or approve these actions. The opinion is merely to display the paucity of probative force in the abortion argument.)
1. “Roe vs Wade has been around a long time, 45 years to be exact, and a new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that nearly 70 percent of Americans do not want it to be overturned.” Well, sexual harassment has been around a lot longer than that, and about 50% of the population would not be upset if it were supported.
2. “Many people across this country have either gone through the process of abortion themselves or gone through the process with a friend or family member....” A lot of people have been harrassed and others have been the instigators of such and conversely been punished severely for their “indiscretions. I read an article recently by a “sexual predator” who was experiencing ongoing “punishment” for his crime nearly 20 years after he had “paid his debt to society.”
3. “A significant number of abortions performed are due to serious and often life threatening illnesses, as well as for serious congenital fetal anomalies, incest and rape.” Later on in the paragraph Dr. Boehm notes that 16% of abortions are for “medical” reasons. He also noted that there are one million per year. (The next point) That means that 840,000 babies are aborted for non-medical reasons. This is quoting his own statistics. And “medical” abortions have been legal since before the advent of Roe v. Wade.
If about one third of legal abortions have been erased as he states, why does he decry the prospect of eliminating another 84% of the non-medical procedures. (1.5 million at R v.W down to 1 million currently.)
4. “... ridding the country of Roe vs Wade would not curtail the number of abortions performed annually; it will only cause difficult problems for patients, doctors and law enforcement.” Harassment is already illegal, and it seems to be pervasive. He might have a point, in that he is illustrating the “scoff-law” nature of our society. “I want to do it. I’m gonna do it regardless of what anyone says.” Not a firm foundation for positing a legal or ethical framework.
5. “The abortion procedure today is much safer due to the widespread use of a cheap medication...” The same can be said for victims of harassment. Rohypno, GHB, and ketamine, along with ecstacy are all known for the anesthetic and amnesiac effects. For instance, the victim in the Vanderbilt rape did not even know that she had been assaulted. If you are going to base your defence on “painless,” the foundation is quite unsteady. And the baby has not yet been polled about pain.
6. “Should abortion become illegal, patients will either return to unsafe termination....” Prohibiting assault will only make perpetrators more clever in their execution of the assault. This repeats the “scoff-law” position, and this ties into his next one.
7. “Abortions are prohibited in Latin American countries, yet these countries report that abortions are nonetheless common....” He explains that the use of drugs, illegally obtained facilitate this. The same is true for “hit and run assault.” The fact that people do it, should have no impact on the legality. And this completely ignores any ethical considerations.
8. “Should problems occur with Misoprostol such as bleeding, infection or failure, doctors and nurses may become involved.” He continues to lament that medical professionals who treat these complications may be subject to sanctions. A short segue here would note that treating gunshot injuries without reporting that is likewise prohibited and accompanied by legal retribiton.
9. “Lastly there is the argument that states have already been successful in limiting the number of abortions performed.” This was addressed above, and is gratefully acknowledged. This merely makes the point obvious. There is a small actual need for this procedure. Let’s turn the tables on Dr. Boehm a little. What if 84% of his deliveries requested or demanded a C-section, regardless of the medical need or justification? Would he be a responsible physician if he acceded to their requests?
Abortion has a legitimate role in medicine, in some instances, and that is neither denied nor threatened. What is “at risk” is the elective procedure that is substituted for effective, practiced birth control. The remainder of his article concludes that we can “...reduce abortions in America without having to go through the Supreme Court, simply by making contraception universally available and cheap.” He had earlier noted that“unintended pregnancies” could be precluded by “ subdermal hormonal implants and intra uterine devices (IUD), which are 99 percent effective.”
Incidentally, the universal availability and low cost of contraceptives are merely red herrings. If abortion were priced at the “going rate” as opposed to being subsidized by abortion mills slurping up public funds, contraception would be the preferred fiscal choice.
His argument about not needing to go through the Supreme Court is valid, if the at risk population would act in a responsible manner. Abortion on demand would then become a moot point and we can go on to more productive pursuits. It seems, however, that his argument is self- refuting. As long as elective abortion is available and legal, a significant portion of the population will continue to ignore safeguards that make it superfluous.
Logically, he should argue for the elimination of legal abortion and promote “safe contraception.” By continuing to provide low cost alternatives to contraception, the system he supports perpetuates the demand for this horrific procedure. A logical shift would allow him to focus on eliminating sexual harassment.
As I read the article, I noticed the orderly way he laid out his arguments for abortion. I was struck with the same notion that nearly equivalent arguments could be made for another “woman’s issue.” What if we were to defend sexual harassment and assault using those same rationales? Go paragraph by paragraph. (Please note that this is not to condone or approve these actions. The opinion is merely to display the paucity of probative force in the abortion argument.)
1. “Roe vs Wade has been around a long time, 45 years to be exact, and a new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that nearly 70 percent of Americans do not want it to be overturned.” Well, sexual harassment has been around a lot longer than that, and about 50% of the population would not be upset if it were supported.
2. “Many people across this country have either gone through the process of abortion themselves or gone through the process with a friend or family member....” A lot of people have been harrassed and others have been the instigators of such and conversely been punished severely for their “indiscretions. I read an article recently by a “sexual predator” who was experiencing ongoing “punishment” for his crime nearly 20 years after he had “paid his debt to society.”
3. “A significant number of abortions performed are due to serious and often life threatening illnesses, as well as for serious congenital fetal anomalies, incest and rape.” Later on in the paragraph Dr. Boehm notes that 16% of abortions are for “medical” reasons. He also noted that there are one million per year. (The next point) That means that 840,000 babies are aborted for non-medical reasons. This is quoting his own statistics. And “medical” abortions have been legal since before the advent of Roe v. Wade.
If about one third of legal abortions have been erased as he states, why does he decry the prospect of eliminating another 84% of the non-medical procedures. (1.5 million at R v.W down to 1 million currently.)
4. “... ridding the country of Roe vs Wade would not curtail the number of abortions performed annually; it will only cause difficult problems for patients, doctors and law enforcement.” Harassment is already illegal, and it seems to be pervasive. He might have a point, in that he is illustrating the “scoff-law” nature of our society. “I want to do it. I’m gonna do it regardless of what anyone says.” Not a firm foundation for positing a legal or ethical framework.
5. “The abortion procedure today is much safer due to the widespread use of a cheap medication...” The same can be said for victims of harassment. Rohypno, GHB, and ketamine, along with ecstacy are all known for the anesthetic and amnesiac effects. For instance, the victim in the Vanderbilt rape did not even know that she had been assaulted. If you are going to base your defence on “painless,” the foundation is quite unsteady. And the baby has not yet been polled about pain.
6. “Should abortion become illegal, patients will either return to unsafe termination....” Prohibiting assault will only make perpetrators more clever in their execution of the assault. This repeats the “scoff-law” position, and this ties into his next one.
7. “Abortions are prohibited in Latin American countries, yet these countries report that abortions are nonetheless common....” He explains that the use of drugs, illegally obtained facilitate this. The same is true for “hit and run assault.” The fact that people do it, should have no impact on the legality. And this completely ignores any ethical considerations.
8. “Should problems occur with Misoprostol such as bleeding, infection or failure, doctors and nurses may become involved.” He continues to lament that medical professionals who treat these complications may be subject to sanctions. A short segue here would note that treating gunshot injuries without reporting that is likewise prohibited and accompanied by legal retribiton.
9. “Lastly there is the argument that states have already been successful in limiting the number of abortions performed.” This was addressed above, and is gratefully acknowledged. This merely makes the point obvious. There is a small actual need for this procedure. Let’s turn the tables on Dr. Boehm a little. What if 84% of his deliveries requested or demanded a C-section, regardless of the medical need or justification? Would he be a responsible physician if he acceded to their requests?
Abortion has a legitimate role in medicine, in some instances, and that is neither denied nor threatened. What is “at risk” is the elective procedure that is substituted for effective, practiced birth control. The remainder of his article concludes that we can “...reduce abortions in America without having to go through the Supreme Court, simply by making contraception universally available and cheap.” He had earlier noted that“unintended pregnancies” could be precluded by “ subdermal hormonal implants and intra uterine devices (IUD), which are 99 percent effective.”
Incidentally, the universal availability and low cost of contraceptives are merely red herrings. If abortion were priced at the “going rate” as opposed to being subsidized by abortion mills slurping up public funds, contraception would be the preferred fiscal choice.
His argument about not needing to go through the Supreme Court is valid, if the at risk population would act in a responsible manner. Abortion on demand would then become a moot point and we can go on to more productive pursuits. It seems, however, that his argument is self- refuting. As long as elective abortion is available and legal, a significant portion of the population will continue to ignore safeguards that make it superfluous.
Logically, he should argue for the elimination of legal abortion and promote “safe contraception.” By continuing to provide low cost alternatives to contraception, the system he supports perpetuates the demand for this horrific procedure. A logical shift would allow him to focus on eliminating sexual harassment.
Monday, September 3, 2018
Alcohol
Well, we finally heard from science. For years we have been assaulted by people claiming that “moderate” uses of alcohol are not harmful and in fact can have some health benefits. I am a chemist. Ethanol is a poison. It is a brother to methanol, or wood alcohol, which most know is deadly. Methanol is a one carbon molecule and ethanol is a two carbon molecule.
Just for a little chemical lesson, biochemistry, actually. Our bodies are very efficient at oxidizing substances. Unfortunately for the “user,” the first product of oxiding methanol is formaldehyde. And that is a deadly poison. As our German friends put it, “Nicht so gut.” Well ethanol is oxidized into acetaldehyde, which is far less poisonous. Propanol, or rubbing alcohol is a three carbon molecule which the body breaks into a two carbon chain, and.... Yep, you got it, a one carbon chain and we are back to formaldehyde as a final product. Hardly anyone has ever died from propanol because it is a powerful emetic. I caused the drinker to vomit, thus eliminating the poison from his body.
End of chemistry lesson. So methanol and propanol are both deadly. We can “get away,” we thought, with imbibing a little ethanol, but it is still a poison. It just has a higher lethal dose than the other two members of that particular chemical homology. (High lethal dose means you have to consume more of it to be poisoned.)
So the arguments of “a little is okay” did not ever convince me, but now the British Medical Journal, “Lancet.” Just in case you doubt, here is a link to a report about the report. Or I guess you can look up the original.
Excerpt:
"The most surprising finding was that even small amounts of alcohol use contribute to health loss globally," said senior study author Emmanuela Gakidou, a professor at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. "We're used to hearing that a drink or two a day is fine. But the evidence is the evidence."
I guess the old saw, “I don’t drink, or snort, or chew, and I don’t go with guys what do,” isn’t such bad advice. Have a good and sober day.
Just for a little chemical lesson, biochemistry, actually. Our bodies are very efficient at oxidizing substances. Unfortunately for the “user,” the first product of oxiding methanol is formaldehyde. And that is a deadly poison. As our German friends put it, “Nicht so gut.” Well ethanol is oxidized into acetaldehyde, which is far less poisonous. Propanol, or rubbing alcohol is a three carbon molecule which the body breaks into a two carbon chain, and.... Yep, you got it, a one carbon chain and we are back to formaldehyde as a final product. Hardly anyone has ever died from propanol because it is a powerful emetic. I caused the drinker to vomit, thus eliminating the poison from his body.
End of chemistry lesson. So methanol and propanol are both deadly. We can “get away,” we thought, with imbibing a little ethanol, but it is still a poison. It just has a higher lethal dose than the other two members of that particular chemical homology. (High lethal dose means you have to consume more of it to be poisoned.)
So the arguments of “a little is okay” did not ever convince me, but now the British Medical Journal, “Lancet.” Just in case you doubt, here is a link to a report about the report. Or I guess you can look up the original.
Excerpt:
"The most surprising finding was that even small amounts of alcohol use contribute to health loss globally," said senior study author Emmanuela Gakidou, a professor at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. "We're used to hearing that a drink or two a day is fine. But the evidence is the evidence."
I guess the old saw, “I don’t drink, or snort, or chew, and I don’t go with guys what do,” isn’t such bad advice. Have a good and sober day.
Thursday, August 16, 2018
Leadership
I recently heard a lesson on leadership. It was eye-opening and extremely instructive. It also gave an indication of how hard a true leader must work. It consisted of three points.
1. Leadership is more about responsibility than privileges.
2. Leadeership provides less latitude, not more.
3. The most important expression of leadership is personal.
In ten minutes I learned more from Pastor Allen than I have in hours long seminars and many books. I cannot reproduce everything he said, but this will give an overview of the key points.
Number one: Leadership is more about responsibility than privileges. We all see leaders with the perquisites of office and envy their advantages. But the “benefits” of being a leader are neither the motivation nor means of leadership. A leader is responsible for the progress of his group. A brief summation is that the leader takes the group and individuals someplace where they would not be able to go without him.
If a person “leads” a group to a place that they would naturally go, he is not a leader, but the coincidental role of being in the front of a toboggan or roller coaster. He is not leading, he is just the first one in a line that is going where ever it is going, regardless of whether he is there or not. A true leader is the guy who takes the toboggan and riders back to the top of the hill.
The supposed perks are not a reward, but tools to allow the leader to accomplish the task. They are not there for his enjoyment but for enablement. He can get more done with these “tools” and thus they provide value and assistance in accomplishing the overall task.
The second point builds on this. Leadership provides less latitude, not more. A leader is not given extra privileges as a reward, they are essential in his ability to accomplish the goal. For example, most leaders are among the first to show up at church, and among the last to leave. They have a key to the building because they are often required to be available at nearly all hours of the day.
A leader sets the schedule, usually with the convenience of the following group in view, and he has to adhere to it. A member may wake up feeling “bad” and skip, but if the leader skips, well, nothing happens. He basically has no wiggle room, unless he can find an emergency substitute. And a lot of explaining is required. “Too bad he isn’t as dedicated as the ‘rest’ of us. We are here.”
The third aspect of a good leader is that the most important expression of leadership is personal. A leader’s most important “follower” greets him every morning in the mirror. In other words, self control, and leading oneself is a critical component of any leadership post. We had witnessed a literal flood of failures recently, and some even in spiritual circles.
And the source of their problem, when they honestly confront the issue, is a failure to exercise discretion in their personal life. Self control is a fruit of the Spirit found in Galatians 5:22 and 23. These things are “available” to all believers but not all believers consciously express them And the dearth of practice leads to a catastrophic collapse. Even a “minor” collapse will result in terrible consequences in the life and body of his followers.
James warns about the peril of being a “teacher” or leader in James 3:1
Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.
Romans 2:21 has an intersting take on this. (It is a little out of context, but applies.)
...you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal?
Teach yourself. How can you lead without teaching?
And Revelation 2 reports two churches that actively followed false teachers. Obviously some responsibility lies in the group to hold a leader accountable. But better far is the leader who polices himself.
That discussion of leadership is a good place to start, even for my personal leadership in my own life. Step up to the responsibility. Dedication requires more than a casual attention in the execution of our daily tasks. And to sum it up, 2 Peter 1 charts the path of successful leadership.
5 Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, 6 and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, 7 and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. 8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Notice that it begins with “passive” characteristics: faith, moral excellence, knowledge. Then it hinges on self-control, number three. This will produce active expressions of our faith. Perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love are the manifestations that mark a good leader.
Lead on.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5:22-23&version=NASB
1. Leadership is more about responsibility than privileges.
2. Leadeership provides less latitude, not more.
3. The most important expression of leadership is personal.
In ten minutes I learned more from Pastor Allen than I have in hours long seminars and many books. I cannot reproduce everything he said, but this will give an overview of the key points.
Number one: Leadership is more about responsibility than privileges. We all see leaders with the perquisites of office and envy their advantages. But the “benefits” of being a leader are neither the motivation nor means of leadership. A leader is responsible for the progress of his group. A brief summation is that the leader takes the group and individuals someplace where they would not be able to go without him.
If a person “leads” a group to a place that they would naturally go, he is not a leader, but the coincidental role of being in the front of a toboggan or roller coaster. He is not leading, he is just the first one in a line that is going where ever it is going, regardless of whether he is there or not. A true leader is the guy who takes the toboggan and riders back to the top of the hill.
The supposed perks are not a reward, but tools to allow the leader to accomplish the task. They are not there for his enjoyment but for enablement. He can get more done with these “tools” and thus they provide value and assistance in accomplishing the overall task.
The second point builds on this. Leadership provides less latitude, not more. A leader is not given extra privileges as a reward, they are essential in his ability to accomplish the goal. For example, most leaders are among the first to show up at church, and among the last to leave. They have a key to the building because they are often required to be available at nearly all hours of the day.
A leader sets the schedule, usually with the convenience of the following group in view, and he has to adhere to it. A member may wake up feeling “bad” and skip, but if the leader skips, well, nothing happens. He basically has no wiggle room, unless he can find an emergency substitute. And a lot of explaining is required. “Too bad he isn’t as dedicated as the ‘rest’ of us. We are here.”
The third aspect of a good leader is that the most important expression of leadership is personal. A leader’s most important “follower” greets him every morning in the mirror. In other words, self control, and leading oneself is a critical component of any leadership post. We had witnessed a literal flood of failures recently, and some even in spiritual circles.
And the source of their problem, when they honestly confront the issue, is a failure to exercise discretion in their personal life. Self control is a fruit of the Spirit found in Galatians 5:22 and 23. These things are “available” to all believers but not all believers consciously express them And the dearth of practice leads to a catastrophic collapse. Even a “minor” collapse will result in terrible consequences in the life and body of his followers.
James warns about the peril of being a “teacher” or leader in James 3:1
Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.
Romans 2:21 has an intersting take on this. (It is a little out of context, but applies.)
...you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal?
Teach yourself. How can you lead without teaching?
And Revelation 2 reports two churches that actively followed false teachers. Obviously some responsibility lies in the group to hold a leader accountable. But better far is the leader who polices himself.
That discussion of leadership is a good place to start, even for my personal leadership in my own life. Step up to the responsibility. Dedication requires more than a casual attention in the execution of our daily tasks. And to sum it up, 2 Peter 1 charts the path of successful leadership.
5 Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, 6 and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, 7 and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. 8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Notice that it begins with “passive” characteristics: faith, moral excellence, knowledge. Then it hinges on self-control, number three. This will produce active expressions of our faith. Perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love are the manifestations that mark a good leader.
Lead on.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5:22-23&version=NASB
Tuesday, August 14, 2018
Execution
We executed Billy Ray Irick on August 9, 2018. And, yes, the “we” is all of us. All of Tennessee executed him through our elected and appointed officials. Were we wrong? No we were not in error, regardless of what some may claim.
There was no “rush to judgment.” Mr. Irick was accorded a trial. He was given over 30 years of appeals. Justice is based on action, and not necessarily how the judgment is administered. If the judgment is unfair or unjust, it is subject to appeal. But if it is distasteful, onerous, or even painful, it is not subject to appeal. Irick’s appeals were not substantive: was he innocent or guilty? They were focused on the process of satisfying the requirements of the law and not the substantiative issue of guilt.
One argument was his mental state. Did he have the cognitive ability to recognize that what he did was wrong? Recall that he fled, and attempted to hitchhike out of town. (Tennessean 8/10) A mental incompetent does not understand culpability. The arguments that he was impaired ignore the fact that he did know that his actions were wrong and behaved accordingly.
The state has determined, rightly in the opinion of many, that violating the rights of others requires some remuneration. In the case of the ultimate offense, taking a life, there is no equivalent “payment,” outside of execution.
Biblically, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” was not a severe pronouncement of retribution, but a merciful, compassionate limitation of “revenge.” When the Old Testament law was promulgated, a person in power had an absolute right to exact any level of punishment on a person who offended him. For instance, injuring an “eye” could lead the offended power person to kill the offender. He often even expanded the infliction of retribution to the family of the offender.
An “eye for an eye” restricted the punitive measures to a level commensurate with the amount of damage. In the instance of murder, the limitation would extend to the ultimate sanction. That penalty is not required, and, our state has correctly mandated the consideration of aggravating factors. A particularly onerous murder may, and does merit the ultimate retribution. To ignore or deny that denigrates and depreciates the life of the victim.
Out of all the current coverage, there was only one article about the little seven year-old girl, Paula Dyer, and what she suffered. Did Mr. Irick gasp for air and turn purple? (Tennessean 8/10) Paula did. The reports mentioned that blood vessels had burst in her eyes, a sign of violent asphyxiation. She was found in a puddle of blood. Irick’s appeal to avoid any pain is poorly supported or buttressed by reality or justice.
We made a statement in this event. The value of life, even a helpless child, is inestimable. Interdicting that life is a capital offense. There is no conflict between justice and mercy. Mercy is linked with and inseparable from a demand for an accounting. Mercy granted a fair trial and appeal. No more can be legitimately claimed. Justice was served.
There was no “rush to judgment.” Mr. Irick was accorded a trial. He was given over 30 years of appeals. Justice is based on action, and not necessarily how the judgment is administered. If the judgment is unfair or unjust, it is subject to appeal. But if it is distasteful, onerous, or even painful, it is not subject to appeal. Irick’s appeals were not substantive: was he innocent or guilty? They were focused on the process of satisfying the requirements of the law and not the substantiative issue of guilt.
One argument was his mental state. Did he have the cognitive ability to recognize that what he did was wrong? Recall that he fled, and attempted to hitchhike out of town. (Tennessean 8/10) A mental incompetent does not understand culpability. The arguments that he was impaired ignore the fact that he did know that his actions were wrong and behaved accordingly.
The state has determined, rightly in the opinion of many, that violating the rights of others requires some remuneration. In the case of the ultimate offense, taking a life, there is no equivalent “payment,” outside of execution.
Biblically, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” was not a severe pronouncement of retribution, but a merciful, compassionate limitation of “revenge.” When the Old Testament law was promulgated, a person in power had an absolute right to exact any level of punishment on a person who offended him. For instance, injuring an “eye” could lead the offended power person to kill the offender. He often even expanded the infliction of retribution to the family of the offender.
An “eye for an eye” restricted the punitive measures to a level commensurate with the amount of damage. In the instance of murder, the limitation would extend to the ultimate sanction. That penalty is not required, and, our state has correctly mandated the consideration of aggravating factors. A particularly onerous murder may, and does merit the ultimate retribution. To ignore or deny that denigrates and depreciates the life of the victim.
Out of all the current coverage, there was only one article about the little seven year-old girl, Paula Dyer, and what she suffered. Did Mr. Irick gasp for air and turn purple? (Tennessean 8/10) Paula did. The reports mentioned that blood vessels had burst in her eyes, a sign of violent asphyxiation. She was found in a puddle of blood. Irick’s appeal to avoid any pain is poorly supported or buttressed by reality or justice.
We made a statement in this event. The value of life, even a helpless child, is inestimable. Interdicting that life is a capital offense. There is no conflict between justice and mercy. Mercy is linked with and inseparable from a demand for an accounting. Mercy granted a fair trial and appeal. No more can be legitimately claimed. Justice was served.
Sunday, July 22, 2018
Hippochrissy
Our media in recent times has been suffused with an enormous, all encompassing case of hypocrisy. You know what that is, hippochrissy. Breaking the word down into its components helps to define it. Hippopotamus is an enormous animal that dominates every environment into which it is injected. The name itself is so humongous that we use the diminutive, hippo, to help keep us under arbitrary word limits in articles and publications.
Chrissy is a sweet, darling somewhere in everyone’s memory that brings a fond and wistful smile whenever it or she comes to mind. Merging the two concepts brings us to our popular media and political milieu.
Both “sides of the aisle” are guilty of oozing, no spurting, our prejudices all over the landscape when discussing current obsessions. Let’s pick on conservatives first. The “anthem protests” are roundly and soundly denounced as attacks on our flag and the brave men and women who fought and died to protect our freedom. The kneeling during the presentation of colors and playing of the national anthem is the hippo and sweet chrissy is our love and respect for flag and country.
Nothing the protesters can say or explain will deter nor deflect the criticism leveled from those who disapprove of the protest. No explanation is rational enough, nor heavy enough to resist the bull rush of the hippo.
Viewed from the other side is the hippo of an oppressive society that targets and attacks certain sections of the citizenry. Chrissy is the legitimate right and practice of expressing dissent, as guaranteed by the First Amendment.
In a reversal of roles, the Confederate emblem smashing movement and the opposition are likewise afflicted with hippochrissy, usually reversing the segment of the population which approves or disapproves. The hippo is that any reference to the Confederate cause in the Civil War becomes an overwhelming endorsement of the repugnant practice of slavery and oppression and those who engaged in it. Chrissy the sweet little thing, is a society cleansed of reminders of this dark, dismal, and disgusting past.
For the objectors, chrissy is our noble ancestors, fighting for their rights against a dominant and oppressive government that threatened to destroy a prosperous and peaceful, for them, way of life. The hippo is the destruction and desecration of legitimate history and the memories of our progenitors.
In mirroring the political divisions of society, hypocrisy continues to divide segments of the population and our refusal to see the other side of the argument threatens to permanently fragment our country. Both sides have legitimate concerns and interests. Peace will only be achieved when we realize and respect others’ points of view.
Very few issues are “all bad” or “all good,” and the sooner we acknowledge that, the better off we all will be. Accepting another view of what we perceive does not mean that we approve or even condone that view. It just means that we are willing to listen to opposing viewpoints. And when we do that, society as a whole can begin to heal these festering and legitimate wounds.
Chrissy is a sweet, darling somewhere in everyone’s memory that brings a fond and wistful smile whenever it or she comes to mind. Merging the two concepts brings us to our popular media and political milieu.
Both “sides of the aisle” are guilty of oozing, no spurting, our prejudices all over the landscape when discussing current obsessions. Let’s pick on conservatives first. The “anthem protests” are roundly and soundly denounced as attacks on our flag and the brave men and women who fought and died to protect our freedom. The kneeling during the presentation of colors and playing of the national anthem is the hippo and sweet chrissy is our love and respect for flag and country.
Nothing the protesters can say or explain will deter nor deflect the criticism leveled from those who disapprove of the protest. No explanation is rational enough, nor heavy enough to resist the bull rush of the hippo.
Viewed from the other side is the hippo of an oppressive society that targets and attacks certain sections of the citizenry. Chrissy is the legitimate right and practice of expressing dissent, as guaranteed by the First Amendment.
In a reversal of roles, the Confederate emblem smashing movement and the opposition are likewise afflicted with hippochrissy, usually reversing the segment of the population which approves or disapproves. The hippo is that any reference to the Confederate cause in the Civil War becomes an overwhelming endorsement of the repugnant practice of slavery and oppression and those who engaged in it. Chrissy the sweet little thing, is a society cleansed of reminders of this dark, dismal, and disgusting past.
For the objectors, chrissy is our noble ancestors, fighting for their rights against a dominant and oppressive government that threatened to destroy a prosperous and peaceful, for them, way of life. The hippo is the destruction and desecration of legitimate history and the memories of our progenitors.
In mirroring the political divisions of society, hypocrisy continues to divide segments of the population and our refusal to see the other side of the argument threatens to permanently fragment our country. Both sides have legitimate concerns and interests. Peace will only be achieved when we realize and respect others’ points of view.
Very few issues are “all bad” or “all good,” and the sooner we acknowledge that, the better off we all will be. Accepting another view of what we perceive does not mean that we approve or even condone that view. It just means that we are willing to listen to opposing viewpoints. And when we do that, society as a whole can begin to heal these festering and legitimate wounds.
Thursday, July 19, 2018
Tractor Tales At Least III
As many of you know who have been with me a while, I have struggled with lawn tractors and their operation. I got a “new to me,” 54 inch mower earlier this summer and hoped that the problems were over. Well....they kind of are. It stopped mowing but the engine was still running. A quick check indicated that the PTO clutch was operational, so it must be something else. The spring that keeps tension on the deck belt had become disengaged.
Again, those who have been here a while have probably read that my Dad occasionally, well, maybe often, commented that I worked harder at avoiding work than actually doing it. Yep, I did it again. After reattaching the tension spring, I thought that I could “simply” attach a ratcheting strap and stretch the spring enough to enable me to slip the belt over the drive pulley and get back to work. The spring pulls a tensioning pulley that merely puts pressure on the belt to keep it tight on the drive pulleys. Sounds simple. I did not want to have to “fight” with removing and reattaching the big, heavy 54" deck.
So, after about 90 minutes or struggling with getting the strap aligned, and having the ratchet mechanism malfunction a time or two, I decided to try the other way. Two pins drop the deck and I can maneuver it closer to the pulley, slip the belt over it, and then reattach the deck. The final step is what deterred me from doing it first.
That big old, heavy deck, did I mention that before? That big old heavy deck is tricky to align exactly right to get the pins to slip back. It took me all of two minutes to connect the belt, and about 15 to attach BOTH sides to their respective niches. I actually spent more time disentangling the strap from the deck than it took to reconnect it. Total time involved: about two hours. One and a half hours struggling with my “genius” idea to avoid disconnecting the deck and a quarter of an hour to disengage and reconnect. Add in the quarter hour to get the strap loose from all of the hooks I had rigged to “help” and we are ready to mow.
One good thing did come from this episode. If you tape the belt to each blade pulley after disengaging the deck, you will not accidentally reconnect the deck with the belt down around the shaft, like someone with his pants around his ankles. I hooked the deck up twice the first time I reattached it when I first got it. I had to unhook it to get the blade pulley on the other side of the deck engaged. It is so far across that big deck, did I mention that it was heavy? That big deck that you cannot see if the belt is on the pulley or not. So instead of going around the machine to look, just tape the belt in place until you reattach everything. Good trick.
I am not sure that people in heaven can see us down here, but if Jesus has a little “peep hole” that He lets Dad peer through, I am sure that they both had a good laugh at my “ingenuity.” In the final analysis, the mower is running and I got my workout for the day.
Until next time, try doing it the right way. It is probably easier.
Again, those who have been here a while have probably read that my Dad occasionally, well, maybe often, commented that I worked harder at avoiding work than actually doing it. Yep, I did it again. After reattaching the tension spring, I thought that I could “simply” attach a ratcheting strap and stretch the spring enough to enable me to slip the belt over the drive pulley and get back to work. The spring pulls a tensioning pulley that merely puts pressure on the belt to keep it tight on the drive pulleys. Sounds simple. I did not want to have to “fight” with removing and reattaching the big, heavy 54" deck.
So, after about 90 minutes or struggling with getting the strap aligned, and having the ratchet mechanism malfunction a time or two, I decided to try the other way. Two pins drop the deck and I can maneuver it closer to the pulley, slip the belt over it, and then reattach the deck. The final step is what deterred me from doing it first.
That big old, heavy deck, did I mention that before? That big old heavy deck is tricky to align exactly right to get the pins to slip back. It took me all of two minutes to connect the belt, and about 15 to attach BOTH sides to their respective niches. I actually spent more time disentangling the strap from the deck than it took to reconnect it. Total time involved: about two hours. One and a half hours struggling with my “genius” idea to avoid disconnecting the deck and a quarter of an hour to disengage and reconnect. Add in the quarter hour to get the strap loose from all of the hooks I had rigged to “help” and we are ready to mow.
One good thing did come from this episode. If you tape the belt to each blade pulley after disengaging the deck, you will not accidentally reconnect the deck with the belt down around the shaft, like someone with his pants around his ankles. I hooked the deck up twice the first time I reattached it when I first got it. I had to unhook it to get the blade pulley on the other side of the deck engaged. It is so far across that big deck, did I mention that it was heavy? That big deck that you cannot see if the belt is on the pulley or not. So instead of going around the machine to look, just tape the belt in place until you reattach everything. Good trick.
I am not sure that people in heaven can see us down here, but if Jesus has a little “peep hole” that He lets Dad peer through, I am sure that they both had a good laugh at my “ingenuity.” In the final analysis, the mower is running and I got my workout for the day.
Until next time, try doing it the right way. It is probably easier.
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
An Alternative Scenario
Imagine that one morning thousands of students “spontaneously” leave their classes and congregate in a central area of the city. (It was probably organized and orchestrated by an outside interest, but for now let’s ignore that.) The teenagers begin, again, spontaneously, to chant a phrase.
“Stop killing our brothers and sisters! Protect our rights. Choose life. Ban abortion!”
How many minutes of network news would that demonstration receive? How many inches of newsprint and how many front page, above the fold, photos would be printed by the major newspapers all across the country?
Are the protests of “our children” based on strongly held juvenile beliefs or are they fueled by special interest groups working for a specific agenda? Consider an alternative. How many teens are killed every year in auto accidents? Or even more germane to the national discussion, how many teens are killed in alcohol-related auto accidents?
Kids are in cars more often, though for fewer hours, than they are in school. And the death toll is staggering. Incidentally the numbers can be found at:
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/teenagers/fatalityfacts/teenagers
Summarizing, they tally 2820 in 2016 and 12% were alcohol related (338). And these numbers are for 16-19 year old drivers. More can be added for passengers in autos driven by older drivers.
Over 55% of teen related auto deaths were to passengers. And right at half of teen deaths occurred to anyone in the car without a seat belt employed.
Yes, protest school shootings, but focus on some solutions other than banning all guns. I would bet that every school shooter was known by someone in his school as displaying suspicious tendencies. Why do we read of social media postings after the fact? Did not one see the threatening posts? Why did they not respond or alert authorities?
And for our teen auto statistics, try a few preventative measures. Don’t get into any vehicle if the driver is “buzzed.” Second, always fasten the seat belt. And finally, only ride with a teen on a specific mission, such as going to school, an activity, church, etc. Just “cruisin” is looking for a “bruisin.”
Protests should focus on the solution of an issue and not just to raise “awareness,” which, frankly, usually means to promote someone’s agenda. Did the “anthem kneelers” advocate or promote any concrete solutions? (There, I should have insulted just about everyone.)
“Marching for life,” is a noble sentiment, but without concrete and executable solutions, it is a futile activity. Let’s not just promote agendas, let’s produce results.
“Stop killing our brothers and sisters! Protect our rights. Choose life. Ban abortion!”
How many minutes of network news would that demonstration receive? How many inches of newsprint and how many front page, above the fold, photos would be printed by the major newspapers all across the country?
Are the protests of “our children” based on strongly held juvenile beliefs or are they fueled by special interest groups working for a specific agenda? Consider an alternative. How many teens are killed every year in auto accidents? Or even more germane to the national discussion, how many teens are killed in alcohol-related auto accidents?
Kids are in cars more often, though for fewer hours, than they are in school. And the death toll is staggering. Incidentally the numbers can be found at:
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/teenagers/fatalityfacts/teenagers
Summarizing, they tally 2820 in 2016 and 12% were alcohol related (338). And these numbers are for 16-19 year old drivers. More can be added for passengers in autos driven by older drivers.
Over 55% of teen related auto deaths were to passengers. And right at half of teen deaths occurred to anyone in the car without a seat belt employed.
Yes, protest school shootings, but focus on some solutions other than banning all guns. I would bet that every school shooter was known by someone in his school as displaying suspicious tendencies. Why do we read of social media postings after the fact? Did not one see the threatening posts? Why did they not respond or alert authorities?
And for our teen auto statistics, try a few preventative measures. Don’t get into any vehicle if the driver is “buzzed.” Second, always fasten the seat belt. And finally, only ride with a teen on a specific mission, such as going to school, an activity, church, etc. Just “cruisin” is looking for a “bruisin.”
Protests should focus on the solution of an issue and not just to raise “awareness,” which, frankly, usually means to promote someone’s agenda. Did the “anthem kneelers” advocate or promote any concrete solutions? (There, I should have insulted just about everyone.)
“Marching for life,” is a noble sentiment, but without concrete and executable solutions, it is a futile activity. Let’s not just promote agendas, let’s produce results.
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
See Something Say Something
Just after 9/11 when the terror threat was high, the US promulgated a saying: “See something, say something.” The idea was that with everyone looking for potential bombs and other devices, we would be more likely to avoid random attacks on our country and its citizens.
A new, and persistent threat has arisen to threaten our country and its citizens. Firearm violence has become almost daily news. The Waffle House shooting on Sunday was followed by another report today of a shooting at a Home Depot. It is hard to keep up.
Some have suggested, and even demanded that firearms be removed, in one degree or another. Since the right to own such weapons is protected by the Second Amendment and several Supreme Court decisions, a limitation of ownership appears to be an arduous and drawn out ordeal.
A simpler and more direct solution is staring us in the face. Today’s “Tennessean” (4/25/18) headline reports, “A history of red flags didn’t stop suspect.” Almost every “shooter” is described, after the fact, as being “troubled” at best and definitely a threat at worst. The potential next shooter is walking among us today, just waiting for “something” to set him off. (Or her–gotta be non-sexist.)
It is not legal for someone with a history of mental problems or worse, a record, to possess guns. If everyone would look into their own circle of acquaintances and identify any who may be subject to these aberrations of behavior and report them to the proper authorities, we will avoid most, if not all, of these tragedies.
See something, say something. Not everyone who is troubled is a potential time bomb, but there is still no sense in preserving their ability to own or possess firearms. That is not a right, and has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The little ditty we used as a kid, “Better safe than sorry,” certainly applies here.
Don’t wait and hope for a James Shaw to save us. See something, say something.
A new, and persistent threat has arisen to threaten our country and its citizens. Firearm violence has become almost daily news. The Waffle House shooting on Sunday was followed by another report today of a shooting at a Home Depot. It is hard to keep up.
Some have suggested, and even demanded that firearms be removed, in one degree or another. Since the right to own such weapons is protected by the Second Amendment and several Supreme Court decisions, a limitation of ownership appears to be an arduous and drawn out ordeal.
A simpler and more direct solution is staring us in the face. Today’s “Tennessean” (4/25/18) headline reports, “A history of red flags didn’t stop suspect.” Almost every “shooter” is described, after the fact, as being “troubled” at best and definitely a threat at worst. The potential next shooter is walking among us today, just waiting for “something” to set him off. (Or her–gotta be non-sexist.)
It is not legal for someone with a history of mental problems or worse, a record, to possess guns. If everyone would look into their own circle of acquaintances and identify any who may be subject to these aberrations of behavior and report them to the proper authorities, we will avoid most, if not all, of these tragedies.
See something, say something. Not everyone who is troubled is a potential time bomb, but there is still no sense in preserving their ability to own or possess firearms. That is not a right, and has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The little ditty we used as a kid, “Better safe than sorry,” certainly applies here.
Don’t wait and hope for a James Shaw to save us. See something, say something.
Friday, February 16, 2018
More Adultery
Did you ever have a topic that grabbed you and wouldn’t let go? Well, here we are, about to tug again at the ribbons wrapping the beguiling package of adultery. Did you ever notice that the root word of adultery is adult? Isn’t it terribly ironic that this activity is as about as far removed from adulthood and adult activities as it can be?
It is doubly ironic in that often the actions are justified as being “between consenting adults.” In reality, most of the time they look more like the actions of consenting 13-year olds. Randy 13-year olds. It is also termed an “affair of the heart” in an attempt to, if not glorify the activities, to at least rationalize them. “Heart” implies a love relationship. And nowhere in the lexicon of love do we find an action that is so contrary to the best interests of both parties, and everyone else who is impacted.
When the ultimate day of reckoning, the inevitable day of reckoning occurs, both parties are invariably damaged. As are the families and friends of both, the associates of both, even curious bystanders. It should be called an affair of the crotch. When the final accounting is made, only the immediate urges of 13-year old hormones were what were involved.
And yes, we will consider the proverbial elephant in the room. In fact he seems to be in the whole county, perhaps the entire mid-state, and even the state. Marriages are damaged, if not destroyed. Families are decimated. Careers are discarded. And entire populations are disgusted with the careless and heedless actions of leaders.
The Apostle John described just such a situation in 1 John 2:16. “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life....” He offered a tripartite analysis. “The lust of the flesh.” This is the childish attitude of I want it and I want it now. A friend of ours who writes children’s musicals coined a word for this: “Gratifaction.” We can imply “immediate gratifaction.” It is a combination of gratification and satisfaction. And it is urgent. There is no consideration for any one, or any thing else.
In the vacuum cleaner business, we had a term for peoples’ evaluation of their cleaning equipment. “See, hear, feel.” They could see dirt before running over it, and see that it was gone afterwards. They could hear the motor running and feel their dust bag filling up. We had to show them that even though some was picked up, most of the dirt was left behind. Our eyes can be tricked. And the “lust of the eyes” is a perfect example of this. What looks “good” is not always and a lot of times never, good.
The “pride of life, the boastful pride of life” is the most insidious probe of all. If our pride and self appreciation are based upon how we “look” we are fishing in a very shallow pond. Self worth and value are not dependent upon the “eye candy” we sport, whether it is people, position, or power. Integrity of the inner person is what gives true worth and value to anyone and everyone. To ignore or disparage that is a true marker of immaturity and incompetence. Many people discover that way too late.
And look at John’s final analysis: “(All that is in the world) is not from the Father, but is from the world. 17 The world is passing away, and also its lusts;....” True significance does not come from leaning on a failing philosophy. True value in life is presented in the final phrase of the verse. “...but the one who does the will of God lives forever.” For true significance and meaning it is required that we look above the horizon. Fixation on this world will doom us to mediocrity and ultimately destruction. Paul also counsels us to “seek those things which are above.” (Colossians 3:1)
Love is based upon seeking and demanding the best for the other person. That not only includes the specific person, but those who revere and respect the other person. Selfish immaturity seeks “what I want, when I want it” regardless of the consequences, especially when someone else is involved. And the cost is never considered until the time of accounting.
Paul had an interesting comment on this. 1 Corinthians 13:11 sums up the whole chapter on love. “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man (or woman), I put away childish things.”
Living life as an adult, should include an abhorrence and avoidance of adultery. Otherwise we are merely grown children, acting out unbridled passions.
It is doubly ironic in that often the actions are justified as being “between consenting adults.” In reality, most of the time they look more like the actions of consenting 13-year olds. Randy 13-year olds. It is also termed an “affair of the heart” in an attempt to, if not glorify the activities, to at least rationalize them. “Heart” implies a love relationship. And nowhere in the lexicon of love do we find an action that is so contrary to the best interests of both parties, and everyone else who is impacted.
When the ultimate day of reckoning, the inevitable day of reckoning occurs, both parties are invariably damaged. As are the families and friends of both, the associates of both, even curious bystanders. It should be called an affair of the crotch. When the final accounting is made, only the immediate urges of 13-year old hormones were what were involved.
And yes, we will consider the proverbial elephant in the room. In fact he seems to be in the whole county, perhaps the entire mid-state, and even the state. Marriages are damaged, if not destroyed. Families are decimated. Careers are discarded. And entire populations are disgusted with the careless and heedless actions of leaders.
The Apostle John described just such a situation in 1 John 2:16. “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life....” He offered a tripartite analysis. “The lust of the flesh.” This is the childish attitude of I want it and I want it now. A friend of ours who writes children’s musicals coined a word for this: “Gratifaction.” We can imply “immediate gratifaction.” It is a combination of gratification and satisfaction. And it is urgent. There is no consideration for any one, or any thing else.
In the vacuum cleaner business, we had a term for peoples’ evaluation of their cleaning equipment. “See, hear, feel.” They could see dirt before running over it, and see that it was gone afterwards. They could hear the motor running and feel their dust bag filling up. We had to show them that even though some was picked up, most of the dirt was left behind. Our eyes can be tricked. And the “lust of the eyes” is a perfect example of this. What looks “good” is not always and a lot of times never, good.
The “pride of life, the boastful pride of life” is the most insidious probe of all. If our pride and self appreciation are based upon how we “look” we are fishing in a very shallow pond. Self worth and value are not dependent upon the “eye candy” we sport, whether it is people, position, or power. Integrity of the inner person is what gives true worth and value to anyone and everyone. To ignore or disparage that is a true marker of immaturity and incompetence. Many people discover that way too late.
And look at John’s final analysis: “(All that is in the world) is not from the Father, but is from the world. 17 The world is passing away, and also its lusts;....” True significance does not come from leaning on a failing philosophy. True value in life is presented in the final phrase of the verse. “...but the one who does the will of God lives forever.” For true significance and meaning it is required that we look above the horizon. Fixation on this world will doom us to mediocrity and ultimately destruction. Paul also counsels us to “seek those things which are above.” (Colossians 3:1)
Love is based upon seeking and demanding the best for the other person. That not only includes the specific person, but those who revere and respect the other person. Selfish immaturity seeks “what I want, when I want it” regardless of the consequences, especially when someone else is involved. And the cost is never considered until the time of accounting.
Paul had an interesting comment on this. 1 Corinthians 13:11 sums up the whole chapter on love. “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man (or woman), I put away childish things.”
Living life as an adult, should include an abhorrence and avoidance of adultery. Otherwise we are merely grown children, acting out unbridled passions.
Thursday, February 15, 2018
Evolution and Conception
I am often struck with the realization that I believe evolution more than adherents of the theory. I operate with a better understanding than most of the experts I read. I have often read the following or similar statements: ”Evolution needed to make XX happen so it evolved a method to accomplish this.”
I have been thinking about birth lately (no personal connection, just thinking) and recall reading an explanation of conception years ago. I have not seen an update nor a disclaimer. This will be a little delicate so if there are kids in the room, you might want to occupy them elsewhere.
Speaking as an evolutionist here, the lower animals copulate from the rear. This is convenient and meshes with their life style with no problems. Once the sperm has been “deposited” (is that delicate enough) within the vagina, the female can go on about her business while the little “guys” swim up the appropriate tubes to meet and merge with the egg. Voila`! We have a new little whatever on the way.
While we are here, most of the animals are capable of multiple births because mutiple eggs are released each cycle. Most, of if not all, of the larger animals only release one egg at a time, limiting the “litter” to a single entry into the population. Some aberrations occur and occasional multiple ovulations occur, but that is not the normal situation.
Why would evolution limit the number of offspring, since its “goal” is to preserve the species? Now you can throw in natural selection and say that the mothers who only carry one fetus to term have a greater probability of survival for both themselves and the new entity. But that does not explain the DNA modification that now restricts the ovaries to one at a time.
I think that I believe evolution more than they do. They just say that “it happens” while I am pestering the method to explain how, in addition to why the changes occurred. And while we are at it, it is remarkable that all “up and down the line” once an egg has been penetrated by the sperm, it develops a shield to repel any additional “fertilizations.” But the sperm count in the male “contribution” continues to be many times more than necessary for the vital process to occur. Just a thought.
But back to our now pregnant “higher” animal. The horizontal birth canal is conducive to the movement of sperm from “one end to the other.” Then when man comes along, walking on two legs, a species-fatal adjustment occurred. Now the birth canal is vertical, and the probability of the “little guys” being able to swim all the way up to the egg are greatly diminished. In fact, the natural flow of fluids would tend to “wash” them all out before they can accomplish their vital function. Ergo, species death.
Now for the fun part. I aver that I am not making this up. (I wanted to say swear, but forebare.) So evolution realized that the twin hemispheres of the female hinder parts were a guide and beacon to the male to aid in copulation. In order to get him to approach from the front, and the female to lie on her back (horizontal for the directionally challenged), nature needed to “add” a pair of hemispheres to the front end of the female. So the mammary glands enlarged and became that beacon to attract the male to the front. Then, just to sweeten the pot, the ability to orgasm was added to the female, so that after copulation, she would continue to lie on her back, side , or front, enjoying the sensation. This allowed the “s-troop” time to migrate past the danger zone and into the business part of their trek.
(I am not making this up. I have not researched it lately, but this was what I read.) And while we are at it, the number of mammary glands has been decreasing. (We call them teats in animals. Pronounced, “tits.”) Evolution surely has funny ways.
So that explained how the “naked ape” was developed by a benevolent evolutionary force. Only if you believe evolution, you have to admit that all of this was random, non-directed mutation. It was just propitious that the modifications worked out as they did. Well, the problem is not satisfied by this simplistic explanation.
For instance, which came first, the ability to walk upright, and the multitude of changes to the skeleton and appendages, or the recognition of the need for a horizontal birth canal. See where I am going? Random, non-directed changes would not only have to be coincident in time, but also in sexes. Both would have to “develop” simultaneously, but most probably from different mothers. It is getting kind of messy.
The enhancement of the mammary glands would also have to randomly, spontaneously occur with the ability to experience orgasm. Female animals do not exhibit visible evidence of wild, rapturous response to coitus. Neither do males, as a matter of fact. Growing up on a farm gave me many opportunities to observe animal reproduction. The mechanics, which you probably know, are similar. An erection is required for penetration, and after ejaculation, it shrivils back to a manageable size for transport. Nuff said.
Like I said, I believe evolution more than my evolutionist friends. I believe that the random, unguided process would have to have done this. That is why I cannot believe that it could have happened. One last comment. The entire sexual reproduction process, from the lowest animals to man, is so intricate and exquisite that to believe that it is the product of random mutations stretches the credibility far beyond the breaking point. If someone really believes it, they wouldn’t believe it.
“‘scuse the pun,” but who could conceive of this?
I have been thinking about birth lately (no personal connection, just thinking) and recall reading an explanation of conception years ago. I have not seen an update nor a disclaimer. This will be a little delicate so if there are kids in the room, you might want to occupy them elsewhere.
Speaking as an evolutionist here, the lower animals copulate from the rear. This is convenient and meshes with their life style with no problems. Once the sperm has been “deposited” (is that delicate enough) within the vagina, the female can go on about her business while the little “guys” swim up the appropriate tubes to meet and merge with the egg. Voila`! We have a new little whatever on the way.
While we are here, most of the animals are capable of multiple births because mutiple eggs are released each cycle. Most, of if not all, of the larger animals only release one egg at a time, limiting the “litter” to a single entry into the population. Some aberrations occur and occasional multiple ovulations occur, but that is not the normal situation.
Why would evolution limit the number of offspring, since its “goal” is to preserve the species? Now you can throw in natural selection and say that the mothers who only carry one fetus to term have a greater probability of survival for both themselves and the new entity. But that does not explain the DNA modification that now restricts the ovaries to one at a time.
I think that I believe evolution more than they do. They just say that “it happens” while I am pestering the method to explain how, in addition to why the changes occurred. And while we are at it, it is remarkable that all “up and down the line” once an egg has been penetrated by the sperm, it develops a shield to repel any additional “fertilizations.” But the sperm count in the male “contribution” continues to be many times more than necessary for the vital process to occur. Just a thought.
But back to our now pregnant “higher” animal. The horizontal birth canal is conducive to the movement of sperm from “one end to the other.” Then when man comes along, walking on two legs, a species-fatal adjustment occurred. Now the birth canal is vertical, and the probability of the “little guys” being able to swim all the way up to the egg are greatly diminished. In fact, the natural flow of fluids would tend to “wash” them all out before they can accomplish their vital function. Ergo, species death.
Now for the fun part. I aver that I am not making this up. (I wanted to say swear, but forebare.) So evolution realized that the twin hemispheres of the female hinder parts were a guide and beacon to the male to aid in copulation. In order to get him to approach from the front, and the female to lie on her back (horizontal for the directionally challenged), nature needed to “add” a pair of hemispheres to the front end of the female. So the mammary glands enlarged and became that beacon to attract the male to the front. Then, just to sweeten the pot, the ability to orgasm was added to the female, so that after copulation, she would continue to lie on her back, side , or front, enjoying the sensation. This allowed the “s-troop” time to migrate past the danger zone and into the business part of their trek.
(I am not making this up. I have not researched it lately, but this was what I read.) And while we are at it, the number of mammary glands has been decreasing. (We call them teats in animals. Pronounced, “tits.”) Evolution surely has funny ways.
So that explained how the “naked ape” was developed by a benevolent evolutionary force. Only if you believe evolution, you have to admit that all of this was random, non-directed mutation. It was just propitious that the modifications worked out as they did. Well, the problem is not satisfied by this simplistic explanation.
For instance, which came first, the ability to walk upright, and the multitude of changes to the skeleton and appendages, or the recognition of the need for a horizontal birth canal. See where I am going? Random, non-directed changes would not only have to be coincident in time, but also in sexes. Both would have to “develop” simultaneously, but most probably from different mothers. It is getting kind of messy.
The enhancement of the mammary glands would also have to randomly, spontaneously occur with the ability to experience orgasm. Female animals do not exhibit visible evidence of wild, rapturous response to coitus. Neither do males, as a matter of fact. Growing up on a farm gave me many opportunities to observe animal reproduction. The mechanics, which you probably know, are similar. An erection is required for penetration, and after ejaculation, it shrivils back to a manageable size for transport. Nuff said.
Like I said, I believe evolution more than my evolutionist friends. I believe that the random, unguided process would have to have done this. That is why I cannot believe that it could have happened. One last comment. The entire sexual reproduction process, from the lowest animals to man, is so intricate and exquisite that to believe that it is the product of random mutations stretches the credibility far beyond the breaking point. If someone really believes it, they wouldn’t believe it.
“‘scuse the pun,” but who could conceive of this?
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
Adultery
When I attended a small, Christian college in the ‘60's we had chapel every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. We complained until we talked to some of the “old timers” and alumni who told us that in the “old days” they had chapel five days a week. Years later, after I left, I listened to a radio program called “Morning Chapel Hour.” And did it revive memories. I had not realized how fortunate we were to get pretty good preaching all through the week. And often we had some great speakers.
One such pastor was most students’ favorite. He was the local pastor of the big Southern Baptist Church which was just down the street. Many of the SBC pastors went by their first names, like Pastor Jerry, or Brother Bobby. I was used to “Reverend McClun” and so on. This preacher went even farther and told us to call him by his name only. So when Billy was going to preach, we were anticipating a real treat. He was funny, and told very good stories to illustrate his points.
The crowd was very ready when he approached the podium one of the days he was scheduled to preach. We expected to be entertained, enlightened, and encouraged. He took the podium, looked out at us for a second or two, (Dramatic pause) and began.
“The seventh commandment says, ‘THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY!’” He ended his pronouncement with a hearty fist slam to the pulpit. “Now I know that most of you guys (700 guys and about 40 girls) think your are exempt from this because you are not married. But a lot of you have girl friends and you are touching and kissing places that you should not touch or kiss. If you don’t have a girl right now, maybe you are looking at pornographic literature. You are committing adultery. Fornication and adultery are both included in this commandment. And those of you who are not yet convicted, if you even look at some of the town girls or the Kilgore Rangerettes and fantasize about them you are too.”
Talk about a wake up call. Many of us had never before considered what Jesus said when He said that to look at a woman with lust was to commit adultery in one’s heart. Brother Billy ended that somewhat wilfull ignorance.
His sermon came to mind as I prepared the lesson for Genesis 2:18-25. There we have the ideal marriage. Boy does our society need to get back to the basics. From business men, to politicians, to entertainers, to ordinary “guys in the street,” we are floundering with how to respond to what almost seems incessant temptation. And many high profile personages all over the landscape have succumbed. And crashed and burned.
Let’s look back to the “drawing board” to see how the prototype was displayed and perhaps find our way out of the morass in which we flounder. First, God brought all of the animals to Adam to name. (We explored this is detail in the lesson: Genesis 2:18-25, Eve. It is posted on my page on FaceBook. Video and text.) Somewhere during the process, Adam became aware of something that God already knew. There were two of everything else, but only one of him. Only then, did God put Adam to sleep and take a rib to fashion a “helper, suitable for him.”
When Adam work up, he expostulated, “This is it!” (League’s Loose Translation) “This is my bone. This is my flesh.”
Then, either he or Moses, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, spelled out the framework of the ideal marriage. (Verse 24) “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.”
There are three prongs to this statement. First “a man shall leave his father and mother....” This “leaving” is not an isolation or totally ignoring them. It is a spiritual and emotional separation. The family, and mother in particular, is to assume a lower place in the hierarchy of his esteem. His wife is now the highest priority of anyone or anything on earth. God is first, of course, then the wife. No exceptions.
A good way to summarize it is in the little phrase that occasionally occurs in some wedding ceremonies, “Forsaking all, I choose you.” This leads into the second prong, join. The man is joined to his wife. This is not the “one flesh” part, which comes next. This is a compact or a contract, if you please, between the man and woman that turns them from a couple into a single unit. They are no longer two individuals, but they have become one, a family of two to begin with. King James uses an archaic word that maybe we should revive: “Cleave.” Cleave means to cling together inseparably.
It is like welding two pieces of steel together. A properly done weld cannot be broken. If it is cut apart, some of each piece will remain as part of the other. The marriage agreement, likewise, joins a man and a woman into a single unit, that we call a family. And this points to the final prong of our discussion.
“...and they shall become one flesh.” This is the whoopee! part of marriage, but even more it represents the perfection of the joining process. They are no longer two, but one. Physically, they are joined in body, but more importantly, the unification of their souls and spirits is complete. Brother Billy may have been the one to suggest this picture. He said just as several threads are combined to weave a single tapestry, so the threads of our lives are woven together in the tapestry of our marriages.
The threefold paradigm can be encapsulated in leave, cleave, and weave. And adultery not only violates, it vitiates, destroys all three aspects of marriage. That is why it was forbidden in the seventh commandment. It is bad for everyone.
When we promise to leave or forsake everyone else, that means nobody or no thing can come between us. (Changing from third person to first person here. It is deliberate, Mrs. Cheney.) Entering into an adulterous liaison trashes that promise by replacing the wife with someone else. It hurts me because I have now become a liar, a covenant breaker, and probably several other things. It hurts my bride, because first, I have lied to her, then second I have devalued her. That is something I have no right to do. In fact, I am commanded to build her up. More obedience issues there, it seems.
The second leg that is shattered is the joining. Just like cutting a weld in two damages both pieces, so violating the integrity of my bond with my wife is injurious to both. This is true even if I do not immediately recognize it. Just ask any of the perpetrators who “got caught.” Even if they did not get caught and publically exposed and condemned, they are damaged goods. (Aside: Second marriages fail more often than the initial marriages. You can check out the statistics and save me the trouble of making them up.) Those damages undermine any subsequent relationship.
Adultery is perhaps the most injurious activity that we can pursue out of all the human relationships in which we participate. It hurts the two participants. It hurts the spurned spouse/spouses. It hurts the immediate family–of both. It hurts the extended family. It hurts friends who trusted one or both of the adulterers. It hurts associations or even companies of the violators. It hurts observers who can only wonder how such devastation could be unleashed.
Finally, adultery decimates the one flesh. The spiritual and emotional bonds have been discussed before, but the physical union of man and woman is violated by adding a third participant. Even is the third party is remote and separate. In 1 Corinthians 6:18 Paul points out that all other sins are outside of our body. Immorality is actually taking sin into our own body.
Warning to parents, adult content here: Many people involved in immorality use a condom to avoid taking disease causing bacteria into their body, or transmitting them to another. But the damage from breaking covenant is far worse than STD’s or AIDS. Our suddenly uptight society is exacting a price for these violations. And this is not all bad. The solution, as it appears now, is that we are all willing to paste the violators to the wall and strip them of honor, esteem, and treasure.
The problem is that the same seeds lie in ourselves, and without the deliverance Jesus offered in John 8:11 the relentless train of betrayal will continue. Jesus told the adulterous woman to, “...go and sin no more.” We often dwell on the first phrase, “Neither do I condemn you....” Jesus final words were not an exhortation to try one’s best to avoid sin. It was a promise that He could deliver us from the sin that He just forgave. It is empowering. It is not only possible, it is the normal outcome of believing, receiving, and accepting His offering.
Brother Billy’s sermon is just as cogent and germane today as it was 50 years ago. God did not prohibit things to keep us from enjoying life. Rather He gave us guidance as to how to maximize our enjoyment of life as we live it down here. Leave, cleave, and weave.
As we watch the Olympics we do not see a skier deliberately ski off the side of a cliff. Instead, he follows the path marked by the organizers to achieve fame and glory–and a safe thrill. Why would we “ski off the path for happy marriage,” by deliberately turning over the side of the mountain?
“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
One such pastor was most students’ favorite. He was the local pastor of the big Southern Baptist Church which was just down the street. Many of the SBC pastors went by their first names, like Pastor Jerry, or Brother Bobby. I was used to “Reverend McClun” and so on. This preacher went even farther and told us to call him by his name only. So when Billy was going to preach, we were anticipating a real treat. He was funny, and told very good stories to illustrate his points.
The crowd was very ready when he approached the podium one of the days he was scheduled to preach. We expected to be entertained, enlightened, and encouraged. He took the podium, looked out at us for a second or two, (Dramatic pause) and began.
“The seventh commandment says, ‘THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY!’” He ended his pronouncement with a hearty fist slam to the pulpit. “Now I know that most of you guys (700 guys and about 40 girls) think your are exempt from this because you are not married. But a lot of you have girl friends and you are touching and kissing places that you should not touch or kiss. If you don’t have a girl right now, maybe you are looking at pornographic literature. You are committing adultery. Fornication and adultery are both included in this commandment. And those of you who are not yet convicted, if you even look at some of the town girls or the Kilgore Rangerettes and fantasize about them you are too.”
Talk about a wake up call. Many of us had never before considered what Jesus said when He said that to look at a woman with lust was to commit adultery in one’s heart. Brother Billy ended that somewhat wilfull ignorance.
His sermon came to mind as I prepared the lesson for Genesis 2:18-25. There we have the ideal marriage. Boy does our society need to get back to the basics. From business men, to politicians, to entertainers, to ordinary “guys in the street,” we are floundering with how to respond to what almost seems incessant temptation. And many high profile personages all over the landscape have succumbed. And crashed and burned.
Let’s look back to the “drawing board” to see how the prototype was displayed and perhaps find our way out of the morass in which we flounder. First, God brought all of the animals to Adam to name. (We explored this is detail in the lesson: Genesis 2:18-25, Eve. It is posted on my page on FaceBook. Video and text.) Somewhere during the process, Adam became aware of something that God already knew. There were two of everything else, but only one of him. Only then, did God put Adam to sleep and take a rib to fashion a “helper, suitable for him.”
When Adam work up, he expostulated, “This is it!” (League’s Loose Translation) “This is my bone. This is my flesh.”
Then, either he or Moses, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, spelled out the framework of the ideal marriage. (Verse 24) “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.”
There are three prongs to this statement. First “a man shall leave his father and mother....” This “leaving” is not an isolation or totally ignoring them. It is a spiritual and emotional separation. The family, and mother in particular, is to assume a lower place in the hierarchy of his esteem. His wife is now the highest priority of anyone or anything on earth. God is first, of course, then the wife. No exceptions.
A good way to summarize it is in the little phrase that occasionally occurs in some wedding ceremonies, “Forsaking all, I choose you.” This leads into the second prong, join. The man is joined to his wife. This is not the “one flesh” part, which comes next. This is a compact or a contract, if you please, between the man and woman that turns them from a couple into a single unit. They are no longer two individuals, but they have become one, a family of two to begin with. King James uses an archaic word that maybe we should revive: “Cleave.” Cleave means to cling together inseparably.
It is like welding two pieces of steel together. A properly done weld cannot be broken. If it is cut apart, some of each piece will remain as part of the other. The marriage agreement, likewise, joins a man and a woman into a single unit, that we call a family. And this points to the final prong of our discussion.
“...and they shall become one flesh.” This is the whoopee! part of marriage, but even more it represents the perfection of the joining process. They are no longer two, but one. Physically, they are joined in body, but more importantly, the unification of their souls and spirits is complete. Brother Billy may have been the one to suggest this picture. He said just as several threads are combined to weave a single tapestry, so the threads of our lives are woven together in the tapestry of our marriages.
The threefold paradigm can be encapsulated in leave, cleave, and weave. And adultery not only violates, it vitiates, destroys all three aspects of marriage. That is why it was forbidden in the seventh commandment. It is bad for everyone.
When we promise to leave or forsake everyone else, that means nobody or no thing can come between us. (Changing from third person to first person here. It is deliberate, Mrs. Cheney.) Entering into an adulterous liaison trashes that promise by replacing the wife with someone else. It hurts me because I have now become a liar, a covenant breaker, and probably several other things. It hurts my bride, because first, I have lied to her, then second I have devalued her. That is something I have no right to do. In fact, I am commanded to build her up. More obedience issues there, it seems.
The second leg that is shattered is the joining. Just like cutting a weld in two damages both pieces, so violating the integrity of my bond with my wife is injurious to both. This is true even if I do not immediately recognize it. Just ask any of the perpetrators who “got caught.” Even if they did not get caught and publically exposed and condemned, they are damaged goods. (Aside: Second marriages fail more often than the initial marriages. You can check out the statistics and save me the trouble of making them up.) Those damages undermine any subsequent relationship.
Adultery is perhaps the most injurious activity that we can pursue out of all the human relationships in which we participate. It hurts the two participants. It hurts the spurned spouse/spouses. It hurts the immediate family–of both. It hurts the extended family. It hurts friends who trusted one or both of the adulterers. It hurts associations or even companies of the violators. It hurts observers who can only wonder how such devastation could be unleashed.
Finally, adultery decimates the one flesh. The spiritual and emotional bonds have been discussed before, but the physical union of man and woman is violated by adding a third participant. Even is the third party is remote and separate. In 1 Corinthians 6:18 Paul points out that all other sins are outside of our body. Immorality is actually taking sin into our own body.
Warning to parents, adult content here: Many people involved in immorality use a condom to avoid taking disease causing bacteria into their body, or transmitting them to another. But the damage from breaking covenant is far worse than STD’s or AIDS. Our suddenly uptight society is exacting a price for these violations. And this is not all bad. The solution, as it appears now, is that we are all willing to paste the violators to the wall and strip them of honor, esteem, and treasure.
The problem is that the same seeds lie in ourselves, and without the deliverance Jesus offered in John 8:11 the relentless train of betrayal will continue. Jesus told the adulterous woman to, “...go and sin no more.” We often dwell on the first phrase, “Neither do I condemn you....” Jesus final words were not an exhortation to try one’s best to avoid sin. It was a promise that He could deliver us from the sin that He just forgave. It is empowering. It is not only possible, it is the normal outcome of believing, receiving, and accepting His offering.
Brother Billy’s sermon is just as cogent and germane today as it was 50 years ago. God did not prohibit things to keep us from enjoying life. Rather He gave us guidance as to how to maximize our enjoyment of life as we live it down here. Leave, cleave, and weave.
As we watch the Olympics we do not see a skier deliberately ski off the side of a cliff. Instead, he follows the path marked by the organizers to achieve fame and glory–and a safe thrill. Why would we “ski off the path for happy marriage,” by deliberately turning over the side of the mountain?
“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
Parenting 501
We took our kids to interesting places, especially when they were quite young, and had a problem in many of those venues. I was reminded of this when we accompanied our grandkids on a trip to a science adventure museum. We enjoyed watching them explore new and different things, but the same difficulty manifested itself.
We would enter the facility and they kids would immediately gravitate to the first attraction or display and begin to explore it. After a few minutes, we would gently urge them on to the next place. But they were having such a good time that they resisted. But we knew that there were more interesting and exciting things farther on.
After they glimpsed the “new” interest, they immediately fastened on that. Again, we had to move them on to the next place. This continued until we reached the end of the display. Ironically, the final one was a slide from the second floor down to the first. They were a little reluctant to go the first time, then enthusiastically raced back up the stairs to repeat it. They, and a large group of the other guests, circulated from first floor to the second, slide down to first, back up to the second, and repeat. I lost track of how many times they repeated this cycle.
As I was watching, my eye roved over the rest of the museum. The formerly exciting and enticing displays were now completely neglected. They were still interesting, and informative, but another attraction had captured their fancy.
That revelation was reinforced to me as I considered the situation as some of our family was being “moved” from one place to another. They loved the first place they were, and resisted moving. I have a strong premonition that once a new venue is unveiled, they will, like the museum goers, forget the old one, in comparison to the excitement of the new.
Our Loving Heavenly Father sometimes urges us on to a “new place” so that He can reveal more and deeper enjoyment than we currently experience. He does not move us out of spite or to punish us, but to enhance our enjoyment of Him. The Westminster Shorter Catechism begins with the statement that man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. A lot of times, our enjoyment must be stimulated by moving to another level.
The final book of C. S Lewis’ Narnia series has his heroes entering the hereafter that we consider heaven. The first level is exciting and engaging. They begin to settle down to enjoy it. But Aslan, the Lion, is constantly urging them to leave that and go “higher up and farther in.” The concept of the story is that this continual improvement will continue forever. In 1 Corinthians 2:9, Paul said that, “Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, And which have not entered the heart of man, All that God has prepared for those who love Him.”
God has a plan for us that will never cease to amaze and reward us. We can see some of that “down here” before we get to heaven. So when we feel the loving nudge from a loving Father, we should not resist, but embrace the change and enjoy the “trip” to His next marvel.
We move our kids to the next item, and even though it may not be a blockbuster, it is new and enticing to them. Wise parents do not just let them camp on one experience when there are other options that we know will also enthrall them. Our Father is way ahead of us in Parenting U. Trust Him.
We would enter the facility and they kids would immediately gravitate to the first attraction or display and begin to explore it. After a few minutes, we would gently urge them on to the next place. But they were having such a good time that they resisted. But we knew that there were more interesting and exciting things farther on.
After they glimpsed the “new” interest, they immediately fastened on that. Again, we had to move them on to the next place. This continued until we reached the end of the display. Ironically, the final one was a slide from the second floor down to the first. They were a little reluctant to go the first time, then enthusiastically raced back up the stairs to repeat it. They, and a large group of the other guests, circulated from first floor to the second, slide down to first, back up to the second, and repeat. I lost track of how many times they repeated this cycle.
As I was watching, my eye roved over the rest of the museum. The formerly exciting and enticing displays were now completely neglected. They were still interesting, and informative, but another attraction had captured their fancy.
That revelation was reinforced to me as I considered the situation as some of our family was being “moved” from one place to another. They loved the first place they were, and resisted moving. I have a strong premonition that once a new venue is unveiled, they will, like the museum goers, forget the old one, in comparison to the excitement of the new.
Our Loving Heavenly Father sometimes urges us on to a “new place” so that He can reveal more and deeper enjoyment than we currently experience. He does not move us out of spite or to punish us, but to enhance our enjoyment of Him. The Westminster Shorter Catechism begins with the statement that man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. A lot of times, our enjoyment must be stimulated by moving to another level.
The final book of C. S Lewis’ Narnia series has his heroes entering the hereafter that we consider heaven. The first level is exciting and engaging. They begin to settle down to enjoy it. But Aslan, the Lion, is constantly urging them to leave that and go “higher up and farther in.” The concept of the story is that this continual improvement will continue forever. In 1 Corinthians 2:9, Paul said that, “Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, And which have not entered the heart of man, All that God has prepared for those who love Him.”
God has a plan for us that will never cease to amaze and reward us. We can see some of that “down here” before we get to heaven. So when we feel the loving nudge from a loving Father, we should not resist, but embrace the change and enjoy the “trip” to His next marvel.
We move our kids to the next item, and even though it may not be a blockbuster, it is new and enticing to them. Wise parents do not just let them camp on one experience when there are other options that we know will also enthrall them. Our Father is way ahead of us in Parenting U. Trust Him.
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
Prude or Prudence?
Well what do you know. Does anyone recall the hu-rah-rah that was raised when Vice President Mike Pence revealed that he did not nor would not meet with anyone of the opposite sex alone for any type of meeting? The media and pundits in general excoriated him for taking such an old fashioned, prudish position. They lamented that this was a direct attack on the ability of women to rise in their particular occupation. This was mockingly derided as being the “Billy Graham rule.”
How many celebrities, politicians, and business men now wish that they had adopted such a policy for their personal and professional lives? Hundreds and even thousands are being accused and are suffering severe losses of both prestige and esteem. And, in many cases, they are losing lots of money as the “Me Too” campaign rips across the landscape.
I would anticipate a small army of legal and personnel experts are frantically crafting new corporate rules and guidelines along the line of, “No mixed sex meeting shall consist of fewer than three persons.” Corporations, charities, and ministries across the country are bracing for a wave of litigation in the wake of revelations against them. Even a prominent church in Memphis has been caught up in the backlash.
Did you ever notice that the root word of prudence is prude? Interesting thought, isn’t it. Maybe Mike and Billy were not so far afield as portrayed. Thank you, gentlemen, for the wise guidance.
How many celebrities, politicians, and business men now wish that they had adopted such a policy for their personal and professional lives? Hundreds and even thousands are being accused and are suffering severe losses of both prestige and esteem. And, in many cases, they are losing lots of money as the “Me Too” campaign rips across the landscape.
I would anticipate a small army of legal and personnel experts are frantically crafting new corporate rules and guidelines along the line of, “No mixed sex meeting shall consist of fewer than three persons.” Corporations, charities, and ministries across the country are bracing for a wave of litigation in the wake of revelations against them. Even a prominent church in Memphis has been caught up in the backlash.
Did you ever notice that the root word of prudence is prude? Interesting thought, isn’t it. Maybe Mike and Billy were not so far afield as portrayed. Thank you, gentlemen, for the wise guidance.
Thursday, January 4, 2018
Capital Jerusalem
A recent article in both the Tennessean (Salina Khan, 12/18/2017) and the DNJ of Murfreesboro ( 12/17/2017) condemned the recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel and the US moving its embassy there. There were two main arguments. One was that the people of Bethlehem, “probably descendants of Jesus’ family,” were so upset with the move that they boycotted Christmas. The second argument was that some “Jewish scholars” taught that the Torah, the Jewish holy book, stated that Israel should not establish a nation until the Messiah came. So even the existence of the nation was violating their own law.
We will not comment on the nationality or the religion of the residents of Bethlehem, but we can definitely rule out the claim that they are related to Jesus, except through Noah and ultimately, Adam. The people currently living in Bethlehem are not Jewish, let alone offspring of Jesus’ brothers and sisters. They are not ethnically related, and since Jesus and the rest of his family spent most of their lives about 85 miles north in Nazareth, the possibility of descent is extremely remote, if not totally impossible.
And the current political and cultural climate in that area also makes it improbable that anyone of Jewish descent resides there. That argument was totally baseless and spurious.
The reason this trails the original publication of the comments by three weeks or so, is that I consulted with Jewish scholars to confirm the reasoning against the second prong of the putative persuasion. That was that the Messiah will establish a kingdom and the Jews should not do so until He arrives. The first part of the argument is valid. The second part is not. Messiah will establish a kingdom that will last for 1000 years. There is not prohibition against the Jews organizing into a nation in the meantime.
The scholar, a Jewish descendant himself, did agree that a very small, limited, extremely conservative circle have held that position opposing any nationhood over the years. But there is no chapter and verse in the Torah or the entire Old Testament that supports such a position.
And, in fact, the kingdom established by Saul, later reinforced and expanded by David, and solidified by Solomon would have been in violation of any such an edict. There is no historical evidence for this position being exerted.
The bogus argument propounded in both papers was merely a political screed with the intent to discredit both the Jewish nation and the United States and their policies.
Recent archaeological finds have verified a Jewish presence in Jerusalem over 2700 years ago. Both international law and common sense supports the right of a nation to designate its own capital. Israel has done so, and the US, and now some other countries, have merely recognized what is fact. Finally.
We will not comment on the nationality or the religion of the residents of Bethlehem, but we can definitely rule out the claim that they are related to Jesus, except through Noah and ultimately, Adam. The people currently living in Bethlehem are not Jewish, let alone offspring of Jesus’ brothers and sisters. They are not ethnically related, and since Jesus and the rest of his family spent most of their lives about 85 miles north in Nazareth, the possibility of descent is extremely remote, if not totally impossible.
And the current political and cultural climate in that area also makes it improbable that anyone of Jewish descent resides there. That argument was totally baseless and spurious.
The reason this trails the original publication of the comments by three weeks or so, is that I consulted with Jewish scholars to confirm the reasoning against the second prong of the putative persuasion. That was that the Messiah will establish a kingdom and the Jews should not do so until He arrives. The first part of the argument is valid. The second part is not. Messiah will establish a kingdom that will last for 1000 years. There is not prohibition against the Jews organizing into a nation in the meantime.
The scholar, a Jewish descendant himself, did agree that a very small, limited, extremely conservative circle have held that position opposing any nationhood over the years. But there is no chapter and verse in the Torah or the entire Old Testament that supports such a position.
And, in fact, the kingdom established by Saul, later reinforced and expanded by David, and solidified by Solomon would have been in violation of any such an edict. There is no historical evidence for this position being exerted.
The bogus argument propounded in both papers was merely a political screed with the intent to discredit both the Jewish nation and the United States and their policies.
Recent archaeological finds have verified a Jewish presence in Jerusalem over 2700 years ago. Both international law and common sense supports the right of a nation to designate its own capital. Israel has done so, and the US, and now some other countries, have merely recognized what is fact. Finally.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)