for christians only (orthodox, catholic, evangelical)

If you consider yourself devoted to Christ, please watch the following short video:

   

Please consider signing the Manhattan Declaration after reading more:

http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/index.html#1

Thank you,
RB

unacceptable! obama's accommodation compromises religious liberty

The official position of the Bishops’ Conference signals that no compromise concerning the HHS preventive care mandate could succeed. It is not the government's role to define or limit the mission of a church or any other religious organization:

Unacceptable

February 27, 2012

The Obama administration has offered what it has styled as an accommodation for religious institutions in the dispute over the HHS mandate for coverage (without costsharing) of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover (cost free) these same products and services.Once a religiously-affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that theterms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things.

This so-called accommodation changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy. It iscertainly no compromise. The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance thatcovered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust. Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.

It is no answer to respond that the religious employers are not paying for this aspect of the insurance coverage. For one thing, it is unrealistic to suggest that insurance companies will notpass the costs of these additional services on to the purchasers. More importantly, abortion drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives are a necessary feature of the policy purchased by the religious institution or believing individual. They will only be made available to those who are insured under such policy, by virtue of the terms of the policy.

It is morally obtuse for the administration to suggest (as it does) that this is a meaningful accommodation of religious liberty because the insurance company will be the one to inform theemployee that she is entitled to the embryo-destroying ―five day after pill pursuant to the insurance contract purchased by the religious employer. It does not matter who explains theterms of the policy purchased by the religiously affiliated or observant employer. What matters is what services the policy covers.

The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization. This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand.

It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept an assault ontheir religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick. Finally, it bears noting that by sustaining the original narrow exemptions for churches,auxiliaries, and religious orders, the administration has effectively admitted that the new policy T2 (like the old one) amounts to a grave infringement on religious liberty. The administration still fails to understand that institutions that employ and serve others of different or no faith are still engaged in a religious mission and, as such, enjoy the protections of the First Amendment.

[Followed by 42 pages of signatures]

Source:

www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Unacceptable-2-27-11am2.pdf

ron paul and michele bachmann are marginal candidates

Jon Stewart and others have wondered why the media is ignoring Ron Paul. It is easy. He is a very marginal candidate with little chance of being nominated. Michele Bachmann is only marginally better as a marginal candidate.

This is not my opinion. It is in the polls and it is what the smart money is saying.

Check the Real Clear Politics poll summary shown above (click image to enlarge). Even though Bachmann is getting all the press, she is way down in the polls at 9.6%, way behind Romney (20.2%) and Perry (18.4%) and even trailing non-candidate Sarah Palin (10.0%). Bachmann is barely ahead of non-candidate Rudy Giuliani (9.3) and the rightfully overlooked Ron Paul (8.8). Ron Paul's support has been in single digits, steady, and not growing. Not a good trend. These folks are the minor candidates with Bachmann at best being the pick of a bad litter.

I do not pay much attention to political polls. If I want a good gauge of what is likely to happen, I go to the prediction markets. These markets are forward looking, in that they show what people bet will happen rather than looking backward to what potential voters were thinking last week. In prediction markets, people are putting their money where their mouths are, rather than just answering the phone and giving their opinion. Prediction polls have a much better track record of predicting outcomes than public opinion polls.

The smart money has Bachmann and Paul as even bigger losers. The bets at Intrade.com predict Perry has a 35.3% chance of winning the nomination with Romney following closely at 31.0%. Sarah Palin is a very distant third at 7.6%. Jon Huntsman is fourth at 5.8% followed closely by Bachmann at 5.3% Where's Ron Paul? At a lowly 4.0% and in sixth place.

You think your know better? Then put your money where your mouth is. If you are so smart then you can make a profit, but only if you are right.

integrity of the scripture: is what we have now, what they wrote then?

I love reasoning tested by evidence. I guess it is part of my training as an economist. That is why I love the following 48 min. video of a lecture by Daniel B. Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary. He is one of the world's leading experts on NT textual studies -- trying to figure which, if any, of the current NT writings are accurate.

This lecture was presented to a lay audience so even I could understand it!

Guest Speaker :: Daniel Wallace from Antioch Church on Vimeo.

not nostalgic for jesus

If you could travel back through time and could visit one historical person, who would that person be? If you are a Christian, you would be expected to say Jesus. As a believer, what historical figure could be more important?

Personally, I would not want to go back in time to be with Jesus. I also think I have Scripture on my side in not wanting to go back to be with him.

[Okay. I think it would be really cool to go back and witness the Resurrection on that first Easter morning. But that would be merely a form of historical tourism. However, I would not want to stay there. I really don’t wish to go back to be with Jesus.]

Think of those who were with Jesus before the Accession, before he in his glorified physical body went to heaven (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9). Those who were closest to him, those who walked with him, they celebrated. Even after they came down from the adrenaline rush of witnessing Jesus disappearing in the clouds, they never looked back.

Something I find interesting is that there is no record of Jesus’ disciplines pining for the time they spent with Jesus in the flesh. Not even a hint of it in any NT writings. In John’s first epistle he starts out by recounting that he heard, saw, and even touched Jesus in the flesh (1 John 1:1-3) but this is just a statement of fact. A witness to something experienced, not something yearned for. Yet John was the apostle closest to Jesus, “the one whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). If anyone would have missed Jesus, it would have been John. Neither John nor anyone else seems to have been nostalgic about having been with Jesus.

Why didn’t they miss the good old days with Jesus? Because they had something better after Jesus ascended. At least they did after a ten-day wait for Pentecost (Acts 2:4). They had the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is better than physically being with Jesus? That is an idea that is very strange to most Christians. This is despite many having read of Jesus actually telling his disciples that it was to their benefit that he leave so that the Holy Spirit could come (John 16:7). What most folks now experience does not seem to come close to being better.

This disconnect between the Word of God and our personal experience is something that should be quite disturbing. Was Jesus lying? Maybe he was hyping the coming of the Holy Spirit so that his leaving earth would be more palatable for his friends and disciples? Jesus isn't supposed to lie so maybe the whole thing is all a lie then?

Maybe these promises were for the first century only and have ceased? Some Christians cite 1 Corinthians 13:8 to support this explanation. However, this only makes sense if the verse is taken out of context. There is nothing in Scripture to indicate the promises of God concerning the Holy Spirit have expired and are not valid anymore.

Rather than something being wrong with Jesus, or that his promises had an expiration date, an alternative explanation may be that that we are missing out. If we are not experiencing what the Bible promises then maybe we are missing out on something God has for us that is really big and incredible? Maybe our expectations for God are much less than what He wants for us? Maybe we should start seeking His gifts?

There are numerous verses concerning the Holy Spirit in NT writings which promise joy, comfort, wisdom, knowledge, personal transformation and more. They are too numerous, or rather I am too lazy, to mention or even cite. There are examples in these writings of people realizing these promises. The historical record since is also replete with such examples.

Maybe we should search the Scriptures for those promises and to seek something better?

Maybe it is time to dump the nostalgia? The good-old days with Jesus may have indeed been good, but they are not supposed to be better. I am grateful for what I have, but if there is more, then I want it. Come Holy Spirit. Come.

Be Blessed!
RB

magic is no blowhard

The usual "analysis" on sports shows includes a lot of yelling and opinions, almost all of it negative. All heat and little light, analogous to blue flame of flatulence ignition.

I watched this ESPN post-game "analysis" of the Mavs winning the NBA championship. It has the usual blowhards looking for someone to blame and put down (as if that takes any analysis). However, Magic Johnson is not the usual ESPN, loud-mouthed blowhard. He actually analyzes what went wrong and offers constructive advice as to how the Heat and James can move forward.

BTW, the Dallas head coach is a North Country boy! Rick Carlisle hails from from Lisbon, New York.

make plans for shakespeare in october@slu

American Shakespeare Center

2011-2012 Almost Blasphemy Tour

SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCES

All performances at 7:30 p.m. except where otherwise noted

VENUE: Eben Holden Hall @ SLU

Monday, October 24– The Winter’s Tale

Tuesday, October 25 – A Midsummer Night’s Dream

Wednesday, October 26 - ‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore

(Thursday – day off)

Friday, October 28 – A Midsummer Night’s Dream

Friday, October 28/29 – ‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore – MIDNIGHT

Saturday, October 29 – The Winter’s Tale

Sunday, October 30 – A Midsummer Night’s Dream – 1:30 p.m. Matinee

driving while female

Just just coincidence? From Wronging Rights:

Re-ignition of protests against the female driving ban in Saudia Arabia occurs right around the same time as the re-ignition of a certain Summer blockbuster series. Will the history books cite the Arab Spring or Diesel Summer as inspiration?

When viewing note the gender inclusiveness of vehicle operation:

The 20% female participation rate is radically high by Saudi standards!

the economy sucks -- get used to it

The 2012 elections are on the way and the economy will be the big issue. Economics and politics do not mix very well. I take that back; they mix too well. However, what you usually get is a concoction sort of like bad bathtub gin. It feels good but rots your brain.

So what’s going on?

1. The recession is over and the economy is recovering slowly;
2. We’re still in a slump;
3. There’s not much government can do right now to get positive results in the next year or so.

On Tuesday, Federal Reserve System (Fed) Chair Ben Bernanke made a speech stating the obvious and restating the above:

1. “Overall, the economic recovery appears to be continuing at a moderate pace, albeit at a rate that is…frustratingly slow;”
2. “the economy is still producing at levels well below its potential;”
3. “In this context, monetary policy cannot be a panacea.”

Translation: Things still suck and the Fed can’t do anything about it.

This should not have been a surprise to anyone who remembers a little undergraduate macroeconomics and who has been paying attention. Monetary policy works by lowering interest rates to stimulate spending. The problem is that interest rates cannot be pushed much lower by monetary policy. Interest rates do not go below zero. (Like a banker is going to offer to lend $100 and only want to be repaid $98?) There is nothing the Fed can do to stimulate the economy.

(BTW, I found it interesting that the stock market declined Tuesday afternoon on news of Bernanke stating the obvious. The market has since gone back up. In the meantime, some traders needed only a little bit of knowledge to make a quick buck.)

Okay, monetary policy is out and the Fed is benched. Should we try fiscal policy? Time to bring in the President and Congress and see what they can do?

The usual principles-of-economics fiscal policy prescription is to cut taxes to increase household and business spending and/or increase government spending. Economists disagree on the efficacy of this policy and it is controversial. However, let's assume for the sake of argument that the theory behind the policy is correct. Go with me on this.

We've been there, tried that, screwed it up, and don't have another shot at it.

The Obama fiscal stimulus plan of 2009 attempted to implement the policy noted above. Martin Feldstein, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Reagan administration, is also an adherent to the basic model underlying the fiscal policy prescription. In yesterday's Wall Street Journal (June 8, 2011, p. A15), Feldstein outlined how the 2009 stimulus plan mucked the whole thing up:

The administration's most obvious failure was its misguided fiscal policies: the cash-for-clunkers subsidy for car buyers, the tax credit for first-time home buyers, and the $830 billion "stimulus" package. Cash-for-clunkers gave a temporary boost to motor-vehicle production but had no lasting impact on the economy. The home-buyer credit stimulated the demand for homes only temporarily.

As for the "stimulus" package, both its size and structure were inadequate to offset the enormous decline in aggregate demand. The fall in household wealth by the end of 2008 reduced the annual level of consumer spending by more than $500 billion. The drop in home building subtracted another $200 billion from GDP. The total GDP shortfall was therefore more than $700 billion. The Obama stimulus package that started at less than $300 billion in 2009 and reached a maximum of $400 billion in 2010 wouldn't have been big enough to fill the $700 billion annual GDP gap even if every dollar of the stimulus raised GDP by a dollar.

In fact, each dollar of extra deficit added much less than a dollar to GDP. Experience shows that the most cost-effective form of temporary fiscal stimulus is direct government spending. The most obvious way to achieve that in 2009 was to repair and replace the military equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan that would otherwise have to be done in the future. But the Obama stimulus had nothing for the Defense Department. Instead, President Obama allowed the Democratic leadership in Congress to design a hodgepodge package of transfers to state and local governments, increased transfers to individuals, temporary tax cuts for lower-income taxpayers, etc. So we got a bigger deficit without economic growth.

If I may add to this critique, Obama had no real plan for spending. He handed over the spending decisions to Speaker Pelosi and Congress went on a spending orgy, targeting pet projects rather than targeting those things most likely to stimulate the economy. We could have had more bang for the buck.

2009 was our one big chance to use expansionary fiscal policy. Any further tax cuts or increases in government spending will increase the deficit. "The national debt has jumped to 69% of GDP this year, from 40% in 2008. It is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to reach more than 85% by the end of the decade, and to keep rising after that" (ibid.). Expansionary fiscal policy was mucked up. Now with the national debt levels so high with S&P and Moody's threatening to downgrade the ratings for U.S. government bonds, we can't do it again.

What is needed is a credible plan to reduce government deficits. This would reduce uncertainty about the future and help economic growth over the long haul. However, despite a reduction in uncertainty, these polices will still reduce spending in the aggregate and won't help the economy recover in 2012. They are needed over the long haul but they are no quick fix.

There will be the usual snake-oil-salesman politicians and pundits who will promise a quick fix. Even if the policy is good, don't be conned into expecting good results immediately.

Be blessed.
RB

reviewing books

After clearing out my files and storing records, I ended my spring semester. This past week I have determined to do nothing productive. That is, take a vacation of sorts. What I like to do when doing nothing is read. I have quite a backlog of titles, mostly gifts, that I haven't had time for in the past year.

I started with Niall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World. Despite its grandiose title, it is accessible to the general reader and written in an interesting fashion. If you could read only one book on the financial/banking crisis, this would be the one. It takes the reader by the hand from the beginning of modern financial markets less than four hundred years ago to the present, explaining how financial markets are inherently unstable. By the end you are not too surprised but still impressed by what happened in the past few years.

After this I purposed to stay away from anything having to do with economics. After all, I am on vacation. I started a recommended Indian (South Asian) novel, which will remain nameless. I read one hundred pages before I gave up. If it hasn't got you by then it is unlikely to ever do so. My wife also had a similar reaction. However if you want a real page-turner of an Indian novel, try Rohinton Mistry's A Fine Balance (an Oprah's Book Club selection).

On Thursday I grabbed off the shelf an unread book given as a gift, Robert Moore's On Hallowed Ground: The Story of Arlington National Cemetery. A great read and I didn't even realize when I started that I'd be finishing it over the Memorial Day weekend!

I'm about to pick up another given-some-time-ago-as-a-gift-but-still-unread book. I'll let you know how it goes.

Be blessed!
RB

P.S. Tired of reading, last night we watched a very good film, End of the Spear. It is available on Netflix, DVD and on hulu.com.