Wonderful Matters

Now is the time when Christmas things occupy everyone's attention in some measure. No matter how extremely anti-Christian-things one is, he or she cannot avoid noting the difference in the way things are in December. Even as much as a lot of that Christmasy stuff is driven by those wholly given over to Roman Catholic commitment, it still does direct the observer to one single truth: That God entered our realm of existence as a man with one single purpose. He was to die in order to shed His blood as the one single sacrifice that would cleanse us of our sin and rescue us from the grip of death. How much of a contrast that was to the signing ceremony the president of the United States held yesterday, when he enacted into law the rescinding of the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy of keeping an individual's proclaimed and presumed homosexuality from affecting military activity. Apparently the administration and defense department will work out how it will work

So, exactly what are you going to do with the information that was recently published on WikiLeaks? You know what I'm talking about. The information that reveals the United States uses strongarm tactics in its diplomatic efforts. That it uses what is effectively subversive espionage to engage other nations. That it is wholly devious and underhanded in its strategy to gain the upper hand in all negotiations relating to the interest of maintaining stalwart national security. Are you a Chicken Little who's screeching that the sky is falling? Are you a timid traveler on the Yellow Brick Road bleating "Lions and tigers and bears oh my!"? Are you dutifully rivited to the World's megaphone holders who are either soaked in denial, steeped in rationalization, or immersed in arrogance spouting some plap about being above it all? Some may say those who cheer on the WikiLeakers represent a second kind of person, one who proudly bellows "I knew it all along, those p

So what is it? Should we have severe government regulation to help things out or not? Should we let the free market be truly free when all it wants to do is be greedy and selfish and evil? What is it? What is it? What is it? You can actually find the answer. It is in the Bible. Thing is you gotta actually look in it . You can't just listen to the people who say they know what it says. That's a trick the Catholic Church has used for eons to keep their people ignorant. Sure the Protestant Reformation was supposedly the thing that enlightened us all, but the sad fact is many good wholesome Protestant churches have so thoroughly made themselves Roman Catholic again that they still hope people will only listen to those guys bellowing from the pulpits. By all means, don't even listen to me. That's cool. But here's one guy I really like to read because he is so much fun. His name is Bill Frezza, and he's a financial advisor guy of some stripe. Recently he wrote

I use this blog to write a lot about what I see going on in the World around and hope to do a decent job of articulating how much more wonderful the Kingdom is. But tonight I simply have to get into the official open record a truly wonderful matter I've been waiting forty years for. It is simply this. My favorite major league baseball team, the San Francisco Giants, are indeed WORLD CHAMPIONS. I can't even believe I'm writing those very words, but I can officially, fully, completely, and truthfully write in great big superfont capital letters WORLD CHAMPION SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS. I'm not going to go into all the splendid thrills of rooting for this team, nor detail the incessantly turgid of despair waiting for our team to finally get a ring, or as my good friend and I have always said, to do the dance on the mound. (And for those who'd say the Giants already have world championships, those were in New York. Just not the same.) I just want to share with

Last night I was contemplating the blog post I had from yesterday as I sometimes do, and I realized I'd made a logical misstep through my writing that I had not intended. I'm committed to only making minor clarifications in any edit of a previous blog post, and I thought it would be best just to add a note about the nature of that misstep. It will serve the purpose of making the post more meaningful, ironically in the sense that it was all about how much people plainly revile what is truly meaningful. But hey, in Christ -- it's all good. I'd first written that for anyone to truly understand what really is going on when the large financial institutions announce they're closing their proprietary trading desks -- which, by the way, are those parts of the company that trade on their own profits for their own personal gain -- they'd have to be in one of the three groups. The intimation is that if you aren't in one of the groups, then you just wouldn't get i

I happened to catch a nice piece by Michael Lewis , you know, the guy who has written all kinds of books cutting right to what's going on in finance these days. It is a scathing exposition about what's really going on with the big institutions, but it only has meaning in light of three different perspectives. One, you are one of the extractors he's showcasing and you're perfectly happy without truly understanding how hosed you are. Lewis brings up the possibility that there are fewer and fewer victims, but I really don't think so (and neither does Lewis). This is merely because the victims themselves are exploiter wanna-be's and can't stop salivating in their drive to be in tight with another Goldman Sachs. Two, you are one of the regulators who gets paid big bucks to crack heads in this environment, and make no mistake, Lewis is a regulator. The media feed like sharks at a chum feast on all of this, and Lewis is just taking his highly regarded spot at t

Yesterday I blogged about something I've addressed before, the idea that people are worthless left to their own benighted devices. I know this isn't the most ingratiating thing someone could ever say, but it is about the most truthful thing there is. Dead people are pretty worthless. Sure, just about everyone who has the teenchiest thought that they are anybody would protest, or even further completely dismiss such a truth. After writing yesterday I had a few more thoughts I'd like to splash in here to clarify, and merely point out that what I do is simply highlight the abject silliness of World activity and let it do the talking. One way the rank deception persists comes from what hundreds of church pastors are planning to do tomorrow, Sunday the 26th. It is apparently "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," when they will all stand up on their respective soapboxes and boldly shout about who their congregants should vote for, mostly with the intention of irritating the IRS

A confluence of ideas and considerations is slowly blending together in my mind, the full picture of which seems to be pointing to more clear evidence of the human sacrifice practices that consume the behavior of World inhabitants. It certainly is the genesis of a home page piece in the future, but for now it is just something to splatter in a blog post. When I see that standard axiom "You can't expect people to be persistently deceived," I treat that with great skepticism. People are constantly deceived about the fact that human sacrifice still thrives on a regular basis by everyone without Christ, and the law is merely in place to keep it all from getting too nasty looking. People are effervescently deceived about the fact that only Christ frees from that body of death and that all the remonstrating about government-this and government-that are simply declarations that the law is wholly required for them to keep human sacrifice behavior from appearing too uncouth. A

Since I'm here on my blog site pounding out posts for my Chiefs blog and my NASCAR blog, I should really just add a note that I'd written my home page piece for September-October. I was really working over some striking note I could make to introduce it to you, and I do have some good ones in mind, but they'll take time to flesh out. I'll still work at it, but for now, I just want to share with you that it's up and going. As usual I'd love to know what you think. I laid out some thoughts about what Christians in the United States characteristically do in their behavior when it comes to government and politics. With the very eloquent help from Tupper Saussy I think it's pretty solid, but please. I never want to be presumptuous. Give me your take. And yes, Tupper's very telling considerations do make an appearance. You'll see at the webzine.

I never watch golf, but lately my son and I have been getting into playing the game a bit. He'd received golf lessons from his grandmother as a birthday gift, and all he wants to do now is hit the links. Anyway, we were watching the very end of the PGA Championship on Sunday, and it was very intense as a number of players were fighting to end up on top of the leaderboard when it was all over. One of them, Dustin Johnson, had hit a ball into the gallery, and after everyone had moved out of the way he whacked it down the course for a shot at the title. Turns out he grounded his club in what was actually a certifiable bunker, and apparently the rules explicitly state you cannot ground your club there. Again, a total beginner with all this golf stuff, I had no idea what they were all talking about, but hey. A rule is a rule . It wasn't as much that the actual grounding was very slight, but that where he was addressing the ball didn't look like a bunker at all. A televis

It was announced today that a federal judge dismissed California's constitutional prohibition against same-sex marriage, and today a lot of people wanted to talk about it. It is so juicy because it is one of the more prominent battles in the incessantly raging Culture War, but most of what I hear being said is woefully uninformed, naive, or flatly foolish. For two people to engage in a homosexual act is just as execrable as two people married to others having intercourse, or a person and a sheep committing bestiality, or any number of other sexually immoral activities. In that sense, then it makes perfect sense for the law to step in and regulate these behaviors, most notably for our day, homosexual acts. After all, as it says in the first letter of Paul to Timothy, "that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts,

In my last post I shared some thoughts about the answer to the question, "Who owns you?" There are indeed a variety of answers to the question, but really only two that the World offers. Those two answers are so important to know because in many ways they are the fuel for the Culture War. Those two answers again are, "I own me" and "Others own some of me." I thought I'd elaborate a bit on the extent to which government is involved in the mix, and there is just as much confusion about government as there is about the question. The libertarian naturally has great disdain for government, yet even the most liberated individual utilizes the services of other individuals in some way. Because people are very prone to rotten behavior, that "transfer" of said services must be administered by government in some form. The classic error of libertarianism is the failure to accurately assess the degree of evildoing within each individual. The utilit

I caught a lecture by a Harvard professor on one of those obscure suburban PBS stations last night in a series called Justice . The TV listings blurb said it was about Robert Nozick, so I was a bit interested. The professor was extraordinarily boring, but to his credit most college profs are. The gargantuan lecture hall, however, was packed with bright-eyed youngsters, all of them certainly the brilliant quite-recently-departed-from high school students from around the nation who squeezed their way into this fine institution of higher learning with A+'s in everything except Calculus G/H. The sad part is that everything the prof said was the most rudimentary political science stuff and everything the students shared in response was nothing beyond the typically elementary philosophical brain farts. But hey, everyone needs to take Poli Sci 101. I wanted to bring up the core question addressed, and that was "Who owns you?" The prof set this up by speaking about the utilitar

Last Monday I was struck by two pieces in the news/opinion aggregator I frequent. They weren't unusual by any means, but the topics are ones that are not addressed much. Each shared pretty amazing observations that few take seriously (which is precisely why they continue to periodically show up in some form), and they were from writers who are both very renowned in the financial punditry world. But because they are beholden to World operatives, neither could share anything close to the answer to the problems they elucidate. Or I should say, as always,  Anyone who is the answer. The first was from Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post , and the title of his piece pretty much says everything: "We may be reaching the limits of economics." I like Robert Samuelson because he has lots of comprehensible and quite striking numbers to illustrate how much human sacrifice is actually going on out there. Oh, he certainly won't let on that it is indeed human sacrifice. His

Every once in a while I get a message from someone who is intrested in knowing more about what it means to be an ungrafted church. They've caught my webzine, most likely the "501c3 Q & A" page, and have more questions or are simply concerned about being incorporated. As I thought, I wondered, how many such people look at my blog to see what kinds of things I'm saying about being ungrafted? And are they trying to get cues from the many times I've gone out and consulted people about what it takes to move on establishing a vibrant assembly that is not tied to Caesar? And then I thought, hmm. They aren't going to find any such scintillating narratives here. Not that I don't want to fill this blog with them. I do. It is just They aren't happening. I have indeed offered my services to do some consulting about these matters, but no one has requested them. That is likely because very few see that I'm here. But I think the main reason is more ha

I blog because I really think I have something to say. Right now I know not a whole lot of people read this. I still write for a number of reasons. Maybe someone will come across it. At some point in the future my children may actually read some of this and think deeply about what their dad was about, what he was thinking and feeling. And I do this simply to "put on paper" what God has shared with me. "Share all good things with your instructor." I like that a lot. Here I may do that. My last two blog entries were simply about things I want. Yes, call me selfish, but I don't think for a second God didn't put deep passionate acquisitiveness into each of us for a reason. After living many years in the World, I found its treasures profoundly lacking. What is still a bit amazing to me is how well the World fools people into thinking its things are the things to acquire. Oh I understand it. I understand why it does that, and I see at least a little bit of how i

In my last blog entry I kind of went off on rank disunderstanding, if I may coin a phrase. Just thought I'd add a few more thoughts around the visceral feeling about it all. Yeah, I know. It was yet another time I laid it out there. My good friend from work with whom I pray is a very even-tempered guy, he's awesome. He said don't sweat it, God's got it, it's all good. That's fine. I know. But I still feel it. Today in the news/opinion aggregator that I habitually scan were these link headlines. "What If It's All a Lie?" This was from blogger Edward Harrison, who is himself a financal advisor of some stripe. But look at that question. It actually makes me laugh. I mean, come on, how many times can you say "This guy/company/country just ain't payin' us back... um, aren't they?..." without actually getting a clue. 'Scuze me, I've got the answer to your question . I'm no genius because it's the answer that

I really wish I could blog more. I work ten hour days and spend lots of the other time I have with family. 'Course I really wish for a lot of things, like mixing it up with people who actually understand. Not to brag that I'm the one who does understand necessarily, or even that they'd read my blog. That's kind of the point. I do very very very much wish I could talk with people who get it -- I just want to be getting it. Thing is, paying attention to Jesus' words, you'd get it. When I pay attention to Jesus' words I get it. Paying attention to Jesus' words and seriously getting out there and doing them, I already have the answer. That may sound arrogant, but as I've emphasized, it ain't me for jack. It's Him. Know Him and know the answer. Don't know Him? Don't spout about how much He isn't or that I don't know the answer. It only means anything if someone else whoever that is gets it and knows Him and understands.

I went with my family to see the film How to Train Your Dragon the other night. It was fun, and worth a couple of remarks to introduce my latest home page piece . Much of it was about the idea that people can make mistakes about things based on their preconceptions. Vicious flying dragons frequently "raided" the vikings' village, but the vikings didn't understand the reality of their predicament. They honestly considered the dragons evil combatants, until a young man discovered what was really going on and learned how to benevolently interact with them. This theme is often repeated in cinema, and it parallels my latest webzine feature. People honestly trust the Roman Catholic Church to save them, really honestly rationally because all they see is the World System in all its glory. There are too few Kingdom people out there to share Christ with them because so many who say they're Christ's are tied to one World god club or another. I also thought about h

Last night PBS’s Nova had a broadcast titled “Mind over Money” about the ways psychology affects economic decision-making. It was a standard World take on the latest in behavioral economics, namely that there is really no such thing as a rational market. The typical proponents of this view were favorably interviewed, Robert Shiller and Richard Thaler among them, stridently advancing the idea that emotions play such an important role in decision-making that few people are truly rational about the decisions they make. This is all played out in the market, and with the financial markets recently demonstrating how hosed people got, it must be true. Nah. Sorry. Everything anyone does is always and perfectly rational, every time. The reason is simple, and has a bit to do with a portion of the show that featured a scientist doing experiments to graphically see how much of a certain part of the brain is activiated when a subject is offered money. It turns out it is stimulated the

The biggest news on Wall Street is that the Securities and Exchange Commission is coming after Goldman Sachs. They've been hit with fraud charges, so significant that today the Dow took its first hit in a while. Everyone who watches what's going on there at street level isn't surprised that Goldman Sachs is in the crosshairs, and some are a bit surprised that the SEC is actually standing up and pointing its shaky finger at the behemouth. Slate writer Heidi Moore got through a manhole and looked around a bit underneath the street, and saw some very interesting things. Among all the stories in the web aggregate I look at, my attention was drawn to her piece: "It's Not Just Goldman--It's the Clients." Sure enough, you'll find that all of our huffing and puffing about rich guys being eeevil is woefully misplaced. We need to do a lot more huffing and puffing about Ourselves . The fault, dear Brutus, lies with ourselves. Wait, I'm getting ahead o

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission is holding hearings this week and whenever, calling all sorts of really official finance officials to the table to 'splain themselves. Today's featured showman was Daniel Mudd, at the helm of Fannie Mae when she started sinking. (Fortunately just before she went completely under, millions of taxpayers with buckets started bailing feverishly to get her back into fine sailing form.) He said something interesting today, I think. He said that if Fannie Mae were allowed to diversify, they'd have been better off. Now, what precisely does this mean? Please, do enlighten me, I want to get it straight. Tell me if I'm wrong, please, I mean it, I invite your comments. But does this not mean that if Fannie Mae were able to suck the blood from other sources, they'd have been able to cover their asses when the blood they'd been sucking from home mortgages ran dry? After all, they were required by law apparently to have "all t