Search This Blog

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Wall Street: Washington's money launderer

    Money laundering is process of taking illegal money (such as money from selling illegal drugs or extortion) and making it look "legal" by putting dirty money through
an investor and then taking the clean money out later through a check or money transfer.  Many methods exist to do this from: structuring (breaking cash up into smaller deposits), investments (cash based businesses like parking garages, strip clubs and casinos), round-tripping, and using shell-companies.  To make this process work it usually takes a secondary partner who is willing to look the other way because they will benefit from the transaction as well (usually in the form of a small kick back). The partner usually has a legitimate business which has a large cash supply in which the illegal money can be mixed up into and therefore difficult for the government to distinguish the good money from the bad. 

    You can say that this is what our politicians are doing as well in Washington DC through the banks and Wall Street.   While DC is not selling drugs (though many of them seem to be using a lot of drugs) they are using a similar process to hide their real activities from the American public.

   How Washington DC launders its money

   First of all you must understand that our government cannot print money directly and use it by
itself  (imagine how bad things would be if they did).  This is because  the Treasury uses the Federal Reserve to do its printing.  The government can issue bonds that can be sold which then the Federal reserve can use to order the printing of more money but that is all.  However, the Federal Reserve has been using a new system call Quantitative Easing (QE) to give the banks more "electronic" money (no printing needed at all) by going into their accounts and changing reserve amounts.  So far over 2 Trillion dollars has been distributed thus far to the banks since 2009 in this manner. The banks then can tap into these new found funds and invest the money on Wall Street.   This flood of new money is what is responsible for the NYSE reaching all time highs even though most of the news on street is not all that good.   When these short-term investments are later cashed in by the banks, the money is taxed by the IRS and the money finds itself in the governments pockets.   In this way, the "dirty" electronic money distributed by QE is washed and put back in the governments pockets as clean tax money for them to spend on their endless welfare and government programs.

    Wall Street, therefore, acts as Washington's money launderer and everyone benefits from the scheme except us the average citizen as we see our dollars we've saved destroyed by inflation.


Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Science catching up with .... the Bible?

   Sometimes you hear stories about scientists arguing over who "discovered what and when" to claim ownership of the discovery.  While the Bible is not intended to be a science textbook, often it shows us many of these "discoveries" are already made known to us through it.  One example of this I like to use is Einstein's law of relativity in which "time" flows at different rates for different observers.   Until the turn of the 1900's common scientific thought was that time moved at the same rate no matter what speed you moved at.  It made sense.  Why should a clock run slower or faster for a person who is moving or stationary?   But given the fact that light (an electromagnetic wave) propagates through a vacuum and therefore there is no "physical medium" in which the wave is transferred meant that all observers of the wave must measure the exact same speed.   For years scientists convinced themselves this could not be and searched endlessly for an invisible medium call "ether" that inhabited this invisible vacuous void.   After many experiments none could be found and Einstein (a Jew) resolved the problem by saying time must be measured differently so all observers measure the speed of light to be 186,000 miles/sec.  Could Einstein have recalled Psalm 90:4
A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
Also St. Peter writes in 2 Peter 3:8 (Einstein would not have read this but I add it anyway)
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
So even the Bible as ancient as it is shows that time is NOT observed the same by everyone (especially by God) and that time is relative.


    While some view Genesis as anti-science, I see it as an example of how God's wisdom precedes our own wisdom in how the universe began.   To do this, first you must look at Genesis from the view point of a person who has no scientific knowledge (early man) and also a very limited vocabulary (counting may have been limited to 1-10 and no words to describe complex environments).  Given that I will show you that Genesis is NOT anti-science at all when examined and science lags its interpretation.

Note: The reason creation is often so attacked by non-believers is that by casting "doubt" about the first chapter of the Bible you therefore cast doubt on all subsequent chapters and books as well.  The premise is that if God "lied" about creation.. then everything else could be a "lie" as well.  It is not the story of creation that they wish to eviscerate, but the whole book they want to ignore.  I believe God never lied in the creation story but told it in such a way as to show his order, his strength, his truth and how special we are in a way that they could understand it best. 

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
     I always wondered about this verse and it puzzled me even as a child. How the earth is "formless
Earth in there ...somewhere
AND void"?    It's like saying it's there and yet...  NOT there.   Then later it says God was "hovering above the waters"... wait didn't it just say the earth was "formless and void"?  Where did the water come from?  It then occurred to me that "waters" is the only word the ancient Hebrews had for something that is there... yet NOT there.. like a gas or a plasma.  I was watching a TV show on the big bang and they talked about the universe when it was still a "singularity" and how it "had no real shape".   You could point at the singularity and say with certainty, "There's the earth!" as it would be in there somewhere (formless and void) and God can be outside this "water" to call it forth. 

Note: The Bible is the ONLY creation story that starts with NOTHING!  All other so-called   
           creation stories all start with "something" whether it be mud, water, or even fire and ice.

Genesis 1:3
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
     Ironically this is actually the first visible action of the Big Bang for, according to scientists, the only force that exists at the beginning is gravity and electromagnetic energy comes later.  Therefore as the universe expands in the beginning it expands faster than the speed of light until it reaches a point where its "cool enough" for electrons to be formed.  At that point this large accumulation of negatively charged ions (protons come later) repel each other (like charges repel) which such a magnificent force they create the largest electromagnetic wave (light) the universe will EVER "see".   Later as the universe cools further protons are formed and these combine with the electrons to form the most abundant element in the universe: Hydrogen.  When this happens the "glowing universe" begins to take shape and "light and dark are separated".

Genesis 1:6
And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

     Translating "water" to "plasma" or "dust-gas" we see God filtering or separating lighter elements from heavier elements (above and below).  This also happens in the early universe into 2 ways.  First in the creation of stars by the gathering of hydrogen into early stars which manufacture heavier elements (below) and lighter elements (above).  Secondly in the creation of our solar system as our dust-clouds of elements from older  starts separates into Sun, solid-planets, moons, gas-planets(Uranus,Neptune,Jupiter) and other material such as comets and asteroids.   
 Genesis 1:9
 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
    Here we see God now separating water on the earth from the land.  Interesting enough is that scientists now say that our earth initially had only 1 continent (a super-continent) called Pangaea which later broke up into the 7 continents we now have today due to plate tectonics. 

Genesis 1:11
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day
     Science also confirms that vegetation was the first form of life on the earth as their DNA is a simpler form and that the earliest type of plant life was most likely mold or yeast.   This was necessary to remove CO2 from atmosphere and produce the oxygen needed for more complex forms of life to use.

Genesis 1:14
And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
    Here some may say "Gotch-ya!" as this seems out of order with science as it has the sun being created later than plants.   However there are plants that can grow without sunlight (mold for example) and therefore it is possible for the sun to come later.  I often wonder whether or not when the earth is being formed around the sun (asteroids colliding to form planets etc..) that possible the sun had not reached a point of generating fusion energy yet (big help form planets... but not big enough to crush hydrogen into helium to make fusion ) such that planets are swirling around it but in the dark.  This would actually help solve one of sciences big mysteries as sunlight is actually detrimental to early life development.  This is because ultra-violet light DESTROYS amino-acids (they are fragile compounds) needed to form proteins and DNA/RNA.   If these are formed in the "dark" using the heat of the earths core to form them then it may be more likely to happen.  But this is just a hypothesis on my part.  

Genesis 1:20
And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
   Here we see God creating the first "living creature" in the sea.  This also, is confirmed by scientists that ocean life was most likely the first "life" on earth and "birds" could have evolved from bugs or fish "flying" out of the water.

Genesis 1:24
And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
    After the water is filled with creatures the next is the land animals.  This too is corroborated by biologists as many believe fish left the ocean to escape predators or find food.  Therefore land animals came after ocean dwellers.

Genesis 1:26
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 
    Finally we have man as the LAST creation.

    So I say to scientists today.... you didn't discover anything new... it was already written long ago and you are just catching up!

Monday, October 27, 2014

Will America ever have another "Reagan"?

    My son once asked me if I thought we would ever see a strong president like Ronald Reagan again.   After thinking about it for some time I said , "It's possible but not highly likely".   The reason I say this is that Presidents are not born that way... they are raised that way.   Reagan was a product of his environment and his education.   He was born in 1911 and saw the economic boom of the 1920's as well as the great depression.   He saw how good at could be and how bad it can get.  Reagan lived at a time when religion was still in high regard and citizenship was still taught in our schools and boys were taught what it meant to be a MAN.  For a Reagan to appear again he would need to survive a gauntlet of assaults.

Gauntlet level #1:  A socialist education system
   When Ronald Reagan was in school, schools still taught a love of country and a hard work ethic.  Children were taught to respect authority and adults and going to church was common place and even encouraged in schools.   Today's education system is more bent on  supporting a socialist ideology of "fairness" and making kids feel good about themselves.   Hard work has been replaced with "trying your best" and B's are the new C's.   For a new Reagan to make it past this level would require him to either attend a private school or be home-schooled.  Given that 90% of all children in the US go to public school that gives a 10% chance of getting past this first level.

Gauntlet level #2:  Hollywood's attack on men
     Watch old movies and compare them to today's movies.   Men were portrayed as strong, no nonsense types who were not afraid to punch a person who insulted them or their family.  Fathers were portrayed as honest, faithful and wise, but today they are all too often portrayed as stupid, womanizing and liars.  Just watch your average commercial where its hard to differentiate the men from the women.   Hollywood often lifts up the "Beta-Male" in their shows and commercials and that is the model our children are given.  Reagan's world was still an Alpha-Male dominated society and Reagan emulated those men in his presidency.  I still believe our boys hunger for that kind of strength but it will not be supplied to them in TV or Movies they watch.   But with our ever changing media Hollywood might not be able control this much longer as the next generating will be getting their input from a large variety of suppliers (mostly on-line streaming) and so there is hope this might change in the near future.

Gauntlet level #3:  Attack on marriage
    Like the saying goes: "Behind every successful man is a strong woman urging him on".  So also, Ronald Reagan would not be Ronald Reagan without Nancy Reagan beside him.   So much of our movies and television shows today portray marriage as a "game" with shows like "The Bachelor" , "The Bachelorette" and "Say Yes to the Dress"   and several other "reality" shows which reduce marriage to nothing more than a Prom-Night-On-Steriods.  Our kids are shown this unrealistic view of dating and what to look for in a man.   As mentioned in the previous section, most of these so-called "men" who are nothing more than "women who shave" and the "women" are nothing more than "low-cost-hookers" who have no self-respect.   Reagan lived at a time when marriage was about having children and raising a family and women were taught to look for qualities in a man that would benefit the raising of a family  (good job, hard working, respectful, honest, protective, intelligent).  Men like Ronald Reagan are made in the marriage process and given that the marriage rate is dropping in our country it will be harder in the future to get past this level.

Gauntlet level #4:  Attack on religion
    Ronald Reagan was a strongly avowed Christian from his youth.  He believed strongly in God and in Jesus Christ.  He was not afraid to make his beliefs known either.  Was he a saint?  No.  But his faith in God and his view that God rewards those who seek justice and truth allowed him to speak truth to acts of evil and call a spade a spade.  Faith gave him the audacity to tell Russia to "tear down this wall!" when no one around him would.   Our politically correct view of religion today were all religions are correct and fine does not provide the fertile spiritual soil to raise up a Reagan today.  When Reagan grew up, religion was honored in movies (for the most part) and good and evil were as different as black and white (rather than shades of grey).   Religious people today are often attacked when they speak up or run for office.  They are dismissed as either "too simple", "too narrow minded", "out dated", "out of touch" or even "racist".   In our world today religion is seen as drawback rather than as a help to many.    It's okay to mention God in a "general way" but don't ever say you draw strength from reading his word on a regular basis.   

Q: What will it take to make another Reagan?

A: Another great depression
    I know that is not an answer you will like to hear, but its the truth.  Like Reagan, we need to re-learn that we need to be self-sufficient. Only through a long economic depression will our children learn what really matters in a man.   Cuteness, sexiness,  sensitivity and how he looks in a speed-o will go out the window.  Men will have to grow up and fight to gain the woman they love.  Marriage will become about SURVIVAL and not about having someone to snuggle up to on rainy days.  Men will have to go back to manual labor to earn their keep and those with JOBS will be longed for by woman over girly-men or only sell insurance.   Men will learn to save their money again and not be fooled into thinking that our economy is "un-sinkable" and therefore throw their money away on every stupid technological toy that comes along just for the sake of having it.  And finally, men will learn to trust in God again and not themselves.

    Then a new Reagan will come along to lead us to a better future.

Friday, October 17, 2014

Economics, Football and Tom Brady

   I am always looking for microcosms to help explain complex ideas and there is no more complex topic than economics.   We need ways to get across to our young people how different economic systems work and don't work and why.

     Last week while watching my favorite team,The New England Patriots, I was intrigued to hear one of the TV announcers mention that Tom Brady doesn't throw to every receiver on the field.   They have to first EARN his trust before he throws the ball to them.  This trust is earned over times of practice by how hard they work and if they perform well on the field.  It was then that it occurred to me that competition on the football field not only occurs between the two teams, but also between the players on the SAME team.  Tom Brady uses this inter-team competition to help influence his players to improve their skills and become better players in the process.

    We could call Tom Brady's method the Capitalism Method of Football Management as he uses competition to improve his players and rewards "results" with more opportunities to show their skills. This helps not only the new players to work harder to earn his trust but it also helps his current "trusted" receivers to continue to work hard because they know that trust can be lost as quick as it can be earned.  This doesn't mean that Brady will stop throwing to Edellman if he drops one pass to him next Sunday, but it does mean that if he drops a long series of passes to him, Tom may be looking to one of his other receivers.   The reason for this is that each dropped pass is like a $1000 dollar thrown down the toilet.  Tom needs to make sure as many passes "count" for them to win their games.  So also companies, like Tom Brady, want to maximize the money they spend.  By using inter-company competition managers insure that their workers are bettering their skills and workers that have earned their trust are rewarded with more opportunities to show their worth to the company.  Giving larger amounts of money (and responsibility) to workers who have earned it insures that less money has the possibility of being lost or wasted.

     Are there other ways for QB's to decide who to throw to? 

     Of course!

     Another way would be for the QB to throw to his friends and those guys he likes to be with.  Call this the Fascist Method.   Tom could throw lavish parties and invite his receivers to these parties.  The ones who show up the most and cozy up to Tom at them and make his parties the most enjoyable would be rewarded the most during the game.  While this doesn't happen at the NFL level (at least not very often), it does happen at the high school level.  The game no longer becomes about winning and losing but instead about who's more popular.   This method is by far the worst method as it doesn't sensitivities the good players or the bad players to do better at receiving as that is not the method used to measure the receiver by and determining who gets the ball thrown to them.  Like Pavlov's dog, the dog only salivated when the bell was rung and not when a whistle was blown so also we react to the event that rewards us and ignore the one that doesn't. In the football scenario, it would cause the good players to stop practicing and spend their time socializing with the QB in order to get what they want (i.e. more passes). For this reason Fascism in an economic sense is a horrible system as it rewards people for things that don't benefit society at all and causes those who do want to work hard to change their behaviors to be unproductive rather than productive.

     A third way for a QB to distribute the passes would be for him to equally distribute them to all of his receivers.  Call this the Socialist Method.   While this method is a step UP from the Fascist Method as at least all the players will get a chance to be thrown the ball, there is no incentive for bad players to try harder for after all they are going to get the same number of chances as the good ones.   This method also hurts the teams chances of winning the game as there will be an increased number of "wasted throws" by the QB as the bad players will undoubtedly drop more balls thrown to them.

       Let's say he has 3 players A, B and C.   A catches 90% of his throws, B catches 50% and C only 20%. If he throws 10 throws to each one, then at the end only 9 + 5 + 2 will be caught (16 total).  He has "wasted" 30-16 = 14 passes by doing it this way.   So also paying all your workers the same will waste lots of money as some workers will be less capable in earning it back. 

     But if he weights his throws with higher numbers to A such as 20, 8 and 2  (The Capitalist/Brady Method),  he will get 18+4+0=22 total receptions and increase the chances of winning.  This is why companies must reward better results with higher pay as they will insure that their money spent is not wasted and the less capable workers either improve their skills or move on to other companies.

Is Jesus a Socialist?

    I remember hearing a story of certain university professors teaching their students that they believe Jesus would associate with the Socialists Party because he was all about taking care of the poor.

    First of all I think the whole argument is ridiculous given that Jesus is the Son of God and exists outside the whole realm of stupid politics.  But to play along with these idiots I would have to first remind them of Jesus Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25.

14 “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15 To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag,[a] each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17 So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
19 “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’
21 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
22 “The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’
23 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
24 “Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’
26 “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
28 “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 29 For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
     Two things to note with this story
  1. The king did not give each man the same amount before he left
  2. He  rewarded greater return with a greater reward.
     Obviously the king knew something about the men he was about to leave with his money to invest.  These weren't men strangers pulled off the street.  These men were managers who worked for the king and therefore had a known track record.  The King therefore, wanting to maximize his return, gives the man with the best track record the most money and so forth.  At the same time he gave all of them an opportunity to up their game by giving even the most untrustworthy of the three, one bag of gold.  Then upon their return he doesn't hand out meaningless plastic trophies to them like we do with our kids today.  Instead he rewards each one with the same amount of gold as they EARNED for him when he was gone. 

    Does any of this sound like a socialist?

    Not to me.

     If Jesus followed the socialist point of view his parable would have had the King give the same amount to each of the managers and rewarded all of them the same regardless of what they had earned.  In fact, a true Socialist would have take the earned bags of gold from the best manager and given it to the worst manager who buried his gold and commended all of them for trying to do their best with what they had been given.

Note that in this story, the man who had the LARGEST RESULTS was rewarded with the LARGEST REWARD.  In other words,  the king did not reward them equally, nor did he give the ma

Friday, October 10, 2014

Will God find Faith on the earth when he returns?

Jesus asked this question, "When God returns, will he find faith on the earth?"

The implied answer to the question is: NO.

Recently two stories have come to my attention that reminded me of this verse.   Both stories have at their core the basic question of life.  One story deals with the beginning of life and the other deals with its end and yet both have one common theme:

A lack of Faith.   

The first story is from  a woman who has decided to end her child's unborn life in her womb and rather than do it quietly she pens an open letter posted on Reddit.   Below is what she wrote:

Little Thing:

I can feel you in there. I've got twice the appetite and half the energy. It breaks my heart that I don't feel the enchantment that I'm supposed to feel. I am both sorry and not sorry.
I am sorry that this is goodbye. I'm sad that I'll never get to meet you. You could have your father's eyes and my nose and we could make our own traditions, be a family. But, Little Thing, we will meet again. I promise that the next time I see that little blue plus, the next time you are in the same reality as me, I will be ready for you.
Little Thing, I want you to be happy. More than I want good things for myself, I want the best things for the future. That's why I can't be your mother right now. I am still growing myself. It wouldn't be fair to bring a new life into a world where I am still haunted by ghosts of the life I've lived. I want you to have all the things I didn't have when I was a child. I want you to be better than I ever was and more magnificent than I ever could be. I can't do to you what was done to me: Plant a seed made of love and spontaneity into a garden, and hope that it will grow on only dreams. Love and spontaneity are beautiful, but they have little merit. And while I have plenty of dreams to go around, dreams are not an effective enough tool for you to build a better tomorrow. I can't bring you here. Not like this.
I love you, Little Thing, and I wish the circumstances were different. I promise I will see you again, and next time, you can call me Mom.
   What amazes me the most (other than she refers to the baby as "Little Thing") is how little faith she has either in herself as a mother or in the future for her child.   If she cannot provide, does she not think someone else might be able to?   In referring to "I can't do to you what was done to me..." does she not think her life was worth keeping either?   How does she know what the future will bring?   Is her child's life preordained by the stars?   Beethoven was born to a poor family and was one of 7 children and yet he went on to be one of our world's most famous musical composers.   Both my mother and father were born in the middle of one of our country's worst economic depressions (my mom was born in 1932 and my dad in 1930) and both of their families had very little money to speak of and yet their parents faith in God gave them the strength go forward and raise them.

    The second story is about a young recently married woman by the name of Brittany Maynard who has terminal brain cancer.    She has decided that the day after her husbands birthday, she will end her life rather than try to remain alive.   Her planned date of termination?   November 1st 2014.   Some are heralding her decision to end her life on her terms as "courageous" and "selfless", but I would rather show it to be "faithless".   She has no faith that God (or the universe) might cure her.  She has no faith that she might be able to give some one in her family the right advice for the struggles they are going through.   I understand the pain she is going through.  I too worry about my end as well as my father died of Alzheimer's a few years ago ago and it was difficult to watch his decline.   But even in his last days he was able to give me word's of wisdom I will never forget and will always cherish.

A Sad Generation

    To me, we are witnessing the beginning of  a new generation I call: Generation-Q (where the Q stands for QUIT).   A generation that has no faith or hope in a future (most of these sadly probably voted for Mr. Hope-and-Change)  and is all to willing to push the big red-button labeled "QUIT" rather than stay and fight.  Each generation following this one will be followed by an even worse generation even more willing than the first to eject itself from life.

    Some would ask:  Why should we allow ourselves to go through such pain?

    Answer: For 2 reasons:
1) Because the next generation needs to see how it's done. 

    We owe it to those who follow to see how life is to be lived and every breath fought for until we can breath no more.   We owe it to them to see that it CAN be done and that we CAN persevere. We are modelling for them how life is to be lived. 

2) Quitting can be contagious

       This is true not only of suicide but in sports,  business and even in the military that quitters often give rise to more quitters.   Even at my work I have witnessed the effect of seeing many people I admire suddenly leave the company they have spent so much time working for.   It pulls you down and makes you question your willingness to stay and make it work as well.  So also it is with life as well.  We have seen how teen suicides often cause more teen suicides.   It is for this reason that most TV news stations no longer report on them as far too often they often see increased levels of suicide occur afterward.  Once this avalanche starts it will be very difficult to stop as it will increase under its own momentum.

The writer of Hebrews puts it best in Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see"
We need to have FAITH that ....
  • Tomorrow will be better than today
  • I can be of service to others even if I am lying flat on my back
  • That God will be there for us no matter what.