First, let me say that I do not know the answer to this question. I have some thoughts on it, but it would be arrogant of me to say that I knew the answer, but here's the question....
Why do bad things happen to good people?
As many of you know,Tornadoes ripped through Tennessee last week and did a lot of damage in Murfreesboro. After the storm passed, I heard a lot folks say things like...
"Praise God! Our house wasn't damaged, God took care of us!"
God should definitely be praised. I'm not criticizing that at all, but, too often, do we use events as a barometer of our relationship with God?
One of the ministers that I had heard a lot about recently was a man named Joel Osteen. One evening, I was flipping through the channels and one of his services was being broadcast, so I stopped to listen. One of the first things that I heard him say was "God wants you to be rich". I changed the channel right after that statement.
I feel that one of the most dangerous ideas in Christianity today is what I've heard referred to as the "Health and Wealth Gospel". That if you have a good relationship with God, that your life will be smooth sailing. Is that true?
One of the scriptures that comes to my mind when I think about this topic, is the story where Jesus healed the man that was blind since birth.
John 9
1 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
3 "Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. 4 As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5 While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
6 Having said this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man's eyes. 7 "Go," he told him, "wash in the Pool of Siloam" (this word means Sent). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.
Jesus' disciples had the idea that the man's blindness had to be the result of sin. This 'bad' thing in his life had to be the result of a sin by someone. But Jesus set them straight, the man was blind for a reason, but it wasn't because of any bad thing that he or his parents did.
There are many stories in the Bible where 'bad' things happen to 'good' people, consider the stories of Job and Joseph. In my opinion, God allows us to suffer the consequences of our own sin, their is no doubt about that. But using other events in life as a barometer of your relationship with God, is a dangerous place to go.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Sunday, April 5, 2009
William Wallace and CEO compensation....
This morning, there was a story on the news about growing anger with CEO's who make a lot of money. This afternoon, I watched Braveheart....the story of the freedom of Scotland from British tyranny.
In my warped mind it all came together in a weird way into this blog post...
During the Presidential election this year, I heard a lot of my liberal leaning friends (yes, I still consider them friends) disgusted at the huge sums of money that executives make compared to the average worker. This morning, on CBS News Sunday Morning, they did an entire segment on the growing tension between the ultra wealthy and the middle or lower class folks, such as myself.
I believe that Sunday Morning is usually pretty good about presenting both sides of an argument, and I felt like they did in this segment as well. One gentlemen, spoke about how 'wrong' it was for millions of folks to be living below the poverty line, while the top 1% of wage earners were making more than ever. The answer....of course...is increase taxes on the top 1% to help those that make less.
Another gentlemen, spoke of how a total of 35% of government revenue is already derived from this top 1%. And that it would be hard to argue that they weren't 'doing their fair share'.
So, how does this tie in with William (Braveheart) Wallace? When the British finally caught William Wallace and were about to execute him, the man in charge told him that they would make his execute quick and painless if he would simply pledge his allegiance to the British crown. He had already been tortured, and the last thing he said was......FREEDOM!
Here's my point, there are some who obtain their wealth illegally, or by exploiting the system. Be sure, that any executive that is caught in some sort of illegality is going to appear night after night on your evening news. But, please, do not cast all members of the top 1% into this group. There are many very hard working honest people who make more money in a year than I'll ever see in a lifetime.
The question here, is Freedom....are those that studied hard in school, or worked hard to build a business or simply got lucky automatically bad people because they are compensated well? Is our concept of freedom such that the right to freedom is taken away if you make more money than the average bear?
Freedom is freedom....freedom is the ability to reap the rewards or consequences of our own actions and choices. Freedom is the ability to what you want regardless of how other people feel about it.
Freedom was important enough to William Wallace to die for....Freedom is important....I fear it is at risk in our country.
In my warped mind it all came together in a weird way into this blog post...
During the Presidential election this year, I heard a lot of my liberal leaning friends (yes, I still consider them friends) disgusted at the huge sums of money that executives make compared to the average worker. This morning, on CBS News Sunday Morning, they did an entire segment on the growing tension between the ultra wealthy and the middle or lower class folks, such as myself.
I believe that Sunday Morning is usually pretty good about presenting both sides of an argument, and I felt like they did in this segment as well. One gentlemen, spoke about how 'wrong' it was for millions of folks to be living below the poverty line, while the top 1% of wage earners were making more than ever. The answer....of course...is increase taxes on the top 1% to help those that make less.
Another gentlemen, spoke of how a total of 35% of government revenue is already derived from this top 1%. And that it would be hard to argue that they weren't 'doing their fair share'.
So, how does this tie in with William (Braveheart) Wallace? When the British finally caught William Wallace and were about to execute him, the man in charge told him that they would make his execute quick and painless if he would simply pledge his allegiance to the British crown. He had already been tortured, and the last thing he said was......FREEDOM!
Here's my point, there are some who obtain their wealth illegally, or by exploiting the system. Be sure, that any executive that is caught in some sort of illegality is going to appear night after night on your evening news. But, please, do not cast all members of the top 1% into this group. There are many very hard working honest people who make more money in a year than I'll ever see in a lifetime.
The question here, is Freedom....are those that studied hard in school, or worked hard to build a business or simply got lucky automatically bad people because they are compensated well? Is our concept of freedom such that the right to freedom is taken away if you make more money than the average bear?
Freedom is freedom....freedom is the ability to reap the rewards or consequences of our own actions and choices. Freedom is the ability to what you want regardless of how other people feel about it.
Freedom was important enough to William Wallace to die for....Freedom is important....I fear it is at risk in our country.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Her folks still aren't talking to me....
I received this story in the email today, there are several versions like it, but the point is the same....
I was talking to the 8 year-old daughter of a friend of
mine, and she said she wanted to be President some day.
Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing
there, so I asked her, "If you were President
what's the first thing you would do?"
She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the
homeless people."
"Wow - what a worthy goal," I told her. "But
you don't have to wait until you're President to do
that. You can come over to my house and mow the grass, pull
weeds, and rake my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then
I'll take you over to the grocery store where the
homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use
toward food or a new house."
She thought that over for a few seconds, 'cause after
all she's only 8. And while her Mom glared at me, she
looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why
doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work
himself, and you can just pay him the $50?"
And I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."
Her folks still aren't talking to me.
I was talking to the 8 year-old daughter of a friend of
mine, and she said she wanted to be President some day.
Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing
there, so I asked her, "If you were President
what's the first thing you would do?"
She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the
homeless people."
"Wow - what a worthy goal," I told her. "But
you don't have to wait until you're President to do
that. You can come over to my house and mow the grass, pull
weeds, and rake my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then
I'll take you over to the grocery store where the
homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use
toward food or a new house."
She thought that over for a few seconds, 'cause after
all she's only 8. And while her Mom glared at me, she
looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why
doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work
himself, and you can just pay him the $50?"
And I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."
Her folks still aren't talking to me.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Wow....Post 200!
I had an idea of something that I was going to post this morning, when I started to write it, I noticed that this is my 200th post to my blog. That really calls for something deep and meaningful.....but I don't have anything deep and meaningful this morning, so I'll go with my original idea....
Something (not sure what) reminded me of this funny that I saw years ago.
ACHTUNG!
Das machine is nicht fur gerfingerpoken und mittengrabben.
Ist easy schnappen der Sprinngwerk, blowenfusen und
poppencorken mit spitzensparken.
Ist nicht fur gewerken by das Dummkopfen. Das rubbernecken
sightseeren keepen hands in das Pockets.
Relaxen und watch das blinkenlights...
Something (not sure what) reminded me of this funny that I saw years ago.
ACHTUNG!
Das machine is nicht fur gerfingerpoken und mittengrabben.
Ist easy schnappen der Sprinngwerk, blowenfusen und
poppencorken mit spitzensparken.
Ist nicht fur gewerken by das Dummkopfen. Das rubbernecken
sightseeren keepen hands in das Pockets.
Relaxen und watch das blinkenlights...
Saturday, March 21, 2009
You're special....
"You're Special...." that's a really nice phrase that you can tell someone. But saying it with a different tone of voice, and it could be considered offensive. What if you said it with a condescending tone of voice to someone in a wheelchair?
If you read this blog, or know me in person you can probably guess that Barak Obama was not my first choice for President. No, it had nothing to do with him being a black man, it had to do with with fact that I believe he is a Socialist at heart. The majority of voters in this country felt he should be our President. He is my President and I hope that he is successful and I support him as such.
I can't imagine what it must be like to go from an ordinary citizen to being the leader of the free world. I imagine that the campaign puts a candidate in the spotlight enough to where they can begin to see the scrutiny that you will be put under if you win, but I don't know if anything can prepare you for the fact that there are hundreds of special interest groups out there watching every word you say to find something to be offended about.
Does anyone remember James Watt? He was the Secretary of the Interior under the Raegan administration. He was most famous for not allowing the Beach Boys to play at a Fourth of July event because of the 'undesirables' that they would attract. However, as I remember it, he had a terrible case of foot in mouth syndrome. I remember some flack about him referring to someone as a cripple. I did a little bit of research and found that in fact, his tenure as the Secretary of the Interior ended because of a sentence he uttered while telling about his administration:
"I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent."
This statement ended his career.
There are some people in this world that are simply looking for reasons to get their feelings hurt. I'm sure if the President mentioned that he had a steak before he went bowling, that PETA would be all up in arms. When I first saw the clip from the Tonight Show, I totally missed the reference to the Special Olympics, only after they pointed out what the flap was over did I even hear it.
Without a doubt, I can promise you that Barak Obama was making fun of himself and not disabled children. Would everyone please lighten up?
If you read this blog, or know me in person you can probably guess that Barak Obama was not my first choice for President. No, it had nothing to do with him being a black man, it had to do with with fact that I believe he is a Socialist at heart. The majority of voters in this country felt he should be our President. He is my President and I hope that he is successful and I support him as such.
I can't imagine what it must be like to go from an ordinary citizen to being the leader of the free world. I imagine that the campaign puts a candidate in the spotlight enough to where they can begin to see the scrutiny that you will be put under if you win, but I don't know if anything can prepare you for the fact that there are hundreds of special interest groups out there watching every word you say to find something to be offended about.
Does anyone remember James Watt? He was the Secretary of the Interior under the Raegan administration. He was most famous for not allowing the Beach Boys to play at a Fourth of July event because of the 'undesirables' that they would attract. However, as I remember it, he had a terrible case of foot in mouth syndrome. I remember some flack about him referring to someone as a cripple. I did a little bit of research and found that in fact, his tenure as the Secretary of the Interior ended because of a sentence he uttered while telling about his administration:
"I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent."
This statement ended his career.
There are some people in this world that are simply looking for reasons to get their feelings hurt. I'm sure if the President mentioned that he had a steak before he went bowling, that PETA would be all up in arms. When I first saw the clip from the Tonight Show, I totally missed the reference to the Special Olympics, only after they pointed out what the flap was over did I even hear it.
Without a doubt, I can promise you that Barak Obama was making fun of himself and not disabled children. Would everyone please lighten up?
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
We hold these truths to be self-evident....
The news has really been interesting over the last couple of days....in particular, I have been watching the government's involvement in business.
On April 1 new tobacco taxes will go into effect. The expressed purpose of these new taxes is to curb smoking effectively killing the tobacco industry.
Yesterday, President Obama announced his goal of preventing AIG from paying the executives millions of dollars because the government had given them money and therefore had 'leverage' in how they run the business.
Here's the thing, everyone knows that smoking is bad for you. Everyone knows that wearing seatbelts are a good idea. However, these are matters of personal choice not government control. I've debated many people about these issues and have found that the opposing argument always seems to involve the 'good of society' over the 'rights of the individual'. I feel that this is a very dangerous 'slippery slope' type of concept. It is a socialist idea that has grave consequences down the road.
I find it very interesting that our government would take it upon itself to destroy one industry that it finds unacceptable while protecting another. It is also very interesting that the government feels that it should have a say in the running of the business since it gave money to the business.
It is a very difficult problem, government should have no involvement in business whatsoever. In my opinion, businesses should stand on their on and live or die based on their performance. The government has determined that AIG, the auto industry and certain large banks are too big to allow to fail. Therefore, their involvement became necessary. Though our economy would likely be in grave shape if these businesses should fail, as a matter of principle, I believe it should have happened. I believe that the path that the government has chosen will lead to more serious consequences to our Liberty down the road.
On April 1 new tobacco taxes will go into effect. The expressed purpose of these new taxes is to curb smoking effectively killing the tobacco industry.
Yesterday, President Obama announced his goal of preventing AIG from paying the executives millions of dollars because the government had given them money and therefore had 'leverage' in how they run the business.
Here's the thing, everyone knows that smoking is bad for you. Everyone knows that wearing seatbelts are a good idea. However, these are matters of personal choice not government control. I've debated many people about these issues and have found that the opposing argument always seems to involve the 'good of society' over the 'rights of the individual'. I feel that this is a very dangerous 'slippery slope' type of concept. It is a socialist idea that has grave consequences down the road.
I find it very interesting that our government would take it upon itself to destroy one industry that it finds unacceptable while protecting another. It is also very interesting that the government feels that it should have a say in the running of the business since it gave money to the business.
It is a very difficult problem, government should have no involvement in business whatsoever. In my opinion, businesses should stand on their on and live or die based on their performance. The government has determined that AIG, the auto industry and certain large banks are too big to allow to fail. Therefore, their involvement became necessary. Though our economy would likely be in grave shape if these businesses should fail, as a matter of principle, I believe it should have happened. I believe that the path that the government has chosen will lead to more serious consequences to our Liberty down the road.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Getting to the crux of the problem....
If you watch the news at all this weekend, you heard about AIG paying bonuses this week to the guys that put the company, and our economy in such peril. If you didn't hear about it here's one story about it.
The current CEO of AIG was put in place by the Bush administration and he wrote a letter to President Obama saying that AIG's hands were tied. The contracts were negotiated before he got there, and AIG is contractually obligated to make the payments.
As I see it, the problem is NOT that they are making the payments now, the mistake was made long ago when they wrote the contract. Who in the world would write a contract where they were obligated to pay bonuses to people who drive your company into the ground? I've not seen the wording of the contracts, but I've heard them referred to as 'retention bonuses'. Why would they want to keep these guys?
The real question is, when these executive receive the payments, will they keep them? I saw a story about the CEO of JAL where he returned his salary because the company lost money. He sets a great example of what leadership really is.
My prediction, the AIG execs will keep the money, and not think twice about it.
The current CEO of AIG was put in place by the Bush administration and he wrote a letter to President Obama saying that AIG's hands were tied. The contracts were negotiated before he got there, and AIG is contractually obligated to make the payments.
As I see it, the problem is NOT that they are making the payments now, the mistake was made long ago when they wrote the contract. Who in the world would write a contract where they were obligated to pay bonuses to people who drive your company into the ground? I've not seen the wording of the contracts, but I've heard them referred to as 'retention bonuses'. Why would they want to keep these guys?
The real question is, when these executive receive the payments, will they keep them? I saw a story about the CEO of JAL where he returned his salary because the company lost money. He sets a great example of what leadership really is.
My prediction, the AIG execs will keep the money, and not think twice about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)