I like Rick Santorum, and I'm voting for him in this election. It's only my personal belief. I just think that Santorum has his priorities right - focus on social issues first and economic policies after that. "Ultimately," said Santorum at a local rally I attended recently, "America's identity boils down to its rights. It is these rights that distinguish America from the rest of the world, and we must fight together to protect those rights. If we lose our inalienable rights, we have lost our identity." Couldn't agree more. In the big picture, our identity is not based on the amount of dollars our country has (or doesn't have) in its pocket.
Sadly, many are deterred from Santorum based on a misperception that once in office, he will regulate, and perhaps ban, contraceptions (or birth control). I hope you're not one of the people that have bought into this idea. Where do these people come up with that idea? I bet they have been duped by believing the media (oh boy, there's a can of worms). Liberal media wants to present this as an issue to deter folks from voting for this conservative candidate.
Let's not be fooled. Check out his statement on CNN (The Communist News Network, haha). He states that birth control should be available. And check out his voting record. Where has he voted to regulate contraception? Pray tell.
To clarify, abortion is an entirely separate issue from contraception. I can't say that he personally believes the two are different, but he has made it very clear that his personal beliefs are not, and should not be, imposed on the rest of society. God bless him for that. It is true that Santorum consistently votes pro-life (anti-abortion). God bless him for that, too.
And that's the #1 reason I like Santorum. He defers to God's instruction when deciding his stance on issues. I will never vote for a candidate who takes the position that it is acceptable to willingly take the life of an innocent child without danger to both the child and mother's health. That is inconsistent with my view of God's will.
Thursday, April 05, 2012
Monday, April 02, 2012
A Christian Lawyer in a Not-So-Christian World
I'm in my last semester of law school. Lord willing, and through His power and sustenance, I will be a licensed, practicing attorney in seven months. I just took the Professional Responsibility exam and will be sitting for the Bar Exam in July. If you feel compelled, lifting a prayer in my direction is certainly appreciated. That such a great responsibility is about to be thrown on my shoulders in short time is slightly scary. Nevertheless, this isn't about me; this is 100% about God using me in a way that will accomplish His will and His purposes.
So, in case you were dying to know why lawyers are such crooks, I have been noting (although, not well) some of the inconsistencies in the practice of law and the practice of following Christ. As a disclaimer, some will say that the two codes are indeed consistent; however, these are my personal notes and observations. I wouldn't say they directly clash, but there are noteworthy nuances.
1. Lawyers don't lend money to clients.
I am almost certain that the money the restriction speaks of is client funds (particularly, funds in holding) and not personal funds. The goal is that attorneys' judgment calls aren't to be affected by ulterior motives, such as gaining your loaned money back. That seems fair, but I can't help but recall that Jesus tells us, in the Sermon on the Mount, to give to the man that asks. And if someone sues you, give him not just your cloak, but your tunic also. And I don't see an exception. (See Matthew 5:38-42)
2. Generally, lawyers don't have a duty to do the best thing, only the acceptable thing.
The Rules of Professional Conduct are written to be a floor, or standard, that an attorney cannot fall below in conduct. They (soon to be "we") are permitted to go above and beyond the call, but the rules are what are noted as acceptable. But does Jesus call us to be merely acceptable, or are we called to be the best we can possibly be? (Note Matthew 5:43-48). Again, this is not necessarily inconsistent per se, as attorney rules allow for better-than-minimal acts.
3. Attorneys are always working in ways that will protect themselves.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing; indeed, it's a smart thing to do. But I think it's sad that lawyers have to be constantly looking over their shoulders in preparing work. They are fearful that clients will turn around and sue for malpractice. Note: It is fairly difficult to prove and win a malpractice suit against an attorney. Moreover, as I noted, malpractice is most often due to an act that fell below that "floor." I just think that in such an environment of self-protection and "C.Y.A.", it would be easy to get caught up in and focus more on selfish endeavors to protect myself. It should be absolutely important to put the client's interests ahead of the attorney's.
There are more things to note, but I won't get into nitty-gritty rules of attorney conduct and practice. That might put you to sleep. As always, thank you for reading, and thank you for your support. I can't wait to finally finish law school.
So, in case you were dying to know why lawyers are such crooks, I have been noting (although, not well) some of the inconsistencies in the practice of law and the practice of following Christ. As a disclaimer, some will say that the two codes are indeed consistent; however, these are my personal notes and observations. I wouldn't say they directly clash, but there are noteworthy nuances.
1. Lawyers don't lend money to clients.
I am almost certain that the money the restriction speaks of is client funds (particularly, funds in holding) and not personal funds. The goal is that attorneys' judgment calls aren't to be affected by ulterior motives, such as gaining your loaned money back. That seems fair, but I can't help but recall that Jesus tells us, in the Sermon on the Mount, to give to the man that asks. And if someone sues you, give him not just your cloak, but your tunic also. And I don't see an exception. (See Matthew 5:38-42)
2. Generally, lawyers don't have a duty to do the best thing, only the acceptable thing.
The Rules of Professional Conduct are written to be a floor, or standard, that an attorney cannot fall below in conduct. They (soon to be "we") are permitted to go above and beyond the call, but the rules are what are noted as acceptable. But does Jesus call us to be merely acceptable, or are we called to be the best we can possibly be? (Note Matthew 5:43-48). Again, this is not necessarily inconsistent per se, as attorney rules allow for better-than-minimal acts.
3. Attorneys are always working in ways that will protect themselves.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing; indeed, it's a smart thing to do. But I think it's sad that lawyers have to be constantly looking over their shoulders in preparing work. They are fearful that clients will turn around and sue for malpractice. Note: It is fairly difficult to prove and win a malpractice suit against an attorney. Moreover, as I noted, malpractice is most often due to an act that fell below that "floor." I just think that in such an environment of self-protection and "C.Y.A.", it would be easy to get caught up in and focus more on selfish endeavors to protect myself. It should be absolutely important to put the client's interests ahead of the attorney's.
There are more things to note, but I won't get into nitty-gritty rules of attorney conduct and practice. That might put you to sleep. As always, thank you for reading, and thank you for your support. I can't wait to finally finish law school.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Jesus > Imperfect People
6.6 million hits on YouTube. Over 60,000 comments under the link, with many more circulating among social websites and pervading conversations. I'm talking about the recent video "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus". If you choose to watch it, I strongly recommend putting on your critical thinking cap, and take captive in your minds every claim that is made. Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY&feature=g-logo&context=G2474ba1FOAAAAAAABAA
This post is intended to relay my thoughts and comments on the video. I'll say up front that I dislike it; it was something I couldn't bring myself to finish while watching the first time through. But, as encouraged by friends, I'm going to remain positive, such as making statements like this: I think that 99% of the video's caption, standing by itself, is great stuff. The problem, however, is the spoken word. My challenge: to include Scripture as my bases for objections.
Here is what I find convincing and true about the video (POSITIVES):
(1) Religion itself was never meant to be about self-righteousness or about following a set of rules. Jesus did indeed bust people's chops for doing so.
(2) That's how we, as imperfect people, have perverted something that God set forth as holy. We have let our bone-headed mistakes discourage others from wanting to be a part of the Family. I call these "church owies". It's reality, and it deeply saddens me. And if you are reading this and have become a product of one of these owies, I apologize to you for whatever it was. But I strongly encourage you not to allow what imperfect men have done to taint your image of what God has set forth. We'll talk about that in a minute.
(3) Church is not meant to be a place where people come to have all the mistakes they did Monday through Saturday cleansed so they can repeat the same mistakes again the next week. Nor is it meant to be a museum of the pious and perfect. It is, indeed, a gathering where Christ-followers come to seek edification from brothers and sisters who, in all likelihood, find themselves making the same mistakes you do.
(4) Yes, the family of believers has hypocrites, and it's a shame.
On the other hand, these statements are where I take issue with the spoken message (OBJECTIONS):
Before I start, I want you to do two things: (a) Define for yourself what "religion" is. The way the video uses it, I think, has to do with organized bodies of believers. Personally, I feel that it is critical to make the distinction that "religion" is a set of beliefs and the actions carried out in support or response, while people are a different subject. Religion is inanimate; people do the acting. (b) Secondly, I want you to put on your thinking caps and make decisions for yourselves. 1 Corinthians 14:20 says "in your thinking, be mature."
(1) This guy makes tons of claims about Jesus. Where is His scriptural support? I know it's meant to be a poem, but putting Jesus' life and mission into words is something that is never meant to be taken lightly. Thus, it needs absolute backing from the Bible. I didn't hear a single Biblical support. Again, I'm going to try to avoid being hypocritical whenever I possibly can, so I'll try my best to cite.
(2) Fallacy #1 (even though this is point #2): the claim that "Jesus came to abolish religion". This claim is not only completely irrational, but not scripturally supported. Objection: Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but fulfill." Appealing to logic, why would Jesus come to destroy what His Father set up (note the temples where people gathered in the Old Testament)? Or why, then, did Jesus send apostles out to different cities?
(3) Fallacy #2: Claim: "If religion is so great, why has it started so many wars? Why does it build huge churches, but fail to feed the poor?" Objection based on logic: Again religion is inanimate. It cannot by itself do anything. People start wars, based on imperfect qualities about them. It is people's jobs to feed others; an inanimate object cannot do so. That's about as rational as saying "Guns kill people; people don't kill people." Or "I didn't hit you with my car; my car hit you." Or "you can't get mad at me; I didn't say those words - it was the keyboard that typed them." Of course, the institution itself cannot do, it is up to the individual person to make the decision.
(4) Fallacy #3: Claim: "Jesus and religion are on opposite ends of the spectrum... One is made by God, the other by man." My objection is based on the assumption that "religion" = the gathering of Christians. Sure, we have imperfections, but that doesn't dismiss the command to gather. The Bible doesn't make that exception. As a matter of fact, I don't find many exceptions to what we are instructed to do, if any! And to point out, the gathering was most certainly not created by man.
(a) Matthew 18:20 "Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them." Doesn't sound to me like Jesus came to abolish this. In fact, Jesus blesses the gathering and says that He is with us when we congregate.
(b) 1 Corinthians 14:33 "For God is not a God of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." So I'm being told by an imperfect man that church wasn't ordained by God and is an ugly thing, yet the Bible tells me that God's peace rests with the gathering of His imperfect children? I think I'll go with the Bible.
(c) Hebrews 10:24-25: "Let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another"
(d) 1 Corinthians 14 entails instructions for when we gather together.
(e) 1 John 1:7 "If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another."
Therefore, God doesn't separate himself from things that are holy. From my recollection, the only thing that God separates Himself from is sin. But He loves us unconditionally, imperfections and all.
(5) Claim: "Religion says Do, but Jesus says Done." What's wrong with that? Objection: "Faith without works is dead"...? James 2:17. Plus, the speaker was wanting the "church" to feed people, right? Isn't that a "do"?
(6) Claim: "Religion puts you in bondage, while Jesus sets you free." Objection: Again, this is a personal choice. You must accept the gift for Jesus to set you free, (even though we are told the Truth sets us free in John 14). But, if we apply that same logic, wouldn't it be our own personal choice if we ALLOW the church to hold us in bondage? It's a simple choice: shuck it and don't let it bind you!
(7) What this guy is doing is exactly the opposite of what he is pointing fingers at. He wants us, as bodies of believers, not to make claims about what is right and wrong, yet he points out the many imperfections of people. In voicing some of my objections, a few friends pointed out that I shouldn't allow my objections get in the way of me seeing the good... yet, here is the speaker's problem. I wouldn't be surprised if he has once been the object of a church owie, but in my opinion, he has effectively allowed it to taint his perspective of something ordained by God! He overlooks what a church does right. Instead, we hear a laundry list of complaints (to keep myself from falling into the same trap, I have listed my positive remarks). Yes, a church, or body of believers, has hypocrites, but you can't allow what a certain person does taint your view of the whole.
(8) In the caption, the speaker says that religion can end in either one of two ways: pride or despair. Now that, to me, totally misses the mark. I know he said he loves churches, but that statement is highly deterrent of others wanting to become a part of a body. When religion is pure, it brings a person closer to God (thus, a third end, if you will). James 1:27 says "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God is this: to take care of orphans and widows in distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." It brings us closer to God as mentioned in Proverbs 27:17 - "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." See? There's some great stuff that association brings about.
I fear the video is going to discourage association. And that's purely contradictory to what the Bible tells us to do. I feel (personal opinion) that Christ didn't intend for us to go stag. He wired us to want to be associated and be able to fit in, so He gave us the church for that. A church that was intended for building others up and strengthening each other. Again, man misses the mark when that goal is not accomplished. But it is wrong to blame the institution when one man's words or actions hurt another. That's like blaming your entire body for stubbing your toe. Satan is stronger when we don't have other Christians to strengthen us (there is strength in numbers), and his attacks are stronger in those scenarios.
Even if we accept the whole as a compilation of imperfect people, we still must love each of those people and forgive them as Christ loves and forgives us. See Matthew 5:43, 1 John 2:9, and 1 John 4:19-21. We are called to see them as Christ sees us - He loves His children and calls them His own.
Please don't let what one person or a group of men taint your view of what God set up as holy. Peace be with you.
This post is intended to relay my thoughts and comments on the video. I'll say up front that I dislike it; it was something I couldn't bring myself to finish while watching the first time through. But, as encouraged by friends, I'm going to remain positive, such as making statements like this: I think that 99% of the video's caption, standing by itself, is great stuff. The problem, however, is the spoken word. My challenge: to include Scripture as my bases for objections.
Here is what I find convincing and true about the video (POSITIVES):
(1) Religion itself was never meant to be about self-righteousness or about following a set of rules. Jesus did indeed bust people's chops for doing so.
(2) That's how we, as imperfect people, have perverted something that God set forth as holy. We have let our bone-headed mistakes discourage others from wanting to be a part of the Family. I call these "church owies". It's reality, and it deeply saddens me. And if you are reading this and have become a product of one of these owies, I apologize to you for whatever it was. But I strongly encourage you not to allow what imperfect men have done to taint your image of what God has set forth. We'll talk about that in a minute.
(3) Church is not meant to be a place where people come to have all the mistakes they did Monday through Saturday cleansed so they can repeat the same mistakes again the next week. Nor is it meant to be a museum of the pious and perfect. It is, indeed, a gathering where Christ-followers come to seek edification from brothers and sisters who, in all likelihood, find themselves making the same mistakes you do.
(4) Yes, the family of believers has hypocrites, and it's a shame.
On the other hand, these statements are where I take issue with the spoken message (OBJECTIONS):
Before I start, I want you to do two things: (a) Define for yourself what "religion" is. The way the video uses it, I think, has to do with organized bodies of believers. Personally, I feel that it is critical to make the distinction that "religion" is a set of beliefs and the actions carried out in support or response, while people are a different subject. Religion is inanimate; people do the acting. (b) Secondly, I want you to put on your thinking caps and make decisions for yourselves. 1 Corinthians 14:20 says "in your thinking, be mature."
(1) This guy makes tons of claims about Jesus. Where is His scriptural support? I know it's meant to be a poem, but putting Jesus' life and mission into words is something that is never meant to be taken lightly. Thus, it needs absolute backing from the Bible. I didn't hear a single Biblical support. Again, I'm going to try to avoid being hypocritical whenever I possibly can, so I'll try my best to cite.
(2) Fallacy #1 (even though this is point #2): the claim that "Jesus came to abolish religion". This claim is not only completely irrational, but not scripturally supported. Objection: Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but fulfill." Appealing to logic, why would Jesus come to destroy what His Father set up (note the temples where people gathered in the Old Testament)? Or why, then, did Jesus send apostles out to different cities?
(3) Fallacy #2: Claim: "If religion is so great, why has it started so many wars? Why does it build huge churches, but fail to feed the poor?" Objection based on logic: Again religion is inanimate. It cannot by itself do anything. People start wars, based on imperfect qualities about them. It is people's jobs to feed others; an inanimate object cannot do so. That's about as rational as saying "Guns kill people; people don't kill people." Or "I didn't hit you with my car; my car hit you." Or "you can't get mad at me; I didn't say those words - it was the keyboard that typed them." Of course, the institution itself cannot do, it is up to the individual person to make the decision.
(4) Fallacy #3: Claim: "Jesus and religion are on opposite ends of the spectrum... One is made by God, the other by man." My objection is based on the assumption that "religion" = the gathering of Christians. Sure, we have imperfections, but that doesn't dismiss the command to gather. The Bible doesn't make that exception. As a matter of fact, I don't find many exceptions to what we are instructed to do, if any! And to point out, the gathering was most certainly not created by man.
(a) Matthew 18:20 "Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them." Doesn't sound to me like Jesus came to abolish this. In fact, Jesus blesses the gathering and says that He is with us when we congregate.
(b) 1 Corinthians 14:33 "For God is not a God of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." So I'm being told by an imperfect man that church wasn't ordained by God and is an ugly thing, yet the Bible tells me that God's peace rests with the gathering of His imperfect children? I think I'll go with the Bible.
(c) Hebrews 10:24-25: "Let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another"
(d) 1 Corinthians 14 entails instructions for when we gather together.
(e) 1 John 1:7 "If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another."
Therefore, God doesn't separate himself from things that are holy. From my recollection, the only thing that God separates Himself from is sin. But He loves us unconditionally, imperfections and all.
(5) Claim: "Religion says Do, but Jesus says Done." What's wrong with that? Objection: "Faith without works is dead"...? James 2:17. Plus, the speaker was wanting the "church" to feed people, right? Isn't that a "do"?
(6) Claim: "Religion puts you in bondage, while Jesus sets you free." Objection: Again, this is a personal choice. You must accept the gift for Jesus to set you free, (even though we are told the Truth sets us free in John 14). But, if we apply that same logic, wouldn't it be our own personal choice if we ALLOW the church to hold us in bondage? It's a simple choice: shuck it and don't let it bind you!
(7) What this guy is doing is exactly the opposite of what he is pointing fingers at. He wants us, as bodies of believers, not to make claims about what is right and wrong, yet he points out the many imperfections of people. In voicing some of my objections, a few friends pointed out that I shouldn't allow my objections get in the way of me seeing the good... yet, here is the speaker's problem. I wouldn't be surprised if he has once been the object of a church owie, but in my opinion, he has effectively allowed it to taint his perspective of something ordained by God! He overlooks what a church does right. Instead, we hear a laundry list of complaints (to keep myself from falling into the same trap, I have listed my positive remarks). Yes, a church, or body of believers, has hypocrites, but you can't allow what a certain person does taint your view of the whole.
(8) In the caption, the speaker says that religion can end in either one of two ways: pride or despair. Now that, to me, totally misses the mark. I know he said he loves churches, but that statement is highly deterrent of others wanting to become a part of a body. When religion is pure, it brings a person closer to God (thus, a third end, if you will). James 1:27 says "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God is this: to take care of orphans and widows in distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." It brings us closer to God as mentioned in Proverbs 27:17 - "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." See? There's some great stuff that association brings about.
I fear the video is going to discourage association. And that's purely contradictory to what the Bible tells us to do. I feel (personal opinion) that Christ didn't intend for us to go stag. He wired us to want to be associated and be able to fit in, so He gave us the church for that. A church that was intended for building others up and strengthening each other. Again, man misses the mark when that goal is not accomplished. But it is wrong to blame the institution when one man's words or actions hurt another. That's like blaming your entire body for stubbing your toe. Satan is stronger when we don't have other Christians to strengthen us (there is strength in numbers), and his attacks are stronger in those scenarios.
Even if we accept the whole as a compilation of imperfect people, we still must love each of those people and forgive them as Christ loves and forgives us. See Matthew 5:43, 1 John 2:9, and 1 John 4:19-21. We are called to see them as Christ sees us - He loves His children and calls them His own.
Please don't let what one person or a group of men taint your view of what God set up as holy. Peace be with you.
Sunday, November 06, 2011
My Thorn in the Flesh
2 Corinthians 12:7-10: "In order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong." Amen. And such a powerful passage.
God knows me so well, and this verse speaks to me. This is how I perceive myself. Frankly, my thorn in the flesh is being quick to action. I feel that I respond to adversity by objecting, making my voice heard, and standing fast and firm. I take an active approach, not passive; I am a do-er. My problem is I lack sufficient discernment; I don't take a lot of time to think before doing.
I don't follow James 1:19-20 as well as I should: "Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires." And personally I feel like anger could perhaps include incitement to action, not just ill feelings.
That's me (Part 1). In being quick to action, I am about as gentle as a fire hydrant. That's one of my side effects. I turn people off from listening to me because I unintentionally become harsh and brash. Apparently, I get "lawyer-y" on others. Ouch.
I want to change. I have been praying to God that He changes that about me. I feel so far that my answer has been no several times, but I am open to considerations: (a) I may not have been ready or open to it, (b) God may choose to say "no", or (c) God is giving me opportunities to develop the change. It has been, and continues to be, a tough process. I'm trying, and I hope I am receptive to what He has in store for me.
God knows me so well, and this verse speaks to me. This is how I perceive myself. Frankly, my thorn in the flesh is being quick to action. I feel that I respond to adversity by objecting, making my voice heard, and standing fast and firm. I take an active approach, not passive; I am a do-er. My problem is I lack sufficient discernment; I don't take a lot of time to think before doing.
I don't follow James 1:19-20 as well as I should: "Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires." And personally I feel like anger could perhaps include incitement to action, not just ill feelings.
That's me (Part 1). In being quick to action, I am about as gentle as a fire hydrant. That's one of my side effects. I turn people off from listening to me because I unintentionally become harsh and brash. Apparently, I get "lawyer-y" on others. Ouch.
I want to change. I have been praying to God that He changes that about me. I feel so far that my answer has been no several times, but I am open to considerations: (a) I may not have been ready or open to it, (b) God may choose to say "no", or (c) God is giving me opportunities to develop the change. It has been, and continues to be, a tough process. I'm trying, and I hope I am receptive to what He has in store for me.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Federal Government Spending
In the wake of Obama's budget/fiscal/whatever speech recently, I shared a stimulating conversation with one of my law school buddies. He and I were mainly focusing on how many in America don't know how to live within their means, and how we spend more than we have. In essence, it's poor accounting (moreover, common sense) skills. You just don't "spend" what you don't have in the tank.
In essence, it's what our President is in the business of doing - pledging money in the red. Some might say he "has" the money (referring to taxpayers), but in reality, it isn't in his hands. My friend then took this conversation in the direction of "infrastructure" and how too much is spent on it. Interesting thought. I wasn't sure at the beginning what it meant, but I think Mark Cuban, interestingly enough, has a great perspective on it from a businessman's standpoint. I'll just let him take over:
In essence, it's what our President is in the business of doing - pledging money in the red. Some might say he "has" the money (referring to taxpayers), but in reality, it isn't in his hands. My friend then took this conversation in the direction of "infrastructure" and how too much is spent on it. Interesting thought. I wasn't sure at the beginning what it meant, but I think Mark Cuban, interestingly enough, has a great perspective on it from a businessman's standpoint. I'll just let him take over:
In the case of China, They spent . The economy grew. Correct, but very misleading, but also very informative. Infrastructure spending is VERY BENEFICIAL when the spending creates new commerce opportunities. So in China, when roads were built where there previously had not been a road, thats a good thing. It enables commerce. We have seen it in the US with Dams, Highways, Bridges and more.
With the possible exception of the enhancement and building of schools, the only infrastructure investment that makes sense is where COMMERCE THAT WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY ABLE IS NOW ENABLED BY NEW INFRASTRUCTURE.
The problem in the USA is that those opportunities are few and far between. We have been there and done that. The BIGGER PROBLEM WITH INFRASTRUCTURE is that in the name of creating jobs we actually inhibit commerce and possibly cost jobs. How ? When we rebuild or expand roads as a way of creating jobs, what happens ? We shut down or reduce the traffic on the roads to be rebuilt. The net effect is that during the construction period we CREATE PROBLEMS rather than solve them. We slow down commutes. Which costs people valuable time (and yes time is still money), wastes gas/oil/energy as we sit in traffic and forces traffic to streets not designed for the additional traffic. Not Good. The same could be said with building /bridge remodels or updates and other projects. We all want to see the potholes in our streets filled, but now is not the time to do it, and federal funding is not the way to pay for it.
The bottom line is that we have to understand the difference between Maintenance and Infrastructure. Infrastructure creates opportunity where there was none. Maintenance gets things back to where they were. You INVEST in infrastructure when you can see a return. You SPEND money on maintenance when you not only have the available funds to do so, but also the ability to withstand the downtime and negative productivity impact that comes with the impact of the maintenance work. Yes there are times when you need maintenance to return to a steady business state (ie your computer is broken or safety is an issue with a bridge), but again those have an obvious return.
We have to know the difference and the right time to spend . Otherwise a well intentioned availability of capital not only won’t generate a positive return, but could have a negative local impact.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Handgun Rights, 2nd Amendment
I'm a Christian, but I also believe in defense. My interpretation of scripture, particularly 1 Timothy 5 and Ephesians 5:25-33, calls me to protect my wife and others. I feel it is my Christian duty to take care of others whenever I can. Because of that, I own guns - some for hunting, some for defense. I know that there exists strong disagreements with my view on this, as I have engaged in pretty vehement debate on this particular topic over the past 6 or 7 years. And that's fine. Nevertheless, when it boils down to it, I'd rather look Jesus in the face and say, "Yes, I did what I could to keep my wife safe," rather than, "No, I stood by and watched when my wife's life was in peril."
This is not to say "I'm ready for a man hunt." I'm not looking for trouble in any way and would prefer to be free of incidents as such. As Concealed Handgun course instructors will reiterate time and time again, this is only in instances of last resort. Never should this be a first response.
Anyway, I found this article and thought it was interesting:
And we now see the riots and mayhem taking over Britain today. People are living in fear. That's no way to go.
Again, I understand this to be a touchy subject, and many people hold a different view than mine - fair enough. I can respect that. Sometimes, my own view is a tough pill to swallow and come to terms with. I just have to view it as preparedness and love for others.
This is not to say "I'm ready for a man hunt." I'm not looking for trouble in any way and would prefer to be free of incidents as such. As Concealed Handgun course instructors will reiterate time and time again, this is only in instances of last resort. Never should this be a first response.
Anyway, I found this article and thought it was interesting:
|
And we now see the riots and mayhem taking over Britain today. People are living in fear. That's no way to go.
Again, I understand this to be a touchy subject, and many people hold a different view than mine - fair enough. I can respect that. Sometimes, my own view is a tough pill to swallow and come to terms with. I just have to view it as preparedness and love for others.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Tribute to My Father
Today is Father's Day, and I have been reflecting on my life and relationship with my dad. If you're interested, I invite you to learn about the special bond we share. I just wanted to take a minute and jot down my perceptions of what makes my dad a great man, and how God has blessed me with such a great influence. The following is not a fully inclusive list, as attempting to mention all that defines his manhood and fatherhood is almost impossible. These are qualities that I admire about my hero and my role model:
Joe B. Robinette Jr. is one of the most humble men I know; and I wanted to say this up front because some might not know the details about his character and his role in my life otherwise. He probably would refuse the credit given to him. If there is anyone who exemplifies a life of servitude, it is he. I haven't ever known Dad to be a selfish person; rather, the things he does and the activities he chooses to fill his life's jar with are all revolving around others. At age 59, he is still actively involved as an assistant scoutmaster and committee councilman in Boy Scouts, an elder and shepherd in the church, a Bible class teacher, and a friend to many. These go beyond the many things he volunteered for while I was growing up.
Dad was an active participant (and still is) in my development. He made up bedtime stories to share when I was a child. He read to me at night. He took a few minutes out of his day to go play catch in the back yard. He even volunteered as a coach just to spend that much more time with me. He took me hunting and taught me outdoorsmanship. He, sometimes forcibly, took me out to the ranch and taught me how to work and developed my work ethic. Although it was difficult to see and understand earlier on, he spent as much time as he could with me. Spending time together was, and continues to be, a great way to show me how much he loves and cares for me.
Dad was a great teacher and disciplinarian, and he was a master at striking the proper balance. Yeah, he spanked me when I was in need of it, and look, I'm not emotionally scarred or crippled for life. Instead, he cared about me and felt the calling to teach me what is right and what is biblical. Every time prior to my spanking, we read the Bible together. And every time immediately after my reprimand, I was hugged and held. He explained to me that it was necessary because he loved me and it was his responsibility to show that and to show me the way. These two verses he took to heart: "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him." Proverbs 13:24. "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not turn from it." Proverbs 22:6. I admire him so much for that.
My dad is a patient man. He might disagree somewhat with that assessment, but from my eyes, I stand firm with attaching that quality to his character. I did some stupid stuff as a kid. I made him mad sometimes. We butted heads a few times and didn't always see eye to eye. When I could see that it would be easy to blow up at me, he hugged me instead. Again, I could tell that he focused a large part of his life on me. He was patient to teach me things, about something as small as cleaning a gun, or about larger matters such as being a boyfriend/husband/man that God would have me be. It was a sign of his unconditional love.
Finally (at least the last point that I will mention), what makes my father an incredible man is his zeal in sharing the Gospel with me and bringing me up in the faith. Anyone can read a Bible, but Dad was always intentional in taking the next step (and I need to add that Mom was stride-for-stride in this endeavor). We read the Bible at the dinner table (and when I got my butt busted) like clockwork, we prayed together often, he and Mom took me to church three times per week. But stopping there wasn't an option for him. He made sure that he was the best he could be. He knew that my young eyes were watching his every move, and he was careful to live his life as he wanted me to live mine. THAT is what I define as father.
I pray for Dad. I thank God that He sent me the only guy on the earth that fit that role in my life. My dad is my hero, my best friend, my hunting partner, my teacher, my mentor, my confidant, my Dad, and so many other important figures to me. It takes a true man to take on the responsibilities of a father, and he has done so with flying colors. It would be an honor to be the father that he has been to me. I also pray that God makes me a father like he is, and that should God bless me with children, that they could have the privilege of growing under such a man of honor, wisdom, and integrity as he. I know that my words have not completely done justice to my dad's outstanding character, and I apologize for that.
Thanks for reading and sharing the reasons of why I love my father. Happy Father's Day, Dad. I love you.
Joe B. Robinette Jr. is one of the most humble men I know; and I wanted to say this up front because some might not know the details about his character and his role in my life otherwise. He probably would refuse the credit given to him. If there is anyone who exemplifies a life of servitude, it is he. I haven't ever known Dad to be a selfish person; rather, the things he does and the activities he chooses to fill his life's jar with are all revolving around others. At age 59, he is still actively involved as an assistant scoutmaster and committee councilman in Boy Scouts, an elder and shepherd in the church, a Bible class teacher, and a friend to many. These go beyond the many things he volunteered for while I was growing up.
Dad was an active participant (and still is) in my development. He made up bedtime stories to share when I was a child. He read to me at night. He took a few minutes out of his day to go play catch in the back yard. He even volunteered as a coach just to spend that much more time with me. He took me hunting and taught me outdoorsmanship. He, sometimes forcibly, took me out to the ranch and taught me how to work and developed my work ethic. Although it was difficult to see and understand earlier on, he spent as much time as he could with me. Spending time together was, and continues to be, a great way to show me how much he loves and cares for me.
Dad was a great teacher and disciplinarian, and he was a master at striking the proper balance. Yeah, he spanked me when I was in need of it, and look, I'm not emotionally scarred or crippled for life. Instead, he cared about me and felt the calling to teach me what is right and what is biblical. Every time prior to my spanking, we read the Bible together. And every time immediately after my reprimand, I was hugged and held. He explained to me that it was necessary because he loved me and it was his responsibility to show that and to show me the way. These two verses he took to heart: "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him." Proverbs 13:24. "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not turn from it." Proverbs 22:6. I admire him so much for that.
My dad is a patient man. He might disagree somewhat with that assessment, but from my eyes, I stand firm with attaching that quality to his character. I did some stupid stuff as a kid. I made him mad sometimes. We butted heads a few times and didn't always see eye to eye. When I could see that it would be easy to blow up at me, he hugged me instead. Again, I could tell that he focused a large part of his life on me. He was patient to teach me things, about something as small as cleaning a gun, or about larger matters such as being a boyfriend/husband/man that God would have me be. It was a sign of his unconditional love.
Finally (at least the last point that I will mention), what makes my father an incredible man is his zeal in sharing the Gospel with me and bringing me up in the faith. Anyone can read a Bible, but Dad was always intentional in taking the next step (and I need to add that Mom was stride-for-stride in this endeavor). We read the Bible at the dinner table (and when I got my butt busted) like clockwork, we prayed together often, he and Mom took me to church three times per week. But stopping there wasn't an option for him. He made sure that he was the best he could be. He knew that my young eyes were watching his every move, and he was careful to live his life as he wanted me to live mine. THAT is what I define as father.
I pray for Dad. I thank God that He sent me the only guy on the earth that fit that role in my life. My dad is my hero, my best friend, my hunting partner, my teacher, my mentor, my confidant, my Dad, and so many other important figures to me. It takes a true man to take on the responsibilities of a father, and he has done so with flying colors. It would be an honor to be the father that he has been to me. I also pray that God makes me a father like he is, and that should God bless me with children, that they could have the privilege of growing under such a man of honor, wisdom, and integrity as he. I know that my words have not completely done justice to my dad's outstanding character, and I apologize for that.
Thanks for reading and sharing the reasons of why I love my father. Happy Father's Day, Dad. I love you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)