Character counts

I'm reading a book now called When No One Sees by Os Guinness. It talks about the importance of character in an age of image, a message that is important for all of us now. Scattered throughout the book are short statements dealing with character, and I want to share some of them with you here.

"Sow a thought, reap an action; sow an action, reap a habit; sow a habit, reap a character; sow a character, reap a destiny."

"Man is made to adore and obey; but if you give him nothing to worship, he will fashion his own divinities and find a chieftain in his own passions." (Benjamin Disraeli)

"Mankind would rather see gestures than listen to reasons." (Frederick Nietzsche)

"In the long run, the public interest depends on private virtue." (James Wilson).

"In the White House, character and personality are extremely important because there are no other limitations… Restraint must come from within the presidential soul and prudence from within the presidential mind. The adversary forces which temper the actions of others, do not come into play until it is too late to change course." (George Reedy, special assistant to Lyndon Johnson)

"Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one." (Marcus Aurelius)

"Fame is a vapor, popularity an accident, riches take wing, and only character endures." (Horace Greeley)

"Anger is a short madness." (Horace)

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." (Abraham Lincoln)

"Character counts in the presidency more than any other single quality. It is more important than how much the president knows of foreign policy or economics, or even about politics. When the chips are down – and the chips are nearly always down in the presidency – how do you decide? Which way do you go? What kind of courage is called upon? Talking of his hero Andrew Jackson, Truman once said, it takes one kind of courage to face a duelist, but it's nothing like the courage it takes to tell a friend, no." (David McCullough, biographer of Harry Truman)

Thanksgiving for me

Thanksgiving is a perfect time to reflect on all the good that has come into my life. What am I thankful for? So many things…

A great wife, who has shown me mercy and grace over the years despite myself.

Two wonderful sons who have started businesses and shown great abilities such as discipline, creativity, and wisdom.

Two daughters-in-law who make my sons happy each day.

A grandson who toddles up to me, lifts his hands, and says, "Up."

Jesus Christ, the most important person who ever lived.

Christian apologetics, where I can find good reasons for the faith that I follow.

A job that I look forward to every day.

DragonSpeak software that allows me to type without depending on my lousy two-finger skills.

A house with a big yard.

A golden retriever who thinks I'm pretty special.

Lots of good books that need to be read.

Library sales of used books and used audio books.

The United States of America – the best country to live in.

Two cars that are old enough to avoid sharp depreciation but still nice enough to enjoy.

The Byrds, an old rock band that still gives me a lot of pleasure to hear.

Hiking trails near enough for me to enjoy the peace and quiet.

A digital camera, which has allowed us to take wonderful videos and photos of our grandson.

Good friends to share the joys and frustrations of life.

Good health which enables me to do the things I want to do.

Aches and pains of old age, which remind me to use my time well.

Netflix, which has allowed my wife and me to enjoy documentaries.

The San Diego Chargers and Padres, who teach me patience.

Passages that seem to disprove the Trinity.

As part of the presentation last week in a church apologetics class, I discussed the answer to a key question – who is Jesus? One of the areas touched on had to do with the doctrine of the Trinity, an area many Christians struggle with. There are several verses brought up by those who oppose the Trinity, and I wanted to use this time to show that their arguments don't work.

They might start with the first chapter of John. We read in the 14th verse, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." Those who oppose the Trinity will point out that this verse suggests God brought about Jesus because of the word "begotten." However, a far better translation shows that this word refers to the uniqueness of the Son. A better translation would be "God the only Son" or "the only Son, who is God."

Another place those who oppose the Trinity go to in John is in the 14th chapter. We see in verse 28 that Jesus says the Father is greater than He is. But the rest of the passage tells a different story. Jesus is explaining to his disciples that they should rejoice because He is going to the Father. If it simply means that the Father is a higher being, why should the disciples rejoice? This passage refers to the fact that the Father in heaven is positionally greater than the Son on earth. Jesus is telling the disciples to be happy because He is leaving a humble position and returning to glory.

Another favorite passage for those who oppose the Trinity is in Colossians. We read in the first chapter (verses 15 and 16) about Jesus: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him." The use of the word "firstborn" makes it sound like Jesus was created later than the Father. However, this term has been used throughout the Bible to indicate a favored position rather than literally born first. Take a look some time at Exodus 4:22, Jeremiah 31:9, Psalm 89:27, Romans 8:29, Hebrews 1:6, Revelation 1:5. For example, Psalm 89:27 calls David the firstborn even though David was not the first one physically born in his family.

I certainly agree that the Trinity is a difficult concept. But it is taught clearly in the Bible, especially the New Testament. I can cover that sometime if anyone wishes to continue with this topic.

The Messiah and fulfilled prophecies

It's Thursday, and I'll be presenting information tonight to our church apologetics class on a key question – who is Jesus? I wanted to cover in the blog today part of my answer to that question. He is the fulfillment of many messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. Let's look at just a few of many such prophecies.

I plan on starting with Psalm 22. All through the psalm are many foreshadowings about the death of Jesus on the cross. It's so obvious that it points to Jesus; as a result, it has caused a revision in the translation of Jewish Bibles today. For example, at one point (verse 16) the narrator says his enemies have "pierced my hands and my feet." Considering crucifixion was not part of the psalmist's world, it seems to predict the kind of death Jesus faced. As a result, modern Hebrew Bibles replace that word with a phrase – "like a lion." But the oldest Hebrew translations we have (the Septuagint and the Dead Sea scroll that contains Psalms) use the word "pierced." Considering that the Septuagint was written over 200 years before the time of Jesus, it seems obvious that modern Jewish translations are attempting to avoid an obvious connection to Jesus.

Then there's Isaiah 9:6. This is part of a passage referencing the birth of the child, and Isaiah says in verse six, "He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Of course, this sounds like the child will be God, again suggesting a connection to Jesus. So, once again, modern Jewish Bibles have been translated differently. This verse now says that he will be called "Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father." Do you see the difference here? The Jewish Bible now says that this child is given a name appropriate to God rather than to him.

Two other passages suggest the Messiah will come from the line of David. Take a look some time at Isaiah 11:10 and Jeremiah 23:5-6. But there's a huge problem with this assertion. When the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., all genealogical records were destroyed as well. So, anyone who claimed to be the Messiah after 70 A.D. would be unable to prove his lineage came through the line of David. Thus, the Messiah had to be on the scene earlier than that.

Other verses also reflect the idea that the Messiah needed to be in existence in the first century A.D. Consider Haggai 2:6-9, which talks about the glory of the second Temple. The verse says God will fill his house, which in the context is the second Temple. This phrase refers to his actual presence being there. Since the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., it again suggests Jesus as God fulfilled this prophecy. Genesis 49:10 says the scepter will not depart from Judah until the Messiah comes. Jews understood this term to mean the ability for them to have independence in their land, including judicial rights. Then the Romans in 6 A.D. took over Palestine and refused to allow the Jews to impose capital punishment. Rabbis of the time said the Messiah should have been there based on their understanding of the verse in Genesis. Well, they were right because a young man was growing up in Nazareth at that time. Finally, there is the reference in Daniel 9:24-26 that talks about when the Messiah would come and be cut off (killed). He says there will be sixty-nine sevens after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem before the Messiah appears. If you multiply 69x7, you get 483 years. Multiply that by the ancient year-long calendar of 360 days, and you get 173,880 days. Now divide that by our modern 365 days in a year. You get 476 years. Still with me? The decree to rebuild Jerusalem was in 445 B.C., so adding 476 years gets us to 31 A.D. Hmm . . . what famous person in the Bible faced death around that time? Yep, it was Jesus.

Of course, there are many more verses that I could have mentioned, but you get the idea. This whole concept of fulfilled prophecy is fascinating. If you'd like further information, take a look some time at a book called The Search for Messiah by Eastman and Smith.

The United Nations--your tax dollars at work

If you pay attention to news items, I'm sure you remember that Unesco, the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, admitted the Palestinian Authority as a member, even though it's not a country and therefore ineligible. The U.S. in response ended funding for this group, so taxpayers will save $80 million a year. What's interesting is the awful history of this U.N. agency.

According to an article in The Wall Street Journal Unesco has been best known since the 1970s for its New World Information Order, a set of recommendations that would regulate journalists and legitimize the suppression of free speech by authoritarian governments.

This isn't the first time time the U.S. has withdrawn funding from Unesco. During the Cold War, Soviet officials ran Unesco's education programs, and a former head of an African military tribunal responsible for executions was in charge of culture. When France expelled 47 KGB agents in 1983, 12 were Unesco employees. When the U.S. defunded Unesco, its leadership solicited countries to make up the shortfall and got a big donation from Libya's Moammar Gadhafi. That should tell you something.

Unesco has shown blatant hostility to Israel for a long time. Back in 1974 it granted observer status to the Palestine Liberation Organization. Despite Israel's protection of antiquities claimed by Christians, Muslims and Jews, Unesco accused Israel of "persistent alteration of historic features in Jerusalem." The organization dropped its boycott of Israel in the 1970s only after the U.S. threatened to withdraw funds. In the 1990s, Unesco held a symposium on Jerusalem at its Paris headquarters that excluded any Israeli groups. Sounds less than fair.

The Journal reports that in 2009, Farouk Hosny was the lead candidate to run Unesco. He had been the culture minister of Egypt under Hosni Mubarak for 20 years; his responsibilities including censoring news media and Internet. After losing to a Bulgarian diplomat in the fifth round of voting, he blamed "Zionist pressure" and "a group of the world's Jews." He had told the Egyptian Parliament the year before that if there were any books by Israeli authors in Alexandria's library, "I will burn them myself." And this man was close to running Unesco?

But there are more examples of Unesco's unfair treatment of Israel. Last year, at the request of several Arab countries, Unesco reclassified Rachel's Tomb—the 4,000-year-old burial site of Judaism's patriarchs and matriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah—as a mosque. And last year the organization published a history of science that replaces the rabbinic scholar Moshe Ben Maimon—Maimonides—with a Muslim named "Moussa Ben Maimoun."

The point of all this is simple. Unesco is a reliable reminder that there is little accountability for U.N. actions or inactions. This world body is a joke, and we shouldn't bow to its whims nor alter our courts to reflect its standards.

The soaring costs of college

This is a second blog dealing with higher education--its failure to do its job and its soaring costs. I got the information from Jack Kelly's article entitled "The Big College Scam." Notice his word choice--it's a scam.

Last time I focused on Kelly's attack leveled at the failure of higher education. Students don't learn. The president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni said,"Students who say that college has not prepared them for the real world are largely right. The fundamental problem here is not debt, but a broken educational system that no longer insists on excellence."

For this blog, let's take a closer look at the sharply rising costs of higher education. Kelly claims that the cost of college soared and its value diminished once the federal government started to "help." The supposed purpose of federal guarantees for student loans was to make college more affordable. In fact, according to Kelly, they did the opposite by fueling the massive tuition hikes. Colleges spent the extra money to expand their bureaucracies, increase the compensation of faculty and staff, and improve physical facilities. Some of this sounds fine, but I've seen the costs even at the community college level. When the school adds a new dean, for instance, the costs soar since that person doesn't function alone. He or she needs an entire staff, adding enormously to the costs of running the school.

Kelly has some discouraging statistics on the costs associated with higher education. We spend about $10,600 per pupil in public schools, 377 percent more, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than we spent in 1961. Yet among students who go to college, 75 percent require some remedial work. And, according to a study by the American Enterprise Institution and the Heritage Foundation, teachers are paid $120 billion over market value. That's painful to hear considering that I'm a teacher.

So students who succeed in college often come out with massive debt. Add to this the problem that their skills were not improved while in school, and you have a real problem. Kelly notes that roughly 60 percent of the increase in the number of college graduates since 1992 work in low-skill jobs. In 2008, 318,000 waiters and waitresses had college degrees, as did 365,000 cashiers and 18,000 parking lot attendants.

Unfortunately, very few are honest with students considering college. They often refuse to say that college isn't for everyone ... or that rigorous exit requirements at any level do not exist. It goes back to my comments in the previous blog. Higher education is often "sold" as a commodity to students with the implied message that they will get the diploma, no matter what their skill levels or their study habits.

So how is our current President doing with this problem? It looks like he will keep the current system going a little longer. He recently proposed a student loan forgiveness program, with taxpayers eating the difference. It would save students about $8 a month, but it won't slow down college costs or make the schools better places to learn.

What's that diploma worth?

I was reading an online article that had to do with higher education. Years ago, education articles were glowing as they told of the value of a college degree. But so much has changed--and not for the better.

Let's talk costs. The article reported that tuition and fees at colleges and universities rose 439 percent between 1982 and 2007. Median family income rose just 147 percent during that period. Median household income has fallen 6.7 percent since June 2009. The cost of attending the average public university rose 5.4 percent this year. See a pattern here?

But it might be worth it if the students were getting a lot for their (or their parents') money. That's not the case, however. Nearly half learn next to nothing in their first two years; a third learn almost nothing in four, according to a report authored principally by Prof. Richard Arum of New York University. The article I read had a startling statement: "Students who say that college has not prepared them for the real world are largely right," said Ann Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. "The fundamental problem here is not debt, but a broken educational system that no longer insists on excellence." Another education expert said, "A college degree nowadays doesn't necessarily signal that its holder has any useful work skills."

Who's to blame for this failure? Now, keep in mind that I'm conservative, so you know what's coming. "For decades our schools have abandoned the teaching of basic facts and foundational thinking skills, and replaced both with leftish received wisdom and stale mythologies, all the while they have anxiously monitored and puffed up students' self esteem," said classics Prof. Bruce Thornton of California State University Fresno. So, our students can't do much, but they feel good about themselves. Man, that's sad.

What I see is an attitude on the part of the students that is a real problem. They believe the school has promised them success if they come and plunk down their money. It's like buying soap--you pay a certain amount, and you're guaranteed a useful product. They seem to believe a diploma awaits as long as they have paid their college tuition. I blame the schools because they promise too much and ignore the fact that not all people are cut out for college. The result is disillusioned (and poorer) students

There's more to this article I read, but I want to slow it down. There's much to think about here.

California's new tax--another disaster

We live in a crazy state. All is collapsing around us--high unemployment, high taxes, companies leaving for other states. And what do the Democrats in Sacramento decide to pursue? A green tax. Unbelievable.

Here's what's happening. California has become the first jurisdiction in the nation to adopt a full-scale cap-and-trade tax to combat global warming. The new taxes and regulations will require a nearly 30% reduction in carbon emissions from power plants, manufacturers, cars and trucks by 2020. Yes, you read that right--not 3% but 30%. That's a recipe for a serious economic nosedive.

It all started in 2006, according to The Wall Street Journal. This green tax was signed into law in 2006 by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in the fantasy that California was going to be the green role model for other states.

How is that working out with other states? Not so well. Ten states in the Northeast entered a regional cap and trade compact to limit greenhouse gases in 2008, but that market is now dying if not dormant and states (recently New Jersey) are dropping out.

Even the federal government, known for stupidity, has wised up. In 2010 the Democratic Senate killed cap and trade, and there is no chance anytime soon this tax will be implemented in Washington.

Now with states and the federal government slowing down and being far more cautious about this crazy plan, you'd think California would also re-think the plan. You'd be wrong. Our "Golden State" will go it alone on cap and trade, and the economic fallout won't be pretty. Nearly every independent analysis agrees that water, electricity, construction and gas prices inside the state will rise. The only debate is about how much.

Here come some scary statistics about the potential costs. A 2009 study by the California Small Business Roundtable estimated costs of $3,857 per household by the end of the decade. That's staggering. Gasoline prices, already near the highest in the nation, could rise by another 4% to 6%. Dust off that bicycle. An analysis by the state's own Legislative Analyst's Office found that the higher costs of doing business would mean "leakage of jobs," with the California economy "likely adversely affected in the near term by implementing climate change policies that are not adopted elsewhere." Duh . . . no kidding. Watch the jobs flee and the economy crater.

I guess what really frustrates me is the empty symbolism of the disastrous action. A single state's policies can't possibly alter the planet's temperature given the huge carbon footprint elsewhere. Do you think China and India will be shamed by California into stopping their economic progress? Har, har.

So here we go. California—with 2.1 million people already out of work and with the nation's second highest jobless rate at 11.9%—will walk the plank with this tax. When will the voters in this state wake up?