Predicto Redux

Unions

2011-02-23T04:39:00.000-08:00

The turmoil in Madison, Wisconsin is not, unfortunately, a battle between good and bad, right and wrong, light and dark. Much as I do concur with Gov. Walker on the need to eliminate collective bargaining for public employees, he is not basing his position, at least in public statements, on the fact that unions are marxist and contrary to Christian principles. Walker appears to be using a fiscal calculus and, to a great extent, undermines himself by exempting police and fire unions.

The governor would present a more consistent and defensible policy if he began from a performance based analysis, i.e., the teachers are failing to perform at acceptable levels and should not be paid as if they were - nor should the taxpayers be forced to fund benefits for substandard performance.

In fact, if any of the people assaulting the capitol were of even average intellect and awareness, he would support the elimination of public unions and, if the government fails to eliminate them, the members would decertify the union themselves.

Unions protect and reward incompetence and failure and punish excellence and achievement. I wonder how many of those angry public employees are ranting and raving because in a merit system they would be at the bottom of the ladder if not unemployed.

Come to think of it, doesn't protect incompetence and punish excellence bring something to mind...like, I don't know, maybe, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

Public unions, especially, also participate in the theft of wealth from the populace, theft at the point of a gun. I am still looking for the passage which supports that.

Now, of course, I know that few public employees believe in Yahweh and His Son - and I don't really care about them at this point; they have their gods and their rewards.

Those who do claim the God of the Bible as their God need to think really, really hard about who they are worshipping...in that square...in Madison.

Madison, Wisconsin

2011-02-17T07:49:00.000-08:00

Watching the typically nasty and potentially violent protests in Madison, Wisconsin, I am disgusted.

These people threaten to turn loose the hounds of Egypt are not vitual slaves (regardless of how bedraggled they appear) demanding an end to sweatshops and child labor. They are not resisting the inhumane demands of the ogres of industry.

Rather, these are people wearing shoes and polyester manufactured by real slave-laborers (though they may feel guilty and launch a balloon for peace).

While the protesters rage at Gov. Walker and the Wisconsin legislature, their real targets are the taxpayers of Wisconsin.

Never mind that in all likelihood those malingering at the capital are paid better, have more and better benefits, have a lighter workload, and retire earlier than those they despise as mere mudanes and worthy to be milked dry.

Gov. Walker, you are not going far enough. Privatize all the services and let these pampered unionists compete with real workers. For those which you cannot or are unwilling to privatize, add one simple additional rule: if a person is employed in the public sector, for as long as he is employed, his right to vote in the political division which issues his paycheck is suspended (if he works for the city, he cannot vote in city elections, for the state, in state elections, etc.).

Lest you think I am the only proponent of dealing harshly with these self-absorbed people, check out the following:

40% of Madison Teachers call in Sick, Schools Shut; Video of Massive Protest in Wisconsin Capitol Building; If Jackasses Could Think

Public unions objecting to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's plan that will save 6,000 jobs flooded the state capitol in protest. 40% of Madison area teachers called in sick.

Those teachers should all be fired. Unfortunately they cannot be fired because their union protects them.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/02/40-of-madison-teachers-call-in-sick.html

And this:

Fire them all
The Wisconsin governor is doing a staunch job of standing firm, but it's time to go on the offensive and fire every teacher who called in sick on Thursday and Friday:

State and Madison teachers union leaders are urging their members to report to the Capitol Friday and Saturday for continued protests against Gov. Scott Walker's collective bargaining proposal. "We need you to come again (today). We need to hear you on Saturday," Mary Bell, Wisconsin Education Association Council president, said at a rally Thursday, when teachers from around the state joined Madison teachers whose absences closed schools for a second day.

I'd actually like to see Walker go one step further, decertify the teachers union and fire every public school teacher who belongs to it. That would border on epic and would instantly make him a national hero in the image of Reagan. One of the defining lessons of the Thatcher and Reagan eras is that the people love a politician who crushes unions. Pawlenty should be hoping for the spread of the teacher sickouts to Minnesota thus giving him the chance to improve his national profile by breaking the public employee union there.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/02/fire-them-all.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fvoxpopoli+%28Vox+Popoli%29

11 Predictions for 2011

2010-12-22T11:46:00.000-08:00

1. Global warming will continue unabated. Temperatures will fall with the snow further confirming the post-science conclusions at East Anglia. In a bonus prediction, a historiometerologist will receive a Nobel for his theory that Lucy's tribe created the last Ice Age by over-cultivation of soybeans.

2. Money will be plentiful for everyone in the next twelve months (especially if you work for a government agency or the SEIU). That will prove beneficial since it will provide excellent paper logs to help offset the increasing global warming and you won't be able to buy anything with it anyway.

3. The Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank secedes. The President of the KC Fed issues the following statement: Banksterism is one thing, but this Bernake guy is nucking futs!"

4. The Alaska senatorial race is finally settled and it turns out Sen. Murkowski can field dress game also. (We shouldn't be surprized, really, she's been skinning taxpayers for years.)

5. Fears of rampant and discriminatory government censorship of the web are allayed when the FCC announces that PBS.com1, PBS.com2, and PBS.com3 will all have optional backgrounds.

6. Three IRS Revenue Agents accidentally put a lien on every bank account in the US. The IRS Commisioner apologizes and requests extra employees because there are "going to be a lot more audits this year."

7. President Obama signs Executive Order instituting Don't Ask, Don't Tell for Christians in the military.

8. Monsanto issues press release noting that all your corn are us.

9. On a flight from Tunisia to NYC a 23 year-old male passenger attempts to ignite a hair bomb secreted in his scalp. TSA announces that henceforth all passengers must be bald and will be subject to intense phrenological examinations.

10. In the first of many municipal collapses, the East St. Louis Public Employees and their pension funds foreclose on the town. The Local President notes that under their management all citizens will be equal, but some will be more equal than others. In a related matter, Illinois will accept only union ID as proof for voting.

11. 2011 will be a year of hope and change, promises of improvement, and bold predictions of success - and yet, the Royals will still suck.

Unconstitutional...sorta

2010-12-13T19:35:00.000-08:00

A federal judge has just ruled that the health care mandate (and related provisions) are unconstitutional and exceed the feds' powers under the commerce clause - nor, apparently, did the late hour argument that it is a "tax" prove persuasive.

Wonder how much more of the tribute paid by some of us will be spent to decide how much more tribute should be confiscated from some of us to be redistributed to others?

Of course the answer will be decided by the philosophical and collectivist ambitions of the courts and not by the legitimacy nor the efficacy of the regulation.

TSA

2010-11-24T07:57:00.000-08:00

Lots of uproar over the pat-downs and nude screenings at the airports.

There is also a curious juxtaposition of the dems and republicans, with the dems crying out for protecting the "police" and the republicans worrying about "unconstitutional searches". In reality, there is nothing mysterious in the positions taken - merely a case of each side acting politically with the democrats backing their president and the republicans staking out the ground of the opposition. Principles are not at issue, only power and popularity.

Frankly, the entire argument is ridiculous.

There are no constitutional issues in play. The Constitution protects contracts. Buying a ticket to fly is entering into a contract for services. The searches and scans are part of the contract...you agreed to them when you paid the price for a ticket. If you don't want to deal with the security, don't fly! You would do the same for any other product you thought was substandard, wouldn't you? If you find the security process offensive, subscribe to alternate means. If the ailines revenue declines enough, they will get the changes made post-haste.

Are these procedures intentional?

Of course they are.

I am not going to dump on the TSA workers as I have seen some do. Most of them are just like any other blue-collar worker in our neighborhood. There are a few cretins, twisted freaks and ulterior motivations, but most are people trying to pay their bills and get home on time.

Inherent in the character of the TSA work-force resides the problem as well.

The agents are not well-trained, experienced security and protection experts. It also appears that Homeland Security has no interest in providing them the training and skills to make them experts. So what the government lacks in quality, it makes up in quantity and brute force.

Tens of thousands of untrained, unskilled people will not make a quality security force.

What it will make, however, is a fertile field for groupthink (a new thin blue line).

Are the TSA agents unionized? If not, bet they soon will be...and what do we know know about government employee unions?

The only way to kill the monster is to stop feeding it.

Election in the Rear View

2010-11-19T21:09:00.000-08:00

Two weeks gone by and the outcome of the election is starting to come into focus.

I really had hoped that there would be a significant mandate for the Tea Party and its candidates...not that there wasn't an effect...the Tea Party raised the level of change from that of a typical mid-term election to historic numbers.

Unfortunately, the real impact was a bit muted by the fact that the few truly outstanding, consistently conservative candidates mostly lost and nearly all of the hard-core statists won. Most of the changes occurred in the middle where dozens of moderate dems were defeated by dozens of moderate republicans.

The result is that Nancy Pelosi has a smaller but more cohesive leftist bloc and the republican majority is still lacking the necessary fire and steel needed for a revolutionary term.

What needs to be understood here is that the outcome of the congressional elections are nearly meaningless: no vetos can be overidden, no legislation can be passed (without compromise), there will be gridlock.

If the President was a normal politician this would be a good position for the people's sake. But, sadly, the chief executive is not a normal politician.

The fact that all the republicans can do is say no leaves the nation virtually naked in the face of the bureaucratic onslaught we are about to experience.

Obama will now begin to show his true statist colors and rule by fiat through executive orders and regulation - and the republicans can't stop him.

How do we counter this War of Federal Aggression? Two ways: through our state and local governments and by our refusal to participate in the system.

Nov. 2

2010-11-01T21:02:00.001-07:00

By the time this is read by all but a few, the events of this day will already be playing out in full effect.

Whether or not there is a GOP landslide, the question which may be left unanswered is if the landslide signals real change.

I think there are some key races which will signal something bigger than just a new boss overseeing the same old system:

1. Reid-Angle - if Harry Reid wins it will be a major disappointment and will likely portend a night that will not meet expectations; if he wins comfortably, look for headlines about a GOP failure.

2. O'Donnell-Coons - A comfortable Coons victory means that little has changed. A close race means the Tea Party is growing in power and is not going away. An O'Donnell victory signals a massive revolt and that big changes will occur in short order.

3. Hartzler-Skelton - A bellewether of business as usual. Skelton is representative of "the club" and has had an easy go for decades. A defeat will be almost as apocalyptic as the DE race.

4. WA and CA - The races for the Senate and CA governor will be coming in as the outcome is becoming clearer. If 2 or 3 go Republican, it will establish the grass roots as a new power broker.

Let's watch and see and tonight or in the morning I will analyze what the results will probably mean for us, for them, and how the losers are likely to react.

Consensus Conformity in Practice - Part 1

2010-10-20T09:30:00.000-07:00

I could have never imagined that such an obvious example of consensus conformity would have have played out on a public stage as happened just a couple of days ago.

In case you missed it, Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell asked her opponent, Chris Coons, where separation of church and state was found in the Constitution. In the typical sniggering fashion of all statists, he replied that it was in the 1st amendment (as the audience laughed). If you haven't seen or heard the exchange, you can catch it here...and many other places.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6972772n

Don't be confused by the text, because CBS, like most of the other mainstream media and Chris Coons, is dead wrong and, hard as it may be to grasp, candidate O'Donnell was right to question her opponent (it is not shown as often, but Mr. Coons also failed to recall the 5 freedoms which are actually included in the 1st amendment).

The "wall of separation" and "separation of church and state" (frequently including an appeal to authority by invoking the sacred name of Thomas Jefferson) are fallback positions for those of the statist persuasion whenever they find themselves contradicted by reality and the imprinted circuits of there modified brains are beginning to sizzle. The consensus conformity here is that there is a constitutional protection from having to ever confront any religious ideas.

Too bad for the media, Chris Coons, and all those soon-to-be incompetent lawyers, that was the exact opposite of what Jefferson, et al, meant by the idea.

If you want to learn a tad more, check out this short review:

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/Dreisbach104.htm

Why can we not take the country back? Because the only ones left who really understand the problems are the same ones the Stepford elites want to destroy.

Techno-Indifference

2010-10-18T23:14:00.000-07:00

I have frequently labelled myself as a Luddite. I have never seriously considered wrecking any kind of machinery, much less automated looms, however, there is no disputing that I am a very late-adopter of any technological advances and I do not consider all new technology as per se progress.

It turns out that social science has a more contemporary tag to hang on my toe: neo-Luddite.

"A Neo-Luddite is someone who believes that the use of technology has serious ethical, moral, and social ramifications. Operating under this belief, Neo-Luddites are cautious to promote early adoption of technology, and while they are not necessarily opposed to technology, they would prefer to see a more serious discussion of the role of technology in society. Some Neo-Luddites actually dislike technology, opting for a life of “voluntary simplicity,” but this is not always the case." http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-neo-luddite.htm

Yep, that about covers it for me.

I really do question the benefits of ever-increasing dependency and use of digital appliances. Are we healthier or do we just live longer? Are we safer or merely more observed? Are we wiser or simply possessed of more data.

There are some who will not even comprehend how I could question the progress. There are a few who will completely understand.

God told us we would wrest our bread from the ground through the sweat of our brow - perhaps that meant more than a command to "work hard".

Conspiracy and Consensus

2010-09-28T06:44:00.000-07:00

Conspiracy research is exciting, stimulating, infuriating and exhausting.

The world operates on conspracy...oh yes it does. For those of you now rolling your eyes, your skepticism merely reveals a lack of thorough consideration because it is not a matter of whether or not you believe in conspiracies - it is a matter of which conspiracies you believe.

For example, nearly everyone believes World War Two was the result of a conspiracy. Most view the conspiracy as including the Axis powers and a plan to dominate Europe, Asia and perhaps the world. Far fewer see the war as a result of machinations of a cabal of bankers, politicians, and the like who manipulated and then profited from the carnage.

Even in the case of this example, what is deemed historical "fact" and what is conspiracy "theory" is determined by consensus reality - and consensus reality is shaped by the information available and a cultural pressure to conform.

Still, even mainstream, pop culture history, reveals the heretofor hidden information that should move the consensus reality to another position and yet, more often than not, there is no movement.

Eventually, a lot of the nuggets unearthed by conspracy researchers make it into the mainstream, sometimes even become consensus reality, and yet nothing seems to change.

Why is that?

Perhaps it is because there is another consensus which overrides even an understanding that all is not right: consensus conformity.

Consensus conformity is the recognition that truth is irrelevant to success and achievement within the world system. This is the essence of the game, the darkest of the conspiracies, the road to hell.

In order to gain acceptance it is necessary to willingly suspend knowledge and promote, defend, publish what is self-evidently untrue. See this is the soul sacrifice, because an innocent cannot be turned until he is aware and voluntarily rejects what he knows to be true.

Does this help explain why grass roots movements fail?

Purpose

2010-09-20T11:04:00.000-07:00

One of the comforts of belonging to the Creator is that there is absolute certainty that there is purpose - not just a purpose for me or you or for events or actions - purpose. God has not wound a clock, He has constructed a chronometer, every wheel and bearing a specific and instrumental part in the whole. He set it in motion and He knows when it will stop.

What has been created for the purpose will not be discarded. The whole has been intended from the beginning to be whole. God will restore and recreate all to His intended whole. Nothing will be lost.

Do You Know of Any Prophets?

2010-08-07T20:09:00.000-07:00

Let me ask you a question: Do you know of any prophets?

No, not predicters, prophets. Men who agonize and wrestle with the truth. Visionaries, eccentrics, wild men in the wilderness, witnesses in the cities.

So do you know any?

If you do, you had better bless them, defend them, treasure them and store up their wisdom and exhortations - listen to them.

The prophets' time is short.

So do you know of any prophets? If you are not sure, you will be when they are gone and you are alone in the hands of the scorpions and the snakes.

2010-08-05T07:45:00.000-07:00

So a solitary judge in California overturned an expensive and divisive constitutional amendment...is anyone really surprised? His being a homosexual had nothing to do with his ruling, though, well not a lot.

This opinion now means a whole lot of money will be given to attorneys to do a lot of meaningless legal work (maybe they can get stimulus funds)and bunch of sweet, loving gays and lesbians can spend their boundless energy attacking and villifying people who dare to have an opinion and even more religious folk can fill the airwaves with senseless drivel about how the state licensing non-traditional marriage will destroy the moral fiber of the nation.

Well I call bullshit.

The judge made a correct ruling - probably for the wrong reasons, but correct.

Why, you may ask.

Because marriage licenses are issued by the state and the state makes the rules. Therefore, if the state wants to license same-sex marriage, it can. If the state wants to license polygamy, it can. If the state wants to enable NAMBLA's desires, it can and it probably will in the not too distant future.

Both sides of the conflict are populated by idiots - complete and cognitively defective idiots.

Why does anyone want the government, at any level, to decide and regulate and license who can marry who?

If either the pro or con side had spent any time in deep thought (and knew anything about history)they would be demanding the state get out of the marriage business.

Same-sex marriage will not bring the nation to ruin, it is a symptom of the ruin that already occurred because we made the state a god and forgot the real one.

Financial Regulation

2010-07-21T17:16:00.000-07:00

"There will be no more tax-funded bailouts, period."

Technically, barring something unanticipated, President Obama told the truth when he said this today. If he could have left it there, he could have remained in truth...alas, he could not:

"Because of this law, the American people will never be asked again to foot the bill for Wall Street's mistakes,"

See, this statement is patently untrue. Is it a lie - who knows? Whether it is deception or ignorance, it is a false statement.

In order to see why it is false, we must examine how the regulation intends to deal with the possible (likely) failures in the future. The plan, in short, is to charge a fee (tax) to the banks which will be placed in a fund (haha, yeah, right...like social security and the highway fund). The fund will be used to deal with any financial failures which occur.

Now here comes the unspoken truth: where does the money actually come from?

Well the banks and financial institutions, of course. Right?

Wrong!

Self-evident truth of economics #1: businesses pay no taxes (fees, assessments, tribute). Businesses only collect taxes (etc.).

The way it works is that a business intends to make a profit. Now, since in the most basic sense, profit exists only when revenue exceeds expenses, if a business' costs increase, in order to stay profitable, it will have to increase its prices. (Of course there are other factors which could prevent the price increase, but lets set that discussion aside for the moment.)

A bank is a business which is organized to make a profit, therefore, if the bank is taxed or charged a fee, it will pass that cost on to the customer through increased prices.

Thus, the bailouts of the future will still be paid for by the American people - there just won't be a TARP to act as a lightning rod for public scorn (at least not at first).

Oh, by the way, the price increases passed to the consumer will be regressive, that is, the extra costs will cause greater harm to those with the least assets. If you want to know how that works, ask me.

This is just one of the problems with this legislation, but let's save them for another day.

Separation

2010-07-10T07:40:00.000-07:00

The purpose for writing what I do here is not to instruct or lecture but to express myself on select issues and to make public my search, our search, for a way for my family, friends and me to navigate The Way while residing physically in a foreign land.

I know that there is an answer to the question.

Much time has been invested in researching how to remove, or more correctly separate, from the world. Many schemes to rescind numbers, certificates and liscenses have been reviewed. Dozens of legal strategies for overcoming the state with tricks and avoiding traps have been heard.

All of the propositions have one major flaw: they use they system to subvert the system or to defeat the system. Going to one part of the secular government to try to win immunity from another part of the secular government is akin to a chicken going to KFC to be protected from Tyson...you are still gonna be dinner.

If you use a process, designed into the system, to escape the world, what is there about that process that makes you believe you are free?

It seems to me that there are only three ways to separate completely from the world:

1. Leave the territory under their control,
2. Overthrow the rulers,
3. Be set free.

Since the entire world is under the control of the usurper and his forces, there is no where to go.

There are few, a remnant as it were, who seek this liberty, Rebellion is neither possible nor acceptable. I can find no-where where we are instructed by God or true Apostles to engage in an overthrow of any government of the world - locally, nationally or internationally. In fact, i can't even find a suggestion, much less a command, to engage with the world system to modify it. This precludes a dominionist concept of rule on the part of believers.

That leaves liberty by release. Either the slavemasters must voluntarily free us or our price must be paid (i.e. our debt satisfied).

The idea of redemption, Christ as kinsman redeemer, would have to come into play here.

Here are some references to explore:

http://threshingfloor-radio.com/index.php/2010/07/gospel-of-kingdom/

http://www.hisholychurch.org/index.php

http://www.oneradionetwork.com/liberty%10geopolitics_-_podcasts/%93how_to_be_free_in_an_unfree_world%94/david_williams_says_there_is_a_reason_the_constitution_is_not_working_for_us__live_monday,_may_31st._201005311720

http://www.oneradionetwork.com/liberty%10geopolitics_-_podcasts/%93how_to_be_free_in_an_unfree_world%94/david_williams_says_the_constitution_does_not_apply_here_thursday_,_july_1st_10_am_central_201006301749/

Read and listen.

Come back and talk with...and with them. Clever tricks and word games are not enough. We have other work to do.

P.S. Apologies for the roughness of the post. It was written in one pass. I will edit and expand in the coming days. This is the point of all of it.

News Surfing

2010-06-15T07:55:00.000-07:00

Just a couple of quick notes based on news surfing the past few days:

1. Deepwater Horizon - the leak will be used to impose and/or pass environmental legislation to "prevent" similar disasters and make the oil companies pay for the safety and there will be much talk about dependency on foreign oil. Remember that corporations do NOT pay taxes. Business are tax collectors...their customers pay the taxes through price increases. Can you say $5.00 gas?

2. Climate Change - look for the cooling trend of the past decade to be accepted as fact and the discussion slowly start to turn toward global cooling (as evidence of man affecting the environment). Never mind the increasing activity of the sun and the solar flares headed here (or the reversal of the temperature trend therefrom). We all know man affects climate, not the sun.

3. Election - nothing yet has changed my hunch that the Republican landslide will fizzle. Politics are local and, even now, most will keep their guy. Still watching for trends.

Dialectic of Science

2010-05-25T02:18:00.000-07:00

POST-NORMAL SCIENCE - Environmental Policy under Conditions of Complexity

(4882 total words in this text)
(28209 reads)

S. Funtowicz, EC-JRC/ISIS, Ispra (Va), Italy; J. Ravetz, RMC Ltd., London (England)

1. Introduction
In relation to policy, "the environment" is particularly challenging. It includes masses of detail concerning many particular issues, which require separate analysis and management. At the same time, there are broad strategic issues, which should guide regulatory work, such as those connected with "sustainability". Nothing can be managed in a convenient isolation; issues are mutually implicated; problems extend across many scale levels of space and time; and uncertainties and value-loadings of all sorts and all degrees of severity affect data and theories alike.

This situation is a new one for policy makers. In one sense the environment is in the domain of Science: the phenomena of concern are located in the world of nature. Yet the tasks are totally different from those traditionally conceived for Western science. For that, it was a matter of conquest and control of Nature; now we must manage, accommodate and adjust. We know that we are no longer, and never really were, the "masters and possessors of Nature" that Descartes imagined for our role in the world (Descartes 1638).

To engage in these new tasks we need new intellectual tools. A picture of reality designed for controlled experimentation and abstract theory building, can be very effective with complex phenomena reduced to their simple, atomic elements. But it is not best suited for the tasks of environmental policy today. The scientific mind-set fosters expectations of regularity, simplicity and certainty in the phenomena and in our interventions. But these can inhibit the growth of our understanding of the problems and of appropriate methods to their solution. Here we shall introduce and articulate several concepts, which can provide elements of a framework to understand environmental issues. They are all new, and still evolving. There is no orthodoxy concerning their content or the conditions of their application

The leading concept is "complexity". This relates to the structure and properties of the phenomena and the issues for environmental policy. Systems that are complex are not merely complicated; by their nature they involve deep uncertainties and a plurality of legitimate perspectives. Hence the methodologies of traditional laboratory-based science are of restricted effectiveness in this new context.

The most general methodology for managing complex science-related issues is "Post-Normal Science" (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1992, 1993, Futures 1999). This focuses on aspects of problem solving that tend to be neglected in traditional accounts of scientific practice: uncertainty and value loading. It provides a coherent explanation of the need for greater participation in science-policy processes, based on the new tasks of quality assurance in these problem-areas.

2. Complexity
Anyone trying to comprehend the problems of "the environment" might well be bewildered by their number, variety and complication. There is a natural temptation to try to reduce them to simpler, more manageable elements, as with mathematical models and computer simulations. This, after all, has been the successful programme of Western science and technology up to now. But environmental problems have features which prevent reductionist approaches from having any, but the most limited useful effect. These are what we mean when we use the term "complexity".

Complexity is a property of certain sorts of systems; it distinguishes them from those which are simple, or merely complicated. Simple systems can be captured (in theory or in practice) by a deterministic, linear causal analysis. Such are the classic scientific explanations, notably those of high-prestige fields like mathematical physics. Sometimes such a system requires more variables for its explanation or control than can be neatly managed in its theory. Then the task is accomplished by other methods; and the system is "complicated". The distinction between science and engineering, the latter occurring when more than a half-dozen variables are in play, is a good example of the distinction between simple and complicated systems.

With true complexity, we are dealing with phenomena of a different sort. There are many definitions of complexity, all overlapping, deriving from the various areas of scientific practice with, for example, ecological systems, organisms, social institutions, or the "artificial" simulations of any of them. Here we adopt a more general approach to the concept. First, we think of a "system", a collection of elements and subsystems, defined by their relations within some sort of hierarchy or hierarchies. The hierarchy may be one of inclusion and scale, as in an ecosystem with (say) a pond, its stream, the watershed, and the region, at ascending levels. Or it may be a hierarchy of function, as in an organism and its separate organs. A species and its individual members form a system with hierarchies of both inclusion and function. Environmental systems may also include human and institutional sub-systems, which are themselves systems. These latter are a very special sort of system, which we call "reflexive". In those, the elements have purposes of their own, which they may attempt to achieve independently of, or even in opposition to, their assigned functions in the hierarchy (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1997b).

First, any "system" is itself an intellectual construct, that some humans have imposed on a set of phenomena and their explanations. Sometimes it is convenient to leave the observer out of the system; but in the cases of systems with human and institutional components, this is counterproductive. For environmental systems, then, the observer and analyst are there, as embedded in their own systems, variously social, geographical and cognitive. For policy purposes, a very basic property of observed and analysed complex systems might be called "feeling the elephant", after the Indian fable of the five blind men trying to guess the object they were touching by feeling a part of an elephant. Each conceived the object after his own partial imaging process (the leg indicated a tree, the side a wall, the trunk a snake, etc); it was left to an outsider observer to visualise the whole elephant. This parable reminds us that every observer and analyst of a complex system operates with certain criteria of selection of phenomena, at a certain scale-level, and with certain built-in values and commitments. The result of their separate observations and analyses are not at all "purely subjective" or arbitrary; but none of them singly can encompass the whole system. Looking at the process as a whole, we may ask whether an awareness of their own limitations is built into their personal systematic understanding, or whether it is excluded. In the absence of such awareness, we have old-fashioned technical expertise; when analysis is enriched by its presence, we have Post-Normal Science.

We can express the point in a somewhat more systematic fashion, in terms of two key properties of complex systems. One is the presence of significant and irreducible uncertainties of various sorts in any analysis; and the other is a multiplicity of legitimate perspectives on any problem. For the uncertainty, we have a sort of "Heisenberg effect", where the acts of observation and analysis become part of the activity of the system under study, and so influence it in various ways. This is well known in reflexive social systems, through the phenomena of "moral hazard", self-fulfilling prophecies and mass panic.

But there is another cause of uncertainty, more characteristic of complex systems. This derives from the fact that any analysis (and indeed any observation) must deal with an artificial, usually truncated system. The concepts in whose terms existing data is organised will only accidentally coincide with the boundaries and structures that are relevant to a given policy issue. Thus, social and environmental statistics are usually available (if at all) in aggregations created by governments with other problems in mind; they need interpreting or massaging to make them relevant to the problem at hand. Along with their obvious, technical uncertainties resulting from the operations of data collection and aggregation, the data will have deeper, structural uncertainties, not amenable to quantitative analysis, which may actually be decisive for the quality of the information being presented.

A similar analysis yields the conclusion that there is no unique, privileged perspective on the system. The criteria for selection of data, truncation of models, and formation of theoretical constructs are value-laden, and the values are those embodied in the societal or institutional system in which the science is being done. This is not a proclamation of "relativism" or anarchy. Rather, it is a reminder that the decision process on environmental policies must include dialogue among those who have an interest in the issue and a commitment to its solution. It also suggests that the process towards a decision may be as important as the details of the decision that is finally achieved.

For an example of this plurality of perspectives, we may imagine a group of people gazing at a hillside. One of them "sees" a particular sort of forest, another an archaeological site; another a potential suburb, yet another sees a planning problem. Each uses their training to evaluate what they see, in relation to their tasks. Their perceptions are conditioned by a variety of structures, cognitive and institutional, with both explicit and tacit elements. In a policy process, their separate visions may well come into conflict, and some stakeholders may even deny the legitimacy of the commitments and the validity of the perceptions of others. Each perceives his or her own elephant, as it were. The task of the facilitator is to see those partial systems from a broader perspective, and to find or create some overlap among them all, so that there can be agreement or at least acquiescence in a policy. For those who have this integrating task, it helps to understand that this diversity and possible conflict is not an unfortunate accident that could be eliminated by better natural or social science. It is inherent to the character of the complex system that is realised in that particular hillside.

These two key properties of complex systems, radical uncertainty and plurality of legitimate perspectives, help to define the programme. They show why environmental policy can not be shaped around the idealised linear path of the gathering and then the application of scientific knowledge. Rather, the formation of policy is itself embedded as a subsystem in the total complex system of which its environmental problem is another element.

3. Post-Normal Science as a bridge between complex systems and environmental policy
The idea of a science being somehow "post-normal" conveys an air of paradox and perhaps mystery. By "normality" we mean two things. One is the picture of research science as "normally" consisting of puzzle solving within an unquestioned and unquestionable "paradigm", in the theory of T.S. Kuhn (Kuhn 1962). Another is the assumption that the policy environment is still "normal", in that such routine puzzle solving by experts provides an adequate knowledge base for policy decisions. Of course researchers and experts must do routine work on small-scale problems; the question is how the framework is set, by whom, and with whose awareness of the process. In "normality", either science or policy, the process is managed largely implicitly, and is accepted unwittingly by all who wish to join in. The great lesson of recent years is that that assumption no longer holds. We may call it a "post-modern" "rejection of grand narratives", or a green, NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) politics. Whatever its causes, we can no longer assume the presence of this sort of "normality" of the policy process, particularly in relation to the environment.

The insight leading to Post-Normal Science is that in the sorts of issue-driven science relating to environmental debates, typically facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent. Some might say that such problems should not be called "science"; but the answer could be that such problems are everywhere, and when science is (as it must be) applied to them, the conditions are anything but "normal". For the previous distinction between "hard", objective scientific facts and "soft", subjective value-judgements is now inverted. All too often, we must make hard policy decisions where our only scientific inputs are irremediably soft.

The difference between old and new conditions can be shown by the present difficulties of the classical economics approach to environmental policy. Traditionally, economics attempted to show how social goals could be best achieved by means of mechanisms operating automatically, in an essentially simple system. The "hidden hand" metaphor of Adam Smith conveyed the idea that conscious interference in the workings of the economic system would do no good and much harm; and this view has persisted from then to now. But for the achievement of sustainability, automatic mechanisms are clearly insufficient. Even when pricing rather than control is used for implementation of economic policies, the prices must be set, consciously, by some agency; and this is then a highly visible controlling hand. When externalities are uncertain and irreversible, then no one can set "ecologically correct prices" practised in actual markets or in fictitious markets (through contingent valuation or other economic techniques). There might at best be "ecologically corrected prices", set by a decision-making system. The hypotheses, theories, visions and prejudices of the policy-setting agents are then in play, sometimes quite publicly so. And the public also sees contrasting and conflicting visions among those in the policy arena, all of which are plausible and none of which admits of refutation by any other. This is a social system, which, in the terms discussed above, is truly complex, indeed reflexively complex.

In such contexts of complexity, there is a new role for natural science. The facts that are taught from textbooks in institutions are still necessary, but are no longer sufficient. For these relate to a standardised version of the natural world, frequently to the artificially pure and stable conditions of a laboratory experiment. The world as we interact with it in working for sustainability, is quite different. Those who have become accredited experts through a course of academic study, have much valuable knowledge in relation to these practical problems. But they may also need to recover from the mindset they might absorb unconsciously from their instruction. Contrary to the impression conveyed by textbooks, most problems in practice have more than one plausible answer; and many have no answer at all.

Further, in the artificial world studied in academic courses, it is strictly inconceivable that problems could be tackled and solved except by deploying the accredited expertise. Systems of management of environmental problems that do not involve science, and which cannot be immediately explained on scientific principles, are commonly dismissed as the products of blind tradition or chance. And when persons with no formal qualifications attempt to participate in the processes of innovation, evaluation or decision, their efforts are viewed with scorn or suspicion. Such attitudes do not arise from malevolence; they are inevitable products of a scientific training which presupposes and then indoctrinates the assumption that all problems are simple and scientific, to be solved on the analogy of the textbook.

It is when the textbook analogy fails, that science in the policy context must become post-normal. When facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent the traditional guiding principle of research science, the goal of achievement of truth or at least of factual knowledge, must be substantially modified. In post-normal conditions, such products may be a luxury, indeed an irrelevance. Here, the guiding principle is a more robust one, that of quality.

It could well be argued that quality has always been the effective principle in practical research science, but it was largely ignored by the dominant philosophy and ideology of science. For post-normal science, quality becomes crucial, and quality refers to process at least as much as to product. It is increasingly realised in policy circles that in complex environment issues, lacking neat solutions and requiring support from all stakeholders, the quality of the decision-making process is absolutely critical for the achievement of an effective product in the decision. This new understanding applies to the scientific aspect of decision-making as much as to any other.

Figure 1

Post-Normal Science can be located in relation to the more traditional complementary strategies, by means of a diagram (see Figure 1). On it, we see two axes, "systems uncertainties" and "decision stakes". When both are small, we are in the realm of "normal", safe science, where expertise is fully effective. When either is medium, then the application of routine techniques is not enough; skill, judgement, sometimes even courage are required. We call this "professional consultancy", with the examples of the surgeon or the senior engineer in mind. Our modern society has depended on armies of "applied scientists" pushing forward the frontiers of knowledge and technique, with the professionals performing an aristocratic role, either as innovators or as guardians.

Of course there have always been problems that science could not solve; indeed, the great achievement of our civilisation has been to tame nature in so many ways, so that for unprecedented numbers of people, life is more safe, convenient and comfortable than could ever have been imagined in earlier times. But now we are finding that the conquest of nature is not complete. As we confront nature in its reactive state, we find extreme uncertainties in our understanding of its complex systems, uncertainties that will not be resolved by mere growth in our data-bases or computing power. And since we are all involved with managing the natural world to our personal and sectional advantage, any policy for change is bound to affect our interests. Hence in any problem-solving strategy, the decision-stakes of the various stakeholders must also be reckoned with.

This is why the diagram has two dimensions; this is an innovation for descriptions of "science", which had traditionally been assumed to be "value-free". But in any real problem of environmental management, the two dimensions are inseparable. When conclusions are not completely determined by the scientific facts, inferences will (naturally and legitimately) be conditioned by the values held by the agent. This is a necessary part of ordinary research practice; all statistical tests have values built in through the choice of numerical "confidence limits", and the management of "outlier" data calls for judgements that can sometimes approach the post-normal in their complexity. If the stakes are very high (as when an institution is seriously threatened by a policy) then a defensive policy will involve challenging every step of a scientific argument, even if the systems uncertainties are actually small. Such tactics become wrong only when they are conducted covertly, as by scientists who present themselves as impartial judges when they are actually committed advocates. There are now many initiatives, increasing in number and significance all the time, for involving wider circles of people in decision-making and implementation on environmental issues.

The contribution of all the stakeholders in cases of Post-Normal Science is not merely a matter of broader democratic participation. For these new problems are in many ways different from those of research science, professional practice, or industrial development. Each of those has its means for quality assurance of the products of the work, be they peer review, professional associations, or the market. For these new problems, quality depends on open dialogue between all those affected. This we call an "extended peer community", consisting not merely of persons with some form or other of institutional accreditation, but rather of all those with a desire to participate in the resolution of the issue. Seen out of context, such a proposal might seem to involve a dilution of the authority of science, and its dragging into the arena of politics. But we are here not talking about the traditional areas of research and industrial development; but about those where issues of quality are crucial, and traditional mechanisms of quality assurance are patently inadequate. Since this context of science is one involving policy, we might see this extension of peer communities as analogous to earlier extensions of franchise in other fields, as allowing workers to form trade unions and women to vote. In all such cases, there were prophecies of doom, which were not realised.

For the formation of environmental policy under conditions of complexity, it is hard to imagine any viable alternative to extended peer communities. They are already being created, in increasing numbers, either when the authorities cannot see a way forward, or know that without a broad base of consensus, no policies can succeed. They are called "citizens' juries", "focus groups", or "consensus conferences", or any one of a great variety of names; and their forms and powers are correspondingly varied. But they all have one important element in common: they assess the quality of policy proposals, including a scientific element, on the basis of whatever science they can master during the preparation period. And their verdicts all have some degree of moral force and hence political influence.

Along with this regulatory, evaluative function of extended peer communities, another, more intimately involved in the policy process, is springing up. Particularly at the local level, the discovery is being made, again and again, that people not only care about their environment but also can become ingenious and creative in finding practical, partly technological, ways towards its improvement. Here the quality is not merely in the verification, but also in the creation; as local people can imagine solutions and reformulate problems in ways that the accredited experts, with the best will in the world, do not find "normal" within their professional paradigms.

None can claim that the restoration of quality through extended peer communities will occur easily, and without its own sorts of errors. But in the processes of extension of peer communities through the approach of Post-Normal Science, we can see a way forward, for science as much as for the complex problems of the environment.

A sort of manual for Post-Normal Science practice has recently been produced by the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. In its 21st Report, on Setting Environmental Standards, makes a number of observations and recommendations reflecting this new understanding. Thus, on uncertainty, we have:

9.49: No satisfactory way has been devised of measuring risk to the natural environment, even in principle, let alone defining what scale of risk should be regarded as tolerable;

on values:

9.74: When environmental standards are set or other judgements made about environmental issues, decisions must be informed by an understanding of peoples’ values. …;

and on extended peer communities:

9.74 (continued): Traditional forms of consultation, while they have provided useful insights, are not an adequate method of articulating values;

and on a plurality of legitimate perspectives:

9.76: A more rigorous and wide-ranging exploration of people’s values requires discussion and debate to allow a range of viewpoints and perspectives to be considered, and individual values developed.

(UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution1998) Chapter 9 - Conclusions].

4. Conclusion
The inadequacies of the traditional "normal science" approach have been revealed with dramatic clarity in the episode of "mad cow" disease. For years the accredited researchers and advisors assured the British government that the risk of transfer of the infective agent to humans was not significant. They did not stress the decision-stakes involved in the official policy, in which public alarm and government expense were the main perceived dangers. Then infection of humans was confirmed, and for a brief period the government admitted that an epidemic of degenerative disease was a "non-quantifiable risk". The situation went out of control, and the revulsion of consumers threatened not only British beef, but also perhaps the entire European meat industry. At this stage there had to be a "hard" decision to be taken, on the number of cattle to be destroyed, whose basis was a very "soft" estimate of how many cattle deaths would be needed to reassure the meat-eating public. At the same time, independent critics who had been dealt with quite harshly in the past were admitted into the dialogue. Without in any way desiring such an outcome, the British Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Fisheries had created a situation of extreme systems uncertainty, vast decision stakes, and a legitimated extended peer community.

The Post-Normal Science approach needs not be interpreted as an attack on the accredited experts, but rather as assistance. The world of "normal science" in which they were trained has its place in any scientific study of the environment, but it needs to be supplemented by awareness of the "post-normal" nature of the problems we now confront. The management of complex natural systems as if they were simple scientific exercises has brought us to our present mixture of triumph and peril. We are now witnessing the emergence of a new approach to problem-solving strategies in which the role of science, still essential, is now appreciated in its full context of the uncertainties of natural systems and the relevance of human values.

References
- Descartes, 1638: Discours de la Methode, Part VI.

- Futures, 1999, Special Issue: Post-Normal Science, J. R. Ravetz (ed), 31:7.

- S. O. Funtowicz and J. R. Ravetz, 1992, Three Types of Risk Assessment and the Emergence of Post-Normal Science, in Krimsky S. and Golding D. (eds) Social Theories of Risk, Westport (CN), Praeger, pp. 251-273

- S. O. Funtowicz and J. R. Ravetz, 1990: Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht , NL, 1990.

- S. O. Funtowicz and J. R. Ravetz, 1993: Science for the post-normal age, Futures 25:7, 739-755.

- S. O. Funtowicz and J. R. Ravetz, 1994: The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science, Ecological Economics 10 (1994) 197-207

- S. O. Funtowicz and J. R. Ravetz, 1997b : The Poetry of Thermodynamics, Futures, 29:9, 791-810.

- T. S. Kuhn, 1962: The Structure of the Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

- UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Setting Environmental Standards, 21st Report, Chapter 9 - Conclusions.

http://www.nusap.net/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=13

Is It Intentional?

2010-05-20T16:43:00.000-07:00

The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty
The theory here, to force change through chaos, was among the most provocative of the 1960s.
by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven

From the Monday, May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation

How can the poor be organized to press for relief from poverty? How can a broad-based movement be developed and the current disarray of activist forces be halted? These questions confront, and confound, activists today. It is our purpose to advance a strategy which affords the basis for a convergence of civil rights organizations, militant anti-poverty groups and the poor. If this strategy were implemented, a political crisis would result that could lead to legislation for a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.

The strategy is based on the fact that a vast discrepancy exists between the benefits to which people are entitled under public welfare programs and the sums which they actually receive. This gulf is not recognized in a society that is wholly and self-righteously oriented toward getting people off the welfare rolls. It is widely known, for example, that nearly 8 million persons (half of them white) now subsist on welfare, but it is not generally known that for every person on the rolls at least one more probably meets existing criteria of eligibility but is not obtaining assistance.

The discrepancy is not an accident stemming from bureaucratic inefficiency; rather, it is an integral feature of the welfare system which, if challenged, would precipitate a profound financial and political crisis. The force for that challenge, and the strategy we propose, is a massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls.

The distribution of public assistance has been a local and state responsibility, and that accounts in large part for the abysmal character of welfare practices. Despite the growing involvement of federal agencies in supervisory and reimbursement arrangements, state and local community forces are still decisive. The poor are most visible and proximate in the local community; antagonism toward them (and toward the agencies which are implicated with them) has always, therefore, been more intense locally than at the federal level. In recent years, local communities have increasingly felt class and ethnic friction generated by competition for neighborhoods, schools, jobs and political power. Public welfare systems are under the constant stress of conflict and opposition, made only sharper by the rising costs to localities of public aid. And, to accommodate this pressure, welfare practice everywhere has become more restrictive than welfare statute; much of the time it verges on lawlessness. Thus, public welfare systems try to keep their budgets down and their rolls low by failing to inform people of the rights available to them; by intimidating and shaming them to the degree that they are reluctant either to apply or to press claims, and by arbitrarily denying benefits to those who are eligible.

A series of welfare drives in large cities would, we believe, impel action on a new federal program to distribute income, eliminating the present public welfare system and alleviating the abject poverty which it perpetrates. Widespread campaigns to register the eligible poor for welfare aid, and to help existing recipients obtain their full benefits, would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments. These disruptions would generate severe political strains, and deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the white working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be con-strained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas. By the internal disruption of local bureaucratic practices, by the furor over public welfare poverty, and by the collapse of current financing arrangements, powerful forces can be generated for major economic reforms at the national level.

The ultimate objective of this strategy--to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income--will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income. Instead, programs are demanded to enable people to become economically competitive. But such programs are of no use to millions of today's poor. For example, one-third of the 35 million poor Americans are in families headed by females; these heads of family cannot be aided appreciably by job retraining, higher minimum wages, accelerated rates of economic growth, or employment in public works projects. Nor can the 5 million aged who are poor, nor those whose poverty results from the ill health of the wage earner. Programs to enhance individual mobility will chiefly benefit the very young, if not the as yet unborn. Individual mobility is no answer to the question of how to abolish the massive problem of poverty now.

It has never been the full answer. If many people in the past have found their way up from poverty by the path of individual mobility, many others have taken a different route. Organized labor stands out as a major example. Although many American workers never yielded their dreams of individual achievement, they accepted and practiced the principle that each can benefit only as the status of workers as a whole is elevated. They bargained for collective mobility, not for individual mobility; to promote their fortunes in the aggregate, not to promote the prospects of one worker over another. And if each finally found himself in the same relative economic relationship to his fellows as when he began, it was nevertheless clear that all were infinitely better off. That fact has sustained the labor movement in the face of a counter pull from the ideal of individual achievement.

But many of the contemporary poor will not rise from poverty by organizing to bargain collectively. They either are not in the labor force or are In such marginal and dispersed occupations (e.g., domestic servants) that it is extremely difficult to organize them. Compared with other groups, then, many of today's poor cannot secure a redistribution of income by organizing within the institution of private enterprise. A federal program of income redistribution has become necessary to elevate the poor en masse from poverty.

Several ways have been proposed for redistributing income through the federal government. It is not our purpose here to assess the relative merits of these plans, which are still undergoing debate and clarification. Whatever mechanism is eventually adopted, however, it must include certain features if it is not merely to perpetuate in a new guise the present evils of the public welfare system.

First, adequate levels of income must be assured. (Public welfare levels are astonishingly low; indeed, states typically define a "minimum" standard of living and then grant only a percentage of it, so that families are held well below what the government itself officially defines as the poverty level.) Furthermore, income should be distributed without requiring that recipients first divest themselves of their assets, as public welfare now does, thereby pauperizing families as a condition of sustenance.

Second, the right to income must be guaranteed, or the oppression of the welfare poor will not be eliminated. Because benefits are conditional under the present public welfare system, submission to arbitrary governmental power is regularly made the price of sustenance. People have been coerced into attending literacy classes or participating in medical or vocational rehabilitation regimes, on pain of having their benefits terminated. Men are forced into labor on virtually any terms lest they forfeit their welfare aid. One can prize literacy, health and work, while still vigorously opposing the right of government to compel compliance with these values.

Conditional benefits thus result in violations of civil liberties throughout the nation, and in a pervasive oppression of the poor. And these violations are not less real because the impulse leading to them is altruistic and the agency is professional. If new systems of income distribution continue to permit the professional bureaucracies to choose when to give and when to withhold financial relief, the poor will once again be surrendered to an arrangement in which their rights are diminished in the name of overcoming their vices. Those who lead an attack on the welfare system must therefore be alert to the pitfalls of inadequate but placating reforms which give the appearance of victory to what is in truth defeat.

How much economic force can be mobilized by this strategy? This question is not easy to answer because few studies have been conducted of people who are not receiving public assistance even though they may be eligible. For the purposes of this presentation, a few facts about New York City may be suggestive. Since practices elsewhere are generally acknowledged to be even more restrictive, the estimates of unused benefits which follow probably yield a conservative estimate of the potential force of the strategy set forth in this article.

Basic assistance for food and rent: The most striking characteristic of public welfare practice is that a great many people who appear to be eligible for assistance are not on the welfare rolls. The average monthly total of New York City residents receiving assistance in 1959 was 325,771, but according to the 1960 census. 716,000 persons (unrelated or in families) appeared to be subsisting on incomes at or below the prevailing welfare eligibility levels (e.g $2,070 for a family of four). In that same year, 539,000 people subsisted on incomes less than 80 per cent of the welfare minimums, and 200,000 lived alone or in families on incomes reported to be less than half of eligibility levels. Thus it appears that for every person on welfare in 1959, at least one more was eligible.

The results of two surveys of selected areas in Manhattan support the contention that many people subsist on incomes below welfare eligibility levels. One of these, conducted by Greenleigh Associates in 1964 in an urban-renewal area on New York's upper West Side, found 9 per cent of those not on the rolls were in such acute need that they appeared to qualify for emergency assistance. The study showed, further, that a substantial number of families that were not in a "critical" condition would probably have qualified for supplemental assistance.

The other survey, conducted in 1961 by Mobilization for Youth, had similar findings. The area from which its sample was drawn, 67 square blocks on the lower East Side, is a poor one, but by no means the poorest in New York City. Yet 13 per cent of the total sample who were not on the welfare rolls reported incomes falling below the prevailing welfare schedules for food and rent.

There is no reason to suppose that the discrepancy between those eligible for and those receiving assistance has narrowed much in the past few years. The welfare rolls have gone up, to be sure, but so have eligibility levels. Since the economic circumstances of impoverished groups in New York have not improved appreciably in the past few years, each such rise increases the number of people who are potentially eligible for some degree of assistance.

Even if one allows for the possibility that family-income figures are grossly underestimated by the census, the financial implications of the proposed strategy are still very great. In 1965, the monthly average of persons receiving cash assistance in New York was 490,000, at a total cost of $440 million; the rolls have now risen above 500,000, so that costs will exceed $500 million in 1966. An increase in the rolls of a mere 20 per cent would cost an already overburdened municipality some $100 million.

Special grants: Public assistance recipients in New York are also entitled to receive "nonrecurring" grants for clothing, household equipment and furniture-including washing machines, refrigerators, beds and bedding, tables and chairs. It hardly needs to be noted that most impoverished families have grossly inadequate clothing and household furnishings. The Greenleigh study, for example, found that 52 per cent of the families on public assistance lacked anything approaching adequate furniture. This condition results because almost nothing is spent on special grants in New York. In October, 1965, a typical month, the Department of Welfare spent only $2.50 per recipient for heavy clothing and $1.30 for household furnishings. Taken together, grants of this kind amounted in 1965 to a mere $40 per person, or a total of $20 million for the entire year. Considering the real needs of families, the successful demand for full entitlements could multiply these expenditures tenfold or more and that would involve the disbursement of many millions of dollars indeed.

One must be cautious in making generalizations about the prospects for this strategy in any jurisdiction unless the structure of welfare practices has been examined in some detail. We can, however, cite other studies conducted in other places to show that New York practices are not atypical. In Detroit, for example, Greenleigh Associates studied a large sample of households in a low-income district in 1965. Twenty per cent were already receiving assistance, but 35 per cent more were judged to need it. Although the authors made no strict determination of the eligibility of these families under the laws of Michigan, they believed that "larger numbers of persons were eligible than receiving." A good many of these families did not know that public assistance was available; others thought they would be deemed ineligible; not a few were ashamed or afraid to ask.

Similar deprivations have been shown in nation-wide studies. In 1963, the federal government carried out a survey based on a national sample of 5,500 families whose benefits under Aid to Dependent Children had been terminated. Thirty-four per cent of these cases were officially in need of income at the point of closing: this was true of 30 per cent of the white and 44 per cent of the Negro cases. The chief basis for termination given in local department records was "other reasons" (i.e., other than improvement in financial condition, which would make dependence on welfare unnecessary). Upon closer examination, these "other reasons" turned out to be "unsuitable home" (i.e., the presence of illegitimate children), "failure to comply with departmental regulations'' or "refusal to take legal action against a putative father." (Negroes were especially singled out for punitive action on the ground that children were not being maintained in "suitable homes.") The amounts of money that people are deprived of by these injustices are very great.

In order to generate a crisis, the poor must obtain benefits which they have forfeited. Until now, they have been inhibited from asserting claims by self-protective devices within the welfare system: its capacity to limit information, to intimidate applicants, to demoralize recipients, and arbitrarily to deny lawful claims.

Ignorance of welfare rights can be attacked through a massive educational campaign Brochures describing benefits in simple, clear language, and urging people to seek their full entitlements, should be distributed door to door in tenements and public housing projects, and deposited in stores, schools, churches and civic centers. Advertisements should be placed in newspapers; spot announcements should be made on radio. Leaders of social, religious, fraternal and political groups in the slums should also be enlisted to recruit the eligible to the rolls. The fact that the campaign is intended to inform people of their legal rights under a government program, that it is a civic education drive, will lend it legitimacy.

But information alone will not suffice. Organizers will have to become advocates in order to deal effectively with improper rejections and terminations. The advocate's task is to appraise the circumstances of each case, to argue its merits before welfare, to threaten legal action if satisfaction is not given. In some cases, it will be necessary to contest decisions by requesting a "fair hearing" before the appropriate state supervisory agency; it may occasionally be necessary to sue for redress in the courts. Hearings and court actions will require lawyers, many of whom, in cities like New York, can be recruited on a voluntary basis, especially under the banner of a movement to end poverty by a strategy of asserting legal rights. However, most cases will not require an expert knowledge of law, but only of welfare regulations; the rules can be learned by laymen, including welfare recipients themselves (who can help to man "information and advocacy" centers). To aid workers in these centers, handbooks should be prepared describing welfare rights and the tactics to employ in claiming them.

Advocacy must be supplemented by organized demonstrations to create a climate of militancy that will overcome the invidious and immobilizing attitudes which many potential recipients hold toward being "on welfare." In such a climate, many more poor people are likely to become their own advocates and will not need to rely on aid from organizers.

As the crisis develops, it will be important to use the mass media to inform the broader liberal community about the inefficiencies and injustices of welfare. For example, the system will not be able to process many new applicants because of cumbersome and often unconstitutional investigatory procedures (which cost 20c for every dollar disbursed). As delays mount, so should the public demand that a simplified affidavit supplant these procedures, so that the poor may certify to their condition. If the system reacts by making the proof of eligibility more difficult, the demand should be made that the Department of Health, Education and Welfare dispatch "eligibility registrars" to enforce federal statutes governing local programs. And throughout the crisis, the mass media should be used to advance arguments for a new federal income distribution program.

Although new resources in organizers and funds would have to be developed to mount this campaign, a variety of conventional agencies in the large cities could also be drawn upon for help. The idea of "welfare rights" has begun to attract attention in many liberal circles. A number of organizations, partly under the aegis of the "war against poverty," are developing information and advocacy services for low-income people [see "Poverty, Injustice and the Welfare State" by Richard A. Cloward and Richard M. Elman, The Nation, issues of February 28, 1966 and March 7, 1966]. It is not likely that these organizations will directly participate in the present strategy, for obvious political reasons. But whether they participate or not, they constitute a growing network of resources to which people can be referred for help in establishing and maintaining entitlements. In the final analysis, it does not matter who helps people to get on the rolls or to get additional entitlements, so long as the job is done.

Since this plan deals with problems of great immediacy In the lives of the poor, it should motivate some of them to involve themselves in regular organizational activities. Welfare recipients, chiefly ADC mothers, are already forming federations, committees and councils in cities across the nation; in Boston, New York, Newark, Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit and Los Angeles, to mention a few. Such groups typically focus on obtaining full entitlements for existing recipients rather than on recruiting new recipients, and they do not yet comprise a national movement. But their very existence attests to a growing readiness among ghetto residents to act against public welfare.

To generate an expressly political movement, cadres of aggressive organizers would have to come from the civil rights movement and the churches, from militant low-income organizations like those formed by the Industrial Areas Foundation (that is, by Saul Alinsky), and from other groups on the Left. These activists should be quick to see the difference between programs to redress individual grievances and a large-scale social-action campaign for national policy reform.

Movements that depend on involving masses of poor people have generally failed in America. Why would the proposed strategy to engage the poor succeed?

First, this plan promises immediate economic benefits. This is a point of some importance because, whereas America's poor have not been moved in any number by radical political ideologies, they have sometimes been moved by their economic interests. Since radical movements in America have rarely been able to provide visible economic incentives, they have usually failed to secure mass participation of any kind. The conservative "business unionism" of organized labor is explained by this fact, for membership enlarged only as unionism paid off in material benefits. Union leaders have understood that their strength derives almost entirely from their capacity to provide economic rewards to members. Although leaders have increasingly acted in political spheres, their influence has been directed chiefly to matters of governmental policy affecting the well-being of organized workers. The same point is made by the experience of rent strikes in Northern cities. Their organizers were often motivated by radical ideologies, but tenants have been attracted by the promise that housing improvements would quickly be made if they withheld their rent.

Second, for this strategy to succeed, one need not ask more of most of the poor than that they claim lawful benefits. Thus the plan has the extraordinary capability of yielding mass influence without mass participation, at least as the term "participation" is ordinarily understood. Mass influence in this case stems from the consumption of benefits and does not require that large groups of people be involved in regular organizational roles.

Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the dram on local resources persists indefinitely. Other movements have failed precisely because they could not produce continuous and cumulative influence. In the Northern rent strikes, for example, tenant participation depended largely on immediate grievances; as soon as landlords made the most minimal repairs, participation fell away and with it the impact of the movement. Efforts to revive tenant participation by organizing demonstrations around broader housing issues (e.g., the expansion of public housing) did not succeed because the incentives were not immediate.

Third, the prospects for mass influence are enhanced because this plan provides a practical basis for coalition between poor whites and poor Negroes. Advocates of low-income movements have not been able to suggest how poor whites and poor Negroes can be united in an expressly lower-class movement. Despite pleas of some Negro leaders for joint action on programs requiring integration, poor whites have steadfastly resisted making common cause with poor Negroes. By contrast, the benefits of the present plan are as great for whites as for Negroes. In the big cities, at least, it does not seem likely that poor whites, whatever their prejudices against either Negroes or public welfare, will refuse to participate when Negroes aggressively claim benefits that are unlawfully denied to them as well. One salutary consequence of public information campaigns to acquaint Negroes with their rights is that many whites will be made aware of theirs. Even if whites prefer to work through their own organizations and leaders, the consequences will be equivalent to joining with Negroes. For if the object is to focus attention on the need for new economic measures by producing a crisis over the dole, anyone who insists upon extracting maximum benefits from public welfare is in effect part of a coalition and is contributing to the cause.

The ultimate aim of this strategy is a new program for direct income distribution. What reason is there to expect that the federal government will enact such legislation in response to a crisis in the welfare system?

We ordinarily think of major legislation as taking form only through established electoral processes. We tend to overlook the force of crisis in precipitating legislative reform, partly because we lack a theoretical framework by which to understand the impact of major disruptions.

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention. Public trouble is a political liability, it calls for action by political leaders to stabilize the situation. Because crisis usually creates or exposes conflict, it threatens to produce cleavages in a political consensus which politicians will ordinarily act to avert.

Although crisis impels political action, it does not itself determine the selection of specific solutions. Political leaders will try to respond with proposals which work to their advantage in the electoral process. Unless group cleavages form around issues and demands, the politician has great latitude and tends to proffer only the minimum action required to quell disturbances without risking existing electoral support. Spontaneous disruptions, such as riots, rarely produce leaders who articulate demands; thus no terms are imposed, and political leaders are permitted to respond in ways that merely restore a semblance of stability without offending other groups in a coalition.

When, however, a crisis is defined by its participants--or by other activated groups--as a matter of clear issues and preferred solutions, terms are imposed on the politicians' bid for their support. Whether political leaders then design solutions to reflect these terms depends on a twofold calculation: first, the impact of the crisis and the issues it raises on existing alignments and, second, the gains or losses in support to be expected as a result of a proposed resolution.

As to the impact on existing alignments, issues exposed by a crisis may activate new groups, thus altering the balance of support and opposition on the issues; or it may polarize group sentiments, altering the terms which must be offered to insure the support of given constituent groups. In framing resolutions, politicians are more responsive to group shifts and are more likely to accommodate to the terms imposed when electoral coalitions threatened by crisis are already uncertain or weakening. In other words, the politician responds to group demands, not only by calculating the magnitude of electoral gains and losses, but by assessing the impact of the resolution on the stability of existing or potential coalitions. Political leaders are especially responsive to group shifts when the terms of settlement can be framed so as to shore up an existing coalition, or as a basis for the development of new and more stable alignments, without jeopardizing existing support. Then, indeed, the calculation of net gain is most secure.

The legislative reforms of the depression years, for example, were impelled not so much by organized interests exercised through regular electoral processes as by widespread economic crisis. That crisis precipitated the disruption of the regionally based coalitions underlying the old national parties. During the realignments of 1932, a new Democratic coalition was formed, based heavily on urban working-class groups. Once in power, the national Democratic leadership proposed and implemented the economic reforms of the New Deal. Although these measures were a response to the imperative of economic crisis, the types of measures enacted were designed to secure and stabilize the new Democratic coalition.

The civil rights movement, to take a recent case, also reveals the relationship of crisis and electoral conditions in producing legislative reform. The crisis in the South took place in the context of a weakening North-South Democratic coalition. The strains in that coalition were first evident in the Dixiecrat desertion of 1948, and continued through the Eisenhower years as the Republicans gained ground in the Southern states. Democratic party leaders at first tried to hold the dissident South by warding off the demands of enlarging Negro constituencies in Northern cities. Thus for two decades the national Democratic Party campaigned on strongly worded civil rights planks but enacted only token measures. The civil rights movement forced the Democrats' hand: a crumbling Southern partnership was forfeited, and major civil rights legislation was put forward, designed to insure the support of Northern Negroes and liberal elements in the Democratic coalition. That coalition emerged strong from the 1964 election, easily able to overcome the loss of Southern states to Goldwater. At the same time, the enacted legislation, particularly the Voting Rights Act, laid the ground for a new Southern Democratic coalition of moderate whites and the hitherto untapped reservoir of Southern Negro voters.

The electoral context which made crisis effective in the South is also to be found in the big cities of the nation today. Deep tensions have developed among groups comprising the political coalitions of the large cities--the historic stronghold of the Democratic Party. As a consequence, urban politicians no longer turn in the vote to national Democratic candidates with unfailing regularity. The marked defections revealed in the elections of the 1950s and which continued until the Johnson landslide of 1964 are a matter of great concern to the national party. Precisely because of this concern, a strategy to exacerbate still further the strains in the urban coalition can be expected to evoke a response from national leaders.

The weakening of the urban coalition is a result of many basic changes in the relationship of local party leadership to its constituents. First, the political machine, the distinctive and traditional mechanism for forging alliances among competing groups in the city, is now virtually defunct in most cities Successive waves of municipal reform have deprived political leaders of control over the public resources--jobs, contracts, services and favors--which machine politicians formerly dispensed to voters in return for electoral support. Conflicts among elements in the urban Democratic coalition, once held together politically because each secured a share of these benefits, cannot now be so readily contained. And as the means of placating competing groups have diminished, tensions along ethnic and class lines have multiplied. These tensions are being intensified by the encroachments of an enlarging ghetto population on jobs, schools and residential areas Big-city mayors are thus caught between antagonistic working-class ethnic groups, the remaining middle class, and the rapidly enlarging minority poor.

Second, there are discontinuities in the relationship between the urban party apparatus and its ghetto constituents which have so far remained unexposed but which a welfare crisis would force into view. The ghetto vote has been growing rapidly and has so far returned overwhelming Democratic majorities. Nevertheless, this voting bloc is not fully integrated in the party apparatus, either through the representation of its leaders or the accommodation of its interests.

While the urban political apparatus includes members of new minority groups, these groups are by no means represented according to their increasing proportions in the population. More important, elected representation alone is not an adequate mechanism for the expression of group interests. Influence in urban politics is won not only at the polls but through the sustained activity of organized interests--such as labor unions, home-owner associations and business groups. These groups keep watch over the complex operations of municipal agencies, recognizing issues and regularly asserting their point of view through meetings with public officials, appearances at public hearings and the like, and by exploiting a whole array of channels of influence on government. Minority constituencies--at least the large proportion of them that are poor--are not regular participants in the various institutional spheres where organized interest groups typically develop. Thus the interests of the mass of minority poor are not protected by associations which make their own or other political leaders responsive by continuously calling them to account. Urban party organizations have become, in consequence, more an avenue for the personal advancement of minority political leaders than a channel for the expression of minority-group interests. And the big-city mayors, struggling to preserve an uneasy urban consensus, have thus been granted the slack to evade the conflict-generating interests of the ghetto. A crisis in public welfare would expose the tensions latent in this attenuated relationship between the ghetto vote and the urban party leadership, for it would thrust forward ghetto demands and back them with the threat of defections by voters who have so far remained both loyal and quiescent.

In the face of such a crisis, urban political leaders may well be paralyzed by a party apparatus which ties them to older constituent groups, even while the ranks of these groups are diminishing. The national Democratic leadership, however, is alert to the importance of the urban Negro vote, especially in national contests where the loyalty of other urban groups is weakening. Indeed, many of the legislative reforms of the Great Society can be understood as efforts, however feeble, to reinforce the allegiance of growing ghetto constituencies to the national Democratic Administration. In the thirties, Democrats began to put forward measures to circumvent the states in order to reach the big-city elements in the New Deal coalition; now it is becoming expedient to put forward measures to circumvent the weakened big-city mayors in order to reach the new minority poor.

Recent federal reforms have been impelled in part by widespread unrest in the ghetto, and instances of more aggressive Negro demands. But despite these signs that the ghetto vote may become less reliable in the future, there has been as yet no serious threat of massive defection. The national party has therefore not put much pressure on its urban branches to accommodate the minority poor. The resulting reforms have consequently been quite modest (e.g., the war against poverty, with its emphasis on the "involvement of the poor," is an effort to make the urban party apparatus somewhat more accommodating).

A welfare crisis would, of course, produce dramatic local political crisis, disrupting and exposing rifts among urban groups. Conservative Republicans are always ready to declaim the evils of public welfare, and they would probably be the first to raise a hue and cry. But deeper and politically more telling conflicts would take place within the Democratic coalition. Whites--both working-class ethnic groups and many in the middle class--would be aroused against the ghetto poor, while liberal groups, which until recently have been comforted by the notion that the poor are few and, in any event, receiving the beneficent assistance of public welfare, would probably support the movement. Group conflict, spelling political crisis for the local party apparatus, would thus become acute as welfare rolls mounted and the strains on local budgets became more severe. In New York City, where the Mayor is now facing desperate revenue shortages, welfare expenditures are already second only to those for public education.

It should also be noted that welfare costs are generally shared by local, state and federal governments, so that the crisis in the cities would intensify the struggle over revenues that is chronic in relations between cities and states. If the past is any predictor of the future, cities will fail to procure relief from this crisis by persuading states to increase their proportionate share of urban welfare costs, for state legislatures have been notoriously unsympathetic to the revenue needs of the city (especially where public welfare and minority groups are concerned).

If this strategy for crisis would intensify group cleavages, a federal income solution would not further exacerbate them. The demands put forward during recent civil rights drives in the Northern cities aroused the opposition of huge majorities. Indeed, such fierce resistance was evoked (e.g., school boycotts followed by counter-boycotts), that accessions by political leaders would have provoked greater political turmoil than the protests themselves, for profound class and ethnic interests are at stake in the employment, educational and residential institutions of our society. By contrast, legislative measures to provide direct income to the poor would permit national Democratic leaden to cultivate ghetto constituencies without unduly antagonizing other urban groups, as is the case when the battle lines are drawn over schools, housing or jobs. Furthermore, a federal income program would not only redeem local governments from the immediate crisis but would permanently relieve them of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare--a function which generates support from none and hostility from many, not least of all welfare recipients. We suggest, in short, that if pervasive institutional reforms are not yet possible, requiring as they do expanded Negro political power and the development of new political alliances, crisis tactics can nevertheless be employed to secure particular reforms in the short run by exploiting weaknesses in current political alignments. Because the urban coalition stands weakened by group conflict today, disruption and threats of disaffection will count powerfully, provided that national leaders can respond with solutions which retain the support of ghetto constituencies while avoiding new group antagonisms and bolstering the urban party apparatus. These are the conditions, then, for an effective crisis strategy in the cities to secure an end to poverty.

No strategy, however confident its advocates may be, is foolproof. But if unforeseen contingencies thwart this plan to bring about new federal legislation in the field of poverty, it should also be noted that there would be gains even in defeat. For one thing, the plight of many poor people would be somewhat eased in the course of an assault upon public welfare. Existing recipients would come to know their rights and how to defend them, thus acquiring dignity where none now exists; and millions of dollars in withheld welfare benefits would become available to potential recipients now--not several generations from now. Such an attack should also be welcome to those currently concerned with programs designed to equip the young to rise out of poverty (e.g., Head Start), for surely children learn more readily when the oppressive burden of financial insecurity is lifted from the shoulders of their parents. And those seeking new ways to engage the Negro politically should remember that public resources have always been the fuel for low-income urban political organization. If organizers can deliver millions of dollars in cash benefits to the ghetto masses, it seems reasonable to expect that the masses will deliver their loyalties to their benefactors. At least, they have always done so in the past.

© 1966 The Nation

Pride and False Humility

2010-05-05T10:16:00.000-07:00

Don't get me wrong, but there are some days when I look out on the events of the moment and I am certain I have it all figured out...then 15 minutes later something, or someone, comes along so profound, so transcendent that I am knocked off my self-constructed pedestal and put back in my place.

Pride and humility are both deceptive. Pride blocks communication and learning. Pride leads to misuse of friends and family. Pride is what causes people to calls themselves little gods, believe they can do what others can't, and refer to themselves in the third person.

Jesus, in word and deed, calls us to humility.

The deception in humility is in recognizing true humility and false humility.

To quote Dirty Harry: "A man's got to know his limitations." A succinct definition of humility.

Humility is not self-abasement - this is not being humble but is an excuse to avoid effort and responsibility. If you are called to teach, evangelize, write or to a place of leadership or public presence, it is not humility to demur - it is disobedience - and if you are led to such work, to be obedient, even if it seems otherwise, is not prideful.

On the other hand are those who pretend humbleness as a facade over pride. Their end is no different than any other liar.

Humility is doing what is required, in obedience, when required and knowing for whom we work. Constant reliance on the leading of the Spirit is the way to navigate that narrow path between pride and false humility.

Government and Authority - Rough Draft Part 1

2010-05-01T22:47:00.001-07:00

In the beginning God created...and what He created was created for His pleasure. The entirety of creation was created by God for His use. Whatever is created for the use of the creator is owned by the creator. Therefore, all of creation is the property of God without limitation or restriction.

As the possessor of creation, God retains authority over it in entirety. God may delegate authority to subordinates (created entities) and if those subordinates act within the boundaries of the delegated authority then their exercise of that authority is legitimate and may not be challenged or opposed without challenge and opposition to God's authority. The delegation of authority includes the extent of that authority, the responsibilities of the delegee, and the universe subject to the authority.

If the subordinate fails to properly exercise the assigned authority he forfeits that authority.

A subordinate who assumes authority which has not been delegated to him is a usurper and is illegitimate.

Residents of the universe subject to delegated authority are as bound to recognize that authority as they are the authority of the creator. Conversely, the same residents are not obligated to recognize illegitimate authority and are, in fact, required not to acknowledge illegitimate use of authority.

All creations of God have been assigned specific authority. All creations of God recognize His authority; not all creations accept God's authority.

All legitimate authority is derived from this delegation.

Some Advice to Immigrants

2010-04-19T09:47:00.000-07:00

Americans think they are free men living in a nation with a tradition of upholding liberty. Unfortunately the freedom is illusory and the institutional liberty is a fable.

We are servants of the state - slaves if you will. We have to be licensed to travel, to marry, to trade, to work and to defend ourselves. We rent our property from the state, pay taxes on income we never received and register our children with the state.

There are some living on this land who are free...if they choose to be: the so-called illegal immigrants.

Those who have migrated here without using the system have the most liberty of anyone anywhere in America.

Of course I am aware that there are many horror stories about the exploitation of some of these good people: sweat shops; dishonest smugglers; forced prostitution and more. These are horrific events and those who are victimized by the evil ones deserve our prayers and assistance.

The vast majority who come here sans documentation, however, are not in these circumstances (nor are they gang members, reconquistas or welfare cheats). The greater majority are people just like us who want to have a home, a family and a decent life.

But they have an advantage we don't have: they are outside the matrix.

Recently there has been talk about an amnesty for the millions who are here without benefit of the the immigration system and it is this talk which is prompting my advice.

DON'T DO IT!! Don't let them put you in the system.

Stay free.

Don't register your children. Don't sign up for benefits. Don't get a social security number. Work for cash; pay in cash. Don't take the citizenship.

Preserve your liberty and reject their offer to become like the rest of us here.

Changing Weather

2010-04-15T20:31:00.000-07:00

If you thought the revelation of just how sold out to the world climate scientists are, how they put money, fame and religion ahead of truth and objectivity, would put a damper on the push to regulate your breathing habits - you were wrong. Congress is going to put a carbon tax bill through. Oh, they won't call it that and it will be sold as only affecting a few companies or people who need taken down a peg anyway, but that won't be true. As always those with the leastest pockets will wind up paying the tab.

Personally I never found any anything compelling about the global warming hypothesis just like I rejected the global cooling and overpopulation hype in the Seventies. I'm pretty sure the repeated and rotating scare memes are a cause of my disenchantment with socialist philosophy.

By the way, where are all those global cooling, overpopulation experts...oh yeah, they are the senior statesmen of the global warming faith. Wow, that should probably tell me something.

What I do accept as fact, however, is global climate change. I don't mean the change of seasons either. That there are strange events occuring is beyond question. What does happen, rather than tending toward the mean as I would expect, seem to be deviating more and more often toward the extremes. Hot times are hotter, cold times are colder, storms stronger, droughts longer, typical weather for the season is less frequent, even the moderate days are out of place (though not always unwelcome).

This is just the weather. The same trends are notable in other events: earthquakes, volcanos, politics, culture, etc.

Add it all up it sums to a lot of changes and strangeness - all of it caused by man.

Yes, you read that right, I blame all of the climate changes on us - not in the sense that the defenders of Gaia do because nothing man does to the material earth has any permanent effect.

There are higher order effects, though, that have little to do with slash and burn, carbon output or nuclear reactors. Here is where they began:

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. Genesis 3:17-19.

And the result:

"We know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."—Romans 8:22-23.

We are housed in a body of death. We live in a dying world. Is it any wonder that the same decay and deterioration which we are subject to as individual persons also plagues our planet?

So when Jesus says in Luke:

And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven. Luke 21:11

There can be no doubt: the gyrations of weather and climate were caused by man.

Jesus told us more than just the coming of unusual weather, he warned us how it would be used, what would happen to us, and our hope for the future.

21:7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

21:9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.

21:10 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:

21:11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.

21:12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.

21:13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.

21:14 Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:

21:15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

21:16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.

21:17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.

21:18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish.

21:19 In your patience possess ye your souls.

21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

21:22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

21:23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

21:26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

21:27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

Relationship

2010-03-27T10:27:00.000-07:00

Easter is coming soon. You can tell because the Wal-Mart shelves are crammed with toys and baskets and candy, lots of candy, most of it some pastel shade. You can tell because the church signs are in full marketing mode.

We don't practice easter or christmas or any of those other adapted pagan celebrations.

We haven't for some time.

But some of our extended family just doesn't seem to have grokked our rejection of these unholy days.

This is now leading to a moment of decision: a long-time family friend wants to have an "easter" party for our children. He's a decent guy and no doubt he thinks he is doing something nice and fun for them.

What harm can it be? All our children know what easter is about and why we prefer to observe a Passover celebration and focus on the redemption Christ provided during this time. That being the case, how could a few easter eggs and some candy be bad, right?

Besides, if we decline, it will hurt his feelings, and that would be bad, right?

Wrong.

If we go, we will be teaching our children that it OK to compromise, especially if it brings a little pleasure or it helps to maintain a relationship. We teach them to put sense ahead of knowledge and relationship ahead of God.

This is one of those subtle devices the world employs to move you, however slightly, toward the broad and easy road.

Will it hurt our friend to say we can't go, maybe, but it would be more damaging to not stand firm.

Tribulation

2010-03-25T07:52:00.000-07:00

One of the comforts of the rapture mythology is that we will be removed from the earth before the really nasty events take place. If you are a Christian in the United States or most other western nations, that idea might be rational, but if you are a believer in China, Sri Lanka, India, an Islamic nation, or nearly any other country, you might see the rapture doctrine differently.

We in the United States, especially, have no idea what persecution or tribulation is like. Court cases about school prayer or the teaching of intelligent design versus evolution or lesbian teenagers attending the prom are not persecution - nor tribulation. What we have experienced in this country up till now are not unwarranted assaults on an innocent people.

The American Church is experiencing the natural outcome of its participation in the synthetic process of politics and human governance.

By surrendering the independence of separation, accepting 501c3 and other non-profit corporate charters, becoming part of the system and adapting the message to the community, the Church has forsaken the spiritual high ground. The Church is compromised.

The corporate organizational structure is satanic.

The Church, by accepting corporate form, has become double-minded and will not be able to stand against what is about to come down upon it.

I noted in 2007 that the election of 2008 would be won by an unknown, dark horse, candidate and that "faith" would be a theme of the election. Earlier this year I also predicted that the health reform bill would pass and I have also predicted that the democrats would not lose power in the mid-terms.

Now, if you have noted the noise coming out of DC, you will have heard the growing accusations of threats, fears and terrorism being levelled against the opponents to the health reform bill. Some of these events are no doubt true, most of them are lies or false flags, many are the overblown reactions of guilty souls who know they did something wrong.

Regardless of the truth or falsity of the claims, they will be used to institute an assault on the Church because Christianity, in the eyes of the secularists, is synonomous with conservative politics. If, as I expect, the democrats survive the mid-terms, the oppression of Christians will increase exponentially.

That is assuming events are not managed so as to allow this administration to delay or cancel the elections.

I cannot promise that coming out of the corporate churches and separating yourself will save you from the looming persecution and tribulation...but I can promise you that if you don't come out now there will be no escape.

Burdens

2010-03-23T09:32:00.000-07:00

When Jesus said, "For my yoke is easy and my burden is light" He was not speaking to us on the nature of Christian labor. Jesus was making a promise to us of deliverance.

It is not God who burdens us with the weights of life; it is the world and the master of its hierarchy, the Adversary, that layer upon us unceasing demands for labor, blood and treasure.

In this world all must be bought with a price calculated to be just beyond the boundaries of your ability.

Every man, whether in the lowliest station or at the heights of power, is left wanting, just short of satisfaction. The poor man is beset by a dearth of means and presented the promise of an apparent escape, if only he will give a little more, do a small thing, give up something dear. The man of power is led along the trail of accomplishment with the seeds of pride and the bread of position.

At the end, all proclaim with Solomon "...vanity of vanities, all is vanity."

Jesus promises us nothing here for the world to admire.

There are no men of renown who belong to God - no titans of industry, no giants of the intellect, no paragons of virtue - those all belong to the world and they already have their reward.

God requires simplicity and He returns understanding. God requires trust and He provides sufficiency. God requires weakness and He infuses strength. God requires obedience and He is faith. God requires surrender and He gives us liberty.

If you are tired, broken, lonely, burdened by the world, the escape is Jesus. Give Him everything and He will give you more.

Another Government Post

2010-02-26T11:35:00.000-08:00

Tracking the events of the health-care summit yesterday brought many thoughts to my mind, but most of all I wondered just how anyone who watched or listened could ever believe that those dilectical schemers had any intention of reforming anything.

Universal health care is a fantasy; universal health care regulated, managed or provided by a government is a stop-action nightmare.

Insurance is immoral. Expecting someone else to subsidize your insurance is to actively participate in theft.

Please, please, please, please understand this, if nothing else, none of the existing propositions, on either side, will enhance the quality of medical care in this country and, in fact, will decrease the availabilty, quality and affordability. If passed, a black market will develop which will widen the gap between the haves and have-nots.

In order to understand why this legislation is so important to the powers in DC, you must first understand who they work for - and I don't mean the CFR, the Illuminati, Committee of 300, or any other suspect organization - I mean the power which sits above even them and controls them and to whom they pledge fealty.

Yes, you guessed it: Satan and his co-conspirators.

Just in case I am not being clear, the US federal government is not a godly goverment..nor should they be expected to be.

This government, all governments in this present age, are not part of the Kingdom of Heaven.

So let's all get busy and change it, right!

Change it to what, may I ask?

In order to change the system, you must join the system, and to join the system you must pay the price. Can you afford that price?

On top of the cost, if you are truly one of the elect, they will take your payment and then destroy you anyway.

What those of us who desire to be in the Kingdom of Heaven have to realize that we cannot participate in the kingdom of hell and succeed. Why would you want to? The world system is nothing but an illusion. Success inside the system is a deception.

But there is a deeper issue, far deeper.

Who you look to for your provision is your god. If the state provides you medical care, i.e., is perceived to preserve life, then it is your god.

We are not to look to anyone but God for life.

It is a time for choice.

Government

2010-01-03T17:47:00.000-08:00

When I began to write this essay I had an idea in mind to survey the scripture for guidance on the construction of a God-approved earthly political system.

Personally, I have made a long and fitful journey from mainstream political programming to this point where my political philosophy lies somewhere on one side or the other of the blurry line between radical libertarianism and anarchy.

I confess, I hoped my exploration would lend support to my aversion to any kind of non-voluntary organization.

It is often said that government is, at best, a necessary evil. It seems to me, however, that the amount of government (evil) considered necessary, and the extent of the power it should be granted to enforce its policies depends on the perception of personal gain to be had from supporting the state.

In my mind, the insinuation of evil into any people, regardless of intentions or purposes, will still produce evil.

I still wish to explore what the Bible has to say about governmental structure, but I feel it necessary to expand the question to include how the individual believer is supposed to interact, or not interact, with the world outside the Church.

When I was much younger I was completely co-opted into operating within the system, captured by the idea that I could conform and work from inside and still retain my spiritual standing.

I don't believe that anymore.

In fact, I do not believe that there is any political system which meets God's standards - except the one He has already implemented in the heavenly realms - just as there no scripturally acceptable economic theory for the national government.

So I admit to coming to this examination with preconceptions - I will try not to allow these predispisitions and opinions to color my analysis of what I discover and will try to adapt to what is learned instead.

So here we go, beginning at the beginning and following the trails as they develop.

Hope I can stick with it...and I hope there will be some input from outside to instigate and question.

2010

2009-12-25T22:13:00.000-08:00

There is little doubt that 2009 was a year filled with dreadful events - but so was 2008 and 2007 and 2001 and 1941 and well, you get the point. Death, mendacity and tyranny were the modus operandi of everyone from the politicians to the corporations to the religious establishment. What was most shocking this year to me was how naked and open evil has become; there was no attempt by the enemy to disguise his intents or for his henchmen to finesse their plots through to fruition. Evil was bold and unfettered as if it expected no opposition of any consequence.

As the secular calendar turns the page to a new year, it seems as if there may be some who are persuaded that there is reason to believe that the road to serfdom we are marching down can be blocked and that we can be returned back to the rightful path.

I wish I could agree.

Frankly, I don't see the efforts of the so-called patriot movement and the mainstream political opposition have accomplished any more than providing a false sense of empowerment to the people involved. They are doing the same things they have been doing since I came out of the TV stupor and began to understand where the real battle was and to recognize the false paradigms imposed on the world. The alarms are sounded, everyone scurries around, guns are sold, food is hoarded, gold and silver become scarce commodities, fear gives way to panic and then...nothing happens and it starts all over again the next week.

So, what is going to happen during the next 12 months?

The Health-care usurpation is still on track. Carbon regulation is about to take place by fiat rather than legislation. The state will soon actually, legally, take control over life and death and place it in the hands of bureaucrats whose only interest is to maintain their job, not solve problems.

Will the democrats be run out of office and replaced with republicans? Will the President declare martial law? Are we all getting bar codes?

Frankly, I don't see much changing.

Health-care will more than likely become law - and it will be a disaster. Yet I see the democrats retaining power because the real effects won't be felt until well after the election.

Don't be surprised if there are several million newly registered voters to make certain that happens as, by law or fiat, many currently illegal migrants are made citizens.

Journalism will still suck, but some of those who believed in the hope and change are becoming disillusioned and there will be some prominent defections this year.

Global warming and/or climate change will fall from favor and carbon taxes will start to take a back seat to other issues: inflation, fuel shortages, more terror (by someone) short credit, higher unemployment, a second wave of real estate failures, regional strife and the political battles moving to the local level and not in a peaceful way.

There's no better time for the believer to disengage from the system as much as possible.

What do you see for the coming months?

Sorting It Out

2009-12-02T19:06:00.000-08:00

I come from a long line of ordinary people - common folk - from among those who conform to the world because that is what you do. You conform and hope that with some sweat and toil, with yes sir and yes ma'am, giving it all up, that everything will work out. The American dream can be had if you only do it right.

There was just one small issue: I couldn't do it. I really tried! Really I did! But there was nothing in the world, at least the ordinary world, that attracted me.

Don't take that the wrong way. I'm not saying I wasn't attracted to worldly things...pretty women, exotic ideas, mind-alteration - big things, weird things.

All I knew then was that I couldn't do what I saw everybody else doing, the way they did it, for the reasons they had.

And most of my life I have paid for it.

For years and years I was convinced that my problem was that I was lazy, or rebellious, or, sometimes, stupid. I'm still not sure that there isn't some truth there. But I find that when I start to work on something that is interesting or that I enjoy or important to me, I can work hard and long and well.

Rarely, however, do I find that what I want to do coincide with what I know the world deems to be important.

I am very dysfunctional in the ordinary world.

So the question before me is one of sorting out priorities - separating responsibilities from conformities, desires ffrom needs, right from wrong.

I am not even sure how to go about that, well, perhaps I really know, but I am finding distractions to keep me from the really hard work - the work of turning away from the world and turning to God.

The full truth is that I am sitting on the proverbial fence...and I despise myself for doing that.

What I really need to do is throw everything at the feet of Jesus and wait for Him to tell me what to pick up and work on.

Can I do that?

I don't know, but I think it is a matter of life or death.

History Lesson

2009-10-30T10:41:00.001-07:00

When Amenhotep II returned from his triumphant suppression of a Syrio-Palestinian uprising (at least he claimed a victory), he did not return to a land euphoric with his display of Egyptian power - instead, he found his father, Thutmose III, dead, his older brother, Thutmose IV dead, his oldest son dead, and the nation in mourning at the mass death which had just occurred, a devastated economy, and a major portion of the national workforce gone.

What should have been a ticker-tape parade through downtown Luxor turned into a rampage through Egypt that would have made Sherman' s march through the South seem compassionate.

A crazed general and his battle-fatigued troops found that all that they had fought to defend and uphold with blood and treasure had completely disappeared while they were out of town and they reacted with madness and violence. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of innocents died, cities were razed, a trail of smoke and rubble marked Amenhotep trek home.

Do we really know why Amenhotep attacked his own land? Not really. But can we imagine that in his search for answers and reasons, finding only platitudes and non-answers, that he struck out blindly at those he deemed responsible and the quest rolled over targets and blameless alike; can we not envision the psychic shock he and the army must have experienced?

We do know that Egypt never truly recovered and the civilization began an unchecked decline.

For over eight years in Afghanistan, and six years in Iraq, our soldiers and our Generals have waged war in an asymmetrical environment, against an uncertain enemy, to achieve polemical and contradictory goals.

When our exhausted fighters return home, they do not find themselves heralded as conquering heroes, or defenders of freedom, or even recognized publicly as the special and courageous people they are, but are avoided and labelled as threats to domestic tranquility, denied the most basic of care and restoration...thrown away to die from the poisons they were administered and the psychological trauma they experienced.

At home they find their families poorer, their neighbors spys, the freedoms they believed they were defending diminished, and their prospects limited.

Some even suggest they find more comfort on the battlefield than in the home.

Our putative leaders need a history lesson - from Egypt.

Is there an Amenhotep in the American army? If there is, the regime needs to be aware (as if they were not already) the threat is not against the American people.

Take No Thought for the Morrow...a Question on the Parameters of Faith

2009-09-16T12:56:00.000-07:00

Okay, I am venturing out into new and unexplored territory...for me.

Some are probably already here, by choice or by circumstances, patiently waiting for me to arrive. Well, here I am.

The subject is health insurance. Paying for healthcare is the uppermost topic of conversation all over the nation and has been for the past few months. If you are reading this, it is likely you are familiar with all sides of that debate, and just as likely you are tired of the fight and worried about the outcome.

And that leads to the issue I wish to consider in this article: Is it appropriate for a believer and follower of The Way to purchase health insurance in any form?

Up until a few days ago, there was no doubt in my mind that it was irresponsible and imprudent not to carry health insurance if at all possible financially - especially if I had others to provide for (spouse, children)who depended on my provision and care. Frankly, I don't believe I would have given a suggestion to the contrary a moment's consideration.

Yet, here I am, seriously questioning it.

What happened?

For a number of years I have been researching what is generally called alternative medicine - primarily herbalism and traditional medicine but also including modern concepts which are outside of the mainstream of medical practice yet relatively recent and similarly presented (vitamin therapy, chelation, sound therapy, and the like). An inevitable corrollary of this research is uncovering a great deal of information about the process and problems of contemporary allopathic medicine.

Most insurance will not cover herbal, traditional or any other natural or alternate approach to health and healing. Likewise, most mainstream physicians are ignorant about traditional or alternative therapies - a large percentage reject them outright and it is not uncommon for one to reject or terminate a relationship with a patient who chooses alternative medicine as a supplement to or instead of generally accepted practices.

The same goes for insurance. Patients who refuse to adhere to allopathic methodology can find themselves cancelled, and, in effect, blackballed, uninsurable for choices ranging from refusing vaccines to forgoing chemotherapy.

Insurers dictate to patients which courses of treatment are acceptable and covered by the policy. Deviation from the approved parameters are refused payment.

Fear of accumulating large medical debt forces patients to conform to the system and take what is offered - even if they don't believe in the effectiveness of the treatment.

My questions are derived from this understanding of how the system works:

1. We are told that we are not to be conformed to the world, but to Yashua. If we have health insurance which prevents us from using treatments we think are more effective or requires us to accept measures we know are ineffective or even harmful, aren't we conforming to the world?

2. Believers are not supposed to be in debt because the debtor becomes the slave of the lender. Isn't health insurance in a very practical sense the creation of debt - both because we commit to the payment of the costs of the coverage (premiums and deductibles, copays, fees) and because we are pre-paying for a surety against future debt. Are we then slaves to the insurer and, possibly, the employer?

3. Then there is Revelation 9:21 which warns us of the evil of "pharmakea" - drugs - termed in some translations as "sorceries". Modern medicine is very much a practice of sorcery using chemical compounds as magic potions. If you have health insurance, this is the predominant treatment option you will have.

4. The issue of faith. Do you trust Yahweh or will you make your own provision? The letter to Laodicea is very much about this. They had such great substance that they thought they had no need to depend on Yahweh for provision. They became spiritually poor as they ceased to act in faith. If we carry health insurance is that an act of self-reliance and placing our faith in ourselves and other men?

Yashua says we have not because we ask not.

The Scripture says by His stripes we are healed.

Insurance companies are deeply rooted in the world system of materialism and financial manipulation. Insurance is a core business of the worldwide financial order that demands conformity or else be excluded.

If we are to be in the world but not of it, is health insurance one of those deceptions formed by the adversary for the purpose of directing us away from God and strip us of faith and power?

I can't say for certain my family and I have decided in fact to go without insurance and rely totally on Yahweh for health and provision, but we are leaning that way.

Any ideas?

Why the Health-care Problem is not with the Insurance Companies

2009-08-22T22:13:00.000-07:00

You are limiting the private sector to insurance.

The problem is that insurance is a symptom, not a cause of the current problems and was initially applied as a patch to a perceived problem.By creating a single-payer system, or government/public option, or nationalized health-care (whichever, if any comes to pass) you are once again pasting a patch on a worn package hoping to hold it together a little longer.

If you want to resolve the inefficiencies of the market, the first task is to work back past the results of previous policies and legislation and market disruptions to find where the market began to "fail" and find the root causes.

You will not find the cause here to be market but government.Perceived inequities were used to impose non-market solutions which increasingly distorted and limited market options.

I am certain that by imposing any of the systems mentioned above, you will not remove inequities from the system but rather redistribute the costs and benefits. If the system is actually, practically, egalitarian, then the outcome will be a distribution which results in less than optimal satisfaction for all consumers...and, the black market which will result will create greater inequities than exist now.

If the system is not egalitarian, but distributes services unequally, it will by nature have to use factors other than price to determine that distribution. Such a non-price distribution will inevitably be political and be determined by politicians interests. As such, the benefits and costs will fall on separate populations and be unequally borne or received. The population bearing the costs will then have a disincentive to contribute and will find ways to hide or diminish taxable resources. The beneficiaries will have an incentive to increase their use and grow the cost in proportion. As revenues decrease, demands increase, the government will be forced to expand the tax base, ration care, or remove health care from any private market and nationalize it, nominally providing it for free, but in fact disguising the cost by alternate funding or inflation.

God's Work

2009-05-12T16:25:00.001-07:00

This is going to be a post following-up on the previous interogatory about a Christian System of Economics.

The question was whether or not there was a clear, definable, operable statement of economic principles by which existing theory could be analyzed or a unique theory developed.

On-going research and study has been quite remarkable.

Arguments can be found on the part of nearly every economic/political/social theory which cherry-pick amongst the writings of the Bible to demonstrate that Christianity favors that particular idea being promoted. Thus the Scripture has been used to defend both the Divine Right of Kings and democracy.

In truth those who attempt to prove a divine approval of their pet priciples are always wrong and, further, missing or ignoring a fundamental truth: Christian standards of behavior cannot be applied to a secular world.

It is true that God would prefer that the material society operate by the spiritual code revealed in the Bible; it is also true that God neither expects nor requires that it do so.

Only those professing to be of Christ are obligated to conform to the divine plan and even they obligate themselves by choice and by confession of a desire to be like Jesus.

Thus, in sum, Christian economics is not about how to organize the global economy but about how the Christian is to live in obedience to the Father.

If that is understood, then the next posts on Christian economics will be seen in a new light, with a peculiar view and a different purpose.

Education

2009-04-05T09:52:00.000-07:00

Growing up in the spiritual world is similar to growing up in the material world in the sense that you start out young, lacking knowledge and experience, and in need of care and protection. In the Spirit, God is our parent and the members of the Church are our siblings.

God assumes responsibility for our care and education - duties he then delegates to one extent or another, to our brothers and sisters.

We, in return, are to be loyal and diligent, looking to our Lord for direction and to our spiritual family for edification and fellowship.

Similarly, just as the physical child gains wisdom and understanding as he develops intellectual maturity, acquires information and experiences the several common and uncommon life events, so too does the spiritual child grow and develop through study and spiritual interaction.

Recognizing that spiritual growth is a process that takes time and demands dedicated effort with education is vital to the Christian fellowship. We should no more expect that a new believer have the discernment and understanding of an older Christian than we would expect a three-year-old to operate a car like a fifty-year-old adult would.

Spiritual growth is also dependent on the relationship between the individual believer and the Godhead. Data flows and rote memorization are dry and lifeless without the inspiration of the Christian by the Spirit of God.

Because understanding and discernment become more complete and more acute as the believer grows and learns, it is reasonable to expeect that young believers will have simpler, less-developed theologies than older believers. New Christians will not perceive the spiritual natures of people nor the nature of the spirit informing events as readily as a more mature Christian. Thus it is not surprising that as we grow up in the Spirit we will find that people, acts, events, or things once viewed as benign or even acceptable in previous times may one day, perhaps in a sudden flash, be recognized as a temptation or a source of evil.

Spiritual immaturity is blindness.

Those of us who are further along in our spiritual life are as obligated to bringing light to the believers oppressed by the darkness of this material world as we are to shining the light of Christ into the physical world at large.

Infiltration

2009-03-03T22:23:00.000-08:00

Those of us born in the post-war era (so-called boomers) are unacquainted with the actual practice of the many unique concepts imbedded into the nascent nation following the Revolutionary War - ideas which the Founders attempted to make actual principles of governance. Each succeeding generation drifted further off the foundation to the degree that today's nation has completely lost contact with it.

In case you may be unfamiliar with the fundamental principles underlying the philosophy of our republican system, they were stated in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Not a complex philosophy. One could restate this; but it could not be said more eloquently.

Sadly, in this day, to take the position of the Declaration, even to believe in the principles upon which this nation was built, principles derived from the Christian philosophy, at the least, is not to be acting with honor in the eyes of this and previous regimes, but is defined as unpatriotic, if not outright treason.

How horrified would Jefferson, Madison, Washington, be to see what we have become - not surprized as they knew how fragile the balance was and many warned, even predicted these very moments.

Blessing

2009-02-23T10:39:00.000-08:00

Some of us are going to be called to martyrdom...prison and death are near for a few. Now is the day to be sure of your calling. Do not desire to be a martyr; rather pray that you may be a vessel for the gospel and be bold. To die is to be blessed - to live is to be a blessing. Long to bless those around you. Ask Jesus what it is you are to be about and get busy. The time is short and the fields are white.

2009-02-21T06:55:00.000-08:00

For one walking by faith and not by sight, it would be very easy to see spooks behind every rock and tree along the trail...and there may be, in a manner of speaking, as we know we are, each of us, solitary lights in a world of darkness. But the evil lurking and stalking us comes from the other dimensions and is merely channeled through human beings.

I used to say that we blamed far too much of the blackness of this world on Satan and his crew; now I realize that it is not possible to attach too much blame to the fallen ones. Those rebellious angels never rest in the seeding of their intentions into the minds of men. In fact, I have come to believe that not enough recognition is given to the successful infiltration of satanic philosophy and traditions into all arenas of human society.

All of us are corrupted, but most of us are not manifestly evil. The greater number of people are not inclined to devious, destructive behavior (except as regards ourselves) and are, in the main, friendly, at times compassionate, and non-violent. Unfortunately, we are also selfish, greedy and lazy - and therein is where the problem lays.

As Paul has said, we all have a knowledge of God, and we deliberately, knowingly act against that knowledge when we choose to align ourselves with the world system to any degree. It truly is black and white, yes or no, right or wrong.

Either you, and I, are with God or you are against God.

In But Not Of...

2009-02-05T07:06:00.000-08:00

After a period of forced silence, I return with a refined message.

Separation.

The Lord wants us to understand what separation means; how we are to understand and live in separation.

The first understanding is to know that God has created, is creating and will create all that exists in the moment of the bereshith of His choice to make and remake the universe. Because creation is in the mind of the Lord, spoken forth through His Word, implemented by His Spirit is and always is, that which He purposed is already accomplished.

In simple linear terms, the future is set, the outcome assured, the battles won.

We cannot see with our limited physical senses on up the timeline, however, with the spiritual senses of the regenerated mind we may see that Babylon the Great has fallen...and we should rejoice to see that day.

Thus we are separated from the world for what they see as destruction we know to be regeneration, the renewal promised from the beginning, the salvation given before we are born.

We are separate in Spirit and cannot be united with the spirit of this world. Our spirit is with the Spirit and we know who is of this world and who is of His Spirit.

We must recognize this separation - those on the other side do. That is why they play with you, tease you, persecute you and kill you. The world knows who, and what, you are...it is His will that you recognize as well.

We owe no loyalty to the world and to the spirit of the fallen. This is why Paul says all things are permissible: we could legitimately take spoils of the conquered without guilt. The reason we do not is because all the riches and materials of this world are meaningless and tainted and we reject them for the eternal reward of the promise...as Paul says...not all are expedient. We desire only that which enhances.

If we are aware that we are separate and not of this world and that our citizenship is in another land (a land far away and yet among us), we are no longer concerned with the worries of this land. Our only interest here is to remain separate and to find our fellow citizens of the Kingdom.

In this is the instruction on how to interact with this world: give to them only what is theirs and only what is not opposed to the requirements of our land and leave them to themselves. Wait on orders from our King.

Separation

2009-01-24T07:19:00.000-08:00

Materialism, legalism, worldliness.

The manners of the pulpits persistently warn us to be wary of these traps. "Don't let the world pull you in," they warn us, "Don't be judgemental (fill the plate)."

They lie.

But, don't judge. The ministers of deceit have a job to do.

Materialism is everywhere and subtle in its strategy.

Do you have debt? Gotcha. How about your credit rating...do you know your score? Gotcha. Upgrading? Remodeling?

Do you rely on God for the electric bill? or are you on a budget?

What are you going to do when the Father says to give your money to the family on the corner? Argue with Him?

You want the rewards of a life of faith?

Give it all away and watch the Lord replenish ... I dare you!

And Another Thing...

2009-01-14T22:24:00.000-08:00

While I am on a soapbox, let me add one more item:

If there is a church out there wherein a member is going to bed hungry or living in a shelter or suffering from abuse and that congregation has not worked to the limits of their ability to resolve these needs, then that is a failed church.

If you say, we did not know, then further shame on you.

I have grown weary of the endless campaigns for political positions and sniping at the opinions of others while two pews back, one of yours is in pain.

If the churches had done their job, there would be no socialism rampant today.

That's right, Mr. Christian...I blame you!

Repent now and fall on your face before an almighty God!

A Short Word

2009-01-14T17:33:00.000-08:00

I will second that!
As if Zeph needed a word from me, but let me shoot out a confirming thought on the last audio.I have been quite uncomfortable with the survivalist meme growing among the underground church - awhile back I told an aquaitance who is building a compound in an isolated area that he was building his and his family's coffins, because the NWO would find them and target them.More importantly, to think you could outlast the world, store enough wheat and weapons, and ride out the tribulation - what a silly notion!If God can protect us from poison and vipers, can He not keep us safe from chemtrails and MSG?It is time we lambs decided to put our whole trust in Christ no matter the outcome.Listen for His voice, let Him tell you what to do. If He says to put in food for the neighbors, then we seem to be able to do that. But, if He says to sell it all and follow Him to Duluth or stay put and wait on Him...well that seems much harder.Hiding in the hills is not faith - we are to be ready to minister and be bold.The time is for prayers for strength and compassion, courage and mercy.With all that most of us have experienced, the coming tribulation will be like old times.Pray for me; I will pray for you!

Sacrifice?!

2009-01-10T21:03:00.001-08:00

President-elect Obama says there will need to be sacrifices...what do you think that means?

I just bet there will be - don't you?

Double-Cross

2009-01-09T13:32:00.000-08:00

Just wondering...

What if the New World Order, the Fascist/socialist government structure we all see building around us, is not the real end-game. What if it is a double-cross.

The socialist elitists get their wish and, for all practical purposes, gain world-wide control of the governments and the economics and the disaster beginning now keeps growing and growing and growing and everyone, even the elites figure out the plans have failed.

Then, with every aspect of human life seemingly at the lowest possible point, voila!, up steps a messiah who, with signs and wonders, promises to restore the world to the good old days of prosperity and apparent liberty.

Of course, to begin with, to appease the masses, the old elites are destroyed (some of them anyway), peace reigns, the markets begin to work, and then he springs the trap.

Just thinking...

Christ is Life

2009-01-09T10:49:00.000-08:00

Sometime, some how, you think the incessant pounding could stop - just a break, a respite. No wonder Paul said that for him death was gain, but living was Christ. He had to be dependent for every breath; Christ had to breathe for him.

New World Order

2008-12-04T11:31:00.000-08:00

Whenever folks get together and the talk turns to politics, religion or other controversial subjets, it is inevitable that someone will bring up the New World Order. The NWO is the ultimate bogeyman - it embodies all imaginable evils into one convenient descriptive - and almost everyone has heard something about it.

But is the New World Order really new? Or is it a new name for something very old?

In order to answer those questions, it requires that the New World Order be analyzed and described in some definitive way - that is, what are the characteristics of the NWO? Is it a philosophy, a religion, a political system? Who wants it?

Truthfully, I think many people have ideas of what the term "New World Order" symbolizes, but I am pretty sure that there are nearly as many definitions of the term as there are people thinking about it.

Over the past seven or eight years, I have invested a good deal of time in learning about the NWO. I've read books and articles, listened to radio shows and archived lectures, and participated in discussion groups both on the internet and in person. Admittedly, my studies have not been systematic, but they have been constant, varied and fruitful.

The assessment of what constitutes the New World Order that I have made, at least to this point in my education, is that the NWO, rather than a tightly-knit, coordinated and impenetrable cult, is really an umbrella label which is short-hand for hundreds, perhaps thousands of various groups and individual persons, who are working simultaneously toward changing the world to suit their multiple and complimentary visions of utopia.

Some of these are fixated on one specific goal, e.g., preventing environmental decline, or redistirbuting wealth, or changing the economic/political systems of the several nations or even the whole world. Others have more generalist visions and seek to integrate economic, politics and religion and synthesize a universally acceptable culture. Some must use persuasion; others have extraordinary power and use it ruthlessly.

There do seem to be some commonalities, however:

1. The centralization of authority
2. Denial of inequality in any form
3. Denial of exclusivity
4. Requiring conformity
5. A dimunition of lifestyle
6. Opposition to private ownership
7. A redefinition of human rights
8. A willingness to use force
9. Disdain for Christian values (and a commensurate dislike of Christ himself)
10. Belief in godless or at least unguided evolution (which they now want to guide)

There also appears to be an invocation of alien intelligence and intervention (some more openly than others). The spirituality of all of these people who come down on the side of support for the NWO is universally pantheistic, gnostic, and humanistic, with a great deal of technocratic rationalism heaped on top.

You could sum it up simplistically by saying: the NWO has an overarching, common philosophy that mankind can, with the right pattern of thought, the aquiring of the right knowledge, the appropriate application of science, under the leadership of those who truly know best (and may or may not be human), evolve to the next level, gods or extinction, whichever is best.

Sadly, it appears that yet another general assumption is that only a few of us are qualified to make that leap.

Is It a Joke?

2008-11-21T13:05:00.000-08:00

So, you voted for change, did you?

Well, sucker, here is what you get: http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/081121/business_us_markets_stocks.html

Not laughing are you?

The President of the New York Fed, the head of the deepest cesspool of financial evil outside of the City of London, is being handed the keys to the printing press, the guns of the IRS/Secret Service/et al.

We truly do get what we deserve.

How to Begin?

2008-11-15T12:13:00.000-08:00

Jews analyze every aspect of the Torah. It is an obsession so pervasive that I could almost infer that it is a genetic trait rather than learned behavior. The Jews have dissected every word, every letter, even every blank space thousands upon thousands of times - and then each succeeding generation began anew at bereshith and incorporated and parsed the analyses of the previous generations.

If this people, whose lives are thoroughly steeped in the traditions and ideas of their near and distant forbears, can yet find room for dissent and dispute, how am I, uneducated and untrained, lacking the most basic tools to search for these truths in the manner of the Jews, ever to hope to glean the simplest precept with any clarity or certainty?

Near as I can tell, this immersion in the study of the Torah and the oral traditions did not begin with the destruction of the Temple and the Diaspora, but dates back to at least the Babylonian Exile, and probably began at the base of Sinai, where the written and oral Laws are believed to have been given.

If I am grafted into the tree and am adopted as an heir - having equal standing - would I not share equal responsibility for study? We are told to study, to meditate, that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word.

But where do I begin?

Do I start as a Jewish child would? What am I to study? How am I to study? Are there parts of the Jewish tradition, writings, teachings which I should not study? How do I meld the old and the new?

This is exciting and intimidating simultaneously.

An Exploration in Judaism - 1

2008-11-14T17:37:00.000-08:00

The past couple of days I have been listening to lectures by Orthodox Jewish scholars on many subjects.

The coincidence of belief between Christians and Jews, when truthfully compared, teaching against teaching, precept versus precept, is strikingly dissimilar. Like many others, I just assumed that Jews were Christians without the rest of the Bible - no Christ.

That's not the case.

In fact, I was quite surprised at the hostility evidenced in many of the lectures toward Christianity (frequently disguised as a joke) and by the presentation of erroneous information about the fundamentals of Christian theology. As they were audios only, I cannot assess whether the presenters knew the information was untrue or were persuaded it was factual.

What was just as interesting to me, however, was the nature of the Jewish approach to the practice of religion and the obligations of the faith. It was so technical and precise, words and phrases being dissected and parsed, entire lectures seemed to consist of a legal analysis of God's intent.

The evident reliance on oral tradition over the written word was a further surprise.

This is not to say that I had not heard that this was the Jewish practice, but more of the case that I took what I had heard to be the biased observations of non-Jews.

The passion and sense of special-standing expressed in various ways was an additional stand-out property.

It prompted me to ask many questions as I listened and meditated on the lectures.

Is present-day Judaism consistent with the historical Hebrew practice? Besides the obvious that there is no Temple and that temple-related acts are necessarily excised, where does the current religious expression differ from 2000 years ago or 3000 years ago?

How much of the Hebrew faith are Christians supposed to continue?

Is Christianity a radically different religion, as several of the lectureres stated, and if so, is radically different because it has strayed from the true path or is it radically different because Jesus meant it to be?

I don't know, but it seems as good a time as any to explore and see what truth I can find.

I did like the idea that each person is supposed to make their own copy of the Torah.

What is a Free Market?

2008-10-26T16:44:00.000-07:00

What is a free market?

Let's look at a textbook definition:

A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sells are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.

In financial markets, free market stocks are securities that are widely traded and whose prices are not affected by availability.

In foreign-exchange markets, it is a market where exchange rates are not pegged (by government) and thus rise and fall freely though supply and demand for currency.

In simple terms, a free market is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is a voluntary agreement between two parties who trade in the form of goods and services. In reality, this is the extent to which a free market exists since there will always be government intervention in the form of taxes, price controls and restrictions that prevent new competitors from entering a market. Just like supply-side economics, free market is a term used to describe a political or ideological viewpoint on policy and is not a field within economics.

(Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp )

Now, here is a serious question related to free markets: name the last time there really was a free market in the United States, or any other so-called democratic nation. Can you pinpoint even one?

I didn't think so.

The closest era to true free-market conditions was shortly post-revolutionary, pre-republic confederation or, perhaps, in the days when the western territories were nearly ungoverned and ungovernable.

Free markets, like communism, exist only in theory, not in practice.

The economic system in the United States is, and always has been, mercantilism. The spill-over effects (trickle down) from the mercantilist system have enriched all of us, but as you would discover with a short research session, those at the top always grow richer faster than those at the lower levels.

We don't discuss mercantilism much in the modern times because it is supposed to be an artifact of history. We have capitalists, and corporations, and capitalism.

We also have increasing government-corporate cooperation, decreasing liberty, controlled markets and limited opportunity.

In other words, what we have is fascism, which is the accurate label for what is called capitalism, but which is nothing other than old-time mercantilsm.

Think about and then think about this: If you want to have free markets step one is to outlaw corporations.

Vaccinations

2008-08-27T14:27:00.000-07:00

A slight detour here.

Just read an article on how the CDC is ringing the alarm bells over a measles outbreak (about 180 cases, more or less) and how about half of these are among those dastardly non-compliant homeschoolers who are, suprise, surprise, also not enamoured with pedeatric vaccinations.

All of this is designed to accomplish a couple of objectives: 1) Distract attention away from the disasterous fraud that is Gardisil (profitable, however); 2) Shower the homeschoolers with negativity and disdain, as if measles were some sort of rebellious conspiracy.

Well, despite what the self-indulgent bureaucrats/corporate stooges might say, these home-schooled children will be better off rather than harmed.

Yes, measles can be uncomfortable, so are mumps and chicken pox...I know, I had them all.

However, as intended by the Designer, the immune systems of these children will be stronger and more effective against the diseases being dumped on us from the sky and through the water every day by the pharmo-government complex.

The Children will live to fight another day.

The vaccinated will not.

And, by-the-by the other half of those contracting measles were vaccinated - so just how effective is it?

Save your family: Don't Vaccinate indiscriminately.

,,,Live by Faith

2008-08-23T23:30:00.000-07:00

Big faith is easy. It really is.

Big faith is easy because having a broad, universal faith in what God does does not connect to the small moments of our lives.

Believing that God is somewhere, outside of our earthly vision, creating all that is, knowing the end from the beginning, running the solar system, the galaxies, the universe; believing that God keeps the ships afloat is easy.

When you read in Old Testament history that the greatest army in existence is decimated and tens of thousands of soldiers slain in one night by a few angels is not that hard to believe.

Little faith is hard.

To believe that Jesus truly knows that you don't have rent money, that your a/c is broken, your car has no gas, and that He will provide exactly what is necessary just in time is very, very hard.

Yet, it is little faith that God desires from us.

Genesis begins: In the beginning God...

God is presumed. There are no debating points, just the easy faith that in the beginning was God.

God does not ask you to believe or try to persuade you to have faith that He was in the beginning. Throughout the scriptures God is the premise.

The debate is what that means to you.

And that is really, really hard.

Little faith, practical faith.

Class Warfare

2008-08-18T07:05:00.000-07:00

I know this will sound harsh, but I am firm on this position: A Christian cannot work for the federal government.

It may also be the case for state and local as well, but I am not as persuaded yet at the total depravity of the lesser governments.

That the national is wholly evil is undeniable - and no-one can work within that system and remain unaware of its dark designs on the people of the nation.

In fact, I think that, if it is not obvious already, a stratification of American society will become apparent, a class division along new lines. The new classes will be the elites of politics and business at the apex; at the next level will be the bureaucrats, in government and corporations, loyal to the system and the elites. Third will be those who choose the system but are outside of the functional power structure. At the bottom will be those outside of the system, by choice or because the system rejects them.

There will be (and is today) a small faction not only outside the system, but in active opposition to the system. These will operate throughout the infrastructure, disrupting, overturning, prophesying.

Race, wealth, noteriety will become less significant as this caste system takes hold.

The Future Is Hard to Predict

2008-08-17T22:02:00.000-07:00

I really missed the original content on the Predicto blog.

News digests are great. Someone always picks up on something missed by others.

But the real meat is in how each person sees meaning in what is happening here, there and everywhere.

So with gusto, let the smack begin!

If you want to post here, contact me by email.

All apologies to Z, if needed.