The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will. -Proverbs 21:1

In his sermon this morning, our pastor noted that Mary responded to the Lord calling to her (John 11:29). Then, soon after, Lazarus responded from the grave to the Lord’s call (John 11:43-44).

This is an exceedingly powerful voice. If He can call a man back from the grave, can He not call your unbelieving relatives and friends?

There has always been something tedious and artificial about discussions of racism. The real problem is hatred and pride. People hate or look down on other people for a hundred reasons: they’re pretty, they’re ugly, they smoke, they’re red state, they’re blue state, they’re rich, they’re poor. And yet we single out one peculiar form– racism– above all the others. It’d be as if we all decided in concerted fashion to stamp out gluttons addicted to Moon Pies, or men who lust after green-eyed women. Not that these aren’t evils, but why these specific evils?

There’s little desire to combat sin, of course. The word “racism” has become just another club used by those with political agendas to pummel and marginalize others.

It’s gotten so silly that I’ve heard people say that the “worst thing” you accuse someone of is racism. Really? Worse than adulterer or blasphemer? Worse than sodomite or whore?

There are good books out there telling you how to protect your existing assets: Charles Goyette’s Dollar Meltdown, Peter Schiff’s books, etc. There are neo-survivalist books telling you how to survive. If you want it raw (warning: occasional profanity), this book by an Argentine who lived through his country’s currency crisis is insightful.

Few books, however, talk about the importance of growing your ability to earn income. In a world with fewer “good” jobs (thanks to the government’s ongoing spending and resulting destruction of capital), you may have to outwork others to get those jobs. Or keep your job.

I started a new job a few months ago. Let me give you a few examples that I’ve stumbled into re: protecting my ability to earn income.

First, I work extra hours but I don’t charge for them. There’s nothing wrong with working more than 40 hours a week, even if you’re only paid 40. Obviously one has to balance family and life, but I’m finding that those additional hours learning software, learning ways to streamline your job, etc., make a difference.

Second, I no longer waste any of my work day surfing the web or reading email. I spend my work day working. I’m a lot more productive at work because of it. I don’t have to hurriedly close a web page because someone busted me reading Drudge Report instead of working (I think we all know that feeling).

Third, I invested a little money. I was fretting a little because I couldn’t find a certain technical manual at the library, and I didn’t want to pay for it. Finally, I just broke down and bought the thing. I should have done it two months before I did. I’m not talking about motivational books; I find them a gimmicky waste of money. I mean professional or training materials.

Fourth, better than books are simply spending time hacking around in a piece of software, or talking to someone who is an expert at a professional discipline. I find many people like this at my workplace. Three months into my job, I’ve learned enough that people have started asking me questions.

Fifth, I’ve had a few opportunities of late to apply for other jobs. I’ve decided not to because I’m learning a lot at this job. If I’m growing in a role, then that’s a big factor in whether I stay in it. Similarly, I don’t discount a positive or even “half-decent” work environment any longer. I had a job a few years ago where I hated the work environment and the company culture. It was a miserable time.

To be valuable, you have to put in the time. You have to work. You have to learn. It’s your sacrifice to learn and grow that blesses others.

Who knows, it may be that thing that keeps you employed down the road.

For all the saints, who from their labours rest, /
Who Thee by faith before the world confessed, /
Thy Name, O Jesus, be forever blessed. /
Alleluia, Alleluia!

Another aunt died recently. Dad had nine siblings, mom had eight, and many have died over the last few years. They have followed their fathers and mothers to the grave. My prime will pass soon enough and I will go there too. So will you.

As I get older I feel the weight of loss more. I miss my departed elders more than ever. Those born two generations before me are slowly passing on. They won’t be there to provide guidance, or to explain the world that preceded me. Perhaps people will look to me for that. Life, as it unfolds, slowly replaces those who came before you with those born after you. The losses mount.

Then, at the height of our loss, we die and pass on to eternity. Dawn breaks. Not only will we reunite with our fathers and forefathers — for our loss is a temporary one — but we will join in that communion of saints throughout the ages: Abraham, David, Isaiah, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Athanasius, and Luther. Is there anything to desire more fervently?

From earth’s wide bounds, from ocean’s farthest coast, /
Through gates of pearl streams in the countless host, /
And singing to Father, Son and Holy Ghost: /
Alleluia, Alleluia!

They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera. -Judges 5:20

Comments Matthew Henry:

Those whom God is an enemy to the whole creation is at war with.

This week, a video hit documenting abuse on an Ohio farm. Farmhands are shown repulsively cursing as they beat cows. The outrage poured in internationally. A domineering, regulatory mindset was on display in spades: Put the farmer out of business! Increase regulation! Stop eating dairy!

It’s good, of course, to expose people who abuse animals. I doubt these people show compassion to people, either. People have always loved animals for good reason: they are a fascinating example of God’s creativity and brilliance. Animals bless us in so many ways. Most of us have affection for our pets. Many years ago, a huge moth flew into a room where I was talking with my former pastor. My pastor scooped it up in his hand, opened the window, and let it go, saying something like “we should spare God’s creation when possible.” Most of us don’t wantonly kill creatures.

Many have made the excellent point that the people protesting the beating of cows often support the slaughter of infants in abortuaries. One’s moral priorities do reveal the heart’s darkness. However, Christians should also consider the intent of the groups who exposed these cruel farmhands. The goal of vegan-friendly groups like Mercy for Animals and the Humane Society of the United States isn’t to prosecute a few wrongdoers, but to introduce more farming regulations. They’d love to end animal farming altogether, but if they can’t do that at least they can make it so expensive that people can’t afford it. This is an unbiblical, evil intent which flows from rebellion against the Creator.

Christians in general need to be more concerned about individual liberties, particularly now that our government is spending much of the nation’s economic output and running up unpayable debts. Interest groups and politicians use events like this cow beating to seek unlawful government power over citizens. The government has been increasingly binding us with silly legalisms that the Pharisees would think idiotic and regulations that Joe Stalin would consider overkill. Cities force us to waste money recycling. New York City has banned trans-fats. Government at all levels is now trying to regulate salt content. The federal government wants to regulate carbon, which is like trying to regulate nitrogen. It’s an idiotically corrupt money-making scheme.

Walter Williams has noted that anti-smoking crusades started in the 1960s with advocates pushing merely for a non-smoking area on planes. Today, smoking isn’t only banned on planes, it’s banned in all private businesses in many states (including Ohio). Government works this way. It gets a foothold, then grows like a cancer.

Remember, they don’t need to seek outright bans on anything. Regulation does wonders to making stuff less accessible. Regulation and “higher cost” are synonyms.

They don’t tell you that while your money may compound, the government is stealing your savings through the “miracle” of inflation. At best, you’ll stay even. The question is this: What will a million buy you in a few decades? It’s not the amount of money in your pocket that matters, it’s what that money can purchase. All other things being equal, a man with $1 in an economy where candy bars cost $.05 is wealthier than a man with $5 in an economy where a candy bar costs $.80.

A financial advisor may can show you that saving pre-tax money can save you a lot of money over the years. Consider their assumptions, however. First, most 401Ks have limited investment options. They are heavily geared toward investing in U.S. bonds, U.S. stocks, and the U.S. dollar. What if inflation effectively wipes out the value of the dollar? Most 401Ks allow no means of hedging in foreign currencies or hard assets such as commodities, real estate, etc. Second, you have to pay taxes on the money once you withdraw it, and when you don’t know what tax rates will be then. They could be much higher. Third, there are penalties that come from withdrawing early, which means that you have less control of your assets. (One hook financial companies give young people is this idea that if they just set up the automatic investing every paycheck, they don’t have to think about it. Well, you can do that with individual accounts. You can set up online bill pay to “pay yourself” by sending a check somewhere automatically each month. There’s nothing magical about a 401K or IRA. People still can and do withdraw money from them. It just costs a lot more.)

I think the biggest issue with 401Ks and IRAs is that they are a sitting duck for a financially-strapped government. Consider the ready-made government pitch if we have another major downturn: “Look at how your mutual funds have fallen! You trusted Wall Street (it’s their fault!) and look what happened! This is why we are graciously stepping in. Your monies will now be safe and secure, transferred to government securities with a guarantee to pay.” This will entice people who, for good reason, distrust the advice of their financial adviser and yet don’t know what else to do with their money. A lot of people are in this boat.

This is how the government works. What Gary North calls “kicking the can” i.e. pushing the day of reckoning downstream, is often accomplished by pulling panicked people out of a small pool and dumping them into a large pool with promises of government security. “Don’t worry, you won’t drown! We have lifeguards on duty.” Because the government is a studiously irresponsible, however, it just sets up the the risk of a wider-ranging disaster (witness the U.S. financial system).

If private retirement accounts are nationalized by forcing people into government securities, we’ll be witnessing Social Security redux. In effect, all of the money you save will be borrowed and spent by the government. They will leave you with an IOU. All entitlements hinge on a promise to pay. In true Ponzi fashion, the government is promising you that it will find future suckers to pay you when your time comes. Remember, it has already spent all of the money you’ve paid into FICA.

Financially, it isn’t going to work. The government will forfeit on its obligations mainly through inflation since it’s the sneakiest way to do it, but it will also use means testing (i.e. penalizing responsible savers), and raising the retirement age. This means that your effective return is going to be a lot less.

What can one say in favor of 401Ks and IRAs? Well, the government could legislate in favor of retirement plans and at the expense of individual accounts. Also, in certain legal actions, your retirement money may be exempt. In other words, it may be a form of risk mitigation to have some money in retirement vehicles. However, you have to balance that against the risk of confiscation.

When I was younger, I was suckered in by the employer matching on a 401K, but many employers are no longer matching. If I was starting out today, I wouldn’t bother with a 401K. I’d save my money on my own. You don’t need a quasi-government program like a 401K or IRA. Save it in individual stock accounts, real estate, commodities, or use it to build your ability to produce income (Gary North is big on pushing people to focus on producing income as much or more than than protecting their assets; I’m coming around to his view.) Save your money in things a desperate government will find harder to get its hands on. I’m not going to give investment advice here, except to say that Peter Schiff’s Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets is a better place to start than Kiplinger or Money magazine.

Ronnie James Dio, the man on the silver mountain, died earlier this week. His lyrics were sometimes loathsome, but I always admired his incredible pipes.

One of rock’s oddities is the 1980 collaboration between Dio and Kerry Livgren, the blonde guy from Kansas who wrote Carry On and Dust in the Wind in the late 1970s. Livgren was a new Christian when he wrote and recorded a solo album called Seeds of Change (Livgren’s autobiography of the same title is worth a read if you can find it). On Seeds of Change are two songs with Dio on vocals: Mask of the Great Deceiver and To Live for the King. Look past the cheesy, early 80s orchestration and it’s interesting stuff.

We’ve been hearing a lot lately that almost half of all citizens pay no income taxes. This, it is said, leads to a populace that is more open to tax hikes.

Indeed, tax hikes are sometimes palatable when people are told that only the rich will pay. Why should people be living the high life when I’m struggling to get by?

Those who vote to increase the burdens of “the rich” need to realize something: the joke’s on you. Supply side economists are right about one thing: wealth does trickle down. A prosperous society with a large middle class has more wealth to go around. In the material sense, which is all that matters to the world, the poor benefit from nicer schools, deluxe shopping centers, green space, more security, incredible inventions such as computers, and inexpensive food. Meanwhile, the trees have been kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw in Cuba. What have they given the world lately? How are the poor doing there?

Still, tax hikes are politically unreliable. They can be dangerous to a politician seeking re-election.

Regulations aren’t dangerous. With every new scandal, the solution is always “more regulation.” The voters agree: “Someone needs to keep an eye on xyz.”

The obvious truth is that regulations lead to the same end as a tax hike: the diversion of wealth from productive to unproductive use (namely, enriching the government and its trough-feeders) and the hampering of the creation of new wealth. The business owner who has to comply with minimum wage laws, health care mandates, handicapped parking spots that sit unused 98% of the time, and a hundred other things must pass his costs along to his customers. He can’t eat all of the costs. Moreover, every small businessman regularly calculates the real worth of keeping his business open. If he can make as much money as a grunt for someone else, then maybe he’ll decide that the freedom of owning a business isn’t worth the hassle and the risk. This hassle increases with every increase in regulations.

The Federal Register is now over 75,000 pages long. Can you think of one item in your home that isn’t regulated by the government in some way? I can’t. Consider all the time and money your workplace spends in various forms of regulatory compliance.

One last thing: Leftists always like to tell us how much they hate corporations, but their confiscatory politics ensure a world of big corporations. The large companies have the economies of scale to comply with the high taxes and the mounting pile of regulations. In fact, large companies often like regulations. They have cozy financial relationships with the government. They like the idea of hamstringing their smaller competitors.

I’d rather the Federal Register be two pages long… double-spaced.

Planned Parenthood receives huge federal grants through Title X (administered by Health and Human Services) and other avenues such as Title XIX (Medicaid). Republicans tout the Hyde Amendment, which supposedly prohibits federal funding of abortions, but money is fungible in any budget. If the government gives a dollar to Planned Parenthood’s non-abortion family planning, then that’s one less dollar that Planned Parenthood needs to find to meet that budget. Non-targeted monies can then be directed over to abortion-related funding. (Not only that, “family planning” services such as contraception encourage sexual activity and thus create more opportunities for “unwanted” pregancies.)

What happened all those years that Republicans had both houses of Congress and the presidency? Title X funding increased. They could’ve nixed it altogether. They didn’t. (I don’t think George Bush was any more pro-life than Mitt Romney or John McCain, but that’s another matter.)

Ron Paul, who is disliked by much of the pro-life movement, is the only one I know of who advocates ending all entitlement funding. The goal shouldn’t be to put strings on Title X funding, the goal should be to eliminate it. In fact, the Department of Health and Human Services should be abolished, too. Not one red cent should go to Planned Parenthood for any purpose. Any libertarian worth his salt would agree. How many Republicans would agree?

I know, I know, it’s not politically feasible to eliminate and abolish stuff in the short term. I’m all for interim steps. However, it’s hard to get to a destination if it isn’t really your goal. Eliminating entitlement funding simply isn’t the goal of most Republicans. Pandering while making as few waves as possible is.

Ron Paul and libertarians in general want to pull out the roots of these noxious weeds, not prune their branches. This is what needs to happen. After all, when you prune a plant, it often grows back stronger.

Beck’s turrets are now rotating toward Jim Wallis.

The Mormon could provide a useful service here.

Peter Brown said this in his biography of Augustine:

His letters are marked by an inspired fussiness, and by a heroic lack of measure when it came to the care of endangered souls… [They] catch the barely suppressed sigh of a tired old age, characterized by constant quiet acts of self-sacrifice as Augustine lent his pen, again and again, to the defence of his Church, at the expense of intellectual projects that engaged him more deeply.

We might call this the day that private insurance died. I doubt that the imperial throne will need to fight like this again to complete the move to single-payer health care. Economics will do the dirty work. That is, private insurers will exit because they can’t cover pre-existing conditions (imagine selling fire insurance and being required to take people whose house has just burned down. It’s not the best business model). The government will enter in its usual role as the “lender of last resort” (aka. savior), using its printing presses of course.

I predict that we’re 5-6 years away from the health care system being on the verge of collapse. The revenues will be spent (in fact, they’re already spent) long before the “benefits” of this disaster are implemented in 2014. As Massachusetts discovered, it’s a pretty short trip to insolvency.

The people who are going to lose the most in all of this will be the baby boomers. As Gary North has said, expect a hard retirement. If you’re not in shape, think about getting in shape.

Has there ever been an instance in all of history where government involvement in something led to increased quality and lower costs for all? Think public education. The government provides direct funding, cheap credit for student loans, and other forms of subsidy (by the way, artificially-low interest rate loans are a boon for the seller, not the buyer). These actions increase resources. Demand explodes. Prices rocket upward (prices are a form of rationing). The bureaucracy expands, employees get raises, and empowered unions secure large pensions and are able to provide time and money for the reelection campaigns of their benefactors. Meanwhile, students and their parents go heavily into debt. Taxpayers pay through the nose (for example, the Cato Institute notes that public schools cost $25K/yr per student in some cities). High prices increase calls for more gov’t help to make education “affordable.” And so the government responds with more funding, and prices go even higher. Lather, rinse, repeat. One government intervention begets another.

You have to wonder if people will ever figure it out.

I think the U.S. health care system will be on the verge of collapse by 2017 (several years after the “benefits” kick in), but that optimistically assumes that the U.S. economy avoids collapse under the weight of unsustainable debt it has already accumulated. All the money that will be collected is already spent, unless the U.S. can use the revenues as collateral of sorts to borrow even more money at low rates.

Which leads to death panels. I’m not a huge fan of Sarah Palin, but she’s right that death panels are coming. There’s no getting around it, just as I see no way (short of repeal) around the fact that this bill is pretty much the death of private health care. Care will have to be rationed because the money eventually will not be there. This bill’s astronomical cost makes it worse.

The government isn’t going to ration fairly or humanely, it’s going to ration politically. I’m guessing that working-age taxpayers will eventually get first dibs, while old timers with extended problems are going to see their plug pulled. Economic malaise, the lack of free market competition/incentives, the addition of millions of people to the system, and government subsidies are going to make health care even more expensive. The stifling effect of the government on the economy is going to make things even worse, because it really is true that a prosperous society materially benefits all in that society. A poor society does not. You cannot build a prosperous society by attacking production and savings, and that is exactly what big government attacks through its spending, its debt, and its costly regulations.

You can’t legislate away economic reality.

“Pharisee” is the evangelical version of the word “racist.” It’s usually just a cheap way to attempt to end debate. The words “Pharisee” or “judgmental” in a letter or popular article have become likely indicators of a lousy argument.

If doctrine doesn’t matter, why would Paul warn of the false teachers with tears (Acts 20), or to equip the saints so they are no longer tossed about by every wind of doctrine (Eph 4:14)? He warned the Roman church against those who cause divisions and obstacles contrary to the doctrine they had been taught (Rom 16:17). He discussed “warning and teaching everyone” (Col 1:28). Paul told them to see to it that people are not taken captive by human philosophies (Col 2:8). He tells Timothy and the church to rebuke those who teach false doctrine (1 Tim 1:3), to keep a close watch on his teaching (1 Tim 4:16), to guard the good deposit (1 Tim 6:20, 2 Tim 1:14), and to preach the word and rebuke falsehood (2 Tim 4:2). Why? “To save himself and his hearers.” (1 Tim 4:16). Doctrine is a matter of life and death.

If the accusers are non-Christian, the “Pharisee” argument usually shows a poor, grab bag understanding of Scripture and their hatred of God’s law and authority. If the accuser is Christian, ask him if one should judge Mormons by their piety or their doctrine. He’ll usually say the latter. So, doctrine does matter. He’s really saying that you’re getting caught up in areas of Christian liberty and focusing on inessentials. The more the person has an affinity for the book, the more the person protests.

I have several responses for these folks. First, The Shack’s perversions of the Trinity and promotion of feminism are both attacks on the Godhead. This is heresy, not inessentials. It is deadly error. Second, Paul did not tell pastors to limit their teaching to the facts of salvation, but to preach all the Word and do so rightly. Third, you seem to think that something that is sweet to your eyes, your ears, and your feelings is “spiritual.” In such cases, perhaps we should be most willing to say to ourselves: Is this really Biblical? Compare it to the Word. Remember, Satan poses as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14) and Paul warns us away from teachers who tell us what we want to hear rather than the truth (2 Tim 4:3). Fourth, don’t buy the “it’s only a work of fiction” line used by every popular author who writes books filled with bad theology (see Brown, Dan). This is a lame cop out. You can bet that the same author will proudly and pretentiously talk up how he is constantly told that the book “helped expand my understanding of Jesus/God/my faith.” The reviews on Amazon will verify this.

Let’s not kid ourselves. There is no political support nationally to outlaw abortion. The Republicans did nothing when they held the legislative and executive branches. Tactically, Ron Paul would rather get power out of federal government’s hands. Why isn’t this acceptable? Extending federal power over the abortion issue is every bit as likely (and probably more likely) to work against abortion opponents. Sure, the federal government could one day outlaw abortion (and do so constitutionally), but its track record has been to extend abortion. That’s what it did by judicial fiat in 1973. Federal courts have also overturned modest state restrictions.

Furthermore, the explosion in federal entitlement spending has also been the backbone of the abortion industry in so many ways. Ron Paul is also the lonely voice in Washington who wants to eliminate all entitlement spending.

What’s really amazing is how many conservatives have thrown in their lot with Mitt Romney. Have a listen to “pro-lifer” Mitt Romney from 2002. At best, the guy is a phony.

The great columnist, Joseph Sobran, noted how egalitarian usages like “person” instead of “man” destroy the simple vigor and beauty of the language. A master of the English language like Sobran would find plenty of bad grammar on this site (the problem is that I don’t know where), but I don’t willingly abuse the language. “Spokesperson” is a grating and willful abuse of good taste.

But it’s more than that. It’s even more than protecting smelly little orthodoxies. At heart, usages like “he and she” instead of “he” are a denial of the Scriptural truths of creation and and godly submission. These Biblical truths are an offense to rebellious hearts, and thus we get nauseous words like “spokesperson.”

It’s necessary to see the larger picture before putting Obama on a special pedestal of infamy on the specific topic of government spending. I believe that we’re seeing a historical crescendo. Since 1971 the dollar has been unhinged completely from gold, and this, along with other factors such as the dollar’s currency reserve status, has led to an explosion of spending and debt. Politicians became addicted to cheap money and huge deficit spending (even the “balanced budgets” of the 90s were frauds because they were raiding the misnamed “Social Security Trust Fund” the whole time, and thus massively growing unfunded liabilities). As the heroin addict needs ever greater hits to get the same high, a debt-laden economy requires ever greater infusions of government spending to postpone collapse. The federal debt has more than doubled since 2000, and the debt ceiling has been raised with increasing regularity. The scope of government bailouts continues to widen. Problems are hitting the shore in waves, with the largest wave hitting in late 2008. Ensuing waves have been increasing the destruction, and the government response (propping up large and insolvent banks, guaranteeing nearly all mortgages, and so on) is ensuring that larger waves are in store. In short, the crescendo is building.

Eventually, just as a junkie will crash, so will the economy. The government will be forced to stop spending and make life-altering changes when it can’t find enough borrowers, or if it sees prospect of monetary collapse, or some other crisis. Perhaps it will lose control and we’ll see a hyperinflation. You will definitely be seeing broken promises. They were never sustainable promises.

If the crash doesn’t happen in the next few years, expect the next president, regardless of party, to be a larger spender than Obama. Both parties share a devotion to Keynesian economics and both parties realize that, politically, they don’t have any other choice but to keep spending. Economically, they do. Morally, they do. Politically, they don’t.

Politics always wins out with political parties. They are not going to do the right thing and let the economy (that is, all of us) freely restructure through a lot of pain. The voters won’t stand for it, and politicians know it.

I don’t diet. I don’t count calories. When I’m hungry, I eat. When I’m full, I usually stop. If my scale is to be believed, I currently have 11% body fat.

I’ve written before about exercise. What follows are my theories on eating, based on reading and personal experience, in hopes that it will help someone, somewhere. I don’t claim to be an authority on nutrition. A lot of people do. There are doctors recommending low-fat diets, internet experts recommending high-fat diets, low carb and high carb camps, vegans and primals. Organic devotees. On it goes.

My philosophy: eat a balanced diet of mostly whole foods. Few people get fat eating steak, chicken, apples, sweet potatoes, brown rice, whole wheat, carrots, peas, and so on. They get fat eating chips, frozen pizza, Pillsbury biscuits, juice drinks, Frosted Flakes, Hamburger Helper, french fries, soda, white bread, and lots of condiments. When they get the urge to “eat healthy,” they’ll buy a processed food with Omega 3 or vitamin additives instead of eating whole (i.e. real) food.

The problem with these highly processed foods is that they are expertly engineered to taste good by adding lots of sugar, sodium, and 15 other mysterious and unpronounceable ingredients. My wife theorizes that people eat more bad food than they need to because their bodies are grasping for nutrients (we learn more every year about the good things in the fruits and vegetables God has made for us). My wife may be right. After a baked potato and two eggs, I’m satisfied. After a few Double Stuff Oreos, which is about the same number of calories, I’m just getting started. I eat cookies by the row. I used to eat chips by the bag, and mac and cheese by the box. Does anyone actually eat the serving size listed on a package of processed food? You’re better than me if you do.

Some people are addicted to caffeine. I still need to conquer a love of sugary junk food. By “conquer,” I don’t mean “avoid completely,” but instead to desire it with self-control instead of as an enslaved addict seeking a fix. Gluttony is still a sin.

The key with eating is simply to see diet as a noun, not a verb. Dieting ends, usually with a return to bad eating habits, but a good diet is for a lifetime. When I started eating whole foods, I honestly didn’t know if I liked enough of them. I created a list of foods that I do like and split the list into categories like carbs, meats/proteins, fats, fruits, and vegetables. I’m trying new things and adding the stuff I like to the list. Slowly, I’m finding that I don’t desire processed stuff as much. I don’t really miss most of it. I just ate it because it was easy and because I’d always eaten it.

Here’s the kicker to this “exercise and eat mostly whole foods” lifestyle: I can eat my fill without my clothes getting tighter. I am not forever hungry as I was on Weight Watchers. No more Lean Cuisine or counting out how many pretzels I eat. If I like a certain condiment, I use a bit of it without fretting that it’s adding a point or two. Sometimes I find a replacement food that I like just as much (e.g. a spritzer or apple cider vinegar instead of salad dressing). If I want some pizza on occasion, I have some pizza. When you eat mostly whole foods, you can “cheat” occasionally. My concern is more with eating too little rather than too much.

(One last thing: I’m not a big believer in the organic movement. Take some of the tired myths about conventional farming with a grain of salt. While Michael Pollan has useful insights — his larger theories on whole foods have influenced me — farmers and nutritionists often contradict his details. Farming industry reps may be biased, but the people who push organic foods, free range chickens, veganism, and all that rot have their own agenda. Also, your whole foods don’t need to come from the expensive, good-on-health-care, bad-on-Planned-Parenthood grocery chain that goes by that name and actually sells its share of highly processed stuff.)

Yes, solar energy.

The author commits the same error as politicians: he thinks he knows how everyone else’s money should be spent. Since the wealthy pay an indiscriminate share of taxes (the top 10% of earners pay over 70% of the taxes), he’s replacing the wisdom and knowledge of all the entrepreneurs and businessmen out there. He thinks he has the knowledge and intricacy to spend the confiscated assets of tens of millions of people more wisely than those people would’ve done it.

Think about how arrogant that is. It’s what politicians and bureaucrats do every day.

Politicians have the advantage of trafficking in what is seen. People see $50 million spent on some boondoggle and the jobs it produces despite massive inefficiencies. They don’t see what businesses and products and employment will never come into play because that $50 million has been spent.

The ruling party comes up with a spending plan, they blow hundreds of billions of dollars, and then six months later the opposition says “ha, it didn’t work!” … as if politicians ever spend money on anything that does. The opposition party’s stimulus plan wouldn’t have worked either.

A better idea is to stop all “recovery” and “stimulus” plans, but that’s seen as inaction. Egged on by the voters who want them to “fix” problems and end the suffering, the politicians will never let it be. They have to “do something.” They’re like alchemists in a lab, squandering wealth day after day to find that elusive golden formula.

Anyway, the guy who played Obama was spot-on. There were many fine moments, such as when he promised to freeze government spending for three years… except for Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. Then he told us that the “worst of the storm has passed.”

However, best of all:

Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created.

Yes, it’s the Broken Window Fallacy in action, and Obama’s hero in the example is a glazier! Nice!

It has to be the most unintentionally funny line ever delivered in a SOTU.

The Blind Side offers a kind of liberal Hollywood version of conservative values: all rock-solid valor, all the time. -Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly.

I haven’t seen the movie, but that’s a very perceptive comment.

We often see Hollywood portraying Christians as perverted hypocrites. When someone proclaims (i.e. repeats, based on the plain meaning of Scriptures) God’s judgment against sins like homosexuality, it’s all too easy to change the subject by highlighting the hypocrisies of the Christian. You don’t have to dig too far into anyone’s life to find hypocrisy and sin. We’re all a mess.

However, I never really thought before about how Hollywood creates the even more unreal “rock-solid” Christian who always acts with purpose and kind intentions. This creates a useful standard to judge Christians against, since no one is really this way (though some are closer than others).

I’ve been disappointed by other Christians at times, shocked to see someone I thought saintly to have some weird sinful tendency– egotism here, self-righteousness there. And yet, why should I be surprised that another man deals with envies, lusts, self-absorption, and anger just like I do?

You never see the real Christian life in movies. You never see characters who distrust their own motives. You don’t see those who recognize their ongoing need of a Savior, which only deepens as their sanctification proceeds. You don’t see people who know they need to be forgiven regularly. You don’t see folks warring against their own fallen hearts and minds. You don’t see an ebb and flow to their faithfulness. And you surely don’t see Christians whose proclamation of God’s forthcoming judgment comes from a sure understanding of their own horror of standing naked before a holy God, without the banner of Christ’s righteousness.

That describes the Christians I know. They are flawed, sometimes idiotically so, but they are forgiven. They know on what Rock they stand and and they evince wondrous evidences of God’s work in them all along the way. In the end, they are humbly relying on a righteousness not their own (Romans 3).

It’d be much harder for the heroic and perverted protagonist of countless films to be seen as prevailing against such an antagonist.

There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom. -Garet Garrett, 1954

I was at a children’s function a month or two ago at a Lutheran church (ELCA). During it, they did the Pledge of Allegiance. I didn’t join in.

Have you ever thought about the pledge? Joe Sobran once noted that the phrase many want to remove– “under God”– is the only good part of it. The Pledge was written by a 19th-century socialist. It speaks against secession (“indivisible”), which is something that the Founders saw as a necessary bulwark against Federal tyranny. Unlike the National Anthem, the pledge calls on us to… make a pledge. It’s not a binding oath in the sense that I will be prosecuted for disobeying it, but why would I want to say something I do not necessarily believe? Christians believe that kingdom of Christ supersedes the state. Why would a man leave a wayward denomination (where he may have once given membership vows) and yet pledge unqualified allegiance to his country?

I admire the soldiers who risk their lives overseas. However, the U.S. is broke. We need these kids here in America. We need them producing stuff instead of consuming resources. All government employees, soldiers included, are consuming resources. Peter Schiff once created an illustration to explain America’s interaction with foreigners since the end of World War II. Consider an island, he said, where a couple of foreigners and an American are stranded. One foreigner’s job is to gather the wood. Another creates the fire. Another obtains the food. They come to the American and ask what his job will be. His answer: He’ll eat the food.

Government employees are eating the food.

Military spending is a key contributor to what is likely to be more calamitous for this country: a currency crisis caused by overspending. Conservatives rail about government spending, and yet unflinchingly support massive military spending. This defeats the purpose. If even 20% of the populace denied legitimacy to 99% of federal spending (and that includes Medicare, social security, and war spending), I’m guessing that would be a huge problem for the legitimacy of the federal government. Things would change. Among those who should know better (including me a few years ago), the military is the best possible propaganda for federal legitimacy and overreach. People believe dubious claims that soldiers in, say, Iraq, are “fighting for our freedoms.” I don’t question our soldiers’ motives. I do question the government’s motives and the real effect of interventions like this.

The government isn’t “protecting our freedoms” overseas. They are ticking off people who do not want foreign troops in their country. Foreigners may strike back repulsively, but in the same way that you don’t flash jewels in a bad neighborhood and expect to come out unscathed, you shouldn’t blow things up in pagan lands.

Joe Sobran once quipped that the Constitution poses no threat to our current form of government. Other than setting terms of office, the Constitution has been a dead letter for generations. It isn’t even a small speed bump for Congress. The massive entitlements that are far and away the greatest financial threat to the country are all unconstitutional. Every war since World War II has been undeclared. The federal bureaucracy has over 14 million (the figure is probably much larger by now) employees and/or contractors. The Constitution hasn’t changed in the past 50 years, but federal spending has risen steeply. So much for “limited, constitutional government.” Were they still celebrating the republic in imperial Rome?

The older I get, the more I’m questioning “first things” when it comes to politics. Pundits debate who should run the Fed. Better to debate why the Fed should exist in the first place. People debate what the president is or is not doing. It’d be better if people were questioning whether the presidency itself is really a good idea.

The government wants us to believe that it protects our freedoms and rights. It’s easier to prove that government works to restrict our God-given rights. By spending our money and issuing regulations, they take our fields and redistribute them (c.f. 1 Sam 8:14). I think it was Milton Friedman who correctly noted that all government spending is taxation. Politicians are simply connected people who administer goodies to others for political and financial benefit. Congressmen parlay their connections into quite lucrative careers after leaving office, in areas like banking and lobbying that benefit lavishly from political connections.

One way to consider fighting back against the government is to stop, as much as legally possible, feeding it. Stop buying its bonds, use Fedex instead of the post office, don’t join the military, avoid funding public schools as much as possible, etc. Stop feeding into the legitimacy of the current American state as if it is run by anything other than corrupt power-mongers. Don’t buy the lie that a Republican takeover is the answer.

Yes, I know, we live in a fallen world. However, the Bible doesn’t get sentimental about Rome. Paul used his prerogatives as a Roman citizen, but his letters are bereft of state worship. Jesus steered clear of Judean politics. He and John the Baptist knew who Herod was.

Maybe Christians should take a hint from this.

I first heard of The Shack when family members mentioned that it discusses the Trinity. Just a tip: When a popular work discusses the Trinity, warning flags should go up. Historically, attacks on the Trinity have been at the core of all sorts of heresies.

One of the chief heresies of the last century is feminism. While feminism may seem spent as a political phenomenon, its errors have invaded the church so deeply that they are unrecognized. Feminists hate the doctrine of the Trinity, not only because it speaks of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as “He,” but also because it is a model of godly submission. The Son submits to the father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in the same way that the church submits to Christ, wives submit to husbands, children obey parents, slaves obey masters, etc. (Ephesians 5:22-24, Ephesians 6). The head is then called to love the one submitting.

Here’s a helpful article on the Trinity.

And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear. -Luke 2:8

“How They See It: People Who Matter on What Matters Most.” So says the cover of the current issue of Newsweek. Pictured are Henry Kissinger, Hillary Clinton, Tim Geithner, Eric Holder, etc. In other words, the people who matter are politicians and bureaucrats, the white-collar parasites who work with politically-connected elites to feed lavishly off wealth created by productive people in all countries. Yes, it’s the rich and powerful who matter.

The wealthy didn’t see the glory of the Lord the night described in Luke 2, however. Shepherds did. How many untold saints have wished to see what those blessed shepherds saw?

That’s how the Lord works. Local events change the world. They don’t usually occur in Herod’s palace, but instead among those who don’t “matter.” Years and years of tedium, and then boom, a surprise. The church was built and maintained by people who don’t matter to those who worship at the altar of this perishing world.

Malcolm Muggeridge was in Russia during perhaps its most vicious era in the early 1930s. Encompassed by Stalinist oppression and starvation, which has few parallels in human history, this was his impression:

It just suddenly seemed to me that Russia was a beautiful place– these pine trees, dark against the snow which had now begun to fall, the sparkling stars so far, far away, the faces of the Russians I met and greeted, these also so beautiful, so clumsy and kind… In the woods there was a little church, of course disused now. The fronts of such churches, like the Greek ones, are painted with bright colours; blues bluer than the bluest sky, whites whiter than the whitest snow. Someone — heaven knows who — had painted up the one in the Kliasma woods. Standing in front of this unknown painter’s handiwork, I blessed his name, feeling that I belonged to the little disused church he had embellished, and that the Kremlin with its scarlet flag and dark towers and golden spires was an alien kingdom. A kingdom of power such as the Devil had in his gift, and offered to Christ, to be declined by him in favour of the kingdom of love. I, too, must decline it, and live in the kingdom of love. This was another moment of perfect clarification, when everything fitted together in sublime symmetry; when I saw clearly the light and the darkness, freedom and servitude, the bright vistas of eternity and the prison bars of time. I went racing back over the snow to K[itty, his wife], breathing in the dry icy air in great gulps of thankfulness.

This is what our Lord offers. Not the compromised wishes and power trips of thieving politicians, but the “brights vistas of eternity” in His glorious presence.

Merry Christmas!