Monday, 08 Apr 2013 12:36 PM
By Larry Kudlow
Many profound and detailed admiration pieces will be written about the late Margaret Thatcher, and they’ll be much deeper than this one. But I want to get on record with my own esteem for Mrs. Thatcher, whose character, philosophy and achievements made her one of Britain’s greatest prime ministers.
Way back in the early 1990s, at a National Review conference on the eastern shore of Maryland, I had the great honor to serve on an economics panel that Mrs. Thatcher moderated. (Craig Roberts was also on that panel, although I can’t remember the name of the third panelist.) The topic was free markets and freedom, areas in which Margaret Thatcher made huge contributions, so I had a lot to live up to. And how did it go? Well, following the discussion, I got to sit next to Mrs. Thatcher during the luncheon. And she told me, “You know, Kudlow, you did rather well in that talk.” Naturally, I was thrilled.
Margaret Thatcher fought socialism in England and unyieldingly promoted the free-market views of Nobelists Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. She stopped the destructive British labor unions dead in their tracks. With every bone in her body she attempted to limit government by lowering spending and taxation. She opted for big-bang financial deregulation. And she put London back on the map as a world banking center.
“Freedom” was always her watchword.
She also adored Ronald Reagan. And the two of them formed an extraordinary partnership for freedom and free markets. Working together they helped bring down the Soviet communist system. And it was a peaceful bring-down at that.
Thatcher saw Mikhail Gorbachev first, and she reported to Reagan, “We can do business with him.” Reagan did, although he refused to back down on the Strategic Defense Initiative. And as the American economy roared in response to Reagan’s own free-market supply-side policies, the Soviets were out-produced and eventually folded.
Mrs. Thatcher famously said, “The trouble with socialists is that they always run out of other people’s money.” That dictum really stands the test of time, doesn’t it? Running out of other people’s money? Today?
The age of big government has once again, at least temporarily, reared its ugly head. It’s a great battle for all the economies around the world. That’s one of many reasons why we will miss Margaret Thatcher. She did not go wobbly.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Happy Birthday, Milton!
Business
It‘s Famed Economist Milton Friedman’s Birthday! Here are His Top 6 Quotes
Becket Adams
For today’s “top whatever” list, we’re going to commemorate the 100th birthday of Nobel Prize-winning conservative economist Milton Friedman. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Friedman, here’s what you need to know: he rescued the U.S. economy from the clutches of President Carter’s stagflation [i.e. rising inflation and unemployment] and, as the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore puts it, he “saved capitalism.”
“Next to Ronald Reagan, in the second half of the 20th century there was no more influential voice for economic freedom world-wide than Milton Friedman,” writes Moore.
“Small in stature but a giant intellect, he was the economist who saved capitalism by dismembering the ideas of central planning when most of academia was mesmerized by the creed of government as savior,” he adds.
And like most towering intellects, Friedman was a font of pithy and brilliant one-liners. In honor of his birthday, here are our favorite quotes from Milton Friedman with accompanying words from Stephen Moore:
“Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.”
Friedman was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics for 1976 — at a time when almost all the previous prizes had gone to socialists. This marked the first sign of the intellectual comeback of free-market economics since the 1930s, when John Maynard Keynes hijacked the profession.
Friedman’s 1971 book “A Monetary History of the United States,” written with Anna Schwartz (who died on June 21), was a masterpiece and changed the way we think about the role of money.
“Governments never learn. Only people learn.”
In the early 1990s, Friedman visited poverty-stricken Mexico City for a Cato Institute forum. I remember the swirling controversy ginned up by the media and Mexico’s intelligentsia: How dare this apostle of free-market economics be given a public forum to speak to Mexican citizens about his “outdated” ideas? Yet when Milton arrived in Mexico he received a hero’s welcome as thousands of business owners, students and citizen activists hungry for his message encircled him everywhere he went, much like crowds for a modern rock star.
Once in the early 1960s, Friedman wrote the then-U.S. ambassador to New Delhi, John Kenneth Galbraith, that he would be lecturing in India. By all means come, the witty but often wrong Galbraith replied: “I can think of nowhere your free-market ideas can do less harm than in India.” As fate would have it, India did begin to embrace Friedmanism in the 1990s, and the economy began to soar. China finally caught on too.
“Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat scorned.”
More influential than Friedman’s scholarly writings was his singular talent for communicating the virtues of the free market to a mass audience. His two best-selling books, “Capitalism and Freedom” (1962) and “Free to Choose” (1980), are still wildly popular.
[...]
Friedman stood unfailingly and heroically with the little guy against the state. He used to marvel that the intellectual left, which claims to espouse “power to the people,” so often cheers as states suppress individual rights.
“I am favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible.”
I remember asking Milton, a year or so before his death, during one of our semiannual dinners in downtown San Francisco: What can we do to make America more prosperous? “Three things,” he replied instantly. “Promote free trade, school choice for all children, and cut government spending.”
How much should we cut? “As much as possible.”
“If you put the Federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.”
While he questioned almost every statist orthodoxy, he fearlessly gored sacred cows of both political parties. He was the first scholar to sound the alarm on the rotten deal of Social Security for young workers — forced to pay into a system that will never give back as much as they could have accumulated on their own. He questioned the need for occupational licenses — which he lambasted as barriers to entry — for everything from driving a cab to passing the bar to be an attorney, or getting an M.D. to practice medicine.
He loved turning the intellectual tables on liberals by making the case that regulation often does more harm than good. His favorite example was the Food and Drug Administration, whose regulations routinely delay the introduction of lifesaving drugs. “When the FDA boasts a new drug will save 10,000 lives a year,” he would ask, “how many lives were lost because it didn’t let the drug on the market last year?”
“Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government.”
In a recent tribute to Friedman in the Journal of Economic Literature, Harvard’s Andrei Shleifer describes 1980-2005 as “The Age of Milton Friedman,“ an era that ”witnessed remarkable progress of mankind. As the world embraced free-market policies, living standards rose sharply while life expectancy, educational attainment, and democracy improved and absolute poverty declined.”
Well over 200 million were liberated from poverty thanks to the rediscovery of the free market.
Final thought: Although he witnessed the economic mess brought about by Carter’s policies, we can’t help but wonder how shocked Friedman would be with the policies of the current administration.
“It’s a tragedy that Milton Friedman … did not live long enough to combat the big-government ideas that have formed the core of Obamanomics,” Moore writes.
“It’s perhaps more tragic that our current president, who attended the University of Chicago where Friedman taught for decades, never fell under the influence of the world’s greatest champion of the free market. Imagine how much better things would have turned out, for Mr. Obama and the country,” he adds.
It‘s Famed Economist Milton Friedman’s Birthday! Here are His Top 6 Quotes
Becket Adams
For today’s “top whatever” list, we’re going to commemorate the 100th birthday of Nobel Prize-winning conservative economist Milton Friedman. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Friedman, here’s what you need to know: he rescued the U.S. economy from the clutches of President Carter’s stagflation [i.e. rising inflation and unemployment] and, as the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore puts it, he “saved capitalism.”
“Next to Ronald Reagan, in the second half of the 20th century there was no more influential voice for economic freedom world-wide than Milton Friedman,” writes Moore.
“Small in stature but a giant intellect, he was the economist who saved capitalism by dismembering the ideas of central planning when most of academia was mesmerized by the creed of government as savior,” he adds.
And like most towering intellects, Friedman was a font of pithy and brilliant one-liners. In honor of his birthday, here are our favorite quotes from Milton Friedman with accompanying words from Stephen Moore:
“Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.”
Friedman was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics for 1976 — at a time when almost all the previous prizes had gone to socialists. This marked the first sign of the intellectual comeback of free-market economics since the 1930s, when John Maynard Keynes hijacked the profession.
Friedman’s 1971 book “A Monetary History of the United States,” written with Anna Schwartz (who died on June 21), was a masterpiece and changed the way we think about the role of money.
“Governments never learn. Only people learn.”
In the early 1990s, Friedman visited poverty-stricken Mexico City for a Cato Institute forum. I remember the swirling controversy ginned up by the media and Mexico’s intelligentsia: How dare this apostle of free-market economics be given a public forum to speak to Mexican citizens about his “outdated” ideas? Yet when Milton arrived in Mexico he received a hero’s welcome as thousands of business owners, students and citizen activists hungry for his message encircled him everywhere he went, much like crowds for a modern rock star.
Once in the early 1960s, Friedman wrote the then-U.S. ambassador to New Delhi, John Kenneth Galbraith, that he would be lecturing in India. By all means come, the witty but often wrong Galbraith replied: “I can think of nowhere your free-market ideas can do less harm than in India.” As fate would have it, India did begin to embrace Friedmanism in the 1990s, and the economy began to soar. China finally caught on too.
“Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat scorned.”
More influential than Friedman’s scholarly writings was his singular talent for communicating the virtues of the free market to a mass audience. His two best-selling books, “Capitalism and Freedom” (1962) and “Free to Choose” (1980), are still wildly popular.
[...]
Friedman stood unfailingly and heroically with the little guy against the state. He used to marvel that the intellectual left, which claims to espouse “power to the people,” so often cheers as states suppress individual rights.
“I am favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible.”
I remember asking Milton, a year or so before his death, during one of our semiannual dinners in downtown San Francisco: What can we do to make America more prosperous? “Three things,” he replied instantly. “Promote free trade, school choice for all children, and cut government spending.”
How much should we cut? “As much as possible.”
“If you put the Federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.”
While he questioned almost every statist orthodoxy, he fearlessly gored sacred cows of both political parties. He was the first scholar to sound the alarm on the rotten deal of Social Security for young workers — forced to pay into a system that will never give back as much as they could have accumulated on their own. He questioned the need for occupational licenses — which he lambasted as barriers to entry — for everything from driving a cab to passing the bar to be an attorney, or getting an M.D. to practice medicine.
He loved turning the intellectual tables on liberals by making the case that regulation often does more harm than good. His favorite example was the Food and Drug Administration, whose regulations routinely delay the introduction of lifesaving drugs. “When the FDA boasts a new drug will save 10,000 lives a year,” he would ask, “how many lives were lost because it didn’t let the drug on the market last year?”
“Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government.”
In a recent tribute to Friedman in the Journal of Economic Literature, Harvard’s Andrei Shleifer describes 1980-2005 as “The Age of Milton Friedman,“ an era that ”witnessed remarkable progress of mankind. As the world embraced free-market policies, living standards rose sharply while life expectancy, educational attainment, and democracy improved and absolute poverty declined.”
Well over 200 million were liberated from poverty thanks to the rediscovery of the free market.
Final thought: Although he witnessed the economic mess brought about by Carter’s policies, we can’t help but wonder how shocked Friedman would be with the policies of the current administration.
“It’s a tragedy that Milton Friedman … did not live long enough to combat the big-government ideas that have formed the core of Obamanomics,” Moore writes.
“It’s perhaps more tragic that our current president, who attended the University of Chicago where Friedman taught for decades, never fell under the influence of the world’s greatest champion of the free market. Imagine how much better things would have turned out, for Mr. Obama and the country,” he adds.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Choose Life
Choose Life Homily by Fr. Bryce McProud
The social and political divisions in this country are toxic. All you have to do is watch how congress is
divided—and I think that it is a barometer of what’s happening within our citizenry.
This toxic conflict—this bitter division—can be traced to a lot of things—but at the top of my list
is the 1973 Supreme Court Decision—Roe V. Wade—overturning laws in every state that protected
unborn babies. I think that decision poisoned us—like nothing since the Dred Scott decision in 1857.
To refresh your memories, Dred Scott was a slave who lived several years in a free state. When his
owner died, Scott tried to buy his own freedom and that of his family. When his request was rejected
by the heirs, Scott took it to the judiciary and the case wound up in the Supreme Court of the United
States.
On March 5, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney issued the majority opinion in Scott v Sandford—
Here are the salient points:
• Anyone descended from Africans—whether slave or free—is not –and could not be a citizen
of the United States—even freed slaves—and the descendants of freed slaves— were not
considered worthy of citizenship—although they could enjoy many of the privileges of
being a citizen.
• The reason they could not be citizens—is that people of African descent are not fully
human—therefore they could not have legal standing—further— the norm in the United
States— for every person of African descent was to be a slave-- private property—with no
rights—being a freedmen was a significant departure from the norm.
This is the defense of racism by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of
America. What is just stupefying is that a significant percentage of people in the United States agreed
with this opinion. But a vast number did not—and the conflict over this ruling was a major reason
that this nation of ours entered into a civil war— just a few years after this decision was handed down.
I bring up the Dred Scott case because it was the most odious Supreme Court decision in our history—
until Roe v Wade— issued in January of 1973. I believe this ruling—allowing— and from my
position often encouraging—the killing of unborn babies—has poisoned our civilization—much as
the Dred Scott decision did some 150 years ago.
Roe v Wade— in effect has said that an unborn child is not and cannot have the rights of a citizen—
because that child is not and cannot be a person—therefore that person has no right to “life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness”—or drawing of breath—or falling in love—or feeling the sun on her
face—or singin’ and dancin’ in the rain.
I came from a tradition that was officially pro-choice on abortion. After years of futility—being the
lone voice at Church conferences—challenging that position—I found myself more and more drawn
to the fearless, unequivocal position of the Catholic Church—and this position was not a small part
in my decision to become Roman Catholic.
Some have argued that the Church hasn’t always held the belief that abortion—at least in the first few
months of life—before ‘quickening’—is permitted because the child has not yet become human. I’ve
heard Catholic politicians—on both sides of the aisle—use that argument—much to my horror and
that of the general Church faithful.
It’s the same argument that kept people of African descent in slavery for generations
If you have any doubts on the Church’s teachings on abortion—let me share with you this from
Gaudium et spes—The Pastoral Constitution of the Church—it’s from Vatican II.
“God, the Lord of life, has entrusted [human beings] with the noble mission of safeguarding life—and
[humans] must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost
care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.”
In the 3rd century-- Tertullian— the so-called “Father of Latin Christianity” wrote emphatically that
–“You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.”
In summary, the Catechism states—“Since the first century, the Church has affirmed the moral evil of
every procured abortion. The teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct
abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or means, is gravely contrary to moral law.”
(CCC#2271)
To put it bluntly—one’s immortal soul is in jeopardy if one participates in an abortion in any manner—
having an abortion—coercing— pressuring or even encouraging another person to have an
abortion—performing an abortion—assisting in the performance of an abortion—and so on.
Abortion is not only sin—it’s evil. Full stop.
Eugene Council 1430 9
Choose Life Homily by Fr. Bryce McProud
To show how serious the Church is about abortion, Canon Law #1398 states that any person “who
procures a completed abortion”—in other words if you have anything at all to do with obtaining an
abortion—that person is automatically excommunicated by the very act.
But there is a word of hope—the Church is not only in the business of naming sins and proclaiming
the appropriate judgment—the Church is more in the business of bringing healing and forgiveness.
We in the Church are to start with the prophetic voice—the voice of Jonah to the citizens of Niniveh.
Sometimes this prophetic witness seems so frustrating—ask any in our community who spend
hours—week in—week out— protesting in front of the local abortion mills.
But as Mother Theresa of Calcutta said so profoundly—“We are not called to be successful—we are
called to be faithful.”
And this faithful witness does bear fruit. There are many stories of people who were convicted of this
sin—who repented—and who became effective voices in the denunciation of this great evil. I’m going
to give two examples:
The first is the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson—one time director of the largest abortion clinic in the nation--
located in New York City. He presided over 60,000 abortions—you heard me right—60,000—
including one on his own child. Among his dubious distinctions is that he helped found “NARL,” the
National Abortion Rights Action League.
Dr. Nathanson repented of his great evil and wrote a book entitled Aborting America. In it he speaks of
one of the lies he and his cohorts used to overturn laws protecting our most defenseless human beings.
He writes—“How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal?...It was always
‘5,000 to 10,000 a year.’ I confess I knew that figure was totally false.” (p193) The number was much,
much smaller.
For most of his adult life Dr. Nathanson described himself as a Jewish atheist—but again as a sign
of his repentant heart he received baptism in the Catholic Church in 1996—and until his death in
February of last year—he was one of more effective advocates for unborn babies in at least the last two
decades.
The second is a woman named Norma McCorvey—the Jane Roe of the Supreme Court decision. It
dawned on her that people were lying to her about the benefits of an abortion.
She writes of her change of heart—after she had been part of the so called ‘pro-choice’ movement. This
is from her book Won by Love—
“I was sitting in the O.R.’s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was
so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally it
dawned on me. ’Norma’, I said to myself, ‘They’re right’…something in that poster made me lose my
breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10 week old embryo and I said to myself, that’s a baby. It’s
as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth—that’s a baby!”
She goes on—“I felt crushed about this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion
wasn’t about ‘products of conception’. It wasn’t about ‘missed periods.’ It was about children being
killed in their mothers’ wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working
in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff.
Abortion—at any point—was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear.”
I’m pleased to say that shortly thereafter, she released a statement announcing that she had entered the
Roman Catholic Church and had been confirmed as a full member.
The argument that the baby—the person—the human being in the womb is a “conceptus” or an “unviable
tissue mass” is just a flat lie—a lie from the pit of hell. From the same place that said people of
African descent are not human beings.
This perception can change—perhaps slowly—but change it must. We are the prophetic voices like
Jonah to the Ninivites. Let us not get caught up in shirking this duty—this call from God. For God
wants people to repent of their evil—even and perhaps—especially the abortionists.
To overturn the Dred Scott decision, it took Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation” outlawing slavery,
and 3 constitutional amendments after the Civil War—the 13th amendment abolishing slavery, the
14th amendment granting former slaves citizenship, and the 15th amendment conferring citizenship to
anyone born in the United States.
We must follow suit and change the law. Until then—
We are to confront the evil, renounce it—and above all call folks gently to repentance—and God will
do the rest.
I think then—and only then—can our country be on the road to healing our deep divisions.
The social and political divisions in this country are toxic. All you have to do is watch how congress is
divided—and I think that it is a barometer of what’s happening within our citizenry.
This toxic conflict—this bitter division—can be traced to a lot of things—but at the top of my list
is the 1973 Supreme Court Decision—Roe V. Wade—overturning laws in every state that protected
unborn babies. I think that decision poisoned us—like nothing since the Dred Scott decision in 1857.
To refresh your memories, Dred Scott was a slave who lived several years in a free state. When his
owner died, Scott tried to buy his own freedom and that of his family. When his request was rejected
by the heirs, Scott took it to the judiciary and the case wound up in the Supreme Court of the United
States.
On March 5, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney issued the majority opinion in Scott v Sandford—
Here are the salient points:
• Anyone descended from Africans—whether slave or free—is not –and could not be a citizen
of the United States—even freed slaves—and the descendants of freed slaves— were not
considered worthy of citizenship—although they could enjoy many of the privileges of
being a citizen.
• The reason they could not be citizens—is that people of African descent are not fully
human—therefore they could not have legal standing—further— the norm in the United
States— for every person of African descent was to be a slave-- private property—with no
rights—being a freedmen was a significant departure from the norm.
This is the defense of racism by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of
America. What is just stupefying is that a significant percentage of people in the United States agreed
with this opinion. But a vast number did not—and the conflict over this ruling was a major reason
that this nation of ours entered into a civil war— just a few years after this decision was handed down.
I bring up the Dred Scott case because it was the most odious Supreme Court decision in our history—
until Roe v Wade— issued in January of 1973. I believe this ruling—allowing— and from my
position often encouraging—the killing of unborn babies—has poisoned our civilization—much as
the Dred Scott decision did some 150 years ago.
Roe v Wade— in effect has said that an unborn child is not and cannot have the rights of a citizen—
because that child is not and cannot be a person—therefore that person has no right to “life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness”—or drawing of breath—or falling in love—or feeling the sun on her
face—or singin’ and dancin’ in the rain.
I came from a tradition that was officially pro-choice on abortion. After years of futility—being the
lone voice at Church conferences—challenging that position—I found myself more and more drawn
to the fearless, unequivocal position of the Catholic Church—and this position was not a small part
in my decision to become Roman Catholic.
Some have argued that the Church hasn’t always held the belief that abortion—at least in the first few
months of life—before ‘quickening’—is permitted because the child has not yet become human. I’ve
heard Catholic politicians—on both sides of the aisle—use that argument—much to my horror and
that of the general Church faithful.
It’s the same argument that kept people of African descent in slavery for generations
If you have any doubts on the Church’s teachings on abortion—let me share with you this from
Gaudium et spes—The Pastoral Constitution of the Church—it’s from Vatican II.
“God, the Lord of life, has entrusted [human beings] with the noble mission of safeguarding life—and
[humans] must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost
care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.”
In the 3rd century-- Tertullian— the so-called “Father of Latin Christianity” wrote emphatically that
–“You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.”
In summary, the Catechism states—“Since the first century, the Church has affirmed the moral evil of
every procured abortion. The teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct
abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or means, is gravely contrary to moral law.”
(CCC#2271)
To put it bluntly—one’s immortal soul is in jeopardy if one participates in an abortion in any manner—
having an abortion—coercing— pressuring or even encouraging another person to have an
abortion—performing an abortion—assisting in the performance of an abortion—and so on.
Abortion is not only sin—it’s evil. Full stop.
Eugene Council 1430 9
Choose Life Homily by Fr. Bryce McProud
To show how serious the Church is about abortion, Canon Law #1398 states that any person “who
procures a completed abortion”—in other words if you have anything at all to do with obtaining an
abortion—that person is automatically excommunicated by the very act.
But there is a word of hope—the Church is not only in the business of naming sins and proclaiming
the appropriate judgment—the Church is more in the business of bringing healing and forgiveness.
We in the Church are to start with the prophetic voice—the voice of Jonah to the citizens of Niniveh.
Sometimes this prophetic witness seems so frustrating—ask any in our community who spend
hours—week in—week out— protesting in front of the local abortion mills.
But as Mother Theresa of Calcutta said so profoundly—“We are not called to be successful—we are
called to be faithful.”
And this faithful witness does bear fruit. There are many stories of people who were convicted of this
sin—who repented—and who became effective voices in the denunciation of this great evil. I’m going
to give two examples:
The first is the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson—one time director of the largest abortion clinic in the nation--
located in New York City. He presided over 60,000 abortions—you heard me right—60,000—
including one on his own child. Among his dubious distinctions is that he helped found “NARL,” the
National Abortion Rights Action League.
Dr. Nathanson repented of his great evil and wrote a book entitled Aborting America. In it he speaks of
one of the lies he and his cohorts used to overturn laws protecting our most defenseless human beings.
He writes—“How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal?...It was always
‘5,000 to 10,000 a year.’ I confess I knew that figure was totally false.” (p193) The number was much,
much smaller.
For most of his adult life Dr. Nathanson described himself as a Jewish atheist—but again as a sign
of his repentant heart he received baptism in the Catholic Church in 1996—and until his death in
February of last year—he was one of more effective advocates for unborn babies in at least the last two
decades.
The second is a woman named Norma McCorvey—the Jane Roe of the Supreme Court decision. It
dawned on her that people were lying to her about the benefits of an abortion.
She writes of her change of heart—after she had been part of the so called ‘pro-choice’ movement. This
is from her book Won by Love—
“I was sitting in the O.R.’s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was
so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally it
dawned on me. ’Norma’, I said to myself, ‘They’re right’…something in that poster made me lose my
breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10 week old embryo and I said to myself, that’s a baby. It’s
as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth—that’s a baby!”
She goes on—“I felt crushed about this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion
wasn’t about ‘products of conception’. It wasn’t about ‘missed periods.’ It was about children being
killed in their mothers’ wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working
in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff.
Abortion—at any point—was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear.”
I’m pleased to say that shortly thereafter, she released a statement announcing that she had entered the
Roman Catholic Church and had been confirmed as a full member.
The argument that the baby—the person—the human being in the womb is a “conceptus” or an “unviable
tissue mass” is just a flat lie—a lie from the pit of hell. From the same place that said people of
African descent are not human beings.
This perception can change—perhaps slowly—but change it must. We are the prophetic voices like
Jonah to the Ninivites. Let us not get caught up in shirking this duty—this call from God. For God
wants people to repent of their evil—even and perhaps—especially the abortionists.
To overturn the Dred Scott decision, it took Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation” outlawing slavery,
and 3 constitutional amendments after the Civil War—the 13th amendment abolishing slavery, the
14th amendment granting former slaves citizenship, and the 15th amendment conferring citizenship to
anyone born in the United States.
We must follow suit and change the law. Until then—
We are to confront the evil, renounce it—and above all call folks gently to repentance—and God will
do the rest.
I think then—and only then—can our country be on the road to healing our deep divisions.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Some Observations on the Market
Recently reaching the ripe old age of what I’ve reached I have come to a few observations and conclusions on the “stock market”. These have been triggered, in part, by the recent revelations of a number of well known hedge fund managers heading for indictment and jail; couple that with what Washington does and the political apparatchiks crony capitalism the game is not what it is touted to be. And the politicians should be in jail right next to the hedge fund managers. No, I don’t think these observations will be earth shattering. But they are observable. One, the market is rigged. Yes, even though it’s not earth shattering news, it’s basically true. The big boys rule the market, from large investments houses to huge mutual funds (have you seen Fidelity lately?). The market moves as they move money and as much as the SEC tries to tamp down the collateral damage, it still ensues. Secondly, insider trading is rampant. The news often goes through Washington, where insider trading is legal by the way and for which you and I would be thrown in jail, and gets to the west coast late if ever. By the time we move our few coins into the fray it’s usually too late. I know, I know, the market is for long term. I also disagree with that assessment as well. Take an individual or individuals who are close to retirement. Those of us who are ‘baby boomers’ have, for the most part, or maybe not for the most part, scrimped and saved and invested hard won capital into the market only to see the last five years an implosion take place of American stock. I can’t even imagine those individuals who have put nothing away for retirement. The market at its height was over fourteen thousand points; at its low, around six thousand; and now bouncing two to three hundred points a day. Why is that? What I see is the manipulation of the market. It’s no longer free. Corporate greed has many examples and the last five years has proved that vice over and over again. Thirdly, managers and traders are not paid according to whether they make their clients any money. They’re paid based on volume and amount of trading.
Finally, from Michael Lewis’ ‘Money Culture’, I find this interesting snippet:
“Wisdom and experience, in other words, stand exactly as much of a chance of beating the market as an Amazonian tribesman blowing darts at section three of the Wall Street Journal. Malkiel made gentle sport of the vanity of those who have acquired reputations as market beaters. The big success stories—for example, Peter Lynch, Warren Buffett, John Templeton—were explained perfectly well by the laws of chance. Success in the stock market was no different from success in coin-tossing contests in which those who toss heads are declared winners:
“The contest begins, and 1,000 contestants flip coins. Just as would be expected by chance, 500 of them flip heads, and these winners are allowed to advance to the second stage of the contest and flip again. As might be expected, 250 flip heads. Operating under the laws of chance, there will be 125 winners in the third round, 63 on the fourth, 31 on the fifty, 16 on the sixth and 8 on the seventh.
By this time crowds start to gather to witness the surprising ability of these expert coin-tossers. The winners are overwhelmed with adulation. They are celebrated as geniuses in the art of coin-tossing—their biographies are written and people urgently seek their advice. After all, there were 1,000 contestants, and only 8 could consistently flip heads.”
Kind of makes one wonder. I think what I’m trying to say is that for me, and mine, there has to be an element of risk for any gain. That’s true. But one should try to reduce that risk as much as possible. I have come to reason that the more one takes and gives away his control of capital to circumstances, people, and instruments, the higher the risk. I learned years ago that most investment planners and stock brokers know little. And they definitely do not control the market.
Just some thoughts.
Finally, from Michael Lewis’ ‘Money Culture’, I find this interesting snippet:
“Wisdom and experience, in other words, stand exactly as much of a chance of beating the market as an Amazonian tribesman blowing darts at section three of the Wall Street Journal. Malkiel made gentle sport of the vanity of those who have acquired reputations as market beaters. The big success stories—for example, Peter Lynch, Warren Buffett, John Templeton—were explained perfectly well by the laws of chance. Success in the stock market was no different from success in coin-tossing contests in which those who toss heads are declared winners:
“The contest begins, and 1,000 contestants flip coins. Just as would be expected by chance, 500 of them flip heads, and these winners are allowed to advance to the second stage of the contest and flip again. As might be expected, 250 flip heads. Operating under the laws of chance, there will be 125 winners in the third round, 63 on the fourth, 31 on the fifty, 16 on the sixth and 8 on the seventh.
By this time crowds start to gather to witness the surprising ability of these expert coin-tossers. The winners are overwhelmed with adulation. They are celebrated as geniuses in the art of coin-tossing—their biographies are written and people urgently seek their advice. After all, there were 1,000 contestants, and only 8 could consistently flip heads.”
Kind of makes one wonder. I think what I’m trying to say is that for me, and mine, there has to be an element of risk for any gain. That’s true. But one should try to reduce that risk as much as possible. I have come to reason that the more one takes and gives away his control of capital to circumstances, people, and instruments, the higher the risk. I learned years ago that most investment planners and stock brokers know little. And they definitely do not control the market.
Just some thoughts.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Maranatha!
Maranatha! Come Lord Jesus! I have been talking about 'freedom' in the last few blogs. Here is even a better way of explaining it from the 'Magnificat'.
He who obeys me dwells in security, in peace, without fear of harm. (Prv 1:33)
What is so new about the promised "mountain of the Lord" is not that the wolf and the lamb are both there, but that the wolf remains a wolf and the lamb a lamb, and yet they dwell together without harm or hurt in God's kingdom. Under God's rule, conversion and obedience do not mean the loss of identity but the discovery of our true identity as one in Christ.
Magnificat
And I would add to that last sentence that it is not only 'the discovery of our true identity as one in Christ' but the fullness of that identity.
He who obeys me dwells in security, in peace, without fear of harm. (Prv 1:33)
What is so new about the promised "mountain of the Lord" is not that the wolf and the lamb are both there, but that the wolf remains a wolf and the lamb a lamb, and yet they dwell together without harm or hurt in God's kingdom. Under God's rule, conversion and obedience do not mean the loss of identity but the discovery of our true identity as one in Christ.
Magnificat
And I would add to that last sentence that it is not only 'the discovery of our true identity as one in Christ' but the fullness of that identity.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
The Vatican and "A One World Bank"
Yesterday, the Vatican came out for a push in regards to a “central world bank” that would supposedly limit the various financial meltdowns that have occurred in the past five years, moving to a supra institution that will transcend national boundaries and will work independently for financial, and ultimately, I assume, for “social justice”, another watch word. The Pope is surrounded by people who are not concerned about Christ; either that or they are so inept in regards to looking at history, their own specifically, that they can’t see the forest for the trees. It is exactly this type of institution that has been predicted in Revelation. Not only are they, the hierarchy, not reading the Bible, but are ignoring some of the Church’s own historical encyclicals and bulls—especially the one on “subsidiarity” penned by, I believe, Leo XIII. It is neither the government nor some world wide entity that is responsible for taking care of our brothers and sisters. Christ did not go to the Roman occupiers to take care of the problems that were rampant during His days upon this earth. He led by example and then commanded the apostles to do likewise. And he calls us for and to the same purpose. It will not be the Roman Empire, or the Russian Bear or even the United States that will be judged, but we as individuals.
Some parts of the hierarchy of the Church are definitely responsible for this travesty. They are also responsible for pushing the current, most pro death President of the United States to be elected. And they continue to implicitly support him through inviting him to Catholic universities and thereby give a seemingly higher educational imprimatur by the Catholic Church. It is an outrage and incredibly detrimental to the lay people which are part of the Body of Christ.
No wonder there is such “smoke” surrounding the Vatican and the Church. But Christ Himself says that not even the gates of hell shall prevail. And we know that the Lord wins in the end.
Here’s the news release:
Vatican Calls for 'Central World Bank' to Be Set Up
Published: Monday, 24 Oct 2011 6:54 AM ET
The Vatican called on Monday for the establishment of a "global public authority" and a "central world bank" to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises.
A major document from the Vatican's Justice and Peace department should be music to the ears of the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrators and similar movements around the world who have protested against the economic downturn.
The 18-page document, "Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority," was at times very specific, calling, for example, for taxation measures on financial transactions.
"The economic and financial crisis which the world is going through calls everyone, individuals and peoples, to examine in depth the principles and the cultural and moral values at the basis of social coexistence," it said.
It condemned what it called "the idolatry of the market" as well as a "neo-liberal thinking" that it said looked exclusively at technical solutions to economic problems.
"In fact, the crisis has revealed behaviors like selfishness, collective greed and hoarding of goods on a great scale," it said, adding that world economics needed an "ethic of solidarity" among rich and poor nations.
"If no solutions are found to the various forms of injustice, the negative effects that will follow on the social, political and economic level will be destined to create a climate of growing hostility and even violence, and ultimately undermine the very foundations of democratic institutions, even the ones considered most solid," it said.
It called for the establishment of "a supranational authority" with worldwide scope and "universal jurisdiction" to guide economic policies and decisions.
Such an authority should start with the United Nations as its reference point but later become independent and be endowed with the power to see to it that developed countries were not allowed to wield "excessive power over the weaker countries."
Effective Structures
In a section explaining why the Vatican felt the reform of the global economy was necessary, the document said:
"In economic and financial matters, the most significant difficulties come from the lack of an effective set of structures that can guarantee, in addition to a system of governance, a system of government for the economy and international finance."
It said the International Monetary Fund (IMF) no longer had the power or ability to stabilize world finance by regulating overall money supply and it was no longer able to watch "over the amount of credit risk taken on by the system."
The world needed a "minimum shared body of rules to manage the global financial market" and "some form of global monetary management."
"In fact, one can see an emerging requirement for a body that will carry out the functions of a kind of 'central world bank' that regulates the flow and system of monetary exchanges similar to the national central banks," it said.
The document, which was being presented at a news conference later on Monday, acknowledged that such change would take years to put into place and was bound to encounter resistance.
"Of course, this transformation will be made at the cost of a gradual, balanced transfer of a part of each nation's powers to a world authority and to regional authorities, but this is necessary at a time when the dynamism of human society and the economy and the progress of technology are transcending borders, which are in fact already very eroded in a globalizes world."
Some parts of the hierarchy of the Church are definitely responsible for this travesty. They are also responsible for pushing the current, most pro death President of the United States to be elected. And they continue to implicitly support him through inviting him to Catholic universities and thereby give a seemingly higher educational imprimatur by the Catholic Church. It is an outrage and incredibly detrimental to the lay people which are part of the Body of Christ.
No wonder there is such “smoke” surrounding the Vatican and the Church. But Christ Himself says that not even the gates of hell shall prevail. And we know that the Lord wins in the end.
Here’s the news release:
Vatican Calls for 'Central World Bank' to Be Set Up
Published: Monday, 24 Oct 2011 6:54 AM ET
The Vatican called on Monday for the establishment of a "global public authority" and a "central world bank" to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises.
A major document from the Vatican's Justice and Peace department should be music to the ears of the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrators and similar movements around the world who have protested against the economic downturn.
The 18-page document, "Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority," was at times very specific, calling, for example, for taxation measures on financial transactions.
"The economic and financial crisis which the world is going through calls everyone, individuals and peoples, to examine in depth the principles and the cultural and moral values at the basis of social coexistence," it said.
It condemned what it called "the idolatry of the market" as well as a "neo-liberal thinking" that it said looked exclusively at technical solutions to economic problems.
"In fact, the crisis has revealed behaviors like selfishness, collective greed and hoarding of goods on a great scale," it said, adding that world economics needed an "ethic of solidarity" among rich and poor nations.
"If no solutions are found to the various forms of injustice, the negative effects that will follow on the social, political and economic level will be destined to create a climate of growing hostility and even violence, and ultimately undermine the very foundations of democratic institutions, even the ones considered most solid," it said.
It called for the establishment of "a supranational authority" with worldwide scope and "universal jurisdiction" to guide economic policies and decisions.
Such an authority should start with the United Nations as its reference point but later become independent and be endowed with the power to see to it that developed countries were not allowed to wield "excessive power over the weaker countries."
Effective Structures
In a section explaining why the Vatican felt the reform of the global economy was necessary, the document said:
"In economic and financial matters, the most significant difficulties come from the lack of an effective set of structures that can guarantee, in addition to a system of governance, a system of government for the economy and international finance."
It said the International Monetary Fund (IMF) no longer had the power or ability to stabilize world finance by regulating overall money supply and it was no longer able to watch "over the amount of credit risk taken on by the system."
The world needed a "minimum shared body of rules to manage the global financial market" and "some form of global monetary management."
"In fact, one can see an emerging requirement for a body that will carry out the functions of a kind of 'central world bank' that regulates the flow and system of monetary exchanges similar to the national central banks," it said.
The document, which was being presented at a news conference later on Monday, acknowledged that such change would take years to put into place and was bound to encounter resistance.
"Of course, this transformation will be made at the cost of a gradual, balanced transfer of a part of each nation's powers to a world authority and to regional authorities, but this is necessary at a time when the dynamism of human society and the economy and the progress of technology are transcending borders, which are in fact already very eroded in a globalizes world."
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Ocho Cinco and Life
True story. Also a funny one.
The 2009 National Football season began with the New England Patriots meeting in a home game opener against the Cincinnatti Bengals. As Bill Bellichick walked the sidelines to the Patriot side of warmups he happened to saunter by Chad Ocho Cinco, one of the wide receivers for the Bengals.
Slightly turning his head to Ocho Cinco while walking by, Bill Bellichick made the remark, "So not working tonight, huh?
"Wha d' yoo mean, Coach...."
"We're doubling you."
"Ahhhhhh jeeeeezzz......."
The 2009 National Football season began with the New England Patriots meeting in a home game opener against the Cincinnatti Bengals. As Bill Bellichick walked the sidelines to the Patriot side of warmups he happened to saunter by Chad Ocho Cinco, one of the wide receivers for the Bengals.
Slightly turning his head to Ocho Cinco while walking by, Bill Bellichick made the remark, "So not working tonight, huh?
"Wha d' yoo mean, Coach...."
"We're doubling you."
"Ahhhhhh jeeeeezzz......."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)