Here is a fun exercise. Justify yourself economically. As an example, I would say that since we live in a capitalist society under a system of laws, I verify the ownership of real property for the benefit of prospective owners and lenders. As they seem willing to pay me for this service, I make money.
Now it gets fun. Justify the existence of an orthodox priest. One might say that such a priest provides a service mandated by God which is therefore necessary. The service being necessary, it well behooves the beneficiaries of the service to recompense the provider. Assuming you believe in God, this makes sense.
Now, justify the existence of a re-appraising minister. Go ahead. All of a sudden any economic necessity vanishes.
It is entirely possible that someone will try to rationalize their own economic existence. If such a thing should happen watch out for a sudden prolixity and use of content-free jargon.
Over time, reality has a nasty habit of conforming to economics. I think this is one reason why the mainline churches are shrinking. They can not justify their own existence in a coherent and clear manner.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Guns and Violence
I am a supporter of the US Constitution. I think it is a good set of laws and that we have managed adequately for the past two hundred or so years. I am much more fervent about the first ten Amendments and the thirteenth and fourteenth Amendments.
I think that they represent the best protection against government over reach in the world. My main beef with the Bush Administration, and also with Congress has been the erosion of our rights since 9/11. I do not think terrorism can best be fought by trying to make us more secure. Leaving aside how effective or ineffective the measures taken have been, the best way to fight terrorism is to be more free. Terrorism fights by spreading the perception of fear. Our responses so far have served to affirm that perception.
Which brings me to the Second Amendment. We saw another mass killing on a university campus this past week. The malefactor apparently had not been taking his medications and went off the rails. He legally purchased two firearms and went to the school to appease his demons. The school was a 'gun free' zone and while I am sure law enforcement responded quickly, it was not quick enough to save the lives of those who were shot. What happened was horrible. The responsibility lies with the young man who did the shooting. It lies entirely with him.
The gun control zealots are arguing that had guns been harder to obtain, fewer would have died. The gun rights advocates are arguing that had the school not been a 'gun free zone' fewer people would have died. I disagree with both.
I do not wish to scare anyone, but if I really wanted to kill, maim or injure hundreds or possibly thousands of people I could do it. I could do it without recourse to firearms and without violating any laws, other than murder. I could do it with a minimum of planning and expense. I could do it despite having no formal training in explosives. It is not that terribly hard to make bombs. And if one is not concerned with self-preservation, then murder and mayhem become much simpler. Israel has learned this, much to her sorrow. {No one should worry about this. I do not have any homicidal urges.}
My family has lost two men to 'gun violence', both in or near Charleston SC. My cousin Rob was murdered by some young men who ordered a pizza, arranged for him to deliver it to an abandoned home, and then slaughtered him for the money in his pocket. My cousin Tim killed himself in an empty condominium with a shot gun.
The responsibility for Rob's death does not lie the gun, the gun manufacturer or the gun dealer. It lies with the young men who murdered him. The responsibility for Tim's death does not lie with the shot gun, the shot gun manufacturer or the dealer who sold him the gun. It lies with Tim, and Tim alone.
Even assuming all guns had been gathered up and thrown into the ocean, both men would be dead. My cousin's murderers would have used knives or bats or some other weapon. Tim still would have killed himself. Guns have as much to do with both of their deaths as does their geographical location. That is to say, little or no relation.
So what deaths would eliminating guns prevent? Criminals are not deterred by making something illegal. In the UK, where violent crime has increased dramatically over the part two decades, gun control does not seem to be effective. Further, there is strong anecdotal evidence that the official statistics are being fudged in that regard so as to keep the public from realizing just how awful it is over there. Suicides, who constitute the bulk of gun related deaths in this country, likewise will not be deterred by any gun ban.
The answer turns out to be criminals, primarily burglars. The one crime that simply does not happen very often in the US, but is quite common in the UK is home invasion. In the US the criminal is faced with the likelihood that the occupied home has a gun or two. In the UK the criminal is faced with the certainty that they do not. In most of the states, the homeowner has an absolute right to defend their home with deadly force. The homeowner has no such right in the UK. Further, the home is where most people keep their firearms.
I target shoot. I keep firearms primarily for that activity. The ammunition I have, the sorts of firearms, and where they are kept are all shaped by that primary motivation. That such a firearm could be used to shoot at an intruder is an added benefit for me, but not the main reason I have them. My wife keeps her firearms because they were her brother's and she is sentimental. Other citizens keep them for hunting. But the average American household has at least one firearm for self defense.
The result is that while thieves may very well break into our homes and steal, they rarely do it while we are there.
So the question I will leave you with is: How can we eliminate or reduce lethal violence? And secondly, what other consequences flow from the changes you want made?
I have not been able to think of any solutions that would have saved the lives of the students in Illinois or either of my cousins.
Friday, February 15, 2008
The Real Estate Market Today
I am not linking to it, but I just read a rather fat headed post about the 'real estate meltdown'. The writer of the post had no clue as to what has caused the current 'crisis' (Please note the use of 'scare' quotes).
Here is why some houses are now worth less than they were a year ago.
Lenders used brokers to loan people who had not previously been considered credit worthy one hundred percent of equity loans with adjustable interest rates. These rates were made artificially low as an incentive to borrow.
Two simple sentences and that explains it.
Let me break it down.
The lenders generally did not use salaried employees to evaluate the loans that were being made. They used brokers whose compensation depended directly upon making loans. The more loans made, the greater the brokers' compensation. Further the lenders relied upon the brokers to obtain accurate facts from the prospective borrowers and to evaluate their credit worthiness. {sarcasm}There was of course no incentive on the part of the brokers to fudge, shade the facts or lie {/sarcasm}.
The number of mortgage brokers had grown considerably while interest rates were falling. When the rates stopped declining or even rose, the huge pool of borrowers with good credit who had been refinancing dried up. The brokers then looked around for loans they could make so that they could continue to get paid.
Borrowers with poor credit are typically charged a higher rate of interest than borrowers with good credit. That is because they have a higher default rate and the lender wants to offset the risk. In addition, people buying houses have typically been required to put a hefty down payment on their new house. This makes sure that the new homeowner is invested into the house and is therefore committed to it. If the house declines in value due to neglect the first person to feel the pinch will be the homeowner, not the lender.
Recently it has been possible for almost all purchasers to borrow as much as one hundred percent of the sale price. This has been accomplished by using two loans. One at standard terms and one with a line of credit at a higher interest rate. The amount at risk for the purchaser is therefore nothing or pretty near close to. There is therefore no incentive on the part of the purchaser to stick with the home.
The use of teaser rates (artificially low interest rates) and balloon payment loans (loans that require little or no principle payment for a set period, typically six months to a year, and then require either payment in full or a hefty principle payment) has resulted in people buying houses that they could not afford to make payments on once the payments increased to market rates.
Put all of the above factors together and you get the current mess. However, it is not a universal mess. In our local market, most housing prices have not declined. What has been hit hard are new-construction starter homes. That is houses that have been recently built for persons looking to buy their first house. As builders and developers tend to build and develop by subdivision rather than piecemeal, this has caused certain neighborhoods to decline in value. The new owners bought the house, the payments increased, they found they could not refinance to lower the payments, they walked away. When that happens often enough in a neighborhood, prices begin to fall.
And to be blunt, real estate has been over heated in recent years. The housing supply was growing faster than the population at large. When supply exceeds demand, prices fall.
The main thing to remember is that the three most important words in real estate are location, location and location. A house on Park Avenue will always be worth more than a house on Mediterranean.
Here is why some houses are now worth less than they were a year ago.
Lenders used brokers to loan people who had not previously been considered credit worthy one hundred percent of equity loans with adjustable interest rates. These rates were made artificially low as an incentive to borrow.
Two simple sentences and that explains it.
Let me break it down.
The lenders generally did not use salaried employees to evaluate the loans that were being made. They used brokers whose compensation depended directly upon making loans. The more loans made, the greater the brokers' compensation. Further the lenders relied upon the brokers to obtain accurate facts from the prospective borrowers and to evaluate their credit worthiness. {sarcasm}There was of course no incentive on the part of the brokers to fudge, shade the facts or lie {/sarcasm}.
The number of mortgage brokers had grown considerably while interest rates were falling. When the rates stopped declining or even rose, the huge pool of borrowers with good credit who had been refinancing dried up. The brokers then looked around for loans they could make so that they could continue to get paid.
Borrowers with poor credit are typically charged a higher rate of interest than borrowers with good credit. That is because they have a higher default rate and the lender wants to offset the risk. In addition, people buying houses have typically been required to put a hefty down payment on their new house. This makes sure that the new homeowner is invested into the house and is therefore committed to it. If the house declines in value due to neglect the first person to feel the pinch will be the homeowner, not the lender.
Recently it has been possible for almost all purchasers to borrow as much as one hundred percent of the sale price. This has been accomplished by using two loans. One at standard terms and one with a line of credit at a higher interest rate. The amount at risk for the purchaser is therefore nothing or pretty near close to. There is therefore no incentive on the part of the purchaser to stick with the home.
The use of teaser rates (artificially low interest rates) and balloon payment loans (loans that require little or no principle payment for a set period, typically six months to a year, and then require either payment in full or a hefty principle payment) has resulted in people buying houses that they could not afford to make payments on once the payments increased to market rates.
Put all of the above factors together and you get the current mess. However, it is not a universal mess. In our local market, most housing prices have not declined. What has been hit hard are new-construction starter homes. That is houses that have been recently built for persons looking to buy their first house. As builders and developers tend to build and develop by subdivision rather than piecemeal, this has caused certain neighborhoods to decline in value. The new owners bought the house, the payments increased, they found they could not refinance to lower the payments, they walked away. When that happens often enough in a neighborhood, prices begin to fall.
And to be blunt, real estate has been over heated in recent years. The housing supply was growing faster than the population at large. When supply exceeds demand, prices fall.
The main thing to remember is that the three most important words in real estate are location, location and location. A house on Park Avenue will always be worth more than a house on Mediterranean.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Delta Blues
Delta is merging with Northwest Airlines. The new airline will be named 'Delta' and its headquarters will be in Atlanta.
That is good, I guess.
That is good, I guess.
We're Number..........Seven?
Here's a nifty list of the 20 prettiest colleges in the US. And to offset the good vibes from the prior list, here's a list of the 20 ugliest.
I can not wait to tell my oldest brother. He's a proud graduate of Drew (#11).
I can not wait to tell my oldest brother. He's a proud graduate of Drew (#11).
American Dream
An interesting refutation of 'Nickle and Dimed'. Read it all.
What's moderately amusing about the book link is that Ms Ehrenreich's book is marked down at Amazon from $13.00 to $3.81.
(Ye gods, am I channeling Kendall Harmon?)
What's moderately amusing about the book link is that Ms Ehrenreich's book is marked down at Amazon from $13.00 to $3.81.
(Ye gods, am I channeling Kendall Harmon?)
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Fisking a Satanist
I reproduce here, in full, a rather silly rant from StandFirm.
It has been a while since I've applied the dual headlights of reason and reality to the darkness so let's fisk it, shall we?
"Hi there. My name is Sam, and I’m the young man in the photo above holding the sign with the “implications involving violence, death, and genocide.” You can no doubt imagine my amusement upon checking my email this morning and discovering that overnight I had become a posterboy for hatred of christianity. I feel that this would be a good place to expand upon the sentiments expressed in my sign."
Well, I took the liberty of checking our pal Sam out. Here is what he has over on LiveJournal:
"White male. 23 years of age. Oakland. California. Satanist. Anarchist. Libertine. Drugs & alcohol. BFA in Painting. Drives a pickup.
Working knowledge of:
Painting. Drawing. Printmaking. Black & white / digital photography. Glassblowing. Casting. Welding. Blacksmithing. Aikido. Capoiera. Bass. Guitar. Flute. Clarinet. Piano. The occult."
In other words Sam is your basic West Coast Arts guy. He went the occult route rather than the hippy dippy route but it all seems rather standard. He does play an awful lot of instruments, so I admit to being a tad jealous.
Let's read on.
"I feel that the christian faith is the most contemptable collection of delusions to have ever besmirched the Earth."
Well, feelings are of course paramount in this world of ours. I feel I ought to be richer than Bill Gates, but wishing hasn't made it so. The first sentence is rather bold but very subjective.
"For centuries your churches have supressed free thought, burned people at the stake, perpetuated genocide against indiginous peoples, amassed incredible fortunes at sword-point, molested children, etc, etc, ad infinitum."
Golly. Well, for starters, the church has been around for millenia. So whatever naughtiness we've been up to, we've been doing it for longer than mere centuries. Secondly, I would have thought a Satanist would approve of such activities. So is all this simple jealousy? I'm not really aware of any religious based genocide against indigenous peoples by the church nor do I believe that the church has ever perpetuated it. Perhaps Sam means perpetrated? Irregardless the track record of the Church is rather good as regards to the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere. The Dominicans and especially Franciscans worked tirelessly to restrain the Conquistadores. I do admit that there have been some very egregious Christian leaders, including some Popes. On the balance though, all of the denominations have established churches, hospitals, schools and colleges, fed the hungry, housed the homeless and clothed the naked. We have been about this work for the aforementioned millenia.
"All in the service of a ludicrous imaginary being who exemplifies all that is most base and vile in the reactionary mindset."
A Satanist is claiming the Christian God is imaginary? My brain hurts. Is Sam an agent provocateur for the Excedrin company? In specific, this sentence is yet more hyperbole with no fact or justification.
"You claim to love your enemies while torturing them into renouncing their natural convictions."
Ah yes, that would explain the racks and iron maidens over at the Methodist church.
"More people have suffered as a result of your “love” then any other genocidal movement in the history of the world."
This gets oft repeated, but it is demonstrably false. In order of homicides, the most murderous ideologies ever are:
1. Communism, far and away. If you separate it by country, then it gets the four of the top five slots.
2. Nazism
3. Islam (check out the death toll in the India-Pakistan split, for example)
4. Non-Communist Socialism
5. Fascism
The Twentieth Century has much to answer for. Christianity does not even come close. I would note that all of the top five ideologies are vocally anti-Christian. Looks like Sam is in good company, then.
"You describe all that is good and natural in this world as a sin, and hold the false docrine of eternal salvation like a carrot before a donkey as you perpetuate your infamous crimes."
I rather like classical music, and I'm fairly certain that doing so is not sinful. I like puppies and kittens. That isn't a sin either. I'm afraid I'm a bit clueless as to what 'good and natural' things he thinks I think are sinful. As for eternal salvation, he can always wait and see whether it is false or not. I'm absolutely positive I have not committed any crimes in recent memory. So I am not perpetuating anything. If anyone is perpetuating crimes, I blame Greg Griffiths. :)
"Any person with two grains of logic can see that your doctrines are the silliest of falsehoods."
If only Sam had two grains of logic. Actually I thought logic was measured by the premise and the conclusion, rather than a volumetric or weight measurement. Silly me.
"This is why you have earned my contempt; because you despoil the earth by your very presence upon it. Lucifer is the bringer of enlightenment, and the day is dawning when the youth of America shall follow the example set by their Norwegian comerades in their battle against your false doctrine of death worship. The night sky shell be set alight by the blazing of your sanctuaries, and, hopefully, your immortal souls can be released from the bondage of this wicked Earth which you hate so much, in the form of the martyrdom you relish, and you can go to meet your maker in a more timely manner then you would be otherwise inclined to take."
I don't think I worship death, quite the opposite. Apparently Lucifer is also bringing in the day of purple prose as well. I would remind Sam that murder, the actual physical kind, remains a crime in all fifty states. While I am perfectly willing to die for my faith, precipitating that end on his part would likely result in either a long prison term or execution in my home state. Just FYI.
So, upon review, what Sam has said here is a lot of hyperbole, some verifiably false assertions and a fair amount of mis-spelled venom.
Sam will be in my prayers.
Dear christians,
Hi there. My name is Sam, and I’m the young man in the photo above holding the sign with the “implications involving violence, death, and genocide.” You can no doubt imagine my amusement upon checking my email this morning and discovering that overnight I had become a posterboy for hatred of christianity. I feel that this would be a good place to expand upon the sentiments expressed in my sign.
I feel that the christian faith is the most contemptable collection of delusions to have ever besmirched the Earth. For centuries your churches have supressed free thought, burned people at the stake, perpetuated genocide against indiginous peoples, amassed incredible fortunes at sword-point, molested children, etc, etc, ad infinitum. All in the service of a ludicrous imaginary being who exemplifies all that is most base and vile in the reactionary mindset. You claim to love your enemies while torturing them into renouncing their natural convictions. More people have suffered as a result of your “love” then any other genocidal movement in the history of the world. You describe all that is good and natural in this world as a sin, and hold the false docrine of eternal salvation like a carrot before a donkey as you perpetuate your infamous crimes. Any person with two grains of logic can see that your doctrines are the silliest of falsehoods. This is why you have earned my contempt; because you despoil the earth by your very presence upon it. Lucifer is the bringer of enlightenment, and the day is dawning when the youth of America shall follow the example set by their Norwegian comerades in their battle against your false doctrine of death worship. The night sky shell be set alight by the blazing of your sanctuaries, and, hopefully, your immortal souls can be released from the bondage of this wicked Earth which you hate so much, in the form of the martyrdom you relish, and you can go to meet your maker in a more timely manner then you would be otherwise inclined to take.
If you wish to share your thoughts with me, please feel free to visit my blog at:
http://pfirsich666.livejournal.com/
Hail Satan!
Rev. Coyotel Samuel Maxwell
It has been a while since I've applied the dual headlights of reason and reality to the darkness so let's fisk it, shall we?
"Hi there. My name is Sam, and I’m the young man in the photo above holding the sign with the “implications involving violence, death, and genocide.” You can no doubt imagine my amusement upon checking my email this morning and discovering that overnight I had become a posterboy for hatred of christianity. I feel that this would be a good place to expand upon the sentiments expressed in my sign."
Well, I took the liberty of checking our pal Sam out. Here is what he has over on LiveJournal:
"White male. 23 years of age. Oakland. California. Satanist. Anarchist. Libertine. Drugs & alcohol. BFA in Painting. Drives a pickup.
Working knowledge of:
Painting. Drawing. Printmaking. Black & white / digital photography. Glassblowing. Casting. Welding. Blacksmithing. Aikido. Capoiera. Bass. Guitar. Flute. Clarinet. Piano. The occult."
In other words Sam is your basic West Coast Arts guy. He went the occult route rather than the hippy dippy route but it all seems rather standard. He does play an awful lot of instruments, so I admit to being a tad jealous.
Let's read on.
"I feel that the christian faith is the most contemptable collection of delusions to have ever besmirched the Earth."
Well, feelings are of course paramount in this world of ours. I feel I ought to be richer than Bill Gates, but wishing hasn't made it so. The first sentence is rather bold but very subjective.
"For centuries your churches have supressed free thought, burned people at the stake, perpetuated genocide against indiginous peoples, amassed incredible fortunes at sword-point, molested children, etc, etc, ad infinitum."
Golly. Well, for starters, the church has been around for millenia. So whatever naughtiness we've been up to, we've been doing it for longer than mere centuries. Secondly, I would have thought a Satanist would approve of such activities. So is all this simple jealousy? I'm not really aware of any religious based genocide against indigenous peoples by the church nor do I believe that the church has ever perpetuated it. Perhaps Sam means perpetrated? Irregardless the track record of the Church is rather good as regards to the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere. The Dominicans and especially Franciscans worked tirelessly to restrain the Conquistadores. I do admit that there have been some very egregious Christian leaders, including some Popes. On the balance though, all of the denominations have established churches, hospitals, schools and colleges, fed the hungry, housed the homeless and clothed the naked. We have been about this work for the aforementioned millenia.
"All in the service of a ludicrous imaginary being who exemplifies all that is most base and vile in the reactionary mindset."
A Satanist is claiming the Christian God is imaginary? My brain hurts. Is Sam an agent provocateur for the Excedrin company? In specific, this sentence is yet more hyperbole with no fact or justification.
"You claim to love your enemies while torturing them into renouncing their natural convictions."
Ah yes, that would explain the racks and iron maidens over at the Methodist church.
"More people have suffered as a result of your “love” then any other genocidal movement in the history of the world."
This gets oft repeated, but it is demonstrably false. In order of homicides, the most murderous ideologies ever are:
1. Communism, far and away. If you separate it by country, then it gets the four of the top five slots.
2. Nazism
3. Islam (check out the death toll in the India-Pakistan split, for example)
4. Non-Communist Socialism
5. Fascism
The Twentieth Century has much to answer for. Christianity does not even come close. I would note that all of the top five ideologies are vocally anti-Christian. Looks like Sam is in good company, then.
"You describe all that is good and natural in this world as a sin, and hold the false docrine of eternal salvation like a carrot before a donkey as you perpetuate your infamous crimes."
I rather like classical music, and I'm fairly certain that doing so is not sinful. I like puppies and kittens. That isn't a sin either. I'm afraid I'm a bit clueless as to what 'good and natural' things he thinks I think are sinful. As for eternal salvation, he can always wait and see whether it is false or not. I'm absolutely positive I have not committed any crimes in recent memory. So I am not perpetuating anything. If anyone is perpetuating crimes, I blame Greg Griffiths. :)
"Any person with two grains of logic can see that your doctrines are the silliest of falsehoods."
If only Sam had two grains of logic. Actually I thought logic was measured by the premise and the conclusion, rather than a volumetric or weight measurement. Silly me.
"This is why you have earned my contempt; because you despoil the earth by your very presence upon it. Lucifer is the bringer of enlightenment, and the day is dawning when the youth of America shall follow the example set by their Norwegian comerades in their battle against your false doctrine of death worship. The night sky shell be set alight by the blazing of your sanctuaries, and, hopefully, your immortal souls can be released from the bondage of this wicked Earth which you hate so much, in the form of the martyrdom you relish, and you can go to meet your maker in a more timely manner then you would be otherwise inclined to take."
I don't think I worship death, quite the opposite. Apparently Lucifer is also bringing in the day of purple prose as well. I would remind Sam that murder, the actual physical kind, remains a crime in all fifty states. While I am perfectly willing to die for my faith, precipitating that end on his part would likely result in either a long prison term or execution in my home state. Just FYI.
So, upon review, what Sam has said here is a lot of hyperbole, some verifiably false assertions and a fair amount of mis-spelled venom.
Sam will be in my prayers.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Honesty
Hope paid her first bribe. I check in on her blog every so often. Zimbabwe is truly no fit country in which to live. Read the whole story.
This Answers My Question
Atlanta is a city where people evaluate each other by their ride. Drive a Lexus or a BMW and you rank highly. Foreign ranks above domestic. SUV's outrank minivans. MARTA passengers are the local equivalent of untouchables and so on.
Because I dislike making car payments, my ride is ten years old. But I see people every day driving prestige (expensive) vehicles that I am certain make less money than I do. And my question has been, how can they afford it? Then I saw this article.
Unlike the reporter, I have no sympathy. If I were making $2500 per month on disability, the very first question I would ask would be: How much are the payments? The second question would be: For how long? I would feel sympathy if there were some kind of teaser payment or if the interest rate were variable, but neither are mentioned.
Instead, a woman bought a car she could not pay for. She lost the car. The only person I feel sorry for in the transaction is the lender. They accepted a credit application, assumed the facts on it were correct, got a clean credit report and loaned the money. Now they are about to own a car they likely do not want.
The just result will be the deadbeat loses her car, the dealership gets blacklisted by the lender and the car sells for the loan amount. I doubt somehow that will happen.
The American Dream has never been about instant gratification or about getting something only because you want it very badly. Frugality, budgeting, planning and hard work have always been key ingredients in our national dream. And they need to remain that way.
No one has a right to a free BMW.
Because I dislike making car payments, my ride is ten years old. But I see people every day driving prestige (expensive) vehicles that I am certain make less money than I do. And my question has been, how can they afford it? Then I saw this article.
Unlike the reporter, I have no sympathy. If I were making $2500 per month on disability, the very first question I would ask would be: How much are the payments? The second question would be: For how long? I would feel sympathy if there were some kind of teaser payment or if the interest rate were variable, but neither are mentioned.
Instead, a woman bought a car she could not pay for. She lost the car. The only person I feel sorry for in the transaction is the lender. They accepted a credit application, assumed the facts on it were correct, got a clean credit report and loaned the money. Now they are about to own a car they likely do not want.
The just result will be the deadbeat loses her car, the dealership gets blacklisted by the lender and the car sells for the loan amount. I doubt somehow that will happen.
The American Dream has never been about instant gratification or about getting something only because you want it very badly. Frugality, budgeting, planning and hard work have always been key ingredients in our national dream. And they need to remain that way.
No one has a right to a free BMW.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Matthew 6:1-4
Slate has compiled a list of the largest givers to charity for the past year. It also shows what charities got the loot, as it were.
What struck me was that five of the top ten donors gave to their own charities. I have no doubt that some of these captive foundations do some good work. I know of at least one that does not, but still qualifies as a charity.
But somehow it strikes me as a little self-aggrandizing and not really very charitable to do that.
I miss Mr. Anonymous sometimes.
What struck me was that five of the top ten donors gave to their own charities. I have no doubt that some of these captive foundations do some good work. I know of at least one that does not, but still qualifies as a charity.
But somehow it strikes me as a little self-aggrandizing and not really very charitable to do that.
I miss Mr. Anonymous sometimes.
Most Influential Episcopalian?
Hills of the North has an extensive biography of one Mr. Louie Crew, late of Rome, Georgia and currently a layman in the diocese of Newark. It is well worth reading.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Language Lesson
The Archbishop of Canterbury is multilingual. He speaks German, English and his native tongue is Welsh. I believe he speaks at least two other languages. He is quite the linguist.
I doubt anyone was curious, but the Welsh word for idiot is 'idiot'. It is pronounced exactly as it is in English. Isn't that handy?
Another fun Welsh phrase is 'caead dy ceg'. This means 'shut your mouth' or 'shut up'.
I doubt anyone was curious, but the Welsh word for idiot is 'idiot'. It is pronounced exactly as it is in English. Isn't that handy?
Another fun Welsh phrase is 'caead dy ceg'. This means 'shut your mouth' or 'shut up'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
