Moving to WordPress

I know I only have a dozen or so posts, but I'm already moving to a new blog. WordPress is my new poison. It seems to be more refined than Blogger. The new site is http://isworthy.wordpress.com/ and the feed is http://isworthy.wordpress.com/feed/. I've migrated all the posts and comments.

Jonathan's Fate

I love my Sunday School class.  Our teacher is Mr. Stemen who is actually an even better Sunday School teacher than a computer teacher.  I learn a lot at Sunday School and am continually challenged on a personal level.  A few Sundays ago we were in I Samuel.

In chapter 13 Saul offers the sacrifice before Samuel comes and Samuel says, "Thou has done foolishly".  In chapter 14  Jonathan and his armor bearer defeat a 20 man garrison of the Philistines.  In 14:3 "the people knew not that Jonathan was gone".  After their victory it says vs. 15 that the "earth quaked".  Saul then numbered his company in vs. 17 and found that "Jonathan and his armor bearer were not there".   For the trembling Saul "talked unto a priest" apparently looking for direction from God as to what to do, but "noise that was in the host of the Philistines went on and increased" Saul stopped consulting and assembled the people and went to meet the Philistines.  There they found "every man's sword was against his fellow".  Such sets the stage for the account I am interested in. 

At some point during the battle Saul "adjured the people, saying Cursed be the man that eateth any food until evening, that I may be avenged on mine enemies."  We are specifically told that "Jonathan heard not when his father charged the people with the oath", therefore when he saw a honeycomb he ate some honey and "his eyes were enlightened."  Only then did one of the people tell him of his fathers command.  Jonathan defends his actions and implies that his fathers command limited their victory.

As for the remainder of the people they "flew upon the spoil" and "did eat them with the blood".  When Saul was told he stops the practice.  Later Saul asks God if they should mount a night attack on the Philistines.  When God doesn't answer "that day" Saul assumes there is sin and deepens the punishment from the "Cursed be the man" earlier to "shall surely die."  Saul also specifically says "though it be in Jonathan my son, he shall surely die".

Lots are drawn, and when Jonathan's lot is taken he tells his father about the honey saying "and, lo, I must die."  Mr. Stemen took this along the lines of You're kidding right?  Die for eating a bit of honey when I didn't know of the command?  It was also later pointed out in our class that Saul knew Jonathan had not heard the decree because he had numbered the people and found Jonathan missing.  I have no reason to doubt this interpretation.  In my mind I had been thinking that it was more of a confirmation of the results of the command saying I understand I have violated the command and must therefore receive the punishment of the death., but I know of no support either way. 

Regardless Saul says "for thou shalt surely die, Jonathan".  Verse 45 then says "And the people said unto Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought his great salvation in Israel?  God forbid: as the LORD liveth, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground; for he hath wrought with God this day.  So the people rescued Jonathan, that he died not."

It was pointed out by someone in our class that when Saul first became king he prevented those that had opposed him from being killed, but that here opposition from his own son should meet with death.  On the other hand it was also pointed out that it appears God did not answer Saul about the battle because of Jonathan's vioation of the king's command. 

Thinking about these things leads me to several questions.  Why is Jonathan held accountable for a command he did not hear?  Was is going against the garrison wrong because it was not a command of Saul?  Is it just that the violation of the command must be punished even though Jonathan's action was not a personal sin?  Was Jonathan's sin that of not explaining the situation to his father as soon as he heard of the command?  In this later case Jonathan could have prevented his fathers seeming elevation of the punishment from curse to death.

On the other hand the text as a whole seems to cast Jonathan in a better light than Saul.  Saul had just sinned before God with the sacrifice and then stopped from inquiring of God to go to battle and then makes a decree that made it difficult for the people not to sin in eating the blood.  At the same time Jonathan covenants with God for a battle, trusts God for strength in the battle, and of course later basically gives the kingdom he was destined for to David.  Of course good does not justify wrongdoing.

So the question is, should Jonathan have died.  The command was clear -- death.  Saul gave no exception for Jonathan or his armorbearer even though he knew they were not present for the command, going as far as to specifically point out that if it Jonathan that he will be killed.  God apparently was honoring his King by witholding an answer.

Unfortunatly this is a situation I don't know the answer for.  My heart goes out to Jonathan as did the people's, yet my logic says he should have died.  Perhaps I'm missing something that will bring this all into focus.

Do Right

My eldest son Luke did something the other day and I thought, I should blog about that.  It was then that I came to the shocking realization that I haven't blogged about my children at all.   Perhaps I thought the posts would be too whimsical or lacking in broad enough appeal.  In any case I'm not trying to sell you anything so here goes.

The other day I gave Luke and Emily some instructions before bedtime about some things I wanted done in the morning.  I was surprised to find that not only had they followed my instructions to the letter, but they did a good job as well.  We don't normally reward our children for obedience, but sometimes we like to just so they know we are watching and appreciate their cheerful submission.  In this case we decided to take them to Chick-fil-a.  They seemed to enjoy it.  That night I was giving Luke instructions for the next morning and he asked the question, "And what will I get if I do that?"  Needless to say we had a little chat about doing right because it is right to do.

More Than Just A Command

Most people know the content of Exodus 20:14 - "Thou shalt not commit adultery."  While this is true and is surely sufficient reason to avoid adultery, the scripture has more to say about the subject.

Proverbs 6: 32-33 for example tells us the nature of the person committing adultery as well as some of the grave results.

But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.

A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.

Often we don't get all of the why behind God's commands, but in this case God gives us a little more than just the command.  All the more reason to love and trust him more.

Competition and Regulation

In the December 15, 2008 issue of InformationWeek the Feedback section had a comment from Wally Garneau that I found interesting.  Regarding the government's roll in proping up companies and markets he said "...while competition is far better than regulation, in the absence of true competition, you'd better have regulation."  This comment in a nutshell explains what is so wrong with the bailouts.  By removing competition as a factor in eliminating unsuccessful companies the only way to make sure the money is not missued is to regulate it, but the regulator is government which is itself inherently worse at big business.  It's an all around failure.  We borrow money we don't have to give to companies.  We add a layer of ineffective government monitoring, and we save an unprofitable company temporarily from demise.

Funding Education

One of the more interesting games I have found on Facebook is called Nations. It allows you to create a fictitious country in which you are dictator of the country. Each day you are presented with two questions. Your options are to pick one of the three or four pre-created answers or dismiss the question. Your countries criteria on a dozen or so different factors may be effected and an outcome of your decision is listed.

At first I thought the game had a decidedly liberal slant. The longer I've played though the more I see is as just simply having an under-educated, popular opinion slant, which is itself sometimes liberal. Here is one such example of a question that doesn't have a good answer like privatize schooling.

A new worldwide study on literacy was released today placing your country in the bottom 10%. Do you:

	Increase funding to public schools and offer tax breaks to adults who attend literacy programs at local colleges.
	Enforce mandatory literacy tests? Find those who are dragging your score down and hold mass executions as an example to those who are considering not learning to read.
	Reading isn't necessary! What does reading have to do with making name brand shoes or nuts and bolts.

Based on my previous experience with the game, the "good" answer is the first one. This follows the popular thinking that increased funding solves education problems. Funding may account for why one county has better teachers than a nearby county, but in general funding only influences education in extreme cases such as a complete lack of textbooks.

If I were writing these answers my answer would be something like the following:

	Start a program to gradually privatize schools. In the meantime mandate look-say be replaced with phonics and stop promoting children to the next grade who have not met the grades reading requirements.

As I expected I selected option one and got the following result:

• The overwhelming success of Xeamland's (the name of my country) new literacy program has sparked the once untapped printing and binding industries.

We Three Kings

We Three Kings is a great Christmas carol by John Henry Hopkins, Jr. It's a pity that we only sing the first and last verses because each verse is good. I particularly like verse three because it makes verse four all the more meaningful. Here is the entire song.

Verse 1

We three kings of Orient are

Bearing gifts we traverse afar.

Field and fountain, moor and mountain,

Following yonder star.

Refrain

O star of wonder, star of night,

Star with royal beauty bright,

Westward leading, still proceeding,

Guide us to thy perfect Light.

Born a king on Bethlehem's plain,

Gold I bring to crown Him again,

King forever, ceasing never

Over us all to reign.

Verse 2

Frankincense to offer have I.

Incense owns a Deity nigh.

Prayer and praising, all men raising,

Worship Him, God most high.

Verse 3

Myrrh is mine: Its bitter perfume

Breathes a life of gathering gloom.

Sorrowing, sighing, bleeding dying,

Sealed in the stone-cold tomb.

Verse 4

Glorious now behold Him arise,

King and God and Sacrifice.

Alleluia, alleluia!

Earth to the heaven replies.

Who Gets Your Money

This is an Orangutan we saw at the Gulf Breeze Zoo. He was being fed green beans and had his hand out for more. Remind you of any US automakers? I suppose I think better of the orangutan because he isn't at fault for his situation. Of course I'm not sure I'll think any better of a congressman who votes to give a large company money in hard times by taking it from small companies and individuals (and their children) through taxes and a higher deficit.

Voting Tax

Wikipedia's article on Poll tax says among other things, "...a tax formerly required for voting in parts of the United States that was often designed to disenfranchise poor people...".  It also lists state identification cards to prevent voter fraud as a potential poll tax of sorts.  Even those states that provide free identification cards are suspect because traveling to the government office can be prohibitive for the homeless and because there may be a cost to acquire the documents needed for identification.

I'm not sure I've come to a firm conclusion on a poll tax.  I know I don't believe we should institute an Oligarchy.  You could have a good oligarchy for a time, but it would become corrupt sooner rather than later.  On the other hand I'm not sure a small barrier to the privilege of voting would be a bad thing.  Think about it; do we really want to be bending over backwards so that people who refuse to work a few hours at minimum wage can help decide the course of government?

If we don't require voters to be verified before they vote (as we often don't here in the states) voter fraud will increase regardless of any federal penalties.  A small fee would not have the privacy concerns (which I don't necessarily agree with) that an identification card would have, but it would have a similar effect of keeping would be repeat voters from voting again.  Some would say this would only prevent this type of fraud for the poor, but since each individual only gets one vote anyway a wealthier person committing this fraud would be easier to catch as they pass out the poll tax funds.  Of course this is the situation we are already in to some extent as the wealthy finance rides to voting locations for those they want to vote a particular way.  This is not illegal even though it has the same effect.

Of course a poll tax is by no means a cure all.  A poll tax would be a minor impediment to an electorate that sees no problem in using their 60% vote to take income from the 40% that are wealthier.  Of course this doesn't change either the 40% or 60% in relation to one another it just lowers them both, but that's another topic.

Perhaps the poll tax should be directly tied to the cost of the election.  Citizens are paying for the election indirectly now, so why not pay for it directly.  Normally I am against any new tax proposals, but in this case I'll make an exception.  A tax tied directly to the benefit would be equitable, voluntary, and simple.  It would be interesting to see what would happen if a state re-instated a poll tax.

India and Pakistan Standoff

This is a humorous bit on the "volatile" India/Pakistan standoff.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/volatile_india_pakistan_standoff

A persistent demand to be met is bound

In Level 7 by Mordecai Roshwald, a fiction book with a political point that I do not necessarily recommend, there is a quote in appendix B that I found interesting.  Appendix B is two chapters from a novel the author wrote that was never published.  In this section there is said to be a proverb.  The proverb is, "A persistent demand to be met is bound,".  I found this interesting because that is all there is to the quote.  My mind completed the thought and added ...to be met, but then the quote is saying that I would do so.  But, then the quote would not have made sense if I had not completed the thought, but then it wouldn't have said I would have if I hadn't...

What kind of blogger am I?

Typealyzer defines my blogging style as follows:

The organizing and efficient type. They are especially attuned to setting goals and managing available resources to get the job done. Once they´ve made up their mind on something, it can be quite difficult to convince otherwise. They listen to hard facts and can have a hard time accepting new or innovative ways of doing things.

The Guardians are often happy working in highly structured work environments where everyone knows the rules of the job. They respect authority and are loyal team players.

Ark Replica

Johan Huibers in the Netherlands has built a scale replica of the Ark. I received an email forward that said it used the "exact scale given in Bible". It is neat to see someone who takes Genesis literally and wants to promote knowledge of the gospel through this means, but there is a few statement on his website that could cause confusion even before the media comes in and enhances the confusion with their own misconceptions.

The builders website says "The original Ark was 140 cubits long, and 23 cubits wide and 14 cubits high, This Ark is 70 cubits long, 9,5 cubits wide and nearly 13 cubits high". Breaking this down we have the following:

140 x 23 x 14 = 45,080 cubic cubits - Actual?
70 x 9.5 x 13 = 8,645 cubic cubits - Replica

By these dimensions the replica is 19.18% as large as the original or about 1/5 as large. Of course the dimensions are distorted. The replica is about 5/10 as long, 4/10 as wide and 9/10 as high. This certainly could lead to some misconceptions. It seems like it could have at least been made 1/2 as large for all dimensions, not just the length. That would have made for a vessel 70 x 11.5 x 7. Perhaps these dimensions weren't as usable for his purposes.

Of course if you look at the builder's blog about the full size replica they are working on, that one will be 153.2 yards long x 27.35 yards wide x 19.7 yards high using an 18.4 inch per cubit relationship (18 inches is typically used). Reversing those dimensions using their size for a cubit we get the following dimensions for the original ark:

300 x 54 x 39 = 631,800 cubic cubits

But wait a minute, did the original ark really have those dimensions? We don't have to guess or suppose about the cubits. The scripture says in Genesis 6:14-16 that "...The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits and its height thirty cubits." Those dimensions yield the following:

300 x 50 x 30 = 450,000 cubic cubits

Perhaps the differences between the actual and this second reconstruction are due to the limitations of the barges being used to construct the second replica, but that still doesn't explain the first. Here is a side by side comparison of the first replica and the actual ark:

300 x 50.0 x 30 = 450,000 cubic cubits - biblical dimensions
70 x 9.5 x 13 = 8,645 cubic cubits - Replica

So the replica is 23/100 as long, 19/100 as wide, 43/100 as tall and only has 2% of the volume of the original. I don't see any way the replica could be considered 1/2 as large as the original, but 1/5 doesn't seem quite right either. Averaging the ratios to the originals gives an average ratio of 28/100, which is 7/25 somewhere between 1/3 and 1/4 the size of the original. Perhaps I'm too much of a stickler for accuracy, and perhaps the good being done by this project is not hindered by these discrepancies. I certainly hope that this is the case. In any case at least the full size replica has closer to the correct proportions.

Because He Lives

The combination of having a new baby and the election of Barack Obama as President makes the second verse of Because He Lives all the more applicable.

How sweet to hold a newborn baby,

And feel the pride and joy he gives;

But greater still the calm assurance:

This child can face uncertain days because He Lives!

The American's Creed

I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.

–Written 1917 by William Tyler Page, accepted by the United States House of Representatives on April 3, 1918 as the official creed of America.

Praying for President Elect Obama

I will be praying for president elect Obama not just because we are commanded to pray for him in I Timothy 2.

I exhort therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

In addition I will be praying for him because I care about my future, my kids future, and the future of my country.  My prayer however, will be different than my prayer is for President Bush.  For Bush I prayed that he would strengthen legal immigration by stopping illegal, that he would treat Chinese Communists the same way he treats North Korean Communists, and that he would would not support socialism through welfare, deficit spending, and bailouts of failing companies. 

For Obama I will pray for a 180 degree turn in everything he stands for and plans to do.  If and until that happens I will pray that his purposes will be confounded, that his term will only be four years, and that Americans will see the mistake we made.

Don't Just Vote, Vote Responsibly

As I said in my last post, our responsibility is to vote responsibly not just vote. Here are several things I meant by that.

1. Vote for a candidate who has a chance of winning otherwise you are not voting. By chance I mean the following:
a. They meet the technical qualifications.
b. They are on the ballot in sufficient places to be able to win.
c. They have a chance of winning. By chance I don't mean the media's definition in which they have to be polling within 10% more like 20%.
2. Make an informed vote, one that understands the record of the individual not just what they say.

Pointless Encouragement to Vote

Today I received an email from the Facebook administrator for the cause "Keep God In Schools!".  Here is the email

I don't like to be one to mix the pulpit with politics so I'm going to
get straight to the point. The creator of the Causes application of
facebook has emailed all the creators of the largest causes on facebook
and has asked them to post announcements reminding their members of the
election coming up this tuesday.


So, I'm going to do just that. The election is coming up and
everyone who has not voted is encouraged to do so for who ever they
choose to support.


Thats all I'm going to say and this message was not meant to
endorse any political candidate, figure, affiliation at all. It was
simply a reminded to exercise your God given right to vote.

What struck me about this was that given a perfect opportunity for him to promote the better candidates for supporting his cause, he doesn't support anyone and yet still encourages them to vote.  It seems we need a greater appeal to vote for candidates that best represent our beliefs.  I would also add that if you don't know where a candidate stands then you ought not vote for them at all.  Our responsibility is to vote responsibly not just vote.

What is the difference between Obama and a Marxist?

On pages 100 to 101 of Obama's book "Dreams From My Father" he says,

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully, the more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.

Today I found this great article by Benjamin Shapiro here is an excerpt.

---

He cites as his economic guru Warren Buffett and quotes him as
stating, "[Billionaires] have this idea that it's 'their money' and
they deserve to keep every penny of it. What they don't factor in is
all the public investment that lets us live the way we do." (191) This
is Marxist trash. "Capital is therefore not a personal, it is a social
power," Marx wrote in "The Communist Manifesto." Viewing private
property as social property is a mandate to tyranny. Yet that's
precisely how Obama views private property: "I simply believe that
those of us who have benefited most from this new economy can best
afford to shoulder the obligation of ensuring every American child has
a chance for that same success." (193)

These are not the words of a moderate. They are the words of a
man who fits right in with his radical base. The hatred for Reagan,
Bush and, in particular, the revulsion he feels at traditional
religion, is palpable. Those who endorse Obama must look beyond his
fraudulent rhetoric before signing off on his agenda.

---

What went wrong with the 2008 Republican primary?

The basic problem in the 2008 Republican primary was the number of more conservative candidates compared to the number of more liberal candidates.  Paul, Huckabee, Romney, and Thompson were basically competing for the conservative vote while McCain was competing for the liberal Republican vote.  Giuliani was for the social liberal vote as well, but not until the Florida primary which we all saw was too late to get in the game.

McCain talks about the clear choice he is over Obama.  While that is true, he is hardly the clear choice that any of the more conservative candidates were.  If Republicans would have paid more attention during the primary this all could have been prevented and we could have had a better choice in the Republican candidate.  A choice that would have excited the base like Sarah Palin did.

Failure Highlights

1. Romney out spent Huckabee in Iowa 20 to 1 spending around $85,000 a day some of which was negative campaigning against Huckabee.  Message trumps money and the people of Iowa saw that.  Huckabee took 30 delegates while Romney only took 7.  This should have been a clear indication to conservatives that Romney was not the best candidate.  They should have seen it before, but prominent conservatives such as Dobson, Hannity, and Limbaugh should have seen this, realized their mistake and changed their message.  Instead they each held out against Huckabee, if not directly at least indirectly.

2. After Iowa there were two victories for McCain and one small victory for Romney, so that before the 1/19/2008 primaries McCain had 31 delegates, Romney had 19, Huckabee had 35 and the remainder had zero.  Despite these facts even the conservative media spent most of their time talking about McCain, Romney, Thompson, Giuliani, and even Ron Paul.

3. The South Carolina primary saw the broadest competition in the primary.  By the end of the day the spread went McCain-33.2, Romney 15.1, Huckabee-29.9, Thompson-15.7, Paul-3.7, and Giuliani-2.1.  Eliminating the not so conservative McCain and Giuliani there was still 64.4% conservative vote in the state.  OK, we can probably eliminate half of Paul's votes because they are voting for making all drugs legal or side with the Democrats in wanting to abandon our troops in harms way.  Still that leaves more than 62%.  Of course Huckabee wouldn't have needed any of Paul's votes.  If either Romney or Thompson had realized that they didn't have the chance and only half of their votes went to Huckabee he would have won by 4.2 with Romney out or 4.8 with Thompson out.  Even if Paul who was polling at 5% in South Carolina and had only garnered 9.9% in Iowa, 7.7% in New Hampshire, and 6.3% in Michigan had pulled out and put his full support behind Huckabee, it might have been just enough for him to beat McCain by .4%.  Not exactly an astounding victory, but a victory none the less.

As an aside, there are times when polling is off.  For example, in the instance just listed Ron Paul polled at 5% in South Carolina but only garnered 3.7% of the vote.  On super Tuesday in Georgia Huckabee was polling at 26%, but when the dust had settled he drew 34% of the vote an 8% difference.  This race was another one in which Paul's polls were higher than the actual votes.  McCain's polls on the other hand were only 0.2% off of his final draw for Georgia showing that he wasn't really in the contest for the conservative vote accounting for the excitement of the Palin addition.  Can you imagine the excitement in the base if a true conservative were the choice from the start.