It's nice to see Ron Reagan on his show yesterday saying the same things I was saying in my Wednesday blog about the President's position on health care. In terms of the stock market, I urge that you use even a small downturn in price as an oppertunity to buy and get a better deal, and if the price goes down more than that, do more buying. We should all be happy to have this second chance not to miss the boat. Many are upset by the fact that Wall Street executives are earning even more humungus salaries now than they were before the 2007 crash. They shouldn't be blaimed entirely but rather the whole bail out policy of the Bush and Obama administrations is to blaim for creating the situation. You can't blame individual people for merely being slaves to human nature. Republicans are now crediting George Bush for the rise in stock prices lately, and to a degree they are right. It could well be that George Bush through his swift actions last fall prevented a much greater economic calamity from taking place. Normally they say if you buy in the early stages of a bull market, you can virtually throw darts against the wall at the newspaper and you will score a hit. It's only in later stages that you need to be more selective. If I had the money I would buy, but I clearly don't, now.
Many are blaming that balloon family for staging the whole saga that we saw on out TV screens on Thursday. It was pointed out that venues like Sixty Minutes and Jim Lerr check out their stories more thoroughly before they run them. Still, I believe that people like Randi Rhodes and Stephanie Miller are way off the mark when they claim that the whole family and their three boys staged the entire thing. I believe the events that occurred with "Falcon" on the Larry King show where he said "We did it for the show" was some kind of misunderstanding. I don't think this family was maliciously using the media. (Some people want to be used) Randi Rhodes questions the psychological relation between father and son. These incidents don't bother me. So the kid hid- - that's what six year olds do. They play games. Randi says she had a strict father. I bet her father merits being afraid of a lot more than this father does. So he puts kids in danger driving them into tornadoes. Parents all raise kids differently. That crocadile guy used to routinely expose his young children to dangerous reptiles. I don't think you can read anything suspicious into anything this family did. So the kid gets sick on the air. These things happen. Sometimes Randi Rhodes gets to milking a particular topic, long after it's been milked dry.
Some people may think that stuff I wrote about "living someone elses life" was just a little too far out - even for me. John Lennon was said to have remarked around September of 1969, "I want my life back". The theory being that he's been heavily on drugs since the beginning of 1965 and now that these drugs are wearing off four & a half years later- - he should be able to make decisions like join George and Ringo in going with Allan Klein as producer rather than Mr. Eastman. I think though drugs is not the opperative key in -for instance - my life. If that were so then the period from 1993 to 2001 would be the period where "I wasn't really me" because I was an alcoholic. However if you look at my life the periods like mid 1983 through December of 1989 when I "claimed to be under the influence of another" was not a heavy drinking period for me. You've met a lot of people that seemed to live a lot of their lives in some dream state that they can't remember too clearly, or if they do remember it they will say something like "I don't know what I was thinking back then". A lot of people will have times of awakening or "coming back to themselves" where suddenly time passes much more slowly and each day seems to be market with key events. There are of course any number of explanations for this. But I'm just throwing out this theory as one possible explanation.
The topic came up in class yesterday about using supurlatives such as "always" and "never" about God. I asked the teacher, "I know one thing God can't do. God can't change the future". The teacher responded "I believe God does intervene in history". To me this has the conotation of getting in the midst of something for the first time, that previously you wern't a part of, for instance a drug intervention. I think it's all how you define terms. Sometimes there can be a surprising shift in the tide of events, just like changes in the weather. But these occur because of natural laws previously set in motion. Some would ask "Was God sleeping through the Holicost?" I think "sleeping" is the wrong word because it presupposes that other times God is "awake" and somehow acts differently. Some may ask "Can God do anything that is really stupid". My response is "Not Stupid- - in terms of the way God defines the word. But in terms of how WE define the word- - Yes. You could say allowing the Holicaust to occur was Stupid. But the whole idea that God intervenes in history is an erronious one as far as I can see. It's what Walter Martin might call "An anthropomorphisun" or something that LOOKS like human intervention, but wasn't really. I don't think you can have an "I and Thow" relationship with God where there is dialog and response and more dialog and response the other way. I don't think "God's ears perk up when he hears his name" as Chuck Smith maintains. God is not surprised by anything. If God really knows the future from eternity past to eternity future, then how in heaven's name can he change it?
No comments:
Post a Comment