It's the Stupid Economy! Part Four

How many times have you heard a politician tell you that " It's your money, " or it's the taxpayer's money? Well, it is! But not if you throw it away, and that's just what you're doing if you don't adopt a sound budget - and stick to it! When you give it away, your money is no longer yours in fact, even though it may be in princple. You can't buy things with principles. What's the answer?
Budget.
But too many people don't know how. Across-the-board cuts are not successful in the long run. Often these unwise reductions, made only on a money basis, fail to distinguish between essentials and frivolous expenses. Trying to cut back on food or transportation can, and often does, lead to crisis points further along where adjustments have to be made that cut into other considerations. It becomes a game of " robbing Peter to pay Paul " and ultimately leads to failure. There are three reason why most poory conceived budgets go wrong.
First, people tend to regard a budget as a fixed entity rather than a dynamic process that continually changes. Static budgets fail to anticipate the unforeseen items that crop up in the course of a month. Secondly, people who contentrate only on allocation of money to specific accounts fail to consider rates of consumption. Finally, most people try, without realizing it, to rationalize two different time bases.
Taking the last item first, a person who works 40 hours a week at $12.00 an hour earns $480.00 in a pay period. After deductions, the net return may be $420.00, or $1,680.00 per month. Trying to spread this out over the entire week or month leads to difficulties that are simply resolved using the WHAM method. This an acronym for Waking Hours Accounting Method. The idea is simple. An individual is usually awake for 16 hours a day when he or she is liable to spend money. Seven days a week at 16 hours a day works out to 112 waking hours per week. To set thing on a equal basis just divide the net earnings per week by 112. In this, all too typical case, the WHAM number is $3.75 an hours. Not much, granted, but that is the rate of return every waking hour for a whole week. The next step is to start subtracting weekly and monthly expenses from this amount: 112 for weekly expenses and 448( four weeks per month ) for monthly expenses. Here's how it works.

Starting with $3.75 an hour, say the food bill is $80.00 a week or $160.00 bi-weekly.
Dividing this by 112 or 224 gives $1.07 which, when subtracted from the WHAM figure leaves $2.65. If the rent is $575.00, dividing by 448 gives $1.28, leaving a WHAM figure of $1.37. In an actual intance, after reducing every conceivable expense in this way, the boiled-down WHAM figure was $0.10. "Ten cents?" the man said when I finished processing his budget. "That's not much." That's when I showed him the magic! Yes, ten cents isn't a lot of money left to spend after you have deducted all your expenses, but - it's ten cents an hour for sixteen hours a day, seven days a week! In a month it works out to about $48.60, over a year it's $584.00! And it was there the whole time.
Hardly a bonanza but if given the choice of having it, or not, there is little doubt about which way you would go. The numbers will vary, some will even come out negative - but that's fine. At least you will have an accurate view of where you stand. Of course, this doesn't take debt into consideration, but before going there let us look at the subject of disbursements.
Development of your budget will resolve itself into a monthly expense figure, a certain amount of money you will allocate to pay the esxpenses listed on your worksheet. You will, of course, not spend the money all at one time, but will pay it out over a period of time; that's the way to keep track of and control this aspect of your budget. It's about rates, specifically the rate of time lapse versus the rate of expense outlay.

To get the time rate, just divide the current date by the number of days in the month and multiply by 100. To get the expense outlat rate, just divide the amount of money already paid out by the allocated amount for the month and multiply this by 100. As you go through the month you will try to keep the time rate behind the money rate: that is, the time should be running out faster that the money. Should the money start running out faster than the time you will likely find some way to cut corners until the rates reverse, and the time runs out faster once again.

The WHAM method may also be applied to existing debt. Suppose that, using the numbers we've been working with, your debt is $5,000.00. The first thing we will have to determine is how much additional income you will need to pay this amount off.
In one year there are approximately 5,840 waking hours. Dividing the amount of debt by the toatal number of waking hours will give $0.85 per hour additonal that you will have to come up with. Well, if we multiply 112 times .85 it works out to an extra $95.89 a week of additonal income. Take a part time job, say fifteen hours a week at $8.00 and hour minimum. You will earn enough to pay off the debt after making arrangements with your creditors to accept a fixed amount monthly over TWO YEARS. While the numbers given apply to a one-year payoff, why not take twice as long to pay the bills off and put an equal amount away. At the end of the first year you could have the debt paid down to $2,500.00 with a like amount in savings. You might then decide to pay the whole thing off or just let it ride.
The technique described here is not a quick fix, it requires discipline and committment, but it should be clear that the problem with excessive debt is time, not money. You accumulated debt over time and can only discharge it over time. The idea of borrowing money to pay off debts is foolish, like treating alcoholism with bourbon. When faced with substantial debt the only way out is to hunker down and work your way out gradually, following a dsicplined approach. In any event, saving is the key to ultimate success, and if your current financial position disallows a savings program, find an income source that will provide dollars to put aside. Now I am about to give the appearance of contradicting myself. Although I recommend saving your way out of debt and decry bill-payer loans, there is one notable exception: Credit Unions.
Savings in a credit union are called shares and they draw interest just like bank deposits. When shares accumulate to significant amounts ( as little as $500.00 would be enough ) you could take out a share-backed loan and pay it out over a period of time, all the while working to reduce your current outstanding debt. Take out two or three of these small loans as you go along and build a record of successful loan repayment along with your savings program. The idea here is to build a shares balance equal to the balance of a credit card obligation, then borrow against it to pay off the credit card. Credit union financing is so much cheaper than credit cards in terms of interest that a loan at 5% interest is better than the 18.9% ( or more ) that you would be paying on the plastic. And keep your eyes open.
In times of economic downturn, when enough people have bad credit suddenly everyone's credit is good! I personaly have had a low credit rating for twenty years, not because I defaulted on anything but because I just didn't use credit cards. A couple of years ago my bank sent me a credit card that I didn't apply for. After ensuring that there would be no penalties for not using the card I decided to keep it. I used it for small purchases and cash advances that I quickly repaid. When the credit union sent me a brochure about their credit card I applied for it; the APR is only 11.5% - a good deal. Both these cards have a $2,500 limit on them, but it's the one from the credit union that I use if buying something on credit ( like my new computer ) that I pay out over time.
Now about the Keeping Your Eyes Open part.
In a bad economy there are always people who have items they wish to sell for cash in what we call " distressed situations ", willing to sell at significant discounts to established value. I recently purchased an automobile, my first in twenty-five years. It's an excellent car in mint condition, nine years old with only 58,000 miles on it. The man I bought it from inherited it and needed some quick cash for a move he wished to make. I made an offer, held held the line, and wound up getting the car for $1,600 less than the current book value. It was easy to finance it through ( you guessed it ) the credit union at 5% interest. Now, imagine if you found a deal like that - and they're out there - you could finance the purchase of some item of value being sold at distress and turn it around in a quick sale, then plow the money back into shares.
In closing let me reiterate that the only way to financial solvency is work over a period ( perhaps a decade or more ) of time, following a disciplined approach, and an alterness to opportunties that may present themselves. Above all, don't hand your money over to credit counsellors or financial advisors to manage for you. Do it yourself. At this point I could say " Where ther's a will there's a way ", but that's so trite that...
I won't say it.

It's the Stupid Economy! Part Three

Where do we go from here? The problems with the economy are well known, less well known are solutions. But there is an old saying which states that the solution to a problem is found in the statement of the problem itself. In this instance we may look to the term Consumer Economy for the solution to our economic problems. If the corporations that have this country is a stranglehold are able to do so with their deep pockets, we only have to realize where this money comes from.
Us.
Well, you, because I have my own ways of dealing with the problem. For one thing, I never buy retail. I don't own a house. I don't have a cell phone. I don't watch television, don't even own one. I don't spend what I don't have. And I'm doing my part to deal with the present state of the economy in the best way, a way that the big corporations just hate.
I save money.
For about twenty years I got around on a bicycle and public transportation. There were cars available to me, through friends, when I needed one, which was only occasional. Through all that time I managed about 3,000 miles a year bicycling ( last year 3,623 miles ) and scored a double: not only did I save a pile of money but my health, strength, and stamina improved so greatly that today, less than five months shy of seventy years old, I am at the peak of physical well-being. I work out at a gym three times a week with people half my age, and they know I'm an older man, but they don't realize how old! I smilingly give the "bird" to big pharma, one of the biggest drains on the resources of older persons.
How about name brand suits? Want to spend big bucks for quality apparel? I don't. And I stay pretty well dressed for pennies on the dollar. How, you ask? One of my friends owns a dry cleaning establishment and he gets stuck with his share of clothes that people leave over the thirty day pick-up time; he shows me what he has and I just pay the cleaning bill. Voila! Designer suits for $15.00, and nobody knows the difference.
Last month I bought a car and financed it through my credit union. The seller was a criminal lawyer, a personal friend, who inherited it from his mother. " She only drove it back and forth to the liquor store, " he told me. A 1999 Toyota Camry with only 57,000 miles on it. For $5,000 I didn't buy it so much as stole it, as I can turn around a sell it for a thousand dollars more. And I have the money to pay the loan off, but why bother? The interest I earn on my savings ( 3½% ) and the interest on the loan ( 5% ) it's just as easy to let it ride.
Yes, the answer to our economic problems lies with us. Consumers. Spend less, buy wisely, and be patient. In the hole with credit cards? Who put you there? It wasn't the nasty ol' credit card companies, they just handed you the means to go broke but it was you who turned these on yourself. Stop doing it!
You see, we actually have two economies; when one fails, the other kicks in. It's the second-hand, cash money, under-the-radar business that people engage in. Once my girlfirend had an accident and put a huge dent in the right rear fender of her Monte Carlo. It looked like hell, but it would have cost a couple hundred dollars to repair. One day a Hispanic fellow knocked at the door and offered to " bondo " the damage for eighty dollars. I said OK and he had it done in just over an hour: a little paint and it was good as new.
So be patient and keep you eyes open. The bargains are out there just waiting for you to take advantage of them. Don't listen to Financial Advisors, they don't care if you win or lose, as long as they get their fees. Don't turn your money over to anyone to manage for you, you will only lose in the long run. Pay down what credit card debt you have, minus the fees and late charges - and take your time. So you're credit report looks bad; so what? Isn't it easy credit that got you into the hole in the first place? Stop feeding the dog that bites you.
In the next installment I will show you how to get out of debt without borrowing money using actual figures from people I have helped do just that.

It's the Stupid Economy! Part Two

Inflation is a thorny issue with economists. It is necessary in certain instances but too much can drive an economy to ruin. It's all about paper money.
In and of itself paper money serves a purpose; it's handy, easily carried around, and as long as it represents value it has worth. But inflation tends to dilute paper currency and therein lies the problem. It's a dilemma. What we will view in this essay are; the causes of inflation, the degress to which it is beneficial, and the dangers of rampant inflation.
Firstly, inflation is necessary as a couterpoise to the depressant effect of a growing population on a fixed base currency: hard money. There is only so much currency available and the more people there are producing and consuming goods, the greater the need for the liquidity that more currency provides. While the inflationary trend in such a case devalues the currency, in small, well regulated amounts, it is beneficial. But it must always be kept in mind that paper currency is not money; it merely represents value. The proper role of paper money is the transferrence of wealth, not the creation of some false feeling of prosperity.
Inflation usually occurs when too much currency pursues too few goods; prices are bid higher and those who have adequate stocks of currency pay them, while those with less are hard pressed. A person who earns fifty dollars an hour doesn't mind paying $3.00 for a latté, a person earning ten dollars an hour would consider such a purchase a luxury. It's all relative, but allowed to grow beyond a certain level inflaton can cripple an economy. By its very nature inflation shatters the constraints that a hard currency places on its partcipants: Hard times? Just print more money!
At the domestic level inflation is bad enough; in terms of foreign trade it is calamitous as a cheaper currency tends to gravitate to offshore banks. This is because it takes more inflated dollars to purchase things abroad and fewer foreign currency units to purchase things here. What happens is that foreign governemnets assume a poition of power over the domestic economy by threatening to divest themselves of this devalued currency as France tried in the late 1960's. One of the attributes of money is the willingness of the issuing party to receive it in rerurn for goods, services, or other considerations. The international medium of exchange is still gold even though we have taken ourselves off the standard. A foreign government only has to specify that it will return so many dollars for so much gold, and the United States government would be obliged to sell the metal. The erosion that would take place is obvious: more dollars in circulation, less gold to back them in foreign exchange.
So we print more paper money ( coupons ) in the mistaken belief that volume equals value. The fallacy of this notion may be seen in the stock market. Once upon a time it was possible to amortize a stock purchase in ten, fifteen, perhaps twenty years.
This is a function of the Price/Earnings Ratio. If a stock sells for ten dollars a share and earns dividends of one dollar per year, in ten years the stock would have paid for itself, and the rest would be pure profit. In those days millions of shares were traded daily, today it's billions of shares because P/E ratios are now 30, 40, or in some cases approaching fifty. Looking at the Price/Earnings Ratio another way is to consider that what it truly represents is interest on the money invested. Flip the ratio over and you get, in the case of the ten-dollar stock, 1/10 or 10% interest. A P/E of thirty returns only 3.33%, so naturally investors trade at higher volumes: when you're earning dimes instead of dollars you need more of them.
Once, the Nationa Debt was measured in millions, then hundreds of millions, the billions, then hundreds of billions: the latest adminstration is proposing a budget of 3.1 trillion dollars. That's inflation!
But there is another side of the issue that government regulators don't seem to consider. I'll cover that in Part Three.

It's the Stupid Economy! Part One

I took an economics course in college and learned two things; that economics is the study of how we attempt to satisfy our unlimited wants with limited resources, and that money is anything that has value. Unlimited wants? Thats a tall order, one that we have been unable to succesfully address since the United States became a world economic power. We now have the distinction of being the world's largest debtor nation as our pursuit of those unlimited wants has bankrupted us and reduced our currency to near worthlessness. The issue requires some corrective action; but what?
Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R Texas) wants us to return to the Gold Standard; that's a step in the right direction, and he has also mentioned a second currency, as I have recommended. I sent the proposal to Dr. Paul's campaign committee but can't claim authorship of the idea, but at least we're thinking along the same lines. But no solution to the problem will ever be enough if we don't understand how we came to this disastrous state.

About six-million years ago, before the Lords arrived, our ancestors were nomads, hunter-gatherers who roamed the forests and savannahs of the pristine world in search of small game, roots, and berries. Theirs was a pure subsistence economy; in modern terms we would call it a Consumer Economy, just like we have now. They didn't produce anything as everything they needed lay all about just for the taking. It was a hand-to-mouth existence but it had it's good points; none of these primitives went bankrupt, had their caves foreclosed, their clubs and spears repossessed; it wasn't all bad. These people lived from nature and were healthy; they didn't need doctors, psychiatrists, prescription drugs, health care, or retirement plans. Then something happened.
Eatly man, Homo Habilis, settled down about four-million years ago. They did this because of the introduction of agriculture, an art taught them by the Lords, as it seems unlikely that early man, habituated as he was to hunting and gathering, would have the time or inclination to develop horticulture on his own. Villages sprang up around the arable land and man acquired something he never had before.
Spare time. But wait! Let's back up a moment.
Lords of the World, you may ask. Settlers from somewhere " out there '?
Yes. Consider these facts. First, it is amply clear that isolated peoples never progress beyond the tribal level of socialization. Cultures advance only through contact with a more developed society: that's history. Where did it start? Even when hunter-gatherers came into contact with others of their kind, these others were no more developed that they were - so where could the advancement have come from?
Also, as old habits die hard, it seems very likely that the Lords would have taught early man animal husbandry: raising cattle, pigs, chickens, etc., as man was well used to killing and eating animals, and these had a nasty habit of running away.
And time was of the essence. People accustomed to satisfying their needs on a daily basis, employing methods that have proven successful, rarely take the time to think about other, more complex matters. Perhaps this is the source of mankind's inbred resistance to change. A primitive version of " if it's working, why fix it? "
No, there's much more to it than that.
Consider the development of agriculture. It is much more than popping a seed into the ground and watching for it to grow. The soil must be arable and conducive to plant growth; not all soils can claim this distinction. Another problem would be with the tending of the crop, a task that would necessarily involve a settled group of people to see to the proper watering and to ensure that no animal could just come along and eat the whole spread. Small tribal units constantly on the move would be reluctant to leave any of their small number behind to conduct such experiments for two reasons; one, their presence would be missed as important part of the hunting and gathering process, and two, those left behind would be vulnerable to attack by wild beasts or other small tribes which might not be too friendly. Then there is the question of when to sow a crop. Owing to the reasons already given for keeping the tribe together and on the move, it is also highly unlikely that any members would be afforded the time to conduct meteorological and seasonal research for the purpose of identifying the best time to plant and to harvest the crop. It's just too complicated to have been just " discovered ". But we got there eventually, and our reward for our labors was something entirely different.

Surplus. The subsistence economy of the hunter-gatherers was pure Consumerism flavored by immediate gratification. The only things that were traded were blows when two tribes found themselves eying the same boar. Or the same water hole. But with agriculture and the raising of domestictaed food animals, either those who produced it or those who became it, man was able to settle into more-or-less stable habitats. I personally claim descendacy from these people because their two favorite words are also my favorites: Free and More!
Surpluses had to be disposed of in some manner since they were perishable, or in the case of livestock, had a tendency to eat too much and multiply. Where on group had a surplus of cattle and another a surplus of pigs the two engaged in the first instances of trade, the exchange of commodities known as Barter. Simple?
Well, not entirely. Barter, though a primitive form of exchange, did have some stikingly modern considerations attached to it. One of these was Present-Value-Future-Value. A two year-old cow was worth more than one nine years old. A bull was worth more than a cow. There was also the matter of condition: animals were prone to disease and vegetation to rot and blights, some of which might not be readily apparent. Barterers took great pains in their deliberations. If all was well a bargain was struck. Simple?
Not exactly. There was also matter of supply and demand which affected the trade. If one of the traders wished to sell more than the other wished to buy, or vise-versa, this would affect the final agreement. The agreed terms of the trade constituted the Exchange Value, one of the characteristics of money. But because of the factors listed above, three trades of the same commodities could have three different values of exchange.
Barter was slow and some theorists have proposed that early man developed a set of standards wherein the values of commodities were based on a fixed relationship with a single good. The proposed standard in those days was one head of cattle against which the values of all other goods were compared. This would have proved to be of little added value: barter still took time.

Things plugged along this way for some time until the discovery of copper. Here we must pause to consider. If the development of agriculture presents problems explaining itself in terms of the itinerant, hunter-gatherer tribes, then the "discovery" of copper would present even greater problems. I believe that this was another gift of the Lords. Consider.
We are still stuck with the hunter-gatherer societies with no clear idea how they advanced their cultures while busy surviving in the primordial wilderness. Out there is was kill or be killed, the constant battle between predator and prey - and it still goes on today. The discovery of fire lent light and warmth, but it was out there, plainly seen and only needing to be harnessed. Copper is an ore that is not so readily apparent. It melts at just less than 2,000°F, much hotter that any wood fire used for cooking. What clue would the primitives have had of a metallic substance embedded in certain kinds of rock? And even if they knew, how would they conceive of making things from this substance? No, the simplistic view of history is just too full of holes. " Yeah! You guys go ahead and chase that wooly mamouth. I'll stay behind, build a real hot fire, and cook some rocks to see what comes out of them. "

However it came to be, copper waas the answer to barter, while being a form of barter itself but of a different kind. Being a metal, copper was immune from the ravages of injury, disease, aging, and decay: a pound of copper is a pound of copper, whether produced yesterday or ten years ago. In terms of utility, copper was also used to make a whole variety of impliments, tools and ( sigh! ) weapons; therefore it was a general good, rather than a specific commodity. Copper became the first Medium of Exchange, the fist specie metal. Economics really took off then!
The universal appeal of copper made it possible for trade to flourish as never before, and as it flourished it grew to transcend borders and waterways; caravans and ships carried goods ever farther afield, and copper was the blood that coursed through the arteries of trade. But as the volume of trade increased in most, if not all, commodities so did the amounts of copper needed to complete transactions. This caused a problem, since large amounts of copper were difficult to transport, and were always at risk of being stolen.
The Chinese are generally credited with the invention of paper money, but that is only a guess. This step certainly called for a literate society with a facility for the written word and some mathematics. Combining the need of some substitute for the transfer of copper from one place to another and the capacity for keeping records, it seems logical that one party to a trade would envision a solution: a Letter of Credit.
These letters of credit were not actual currency as they were not yet used for general ditribution, but they did have one characteristic important to money: they would be accepted by the issuing party for goods and services. Thus begn the trading of paper instead of actual metal - but you had to have the copper. Trade among nations relied heavily on thepossession of copper or the resources and manufactured goods to secure quantities of it. It was the first step in distinguishing between powerful and weak nations, later to be translated into wars of conquest. But for a time things went well; then a problem.
Over time it became apparent to the ruling powers that economies tended toward depression. There were two reasons for this: increased population, and the banking system of the time. Population growth acted on curency by thinning it out: if ten people equally divide a million dollars, each would have $100,000; if there were a hundred-thousand people, then each would have only ten dollars, a million people would have one dollar each. The need for currency putstripped the means to acquire specie metal, so more money was printed to keep up. This is called devaluation. In modest amounts devaluation does no real harm; carried to extremes it courts disaster.
The banking systemsback then also contributed to depressed economies by being storehouses for wealth, a place where wealthy merchants stored their treasure for safe keeping, where it was out of circulation. In fact they paid the banks for keeping their resources. Eventually banks started paying depositors interest and lending money.
All the while populations grew exponentially while the stocks of copper expanded by volume, creating the need for more currency. Expanding foreign trade further exacerbated the need for liquidity, and currencies began to devalue. As long as the value of a currency was predicated on a hard-currency principle there were natural curbs on population growth, levels of trade, and the dearth of money promoted greater efficiency. But our unlimited wants prevailed and societies began devaluating their currencies; when paper money replaced letters of credit, they began creating money out of thin air. Inflation became a fiscal way of life.
As stocks of copper grew apace with volumes of trade, it became less likely that one party would demand full restitution in copper, after all they were trading paper, and in the absence of any regulatory agency they just printed more coupons, which is what paper money actually is. Here, it is useful; to examine the phenomenon of inflation.

Modern Myths - About Spirituality

I am often in contact with " spiritual " people, or persons trying to become so. I've noticed that in many cases people have a tendency to link spirituality with religion, church, and a concept of God as some sort of Old Man in the Sky. And they take themselves so seriously. It is as though spirituality were a burden that these folks have to carry through life, instead of the basis of our existence. Everyone is spiritual in some form or another. Evil sprits abound in our world; do they not? What follows is a concept of spirituality that I find most satisfying, enjoyable, and productive.

That state which we refer to a spiritual is basically intangible. The Spiritual Realm, underlies all material Reality. A thought is a spiritual entity; it occupies the mind but is unrevealed without some action to bring it into material form. It's the relationship between thought and action, and these thoughts and actions are governed by feeling. And the feeling that most, if not all, humans experience is hurt. All else stems from that and from nothing else! But by and large, most people opt for what they believe to be the opposite of hurt: pleasure.
Don't get me wrong,pleasure is nice, feels good, but too often it's the source of that pleasure that determines the spiritual fitness of an individual. How many times have you heard something like this; "I trusted Helen and she let me down; I'll never trust anyone again for the rest of my life!"
The rest of your life can be a pretty long time, too long to be affected by a single reverse. But if the hurt is severe enough it can end up affecting the rest of your life. A man I met while incarcerated many years ago had just murdered his wife's boyfriend. I don't know how long this man had been planning his desperate act, but in commission it took only a few seconds to pull the trigger. A few seconds that were to determine his fate; twenty years in prison, or a lethal injection.
Was this a bad man? No. There are no bad people, just people who are not spiritually fit to deal with the life's situations. A woman told me a while back that, "Life occasionally throws you a curve ball." I replied with the observation that that is a good opportunity to learn how to hit curve balls. But where does it begin?
Try childhood.

Infants of our species come into the world prematurely, and are completely helpless. Their bodies, the beasts their spirits ride through life, are totally foreign to them and they get by mostly on instinct, a decidedly spiritual faculty. Gradually, through experimentation, these little people learn to use their faculties, to move their arms and legs in deliberate actions, and then to face the first major challenge of life: learning to walk. Most people can't remember that first step on shaky legs, a couple of flops before getting it quite right. Then walking, like the many other mechanical operations we master, becomes automatic. Don't have to think about it any more; they are assimilated into our beings and we just...well...walk! Or tie shoelaces, or perform the countless simple ( and some not so simple ) actions we take without giving the slightest thought. This is spiritual growth in the sense that the mind is freed at each juncture to think about other things; and the world has plenty of things to think about; sex, money, power, fame, war, and a hundred other distractions that the Evil ( Real ) world offers to hinder spiritual progress. In the end, when the curtain of deceit is finally parted, those who suffer the toils and trials of life to the gates of insanity or death finally turn to God. Or seem to.
There is an Evangelical pastor with whom I have many debates over the Bible; we agree that it is the Word of God but, as is said, " The devil is in the details." One point on which we disagree is the Presence of God. I hold that God is All Things Everywhere, my pastor friend believes that God is not everywhere, but only where [He] chooses to be. He can't explain why God chooses to be in one place and not another, and this is typical of the belief system he follows: state a belief, then be unable to justify it beyond the mere statement. " It's just God's Will," he tells me, and that ( as far as he is concerned ) is that! Faith of this kind is but a veneer that hides an ugly, crumbling wall: looks good, but the wall is still there. I advocate tearing down the wall!
But what do most people do? Why they assume an identity that they feel will get them where they want to be, like a spiritual wallpaper, a pretty design, rich vibrant colors, but the wall it covers is cracked and crumbling. Eventually ecven the stoutest wallpaper will crack and peel, like the Cristian woman. A onetime relative by marriage she was the model of faith - until her husband died suddenly, at which time this woman, in tears cried, " There is no God! "
But there is. God is just not the Lord of the Spiritual Feudalism that fundamentalists ( like my friend the pastor ) believe. This reworked Zeus figure is the one who is only where he chooses to be, does whatever strikes his fancy in the moment, favors some and denies others, causes war, famine, and a host of other unpleasant evens to occur so " people will turn to [Him]. " Then, there's Jesus.
As the story goes, [God] sent Jesus ( a Roman knickname: his true name was Yashueh ) to die for our sins in a most unpleasant way. What kind of God is this? [He] has a remarkably human odor about him; priests of all religions that called for human sarcifices invariably didn't sacrifice themselves, it was always someone else. But the man himself asked, " What father, if his son asked him for bread would give him a stone or it asked for a fish, would give him a serpent. " The idea here is that if no human father would treat his son that way, how can anyone believe that the Father, who is so much better, would do any less.

The Evil ( Reality ) of the world lies in the distractions it presents to the striving soul. Religion stands in the forefront of this muddle and its failures are legion. Jesus said, " By their works ye shall know them,"; the works of religions have been to divide into countless denominations, sects, cults, and covens; to ostracize any who do not agree with them or, as " Mother Church " was wont to do, torturing those whose thinking was " in error " and killing those who would not recant their heretical ideas. What kind of God would approve of such atrocities?

The idea here is very simple, so basic in fact that many cannot see it: there are only two ways to go, the Way of God or the way of the world, and this choice is ours every instant. Let's look at the way of God. How can we know what that is? Paul tells us in Romans[1:18-21] that the wonder of God is all about, clearly seen by the eye of reason ( New English Bible ). This is more easily understood if we have a true understanding of what God is: the Spirit of the Universe, not some whimsical tyrant who rules from on high and who " chooses " to be here or there, to reward or punish according to some esoteric formula. Such a God cannot be counted upon as [He] may either " choose " to answer prayers, or not. The Spirit of the Universe answers every prayer.
Perfectly. Never fails!
The Spirit of the Universe is a passive power the mind of which is Natural Law. According to natural law everything operates on a Cause-and-Effect basis; press a button and a bell rings, an elevator appears, or a city of millions is swept up in a nuclear holocaust. The effect is always perfectly concistent with the cause; if the outcome is bad then the action that brought it about was wrong.It doesn't matter how much time you spend on your knees begging for the laws of nature to be temporarily suspended; go out in the rain, you get wet; stay in the sun too long, you get burned; stick a fork in a light socket, you get shocked; spend money carelessly, you go broke. Pray yourself hoarse, till your hands are fused together, and you knees lock into a permanent bend, and nothing will change. Change you attitude, your thoughts, and your actions, and things will change!
It's that simple!
There is a saying: " What goes around, comes around. " Perhaps it would be better undertsood if rephrased: " What you send around comes back to you. "; express love and love is yours, perhaps not immediately perceived but ultimately a treasured additon to your life. And loving people isn't hard; it's just about seeing the good in them. Jesus told us not to be concerned with the mote in our brother's eye but the beam in our own. Is it not true that what you despise in others is nothing more than what you hate in yourself? It is, and no amount of thinking differently can ever change that fact. But acting differently can, and will produce miraculous results. Try it: you might like it. You can change your life, but this change can only originate within you, in your Heart of Hearts, your Secret Place of the Most High, where all your fondest hopes and dreams lie dormant. Let the Father in you " which doesth the works " help you bring these bright imaginings into full and splendid reality.
What have you got to lose?

Modern Myths - Time Travel and Time Dilation

Among the " scientific " pursuits that qualify as hare-brained, Time Travel belongs at the head of the list. It's impossible, yet presumably intelligent people view it as a possibility and are working to make it happen. The simple fact is this:
TIME TRAVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE!
That might be putting it a bit strongly but it's true; the reason time travel is impossible is simple. Time is not a naturally occurring pheomenon. That's right; it's an invention devised by man, initially to regulate agricullture: when to plant, when to harvest - that sort of thing. After all, when was the last time you saw a clock hanging from a tree in the woods naturally? Ever seen a racoon wearing a wristwatch? Ever had a pigeon stop you on a downtown street and ask you for the correct tiime? Didn't think so.
Time is an immutable scalar that is used to measure change, therefore time travel would necessarily involve un-changing all the changes that have taken place between the present and the target period. That isn't going to happen anytime soon. Beside that you could only go back so far; what happens after you have changed all the way back to a fertilized egg? Which path would you follow? As you can see, it gets pretty complicated.
While an interesting subject for science-fiction buffs, time travel has no place in serious scientific endeavor. But time travel is not the only illusion that those who should know better still take seriously. Another is Time Dilation.
The idea here is: An atronaut travelling on a spaceship speeding away from the Earth will experience a slowing in time such that the faster he goes the more slowly time passes for him. He's gone for twenty years and when he returns five-hundred years have passed on the Earth. Think of it! Amazing, isn't it?
Well, no, not exactly. This is another bit of nonsense that belongs squarely in the realm of science-fiction. It's another version of A Note on Danger B.
In the 1930's the goal of aeronautics was to break the Sound Barrier. Scientists and writers both wondered what would happen when this challenge was mastered. One writer cooked up A Note on Danger B, a short story hat appeared in Reader's Digest at the time. The story was about a pilot who broke the Sound Barrier and - started getting younger! The faster he went, the younger he got, and the problem he faced was to slow the plane down before he regressed to infancy, where he could no longer reach the controls. In 1969 Chuck Yeager finally broke the Sound Barrier without getting a nanosecond younger.
The " theory " of Time Dilation is founded in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, published in 1905. The theory is based on the understanding that the speed of light, C, is finite: that is, it takes time even for a beam of light ( or a radio wave ) to travel a given distance. It takes a full eight minutes for the light from the Sun to reach Earth, about 93,000,000 miles. For this explanation we'll borrow Kepler's Astronomical Unit, AU, one Earth-distance from the Sun as our base.
The cosmonauts are happily speeding away from the Earth and have reached the first AU of distance. The Earth station has been sending time signals every hour, and this time it takes eight minutes to arrive at the vehicle. Assuming the Earth time to be the standard, the guys on the spaceship would have to turn their clocks back eight minutes to comply. At the second AU they would be sixteen minutes ahead, at 3AU, 24 minutes, and so on. But time would only be appearing to slow down; in actual fact time would pass normally in both environments. If the cosmonauts turned back and approached the Earth, the exact reverse would happen and they would be turning their clocks ahead to match the time signal from Earth: when safely back home both clocks would read exactly the same!

Modern Myths - The Big Bang Theory

Science has become the new religion in America having, as does the more familiar brand, an ideaology that members of acadême are required to endorse or be labelled " heretics " and miss out on all the generous funding. The new religion borrows heavily from the old one and tries to justify its faulty belief systems. The Big Bang Theory is probably the best known of these attempts a looking like science. The BBT is pseudo-science, completely false, and is based on Creationism's " literal " interpretation of the Bible. In this case it's the first verse of Genesis, Chapter One.
" When God created the heaven and the earth, the world was without form and void, and the spirit of God moved across the abyss. " This verse, probably the most troublesome collection of words ever assembled, has been taken to mean that nothing existed before this great event: the Creation. The Ignorant power-seekers expanded this idea into a preposterous fantasy worthy of the borthers Grimm and fed it to the Easily-Convinced, who gobbled it up whole and still profess to believe in the " something from nothing " ideaology.
A strong structure needs no supports. Creationism identifies itself as a weak structure in that it needs further support to " justify " itself. Truth is its own justification, a strong structure that can always standon its own. But Creationism needed the appearance of science to counter critics who expressed serious doubt on several counts; that God would act impetuously, that what was before wasn't perfect ( else why change it? ); that God couldn't have existed prior to this Creation thing as there would have been nowhere to be, and nothing to work with; that God made Adam and Eve in " His own image and likeness " but they sinned anyway, thanks to the interference of a talking snake. The attempt to justify Creation through scientific means has produced results as preposterous as the initial thesis. It certainly isn't science.

Scientific investigation may be thought of in two ways; investigations by scientists wearing white coats and working in laboratories, or by anyone using the Scientific Method. Deductive logic is the process of examining evidence and formin conclusions based on that evidence. The Big Bang starts with the conclusion and then tries to gather evidence in support of that conclusion. It's science worked backwards. Not only that but it lacks the one starting point of all scientfic investigation: The Compelling Cause.

The Compelling Cause is the motivation behind every investigation of any kind: it is when;
Something is seen from a subjective viewpoint and attracts attention,
Something appears that wasn't there before,
Something was there is no longer there and has been replaced by something else, or is missing altogether,and
Something that was present in one state or condition has changed.
Some examples:

Imagine when man first encountered fire. More than likely it was a tree ignited by a lightning strike and a small band of hunter-gatherers happened upon the scene. They would certainly would have been mesmerized by the sight, and upon closer investigation, finding it to be a source of light and warmth they obviously decided it was something they wanted. How to transport it from one place to another would have been the first item on their list; what burns and what doesn't would be second, and how to make it happen when desired and make it go away when no longer needed would also be an item to consider. Fire science is still a major discipline.
Consider the Iron Age blacksmith who twists a few strands of iron together and hammers out a shiny new sword. But then, in a short while this magnifience work begins to show signs of a red, powdery substance, and little black holes ( pits ).The compelling cause here is to discover why this is happening and devising a way to avoid it. From this grew the science of metalurgy.
Imagine now that a scientist of perhaps the 17th Century is studying caterpillars, and has five in a big glass enclosure. The furry little multi-legged creatures have lots of leaves to munch on as they crawl around on the twigs that bear the leaves.
Our scientist is taking careful notes of everything he sees and feels that he is getting to know quite a bit about caterpillars. Then he is called away on another and is absent from his lab for two weeks. When he returns the caterpillars are gone!
Some dirty prankster has stolen his caterpillars and replaced them with - of all things - MOTHS! Well, that's what he might think at first, but in time he would find that caterpillars eventually turn either into moths or butterflies.

Now let us examine the Big Bang in terms of Compelling Cause. It fails the first requirement in that it is not subjective: Whether the universe came in to being suddenly or was already there doesn't affect my state of being in the least. The second requirement also, since no one has ever experienced a condition of no universe. It's always been there to us.
The Big Bang is also logically false in that it begs the question: assuming the conclusion to be true in the absence of any hard evidence. It is only after this a priori conclusion that the evidence has been gathered. True evidence points in the opposite direction: that the Big Bank is totally false, and two items should make the point.
A few years ago a team of astronomers headed by Wendy Freeman observed that the 12-million year-old universe contained stars that were 17-million years old. More recently there was an item on Yahoo! about a galaxy 13-billion lightyears away. The article stressed the point that that is were the galaxy was thirteen-billion years ago; if the Big Bang is true, then how did this galaxy get way out there a billion years before the big event? Then there is the matter of the Instanton.
Stephen Hawking was analysing the Big Bang, focusing on the events that " must " have occurred a millionth of a second after the explosion. He concluded that there was a key element missing, one without which the Big Bang could not happen. So he invented one: the Instanton, an element that was there when needed, then disappeared never to be seen again. It's very much like the retrograde motion of Mars. The Ptolemaic astronomers, anxious to preserve the Earth-centered universe, attributed this motion to epicycles, circular paths that the planet described along is pricipal orbit. But when the retrograde movement wasn't in evidence, neither were the epicycles! Shouldn't the planet have been wobbling along the whole time? Gravity was another topic upon which the scholars of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century got it wrong.
In Watchers of the Skies the German physicist Willi Ley tells the story. It seems that when isaac Newton concluded that the force of gravity is the product of the mass of an object and an acceleration, the equation: F = ma, the scholars of the time began to teach that gravity is a Constant Force. But expressing gravity so, making the force of gravity a constant, craeted a problem that wasn't discovered in time to keep it out of some text books. The problem is that the equation describes a mathematical area. If the force is held constant the either the mass or the acceleration would have to be the independent variable, the other therefore being the dependent variable. A change in one necessitates a proportional change in the other: as one get bigger, the other must get smaller. It's the same as an area of, say, 48 feet; is it six feet by eight feet, twelve by four, ninety-six feet by six inches? Who knows? Now, if the force of gravity is constant, then a small mass would plummet to the ground at the higher acceleration, while a 100-ton boulder would float to the ground like a feather. Gravity is an acceleration. More than that, gravity is not a primary force but a reactive one as we perceive it.
To understand this let us consider the all subsuming Law of the Universe, that elusive concept that ties all the laws of the universe together in a single, seamless whole. It's simple. The Law;

Energy is all there is. Because it is present in infinte supply, energy cannot combine with itself fully, but only in local situations. Accumulations of particles form centers of mass which in turn develop gravitational forces. These forces grow in intesity until the total concentration of matter is sufficient to ignite at the center. Then a star begins its dazzling life. In smaller concentrations, all formations being spherical, planets form from the superhot gases ejected from the parent star. AS these planets move farther away from the star they cool, form crusts, and then gravity as we experience it comes into play. Were the crust of the Earth not solid, everything on its surface would continue to approach the center of mass: the center of the Earth. So much for anti-gravity machines, another modern myth.