Need to go to bed, but wanted to pass on this cute occurrence from this morning.
All four boys and I were up and awake, and they were getting ready to play out in the backyard before breakfast and before they needed to begin getting ready for our trip to Sabbath services. However, I had other plans, as I wanted to discuss something with them: civility. As in, their lack of it concerning each other.
After gathering them together for Dad’s lesson and getting it going, I mentioned that they are at their weakest in displaying any civility toward each other when one of them believes that he has been wronged by one of the others, and that behaving in a civil manner is all the more crucial when you believe you’ve been wronged.
8-year-old Boy #3 asks, “What’s ‘wronged’?”
Immediately, 12-year-old Boy #1 slaps Boy #3 in the back of the head and says, “There — I’ve wronged you.”
OK… maybe one child hitting another isn’t exactly “cute.” But it was funny. Well, OK… Maybe one child hitting another isn’t “funny.” Maybe it’s wrong. Yeah, that’s it! It’s wrong!
Ahhhhh, who am I kidding? It was hilarious! (You had to be there, of course.) And after the sting wore off, Boy #3 laughed, too. And he very likely returned the educational “favor” later in a quite uncivil manner once my back was turned.
Perhaps “Take 2″ on the civility lesson will go better. If they’re tied up. And in separate rooms.
I am sure some of you are asking, so let me say something here. My brother-in-law who works at Fort Hood in Texas is absolutely fine. (Those of you reading this on Facebook probably know all of this, already.) His wife — my wife’s sister — was understandably rattled, and he was in lockdown for sometime, just like you’ve heard about on the news. It is my understanding that his office was very near the shooting. However, he is home and all is fine.
Our prayers go out to those whose loved ones did not come home yesterday.
Some brief thoughts on faith and the Work tonight before I hit the sack.
I’ve had Noah and Habakkuk on the brain, today, and some of the things they teach me about faith.
Noah was commanded by God to build an ark. God told Noah that the world was full of violence, that He was going to destroy mankind with a flood, and that He was going to use him and his family to save eight people and representatives of all the living creatures in a giant boat that Noah was to build.
Most everyone is familiar with that story. What people often overlook is that Noah was a preacher of righteousness during that time (2 Peter 2:5). I can imagine what it was like to be Noah then, telling the men and women of the world at that time that their end was coming soon unless they repent. Perhaps they jeered at him, “How soon, old man?”
And he didn’t have a very specific answer for that, as far as I could tell. Only, “soon.” That, and he could point to the work he was feverishly doing at God’s command — the ark he was building — that must be completed before the end came.
There is, of course, the obvious parallel. We, too, have a work that God has commanded that we do (Matthew 28:18-19, Mark 16:15), and it, too, must be completed before the end comes (Matt. 24:14). But also, like Noah, we cannot point to exactly when that end is coming. Only that we know it is coming soon.
It took faith for Noah to continue day after day, preaching to the people, building the ark. We have no assurance in Scripture that God spoke to Noah every day, encouraging him. What faith he must have had. I pray that we can have that sort of faith, too, continuing to do the Work and to preach the message that we’ve been given, not knowing the day or hour of our Master’s return, but knowing that it is coming soon.
Then there is Habakkuk. It’s a little Old Testament book, and sometimes gets passed over. But Habakkuk had to learn a lesson in faith, too, and I think it is a lesson for us, today, who “sigh and cry” over the state of modern Israel (Ezekiel 9:4) and its prophesied future.
Habakkuk lamented before God concerning the sinful state of Judah (Hab. 1:1-4), wondering how long God would put up with it — how long before He set things right. God responds that He is bringing Babylon and the Chaldeans upon Judah (vv.5-11).
Habakkuk’s response to God’s answer is humorous, but I sympathize with it so much. He is taken aback, and we see his confusion expressed in the rest of chapter 1 and verses 12-17. He is essentially asking, “But the Chaldeans are even more sinful that Judah! Would God bring an end to the sinful by granting victory to the even more sinful?!? Is this Judah’s end?”
However, though he is confused, He trusts God, and in Hab. 2:1 he stands ready to hear God’s word on the matter.
God explains in the rest of chapter 2 that the Chaldeans will also face judgment — that though they will be a tool in his hands for the accomplishing of His purpose, their day of reckoning lies ahead (Hab. 2:8), and God’s plan will ultimately produce not just a righteous Judah, but a righteous Earth (Hab. 2:14).
Habakkuk responds with a beautiful song in the last chapter of his book, ending with a moving expression of faith:
Though the fig tree may not blossom,
Nor fruit be on the vines;
Though the labor of the olive may fail,
And the fields yield no food;
Though the flock may be cut off from the fold,
And there be no herd in the stalls–Yet I will rejoice in the LORD,
I will joy in the God of my salvation.The LORD God is my strength;
He will make my feet like deer’s feet,
And He will make me walk on my high hills.Habakkuk 3:17-19
Habakkuk saw his country falling apart. He then learned the details of the terrible fate that awaited it — a fate that, apparently, he would have never imagined and which did not make sense to him. Yet he fully trusted in the God of heaven and in His purpose, and — in faith — committed himself to that purpose. And as I see the things happening in my own country, and read in God’s word what lies ahead for my own nation, I find myself sympathizing with Habakkuk and looking to God to establish the same faith in me, the faith of Jesus Christ (Gal. 2:2) that says, “Your will be done” (Matt. 26:42).
So, while Noah and Habakkuk never had the chance to meet, in my mind today they have. And, of course, one day they will.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
[Having mentioned Habakkuk, this seems as good a time as any to mention a "behind the scenes" tale from a recent Tomorrow's World telecast that some of you might enjoy in some way. Someone interested in attending our church called me today and mentioned how much he appreciated the telecast I did that aired last month, "What Will Save America?" It's funny he should do that today when Habakkuk is on my mind, because I very briefly refer to Habakkuk in that telecast, but I did so in error.
There is a moment on the telecast where I am referring to America's horrific debt burden and I briefly refer to a few different verses, giving the references only without reading them aloud. One of them, if I recall accurately, was Habakkuk 2:6-7 (or possibly just 6 or 7 singly). The problem is that although this verse speaks of debt, and though, in principle, the danger expressed in the verse does apply to America's current situation, the prophesy is not directly spoken about the U.S. there. It is being uttered concerning the Chaldeans and not even Judah directly, let alone Israel.
Actually, the reference was not in the final script that I created for that telecast, because Mr. Ames caught it in a draft I had sent to him and I consequently removed it from the final version, leaving the other, non-Habakkuk references. I often try to get a copy of my script to Mr. Ames and his editorial assistant as early as I can, as I find their input and opinions to be absolutely invaluable. Regrettably, for me "as early as I can" is often the day before filming, but I am improving, I think!
However, midway into filming this particular telecast I began to realize that I had somehow given the TV staff an earlier version of that script and not the final draft. I continued anyway, thinking that this would simply mean that the TV crew would have more words to edit out for time constraints (sorry, TV crew!), since the normal reason I have so many drafts is due to their original, excessive length. However, I forgot that this reference was in there, too, and in going through that part in front of the camera so quickly, it didn't even enter my mind. (The camera is good at doing that!)
And it isn't the worst mistake in the world. As I said, the situation -- in principle -- definitely applies to the U.S. But the overly picky wordsmith-type person in me wishes that I could dive in and add a qualifying comment of some sort, like rearraging the mention of Habakkuk 2 so that it is at the end of the sentence and is prefaced by the words "and in principle." It's probably, too, the old mathematician in me that sees an important subtlety that is not being communicated. Like when my kids are learning about how all numbers can be put into ordered lists and I am biting my tongue so as not to say, "Of course, we are assuming here that our domain is restricted to the Reals and does not include the Complex numbers..." I've already messed them up by explaining why the set of integers is just as big as the set of rational numbers, but that the set of irrational numbers is bigger than both even though all three sets are infinite. I think Boy #2 was in tears over that one.
OK, what was I talking about again?]
Well, the U.S. news is “abuzz” with trying to figure out the consequences of and lessons from yesterday’s handful of elections. On one hand, Republicans won the two contests for governor in Virginia and New Jersey (they won the contests for Lieutenant Governor, as well, which is important but not as widely reported) against opponents solidly backed by President Obama. These are heralded as indicators that the “Blue Tide” claimed to be rising in the 2008 Presidential Elections is either slowed, on hold, reversed, or illusory, depending on the analyst speaking at the time. On the other hand, Conservative Party candidate for a house seat in the NY special election, Doug Hoffman, lost to Democrat Bill Owens, though after “owning” the Republican Party’s hand-picked candidate, Dede Scozzafava.
Republican civil-war? Blue Tide turning Red? Democrats need to learn from losses or not? Republicans need to learn from loss or not? And with Health Care Reform votes coming, what do the all-important Blue Dog Democrats think about these recent races?
Well, to be honest, as much as I find the above stuff interesting drama on one level, the fact is that the political act of the week that will ultimately impact America much more than yesterday’s races in NJ, VA, and NY didn’t even take place within our own borders…
On November 2, Mr. Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic, signed the Lisbon Treaty, providing the last act needed to ratify it as binding on all members of the European Union.
The political maneuvering and — let’s call it what it is — baldfaced misdirection and deception that has taken place to get the Lisbon Treaty signed is stunning in its obviousness. The Lisbon Treaty is simply the previously rebuffed European Constitution with not much more change than a difference in title. Frankly, even the tiny eyeglasses Clark Kent used prevent others from knowing he is Superman do a better job than any of the miniscule changes made to the European Constitution to hide it as the Lisbon Treaty. There should be no doubts: Europe has agreed to a common Constitution and nothing less than a Constitution.
Now there will be a European President to represent all of Europe and to set the European Agenda, as well as a European Foreign Secretary and other accouterments normally associated with single nations. The dream of a European Superstate is more alive and within reach today than it has ever been.
Decisions can now much more easily be made to enforce on all of Europe, without the annoyance of worrying about British vetos. As the UK’s Telegraph summarizes, “Britain’s power to govern itself is to be surrendered increasingly to Brussels after the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty was finally ratified.”
I would suspect that there will be political ramifications for many in the UK. As the same article in the Telegraph reports, “Labour won the 2005 general election having promised a referendum on the European Constitution but then dropped the pledge, arguing that Lisbon was a different document,” and, “The Conservatives gave a “cast-iron” guarantee of a vote on Lisbon.”
“But after Mr Klaus signed the text, the Tories admitted that they will not offer voters a say on Lisbon.”
Such are the promises of politicians.
We have taught for years that Europe will become a superstate and that it will supplant the US and the UK as the leading power int he world. This vote will not remove the “iron and clay” nature of Europe’s strained union (Daniel 2:42-43) — it will take a uniting religion to bring unity to Europe’s citizens (Rev. 13:11-14). However, the political architecture of Europe is now more supportive for the fulfillment of prophecy than ever before.
And this will ultimately impact America much more than any of yesterday’s elections.
The Conservatives gave a “cast-iron” guarantee of a vote on Lisbon.
But after Mr Klaus signed the text, the Tories admitted that they will not offer voters a say on Lisbon
The thought for the day comes from my beautiful wife, spoken this morning:
“Why is it that those who seem to shout the loudest for tolerance tend to be the most intolerant and those who demand that others be open minded tend to be the least open minded?”
To which I could only agree and respond:
“There’s a difference between being open minded and having a spiritual head wound.”
It looks as though the new Tomorrow’s World magazine is out with my article about the “2012 phenomenon” and the Bible: “The Truth about 2012: Hollywood vs. Humanity.”
We haven’t received ours in the mail, yet, but it is up at the Tomorrow’s World website. I’ve discussed before some of the Church’s efforts on educating concerning this matter, but maybe this is a good time to summarize, update, and discuss some behind-the-scenes details, especially since I had a wonderful, chance meeting with a Maya expert last night which provided some great confirmation.
It all began when a couple in Arkansas talked to me about the upcoming Roland Emmerich end-of-the-world flick “2012″ (Mr. Emmerich seems either addicted to end-of-the-world themes or to the money such movies rake in). The couple (M&AS) mentioned how many folks they knew were really getting caught up in the 2012 hysteria, as opposed to Bible prophecy and its message of repenting from sin. It just so happened that the next telecast I was due to tape in Charlotte was scheduled to be broadcast on the very same weekend as the movie’s opening and seemed to me to be an opportunity for “meat in due season” — a chance to educate people about what the Bible says about things like this “2012″ business and to point them in the direction of God’s word as a true and dependable authority, versus the superstitions of men (or worse). So, I tossed out the script work that I had done to that point and refocused on the 2012 phenomenon.
The result has been an internet commentary (“2012: The Hype and the Truth”), the upcoming Tomorrow’s World telecast this month (“2012, Bible Prophecy and You”), the article in this month’s magazine (“The Truth about 2012: Hollywood vs. Humanity”), and an hour-long DVD presentation (“2012: Mystery and Truth”) that may be offered at the end of the year in the semi-annual letter. Of all the work, the DVD was my favorite, as I had plenty of time to go into the sort of detail that none of the other formats really have room for.
On one hand, it has been a real pleasure to get to serve in this way. It is an incredible blessing to understand the truth of God’s word and the wonder of biblical prophecy, and it is such a shame that so many can get caught up in the universe of counterfeits out there, including the 2012 hysteria, without really knowing the basis for those counterfeits. It’s easy to be impressed with mathematical models involving the I Ching (which, as a mathematician, I find particularly detestable), supposed celestial conjunctions, and other such things until you dig deep enough to see what really lies underneath. Then you see (1) it’s not at all what it is cracked up to be, and (2) God’s word leaves us with very clear instructions regarding such things that most seem to ignore. (The many History Channel shows on such subjects are laughable and make things generally worse instead of better. It seems clear that they long ago gave up any goals of being truly informative for the more lucrative approach of being prevocative and sensational.)
On the other hand, I read and digested more 2012-related garbage that I would ever want to do again. For instance, I’m not sure if it will make the DVD, but we created a clip in which we toss book after book onto a table, each one professing to contain 2012-related wisdom, knowledge and prophecy. Each of those books were purchased by me and used in one way or another in my research. (The legitimate Maya-related stuff was not so bad. One book, in particular — The Ancient Sun Kingdoms of the Americas: Aztec, Maya, Inca by Victor Wolfgang von Hagen — was very educational, even given its age.) I’ve been aware of speculations concerning 2012 since childhood (reared on “Nova” and PBS, as I was), but I wanted to make sure I understood what was being said today on the matter by those who are driving the current phenomenon. Truly brain draining, it was, and the sort of stuff that makes you want to shower after reading it. I also contacted at least one person directly: Robert Bonadurer, director of the Daniel M. Soref Planetarium at the Milwaukee Public Museum, who was kind enough to explain to me the thoughts he had expressed publicly concerning the supposed “2012 alignment.”
Then, last night, I had a very random opportunity to speak at length to a Ph.D. in Mesoamerican cultures who was a Maya expert! My family and I were at the house of one of our wonderful local elders, using hiding from “trick or treaters” as our annual excuse to hang out together and eat some great chili (I had three bowls!), and there was one guest not from our church — an acquanitance of one of our members — who wanted to speak to me about our church’s religious beliefs. His field was anthropology and archaeology with a focus on the Mayans and related cultures, though his knowledge of history and other cultures not-so-related to the Mayans was impressive. After he picked my brain on things biblical for a couple of hours (at least!), I wanted to pleasantly turn the tables and pick his brain concerning things Mayan, which was a real treat.
One small thing (which was a big one for me) that I appreciated was that he confirmed that the pronunciations that I tried to use in my telecast & DVD presentation were accurate. Since most of my sources were in writing, I was unsure of my pronunciations (e.g., how to pronounce Chilam Balam, baktun, katun, etc.), though Schele & Freidl’s A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya was a big help. My new aquaintance pointed out that of the modern varieties of Mayan dialect currently spoken, one has real legitimacy in its connection to ancient Mayan “hieroglyphics” (which really aren’t hieroglyphics, technically), and it matched my usage in the videos. (Or at least my attempted usage; regular viewers will recognize how a touch of Texan tends to creep in here and there, not to mention the camera’s ability to hypnotize you into saying things improperly!)
But there were many other important things he was able to confirm or expand upon. One was the sentiment of real Maya experts on the 2012 hoopla and supposed “Mayan prophecies” versus what is generally put out before the public (and it’s not looking good for 2012 devotees, I must say). Another was something I had noticed concerning the Chilam Balam which are generally considered “Mayan” sources but are heavily corrupted by Catholic influence: I had noticed that “law of the “law of the katuns” was used by many 2012-ologists to refer to the end of the current baktun (a.k.a., December 21, 2012) when it seemed to me that it did not necessarily have this meaning. He explained that this, indeed, was the case: the law of the katuns does not refer to the end of this current baktun. I wanted to discuss with him the origin of Hunab ku in post-classical Mayan culture, but I think I mispronounced it as Hunabpu and we ended up discussed the Hero Twins. (Actually, Hunab Ku is generally understood to be a Catholic invention meant to help convert the Mayans to the “Christian” faith.)
One of the most interesting things we discussed was the actual dating of 2012 as the end of the Mayan baktun. He says that while December 21, 2012 is the most popularly accepted end date, actually there is good reason to think that it is later than this and that the commonly accepted correlation (the Goodman-Martinez-Thompson, or GMT correlation) to the Gregorian calendar has a number of faults, including eclipses and celestial events that do not line up — something that would be very odd for a people so devoted to accurately predicting and recording such events. He mentioned the possibility of, say, 2015 as the true year, to which I let him informed him that he could probably make a lot of money publishing a book pandering to those who will be disappointed after 2012 when their New Age predictions don’t pan out. We both laughed, but mostly out of the sad recognition that it was probably true.
I don’t know how well each of his positions represent the majority of Maya scholarship (some Ph.D.-types can be almost addicted to the rush having independent theories that differ from the mainstream, it seems), but much of it lined up incredibly well with all I have found, myself, and was a nice validation of what we are explaining. In other research, he had also come to his own conclusions about the identity of the ten “lost tribes” of Israel, which — though done without contact with our church — correlated incredibly very well with exactly what we teach of them and of the United States and Great Britain in the Living Church of God — but that is a tale for another day. 
I will wrap this up here, as I actually planned on spending the day with my family instead of here with my laptop. But seeing the 2012 article come out on the Tomorrow’s World website was exciting, and with last night’s unexpected opportunity to talk to a real Maya culture Ph.D. last night about the information we are providing the public to replace misplaced 2012 fascination with God’s powerful truth, I felt this would be a nice post to write today.
Look for the Tomorrow’s World broadcast, “2012, Bible Prophecy and You” the same week/weekend as the movie’s release: November 12-18 (our cycle is Thursday to Thursday, I believe, though our programs air on Sunday in most areas, methinks). To find a television station showing Tomorrow’s World in your area, check out our TV Log. And don’t fall for the super-hyped counterfeit, when the truth is so much better!
Ah! Finally home and in bed for the night.
My family and I stopped for some fuel and refreshments at about 11:00pm at a QuikTrip in Columbia, Missouri before the long drive home, and the experience left me with a question…
We don’t keep Halloween and therefore wouldn’t be in the loop, so we’re wondering: Was there some sort of “Halloween Memo” that went around explaining that all females were to dress up as tramps or prostitutes? If so, it was effective. It may have also mentioned that all males were to ensure they were inebriated before 11:30. That part was apparently effective, as well.
Wow! As far as I am concerned, Peggy Noonan hit a home run. Her 10/29 OpEd piece for the Wall Street Journal — “We’re Governed by Callous Children” — is harsh, but harshly accurate in my opinion. (Currently available on her personal website, as well.)
I’ve commented here many times about the crisis of leadership that America — and England, as well — seems to be facing and has faced for some time, previous administrations not excepted (you can search “crisis of leadership” in the box at the top right to see). Tomorrow’s World magazine has commented on it frequently. The Bible prophesies about it in passages such as Ezekiel 22:30 (actually, vv.23-31) and Isaiah 3:1-3. Unless things change, America will soon lack even pretenders to leadership as its autonomy gives way to slavery (Hosea 10:3ff). This will not be because of the policies of her politicians. It will be because of sin and a lack of the Fear of the Lord amongst her people.
Though I admire her abilities as a wordsmith of the first rank (a gifted speech writer for Ronald Reagan), I do not always agree with her. However, Ms. Noonan is spot on in this particular article. Her conclusing passage:
We are governed at all levels by America’s luckiest children, sons and daughters of the abundance, and they call themselves optimists but they’re not optimists—they’re unimaginative. They don’t have faith, they’ve just never been foreclosed on. They are stupid and they are callous, and they don’t mind it when people become disheartened. They don’t even notice.
Quite a condemnation. Her reasoning and argumentation is worth reading — check it out by clicking here.
I’m not normally that familiar with Hollywood intrigue until it reaches the level of “unavoidable news,” and this bit I am about to mention is related to all of this “Twilight” junk, so I have ample reason to have no interest in it at all.
But I do find this interesting and would be happy to hear your thoughts, as well. Apparently, someone (read about it here if you feel so compelled) has pointed out that in promoting the new “Twilight” movie, pictures of a shirtless 17-year-old (male) Taylor Lautner are everywhere (not to presumed mention the scenes in the movie), yet no one raises a fuss.
The question being asked: Is this a double standard? 15-year-old female Miley Cyrus appears with bare back and the world is on fire (I commented on the matter myself here: “In the Miley Cyrus flap, where’s critique of Leibovitz?” — which, in turn, was cleaned up and made into a Living Church of God commentary.), but 17-year-old, also-a-minor male Taylor Lautner appears shirtless and no one bats an eyelash?
I admit, I do find the question interesting. The problem, of course, is deeper than these questions make it appear: the sexualization of childhood — including the teenage years — is wrong, period. And while there was a huge flap about Miley posing with her back exposed, the fact is that the teenage years (including age 15) have been sexualized at least as long as there have been movies about hormone-riddled high schoolers. Miley’s back and Taylor’s chest aren’t the problem, they’re the symptom.
I’m sure some will make excuses… “Taylor’s a boy, and boys swim shirtless all the time — what’s the big deal?” Indeed, they do. And while there’s more to say about that than I will say here, there is a difference between two boys playing in the sprinkler in the yard and what the “Twilight” movie is doing with young Taylor. Or here’s one: “Miley’s picture is a suggestive, sexual pose, while Taylor’s scenes serve a purpose in telling the story.” Indeed, they do. Those “steamy,” shirtless, shots of him do serve a purpose. Um, where’s the difference, again? Or, one more: “There’s a world of difference between 15- & 17-years-old.” Is there? Is it a world of difference, or just a hemisphere? Maybe a continent’s difference? Oooo — an isthmus’ difference! This avoids the real question, which is…
What has our society done to its image of teenagers such that sexualizing them is acceptible entertainment for the masses?
Christ will one day bring us a day when children can be children (cf. Zech. 8:5) and when adults will find better things to do than exploit teenagers for profit. May that day come soon.
If you want to read my Miley Cyrus commentary, please do — I’m actually not harsh with her so much as I am with certain others in that article. But I would also like your opinion on all of this. What do you think? Comment below (subject to my comment policy, of course)…
Regular readers of this blog (all two of you) know that I tend to take notice when actuaries are in the news, since I was an actuary, myself, before I became a minister.
Well, he actuaries of the insurance company WellPoint Inc. have been in the news today, having published an analysis based on their own company’s experience of what result some current health care reform proposals will have on insurance premiums in private markets across 14 states in which they have relevant experience. One would expect this to be a very helpful and enlightening study to help turn possibilities and conjectures about the future into real numbers.
For those interested, it’s worth reading in today’s WSJ opinion section: “The WellPoint Revelation: Private insurance premiums could triple under ObamaCare.”
As the subtitle says there, the results aren’t pretty. But I must say that, as a former actuary, it was nice to see an article that mentions and quantifies the things that have come to my mind in all of this back-and-forth debate.
For instance, it has been a mystery to me how anyone could expect premiums to could go down when an insurer is forced to do such things as accept applicants with pre-existing conditions and those who apply only when they know they are sick, and equal premiums across the board, regardless of various, natural distinctions that should be considered. The result would be monstrous antiselection (noun, the tendency for insurance to be sought only by those who have greater than average need which thereby raises a plan’s cost and reduces its benefits – Dictionary.com). The only way to combat this would be to force those who don’t need health insurance to purchase insurance as well (say, at legislative “gun point”), though this is, of course, a questionable act on many levels — moral, constitutional, economic — and wouldn’t necessarily fix the problem, at that.
Yet, one certainly has to have sympathy for those with pre-existing conditions, given that we have allowed the medical industry to become such that insurance is virtually a necessity when it really shouldn’t be. Of course, the reason for that is debated: Corporate greed and profit maximizing? Overreaching and incompetent government regulation? A little from Column A and a little from Column B?
Hence, this mess of a “discussion” that we currently see around us.
Anyway, the purpose of this post is not to take a political side (and I hope you see no side taken above, as I have tried to stick to facts) — rather, I simply seem to get a kick out of seeing actuaries mentioned in the news. It’s a great “behind the scenes” career, and many in the public are not even aware of it.
And I must say that — if it is true — it is a shame that the White House and the Senate Finance Committee would attack the character of those who created the study less than two hours after its release, which would not be nearly enough time to review the findings and determine their soundness. Actuaries certainly aren’t immune to the Jeremiah 17:9 quality of human nature (I’ve never given scientists a pass on this, so I can’t give actuaries one, either!) and can’t always control how their findings are used, but the pool of actuaries I have known have been quite a mix when it comes to political opinion and the “liberal vs. conservative” sides of things. In fact, towards the end of the “Clinton years” the CEO of the insurance company I used to work for — a former actuary, himself — once stood in the giant atrium of our building during a company-wide gathering and expressed his frustration that the U.S. did not yet have universal health care. Not the most conservative position, right?
Hopefully the actuaries of WellPoint did their jobs according to the standards of their profession, as it could be one of the most enlightening analyses on the real effects of certain health care reform provisions done to date. And, if this is the case, hopefully those in Congress and in the White House will actually look at the results to inform their decisions.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
OK, just one more thing. This isn’t really “actuaries in the news,” per se, but it certainly a walk for me down actuarial memory lane…
The same WSJ online opinion section had an article titled “Efficient Market Theory and the Crisis” in which University of Pennsylvania professor of finance Jeremy J. Siegel defends the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) against a recent attack that claimed the theory was a key factor causing the global financial crisis. This brought up many memories, as I had spent much time with the EMH many moons ago when I was studying for the last exam I ever took in my pre-ministerial life as an actuary: Course 6 — the final obstacle standing between me and my Associate of the Society of Actuaries designation.
For those not familiar with actuarial exams, they involve a lot of memorization (though they have probably changed since then, since the exam system was — and surely still is — constantly being tinkered with). Of course, there was much more to the exams than memorization, but the the vast lists of information one had to have stored in his or her brain was a key feature. Consequently, one tended to develop his own techniques for remembering the items of those lists, and one of my favorite techniques was using odd mental visuals or imaginary scenes. In particular, to memorize the elements of the assumptions behind the Efficient Market Hypothesis I envisioned a football game in which various individuals (players, fans, etc.) make comments or take actions — including an imaginary President Bill Clinton who flew in to see the game wearing a rocket pack on his back. An odd visual, to be sure, but it helped me remember part of the list!
And I must say that it wasn’t the oddest memory-helping visual in my collection at the time. That honor probably belongs to an imagined scene in which Liberace descends from the ceiling of a grocery store whilst playing a piano — which helped me to remember the LIBOR market as an element of a list related to fixed income security options.
Ahhh, studying for actuarial exams. Good times. And horrific times. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. (Hmmm… that sounds familiar.)
Anyway, it was nice to see the EMH defended, when clearly there was more human error involved in the crisis than simply trusting the time-honored model. And the walk down memory lane was nice, too — however shudder-inducing it might have been.
For those who could care less about the actuarial profession, my apologies! This entry must have been a total waste of your time, huh? But for the small population who want to see past posts of mine concerning actuaries or the actuarial profession, just go to the search box above and type in “actuary” for a start. I’ll warn you: It might be an eclectic mix…
