Letter writer should have checked his facts - By Jerrold E. Johnson

My comments in bold.

-------------------

First Mr. Christiansen's letter:

Cry Me a River, Aetna - by WENDELL POTTER

Found here. My comments in bold.
----------------

This post originally appeared at HealthInsurance.org

You might be thinking, based on what insurance company CEOs have been saying over the past few weeks, that carriers are awash in red ink because of Obamacare and would surely go bust if they had to keep paying the medical claims of their Obamacare customers for even one more year. You might even be shedding a tear or two for their poor shareholders.

Here, for example, is the grim news Aetna’s CEO, Mark Bertolini, delivered to Wall Street financial analysts a few days ago:

In light of a second-quarter pretax loss of $200 million and total pretax losses of more than $430 million since January 2014 in our individual products, we have decided to reduce our individual public exchange presence in 2017, which will limit our financial exposure.

This despite the fact that since January 2014, the date Bertolini mentioned above, Aetna has reported operating profits of $6.7 billion. That’s right. Even though Bertolini said Aetna hasn’t yet turned a profit on its Obamacare business, overall it has pocketed nearly $7 billion.

So even though Aetna is still hugely profitable, it will stop offering coverage in most Obamacare markets because its bean counters recently noticed what Bertolini described as a spike in “individuals in need of high-cost care.” (Apparently it has escaped the author's understanding that companies of all sorts examine the profitability of all their lines of business, and the grand total is comprised of all the subtotals. Thus a company is making a widget and the widget is not profitable, something needs to change, regardless of if another product is profitable.)

Vote for those who will protect Social Security - By Virjeana Brown

My comments in bold.
------------------

On Aug. 14 Social Security celebrated it’s (sic) 81st anniversary. Never a late or missed payment. (When the debt ceiling debate was happening in 2011, who was it that threatened the taxpayer by suggesting that Social Security checks might not be mailed? Barack Obama.)

Pretty impressive, in fact, the most successful anti-poverty social insurance program ever. (Successful? What about seniors having to choose between food and medicine? Or the huge poverty problem among seniors? Or their soaring bankruptcy rates? This is a successful anti-poverty program?

Oh, wait. Ms. Brown said it was the "most successful." That lowers the bar considerably. Of all the ill-conceived, wasteful, corrupt, failed government anti-poverty programs, SS is the "most successful." That makes more sense.)

This is an important milestone as Social Security has been highlighted in the presidential campaigns/debates this year and has been under attack since it’s (sic) inception. One side clearly wants to cut and privatize Social Security, while the other side wants to expand it. Social Security is more important now and will be in the future with the loss of defined contribution retirements, student debt, mass incarceration as well as low wages preventing people from saving for retirement. (In other words, all those government economic interventions and programs have have had a devastating impact on people, so government needs to rescue us from government with expanded SS. Hmm.)

This year the Senate and House Budget Appropriations Committees voted to cut $700M from the administration budget of the Social Security Administration (SSA). Social Security is self-funded. Of every dollar you pay into Social Security, 99 cents comes back as benefits and 1 cent goes to administration. What is the potential impact of this cut? Potential office closures, across the board cuts in office hours, a push to get people to use the 800-number (long waits already) and on-line services. In order to use on-line services, you must have a cell phone with texting capabilities to access your own information.

This is intentionally being done to make Social Security unpopular and undermine confidence in the program. (We should have our confidence undermined, because the program is bankrupt, the Trust Fund is empty, and government has spent all that money.)

People become angry at the SSA instead of the congressmen voting to cut this administration budget. How dare these people cut money out of the SSA administration. This is our money, that we pay into this program, to ensure the disbursement of benefits. (It is not our money, it is government's. Government taxed us, took the money and spent it.)

Vote for candidates who will expand and protect Social Security, not those who would cut and privatize our earned benefits.

Virjeana Brown

Belgrade

If private revelations agree with Scriptures, they are needless - John Owen

Posted on FB by a friend:



Discussion ensued:

Me: Then why have preachers?

K.T.: To preach God Word and not their own visions and day dreams.

Me: Isn't a "private" revelation the same as preaching about God's word?

K.T.: Not necessarily. Private revelations are usually someones vision or day dream about something. God speaks to us through his Word and spirit. Most private revelations don't agree with the principles that God has given us in His Word. God's Word is the standard by which everything is to be judged.

Me: I don't see the difference between a pastor reflecting on and sharing his insights into the Word vs. an individual reflecting on and sharing his insights into the Word.

The meme says that a private revelation is unnecessary if it agrees with God's word. But you say that most private revelations don't agree with God's Word. So we aren't talking about those, we are talking about revelations that do agree.

If God speaks to us through His Spirit, then the meme is negated.

K.T.: God speaks to us through his Word AND Spirit. Never the one without the other. When some one has a revelation apart from God's Word it's usually with a spirit that's the human spirit and not the Holy Spirit.

Me: Again, the meme says in agreement with God's Word, not apart from God's Word.

K.T.: I think he must be speaking of preachers telling of their own revelations. If they agree with Scripture there's no need for them as ministers are to preach God's Word and not their own "revelations". Those are the false prophets we're warned about in Scripture.

Me: Not meaning to dispute with you, just trying for clarification. 

Preachers by definition are preaching their own insights into the Word. By definition they are private insights. Either these are Scriptural or they are not. If they are Scriptural, they need not be preached, if the meme is correct.

What I'm trying to get at here is the idea that anything apart from Scripture is heresy, that is, there is no revelation today except Scripture. That's what the meme suggests, and I think it's muddled thinking, as we are discussing.

If there is nothing today for us but Scripture, then insights into Scripture are private revelation and are prohibited. A preacher should then only preach Scripture quotes. Anything else is going beyond Scripture.

The CCLI 2015 Top 100 Songs for United Methodist Congregations list

Found here. Critiques found here. My comments in bold.

It's interesting indeed how the Doctrinal Police ascertains heresy. Here we have the United Methodists evaluating song lyrics with some peculiar criteria. 

My comments are found in the synopsis at the end. They are brief, largely restricted to quoting passages that contradict the assessments of the authors.
----------------------

Aetna Shows Why We Need a Single Payer - by Robert Reich

Found here. My comments in bold.

----------------------

This missive boarders on astonishing. Aetna, fully on board with Obamacare, jumps in without a net, fails, and Dr. Reich views it as a success.

------------------------

Why I Will Not Be Preaching the Longer Ending of Mark - by Josh Buice

Found here. My comments in bold.
---------------------

The passage in question is Mark 16:9-20, which the author never quotes:

9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11 When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.

12 Afterwards Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13 These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.

14 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

In fact, the author does not quote any Scripture.

It is somewhat surprising to us that a pastor would simply decline to preach on a passage of Scripture. We grant there is some question in scholarly circles as to whether this passage is genuine. However, we are not going to consider this issue. We are here to examine the author's presentation.
----------------

Zinke, Gianforte sacrificing country’s common decency - By Cara Wilder

Found here. My comments in bold.

--------------------------

This letter to the editor writer is completely unaware of her own irony.

-------------------------

From Corporate Lawyer to Corporate Critic: Ciara Torres-Spelliscy Dissects Citizens United - BY KATHY KIELY

Found here. My comments in bold.

I'm pretty sure going in that the author either doesn't know what the Citizens United did, or will misrepresent it.
---------------------

Why a Tax on Wall Street Trades is an Even Better Idea Than You Know - By Robert Reich

Found here. My comments in bold.
------------------

There is a fundamental flaw in Dr. Reich's reasoning, and it comes from a faulty premise. The purpose of taxation is to fund the constitutional duties of government, not to engineer outcomes or punish/reward taxees.
-----------------

Trump falsely claimed that Clinton wants to essentially abolish the Second Amendment.

I found this article troubling. The AP writer tells us,

"First, he falsely claimed that Clinton, his Democratic opponent, wants to 'essentially abolish the Second Amendment.' She has said repeatedly that she supports the Second Amendment right to own guns, though she does back some stricter gun control measures."

In what is an ostensibly "news" article, this is an editorial comment, and has no place on the front page of any newspaper. While Trump's statements are surely up for scrutiny, it is the place of pundits and opinion makers to decide the veracity of his claims, not purported "fact checking" reporters.

Homosexuality and Bad Arguments - by John Skalko

Found here. A very good and carefully reasoned article.

----------------------------

Historically, the modern liberal position has lacked a robust philosophical argument in favor of homosexual activity. A new book by Chris Meyers attempts to provide one.

Chris Meyers’ latest book, A Moral Defense of Homosexuality: Why Every Argument against Gay Rights Fails, is the latest in recent attempts to provide a robust philosophical account in favor of the modern liberal position on homosexuality. By “the modern liberal position,” I mean the view that homosexual activity between consenting adults is morally good, same-sex unions are on a par with other marriages (and ought to be considered as such), same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt, and gays ought to be allowed to serve openly in the military.

Meyers’ book is long overdue. If you wish to persuade people that they ought to view same-sex unions as morally good, then you will need also to give good reasons why homosexual activity is morally good. The difficulty is that, historically, the modern liberal position has lacked any robust philosophical argument in favor of homosexual activity.

Meyers attempts to provide such a robust philosophical case for homosexual activity. He attempts to justify not only homosexual activity, but also same-sex unions, same-sex couples' adoptions, the rights of gays to serve openly in the military, and restrictions on the religious liberties of businesses that refuse to bake cakes for gay wedding. While I agree in part with some of Meyers’ points (such as allowing gays to serve in the military) and respect that he has given much thought to this issue, most of what I have to say is by way of disagreement. Since so many of his arguments are wanting, I will restrict myself here to some criticisms of his arguments concerning: a) traditional natural law ethics, b) the perverted faculty argument, and c) the nature of marriage.

For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes - Kurt Vonnegut

Posted by a very smart but intellectually lazy FB friend:

"For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course that’s Moses, not Jesus. I haven’t heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere."Blessed are the merciful' in a courtroom? 'Blessed are the peacemakers' in the Pentagon? Give me a break!"

When I rightly mocked this quote as being logic-challenged, one of the commenters challenged me to produce someone who has called for the Beatitudes to be posted instead of the Ten Commandments. It took me about five seconds to find this one.

"The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males..."

Another FB meme.




Text: "The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves. If an individual is not successful in emotionally crippling himself, he can count on patriarchal men to enact rituals of power that will assault his self-esteem." ~ Bell Hooks Because men need feminism too.

This meme is built on several undocumented premises:

• There are conformity demands uniquely made on males
• Those demands are from a patriarchy
• They are violent demands
• These demands precede demands to be violent to women 

From these premises come false conclusions:

• Patriarchal men will enforce these demands 
• Males are forced to engage in self damage
• This self damage kills the emotions
• Self damaging of the emotions is bad
• Non compliance invites patriarchal men to enforce their will

FB meme: "Remember, God's will was for John to be exiled, Paul to be jailed..."

A FB friend posted this:

Remember, God's will was for John to be exiled, Paul to be jailed, Jesus to be executed. Why do we assume God's will for us is to have a great job, a happy life, and a large bank account?

This is another attempt to refute prosperity teachers. As I have noted elsewhere, self-appointed doctrinal police are everywhere, but their efforts too often embarrass themselves rather than refute error.

Sometimes people say, "Why so much teaching, can't you be more practical?" John MacArthur

A FB friend posted this meme:

Sometimes people say, "Why so much teaching, can't you be more practical?" No, the truth of the matter is your duties flow out of your doctrine. It's what you believe that essentially designs your behavior. There is no basis for right behavior except for right doctrine (John MacArthur)

This meme struck me as odd when we first read it, but we couldn't put our finger on it. As a principle, it is certainly true that what you do flows from what you believe. But we can ask some questions of Dr. MacArthur.