Great commercial?  Yes?  Misleading?  Yes

It is no mistake that this commercial starts with the  claim that 80% of Toyotas sold in the last 20 years are still on the road.  Toyota’s brand is built on reliability and this seems to be the ultimate claim.  Our cars last two decades.

So what’s my beef?  My beef is that the average person is going to interpret this commercial as “If I buy a Toyota tomorrow it has an 80% chance of being on the road 20 years from now.”  This is far from the truth and there are two main reasons why:

1.)  Toyota’s recent sales far outnumber sales from over a decade ago.  So what?  So their percent on the road counts for much more when you are doing a weighted average.

2.)  Combine point one with the assumption that nearly 100% of all cars sold in the last 5 years are on the road and you can get a hugely inflated number.

Lets just assume Toyota sold twice as many cars in the last five years as in years 16-20 and that 95% of cars sold in the last 5 years are still on the road.  Lets also assume that the middle 10 years average out to 80%.  What percent of cars sold in years 16-20 would have to still be on the road to make the 80% number?

Only 50%! A far cry from implied claim of 80%.

Huge assumptions made? Yes.  Might this still be an impressive number?  Maybe.  I would have to see other manufactuers numbers to compare.

Even if my assumptions are far from accurate, file this as an example that shows how easily marketers can manipulate numbers and make claims that both appear to be and are too good to be true.

Politicians around the country were celebrating today as a moral basis was uncovered for the practice of misleading the people. Senior Fianna Fail sources expressed quiet satisfaction that the catholic church had, in the report of the Dublin Archdiocese Commission of Investigation, outlined the church concept of “mental reservation”, which allows one to knowingly mislead people “without being guilty of lying”. A leading theologian confirmed that Bertie Ahern is now “quite likely” to go to heaven.

Cardinal Desmond Connell explained the concept to the commission as follows:
“Well, the general teaching about mental reservation is that you are not permitted to tell a lie. On the other hand, you may be put in a position where you have to answer, and there may be circumstances in which you can use an ambiguous expression realising that the person who you are talking to will accept an untrue version of whatever it may be – permitting that to happen, not willing that it happened, that would be lying . . . So mental reservation is, in a sense, a way of answering without lying. Frankly, it’s been a lifesaver.”

Former philosophy professor, Cardinal Connell boasted about how he duped the media without lying to them about whether diocesan funds had been used to compensate abuse victims. With the air of a magician revealing his secrets, he explained that he had told journalists “that diocesan funds ARE not used for such a purpose; that he had not said that diocesan funds WERE not used for such a purpose. By using the present tense he had not excluded the possibility that diocesan funds had been used for such purpose in the past.”

Former director of elections for Fianna Fail , P J Mara, was ebullient. “Once mastered, the technique has endless everyday applications,” he enthused. “For example, the unfaithful spouse could say I AM not sleeping with anyone else rather than I DID not sleep with anyone else. The school bully could say I WOULD never hit Johnny rather than I DID not hit Johnny. And, most usefully, anyone accused of lying can say I AM not lying to you, rather than I DID not lie to you.”

But is this really true? The Poppycock Review contacted the Catholic Church to see if Cardinal Connell had been quoted correctly. We enquired whether he really did condone this ‘mental reservation’ technique of misleading people. We received a short email reply: “Cardinal Connell is not saying anything of the sort.”

Only Fox News can pull this nonsense off not once, but twice!

Within the past two weeks, the conservative cable news network ran stories on two separate events – one an anti-health care rally, the other Sarah Palin’s book tour – using footage from other events! How preposterous! To think that Fox News, America’s bastion of respectable and credible journalism, could fall to such a low, such an undoing of moral fiber! Oh, how it brings tears to my eyes.

Get real, people.

Is anyone really surprised by Fox’s intentional attempts to dupe its audience? It’s not as if the network has had a history of overemphasizing the dramatic at the expense of sacrificing good journalism.  And they’re fair and balanced, right? They wouldn’t dare meddle with their own integrity!

In the first case, Sean Hannity aired footage of a much larger September 12 rally when referring to a November 5 rally against the House’s latest health care proposal.  The anchor and his guests frequently spoke of the rally’s massive turnout, which ended up being tens of thousands less than actually appeared in the video.

Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart broke the news:

In the second case, Fox used footage of Palin’s VP campaign from last year when referring to the crowds she’s gathering for her book signings.  That footage is more than a year old! What were they thinking?

Here’s how the network’s “Happening Now” program mislead its viewers:

And so the sage continues.  What’ll they screw up next?

So, I recently wrote back to Quiznos at the suggestion of Jon on Twitter, and with the editing help of Dave once again. Jon has apparently been following the Subway saga along with a handful of other people… and thought that it may be an appropriate next step. I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I’ve had this thought myself, and if I remember correctly Jon had posted about it previously on Facebook or MySpace or Twitter or some social media site. Memory and my Googling skills fail me in finding that now, though.

I have high hopes on getting a well thought out response or two. I sent the message below to Mr. Jones, the same message to Mr. Bordeaux, and a slightly modified one to a few other email addresses that I managed to dig up. I enjoyed the candid reply from Mr. Jones before, although I was unable to get any further comment from Mr. Bordeaux or his team with whom he was going to share my email.

From: ERiC AiXeLsyD <world.and.lunar.domination@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Subject: The Quiznos Toasty Torpedo™ ads?
To: “Jones, Tony” <TJones2@quiznos.com>

Hello Mr. Jones,

I would like to thank you again for the response to my email last week regarding Subway’s lack of allergy awareness, cheese tessellation, appropriate responses to customer feedback, and poor decisions in general. I understand and have learned first hand that good communication is a key component to the Quiznos way of doing business. I also appreciate your expedited replies, and hope that you can gain something knowing how cavalier your competitor’s attitude is toward genuine customer concerns. I am glad to be a gauge of what you do at Quiznos, and I would like to hope that my feedback is valuable.

In sharing my recent adventures in email with some friends, I have noticed a theme that has come up in suggested queries for your fine establishment… and I must say that I have indeed wondered the same thing myself.

Are you using “little people” models for the toasty torpedoes ads, perhaps children or pygmies? I did get a turkey torpedo a while ago, and I did make a mental note that it seemed to be nothing more than a bread stick made into a sandwich. I thought that the toasty torpedo looked bigger in the ads… but I didn’t quite connect why until recently.

A quick Google image search led me to this photo, perfect for a reference for our purposes…

I’m sure you can also see it now that I’ve pointed it out. I, my friend, cannot un-see it. There is no way that the hand in the above graphic is correctly proportioned to the Toasty TORPEDO™. I’m actually tempted to go get another one in an attempt to re-create this photo to see how accurate it may be. I can guarantee though, that if I did in fact hold a toasty torpedo like that, that it would most certainly fall apart. Mine lasted for about a bite and a half before it fell apart.

In Googling, I found multiple odd references to this ad campaign. Does Quiznos make any official statements to counter these goofy bloggers? I found one guy that thinks it looks like a cigarette ad. One guy seems to have a Freudian problem and these people seem to think that one commercial purposely compares your torpedos to a cup of human excrement. Okay, I have to give them that one. I mean… you did hear of 2 Girls, 1 Cup right? I’d find it and link to it, but some may find that offensive/distasteful and I’m sure you know how to use search engines. These people even seem to come to the same conclusion as I have toward the end of their blog… as well as a commenter on this blog.

I understand that all advertising is not one hundred percent factual, and that things tend to be exaggerated, but I really find this image rather misleading. While I understand that I’m not going to walk into a Quiznos any time soon and find a HAL 9000’s creepy sexually suggestive oven cousin, two gorgeous scantily clad women eating a sub rather suggestively, two naked rednecks in a tub of water over a campfire, a baby with the voice of a grown man, anyone suckling on any wolf teats, or even genetic mutations with Latino accents and tiny guitars floating in the air singing praise of your sandwiches… I feel that you owe some level of honesty to the customer.

While the other ads are easily discernible as attention grabbing goofiness, this one seems rather straight forward at first — yet dishonest upon further inspection.

I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter as well as the thoughts of any other marketing people or regional managers in the Quiznos family.

If I didn’t feel that I was already taking up too much of your time, I wouldn’t mind getting into a discussion on the violent phallic imagery that the shape and name of these subs not-so-subliminally suggest. I mean, really? Torpedo? Bullet? How many feminists have already written to discuss this? I feel that this topic is a less pressing issue though, to be saved for another day.

Torpedoes away!
-Eric

If you feel the need for a background to any of this, this is where it all started, and how it played out:

• Five. Five dollar. Five dollar… foot up your ass.
• Subway Customer ID: 1918316
• Quiznos writes back before Subway!
• So, we have a response from Subway!

That’s my initial message, Subway’s official non-response response, me sending it to Quiznos for comment and getting one, and finally a response from Subway telling me that someone else will respond… which as of yet, has not happened.

…All of which leads us to this posting.

A Texas couple has filed a federal class action against AARP in the District of Columbia, alleging the group used misleading marketing to sell its health insurance policies.

The suit, filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, claims that James and Allison Halpern purchased an AARP Medical Advantage Plan in March 2008, after receiving an advertising packet touting it as a “primary insurance plan.” The couple dropped their old health insurance policy. But after Allison Halpern was diagnosed with breast cancer, they learned their new plan only provided limited coverage, and would not pay for the cost of a crucial surgery.

According to the complaint, AARP’s advertising materials did not indicate that the health plan only provided limited coverage. AARP suspended sales of the policies earlier this year when Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) opened a congressional investigation into their marketing.

“AARP has preyed upon Plaintiffs and thousands of Americans over age 50 by luring unsuspecting consumers in need of affordable health care to enroll in AARP’s health insurance program,” the complaint states.

The suit accuses the company of violating the D.C. Consumer Protections Procedure Act. It argues the D.C. court has jurisdiction because AARP is located in the District.

An AARP spokesman declined to comment.

A lawyer for the Halperin’s, Jerome Noll, of counsel with White Plains, New York-based Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz, said he knew of one other class action filed against AARP. That suit, also filed in D.C., targets United Healthcare as well, which partnered with AARP to sell the policies. A legal team from Venable including partner William Coston represents AARP in that case.

“We believe there’s a stronger case against AARP,” Noll said. “We allege that AARP’s marketing was deceptive and therefore in violation of the D.C. consumer protection act. [The Halperns] did not receive marketing materials from United Healthcare.”

Posted by Jordan Weissmann on November 10, 2009 at 04:53 PM in D.C. Courts and Government |
(culled from http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/11/couple-sues-aarp-over-health-plan-marketing-.html)

Wind farm developers in Shetland are told to scrap an advert with misleading financial and environmental statements…. From BBC News. Full story

This site may contain information about: farm. The blog is also related to: farm.

Wind farm developers in Shetland are told to scrap an advert with misleading financial and environmental statements…. From BBC News. Full story

This site may contain information about: recession business. The blog is also related to: recession length.

My Commentary:

I have just became aware and have to look into a lawsuit against, I believe Anne Schuchat, for using Obama’s National Health Emergency in attempting to or ACTUALLY green lighting vaccines with the adjuvant SQUALENE-based AS03 to be used here in the U.S. AS03 is FORBIDDEN to be used on U.S. citizens. For good reasons.

Also, the media vaccine myths, as in the case of the New York Times handout, has completely BLOWN UP in their faces, because they didn’t anticipate SO MANY PEOPLE would actually read the vaccine inserts that clearly state the dangers. Quite frankly, MANY doctors don’t even read the vaccine inserts!

The Reversal of Reality: Publicizing H1N1 Vaccine Facts as Myths and Myths as Facts.

Source
Prevent Disease.com

How deflating it must be, for conventional medicine and public health officials to feel the noose tightening around their unscientific balloon of unfounded vaccine principles. Dovetailing media reports which attempt to counter H1N1 vaccine opposition are exploding across the mainstream media in a frantic effort to stabilize criticism.

In the past few months, it has been difficult to come across any H1N1 vaccine “facts list” or FAQs that does not attempt to dispel supposed myths and conspiracy theories about the vaccine. Ironically, the majority of myths and theories they attempt to dispel are usually facts and scientific truths which public health officials refuse to acknowledge. In addition, they ensure that their version of “facts” are filled with blatant lies and disinformation.

For example, after a quick review of flu.gov myths, we find they don’t waste any time in stating facts as myths and vice-versa. “It is safe for children and pregnant women to receive a flu vaccine that contains thimerosal,” they claim. Thimerosal has damaging effects on cells of the nervous and immune systems.

The flu.gov website also states that “there is no convincing evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site.” Micromolar and even nanomolar concentrations have been found to cause significant damage. Is a nanomolar dose low enough for flu.gov?
Perhaps all 76 of these studies which document the adverse effects of thimerosal would also be myths according to government officials. Notice flu.gov provides no links to any scientific evidence to justify their claims.

In a interview below on “The Doctors” show, Assistant Surgeon General, Anne Schuchat’s fails to properly address the reality of H1N1 vaccinations and instead focuses on supposed “myths”.

Other media outlets such as the Toronto Star are trying to parrot the same articles over and over again. A recent post on “Vaccine Phobias” was spotted one day after the other on Oct 30th and Oct 31st, both by the same reporter, Lynda Hurst. The article even attempts to discredit one blogger “whose normal subject matter is UFOs” she stated.

Other facts they attempt to smear are the evidence that establishes that toxicity of mercury, formaldehyde and aluminum, and dismissing the reality of vaccines being responsible for an abundance of diseases such as asthma, autism, allergies and auto-immune disorders.

The head of Canada’s Public Health Agency also had the audacity to state in the article that “people make up facts” and “I guess what frustrates me is the amount of mythology out there,” in another article about vaccine myths.

Medconnect recently posted an article titled Health Professionals Not Immune to Influenza Vaccine Myths, quoting a survey that suggests “Health care workers in the United States harbor significant fears and misconceptions about influenza vaccination.” which again twists facts as myths to misrepresent the truth.

The New York Times is doing its part to join the myth debunking bandwagon by actually promoting lesson plans with actual handouts which allow the student to distort nine of the most common facts based on the instructions they receive.

The Auzzie portal theage.com.au posted a flurry of myths in an article titled “Swine flu vaccine myths ‘busted’ by experts”. Among other reversals of fact and myth, the irresponsible report states that Guillian-Barre Syndrome “was a one-off”. This directly contradicts dozens of reputable experts such as Dr. Russell Blaylock who has indicated that the neurotoxins and immunotoxins in the H1N1 vaccine will create thousands of new cases of Guillian-Barre Syndrome.

Dr. Russell Blaylock discusses the real myths on his website russellblaylockmd.com in a section which entails “Swine Flu Data” where he provides scientific references and evidence to support his claims.

Dr. Leonard Horowitz has recently released a report which outlines how Obama’s recent national emergency declaration is advancing media hype, deadly vaccinations and depopulations agendas. In addition he released a youtube video which outlines the key components of the report and details why government establishments are creating artificial scarcity myths via “shortage marketing” techniques to promote their agenda.

There are literally hundreds of mainline reports on a weekly basis which are reversing the reality of facts and myths on the pandemic. So called H1N1 vaccine experts and advocates are losing their credibility at lightning speed and they know it. They must resort to such tactics to maintain their weakening grip on the strengthening minds of the public who are awakening to the reality of vaccines. They are being defeated by real science and information that only exposes one thing….the truth!

A full list of h1n1 vaccine ingredients, alerts and warnings.

Howard Stern Talks about Michael Jackson’s Movie Album! Hi-Registered Sean Calls in and WTF is a Zygote? November 3, 2009 Get it at http://howardstern.com.

Spiritual leader says Beijing is fooling world into thinking situation between Tibetan people and Chinese had improved… From VOA. Full story

This site may contain information about: china tourism. The blog is also related to: schools in china.

I started to watch a really good movie yesterday called “Ghost Town.” It was basically a comedic version of “The 6th Sense” done with the sense of humor of “The Office.” It actually made me chuckle out loud a few times, and if a movie can make me even chuckle out loud that means it’s abso-fucking-lutely hilarious by human standards.

Unfortunately, 30 minutes into the flick it devolved into yet another cliche love story. So I turned it off.

I’m not opposed to love, but for years it’s been driving me mad how obsessed humanity is with love. But before I explain why let me try to clarify what I mean when I use the term, “love.” Greeks have one word to describe the love one feels for all mankind and another word for the love you feel for a single individual. I’m not talking about the philosophically motivated love that causes one to cherish and do good to all mankind/life forms. I’m talking about the romantic type of love that leads to fucking.

Turn on your radio, television or computer. There’s a good chance the first thing you’re going to see or hear about when you do is love. It’d be interesting to find out exactly how much of America’s music, movies, sitcoms, commercials, self-help books, and any other form of self-expression deal with the topic of love. Because it seems to me like it’s easily over 50%. Speculatively, I might put that figure as high as 80%.

WHAT’S THE BIG FUCKING DEAL? I don’t usually use the caps lock key, but this shit is everywhere! You cannot escape it! It’s driving me bat shit crazy! What’s the deal with love?

Popular sentiment would have you believe that love is magical. Love is mystical. Love is divine. Love is the meaning of life. Well, shit. If that’s true then that simplifies things quite a bit, doesn’t it? The only thing I have to worry about is finding my one true love and living happily ever after. But let’s stop, take a step back, breathe deeply a few times and reexamine this fundamental assumption of “modern” culture a little more objectively before we go off devoting our lives to love.

If love we’re such a divine and special phenomenon then why does every other animal in the animal kingdom feel love? Don’t assume they don’t. You can see it with a mother cat or dog who just delivered a litter. I see it with my cats when they lick each other’s faces. You see it in primates cuddling, in birds building a nest, in fish snuggling, etc. Every animal does it. So love is a universal thing. On one hand this suggest that love is a universally magical thing. On the other hand, all animals feel fear, panic, excitement, sorrow, regret, shame, anger, lust, greed, hunger, etc. Every animal also shits and pisses.

When we look at all those other base instincts do we get gushy about them and talk about how magical they are? No. We chalk them up for what they are: base evolutionary animal instincts. So why do we make special reservations for love? Because it’s the strongest base evolutionary instinct. It correlates into fucking and caring for our mate/offspring. Our species’ survival depends on it. The only reason we put love on a pedestal is because we refuse to accept the simple, obvious fact that we’re animals and love is a base animal instinct.

Quit bullshitting yourself and look at the simple, obvious facts. The desire for love is the same as the desire for taking a shit. Granted, neither are unimportant; they’re both vital for life, but if you based half your life around shitting and more than half of your culture’s art was dedicated to celebrating shitting where would that get you? How smart would that make you? How proud of yourself should you be?

And most importantly, ask yourself if there’s anything more important you could be devoting your life to than loving/fucking/shitting? That’s not to say you shouldn’t fuck. I think celibate priests are some of the most delusional, stupid ass holes on the planet. But 7 minutes later (when you’re done fucking the person you love) could there possibly be something else that deserves your attention?

…or is reproduction the meaning of life?

No. That’s a circular argument.

I understand why God designed us to feel the overwhelming need to “fall in love” and fuck. It’s necessary to propogate the species so we can evolve into the beings we were meant to become. But looking back on it, it was also pretty cruel and has caused countless beings to waste their short, precious lives chasing after bullshit. But then again, I suppose it was necessary, and the fact that most of our culture is devoted to love and fucking just goes to prove it. We’re still just belly-crawling, base-instinct following animals. Maybe in a few thousand more years we’ll evolve into a creature capable of propagating the species while also living according to a higher calling.

Obama and Jeff Immelt

The Cry Baby-in-chief is whining that opponents of “his” energy bill are disputing the evidence of global warming in a cynical ploy to undermine efforts to curb pollution and steer the nation to greener energy sources, according to the Associated Press.

Obama continues to push “his” energy bill [notice how they do not use the term Cap & Trade anymore] even after the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Lisa Jackson, admitted it would fail during a hearing being held by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Points like this mean almost nothing to Obama or his administration. Facts seem to be ignored when it involves Obama’s agenda.

How about the United Nations report that states the Earths temperature is likely to jump 6 degrees between now and the end of the century even if every country cuts greenhouse gas emissions as proposed? Now, we all know that President Obama loves the United Nations so you would think he would listen. Of course he refuses because this information goes against his agenda.

President Obama is claiming that the nation’s economic future is tied to a greener enviroment. What Obama wants is to award those that helped him get elected. One particular corporation that will be rewarded by Obama’s cap-and-trade bill is General Electric. The Obama and General Electic ties are ones that real journalist should investigate more.

GE’s Chief Executive Officer, Jeff Immelt, is on Obama’s Board of Economic Advisers. General Electric is the parent company of MSNBC and NBC, both of which have been a mouthpiece for President Obama and his policies. General Electric will benefit from Obama’s health care scam and his cap-and-trade scam.

In President Obama’s budget, you will find a little term “climate revenues.” On page 115 of Obama’s fiscal 2010 budget is Table S-2, titled “Effect of Budget Proposals on Projected Deficits.” The chart forecasts the costs of Obama’s spending proposals and the added revenue of his proposed tax increases. It also forecasts, beginning in 2012, billions of dollars a year in “climate revenues.” This budget line, which has struck fear into some lawmakers from coal-dependent states, could spell salvation for GE in these times of uncertainty.

How can Obama generate “climate revenues”? By forcing companies to pay for the rights to emit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Cap and trade is an absolute scam and it does nothing to decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

A tax on greenhouse gas emissions could carry out this “climate revenues. In short, cap-and-trade requires businesses to spend “credits” to pay for their emissions. Businesses can buy or sell these credits, and the market — not the government — would directly set the price of a credit. Government would initially auction them off, generating revenue.

It’s all a scam on so many levels. Obama has admitted that “his” cap-and-trade scam would cause electricity rates to “skyrocket.” The taxpayers will be hit from all directions. Corporation will have to retrofit their equipment to comply with the new regulations from cap-and-trade. Who will these companies pass it on to? You the taxpayer.

People should have “cynical claims” when it comes to anything Obama is trying to sell. We were cynical with the stimulus bill which has been an absolute failure and had a price tag of $787 billion that the taxpayers will have to cover.

People should have “cynical claims” when it comes to Obama’s health care plan. The figures for this scam ranges anywhere from $871 billion to $2 trillion, as Harry Reid proclaimed. Another bill that the taxpayer will have to cover, despite Obama’s lies about it being deficit neutral.

People have “cynical claims” about cap-and-trade because of the words from Obama’s mouth. Global warming is a myth and Obama and his eco-terrorist are just out to make a profit. General Electric is in lock-step with Obama on this scam because they will profit if the cap-and-trade scam is passed.

We  pre=”We “>should be cynical Mr. President. You have been caught in so many outright lies and continue misleading the entire country on every single policy you have promoted. You lied about the stimulus. You lied about health care and now you are lying about the energy bill.

Oh. Almost forgot that Obama was pimping “his” cap-and-trade energy bill while raising campaign money for fellow Democrats. It’s all about rewarding those that helped Obama become president. Its all about profit.

Maybe if people like Obama and Al Gore would shut up, the Earth’s temperature would drop a few degrees.

Over the years there has been a  constant battle between storage engineers and  hard drive companies on whether or not advertised hard drive sizes  are misleading to consumers.  The advertised numbers are in fact misleading because they do not state the actual usable size of the hard drive being sold.  In order to find the corrected size of a hard drive you must account for the actual allocation size used by the hard drive manufacturer.

When a 300GB hard drive is sold the manufacturer is stating that the hard drive has a capacity which meets the following equation:

300GB = 300,000,000,000 bytes

With a 300GB hard drive the manufacturer would like you to think the above equation is true.  It in fact is not.  The reason why this value is false is because 1,000 bytes should be represented as 1,024 bytes.  So in order to find the true size of a  300GB hard drive you  must divide by 1024 three times to calculate its true size in Gigabytes.

300,000,000,000 bytes ÷ 1024 = 292,968,750 Kilobytes

292,968,750 kilobytes ÷ 1024 = 286,102.3 Megbytes

286,102.3 Megbytes ÷ 1024 = 279.3968 Gigabytes

The corrected size of an advertised 300GB drive is actually 279GB and change.

If hard drive manufacturers gave you the advertised capacity of 300GB the drive would have to be 322,122,547,200 Bytes in size. This can be calculated by multiplying 300GB x 1024 three times to find the required bytes.

OpusDei (rev.10/21/09)

Click above for .pdf download for easier reading.

Permissum Meus Fides Exsisto a Opus Dei

Make no mistake about it, your works do matter to your salvation. Read the ‘red letters’ in your Bible. The works required of us are neither difficult, nor for public glory, nor for any other purpose than the fulfillment of your Divine Destiny as someone asking for the Eternal Grace of God. Empty faith alone will not suffice to meet the needs of your purpose in life. Faith, however, is the only thing that will sanctify your works as being His, and Grace alone will suffice to overcome your inadequacies as a flawed human. The Ultimate Price was paid so that this Grace might be extended to all of us.

Those who teach others to be complacent in the accomplishment of these necessary works, or requiring others to do the work required of us alone, will not do well in the kingdom of heaven. There are many mainline evangelical churches teaching that the only thing that matters to one’s salvation is that one do an altar-call and simply believe. The whole of the synoptic Gospels simply cannot be read this way. While it is true that several areas point out to the necessity of faith, the overall picture paints an image of responsibility to do or avoid certain human acts. I directly challenge any reader of this article – Prove to me otherwise by the Words of Christ Himself.

Indeed, many Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants, Catholics and other Christian denominational faiths begin just about any theological debate with a view toward determining whether the opposition truly believes in salvation by grace alone, salvation by works, or some hybrid theory. As with all theological debates about what it means to be a “Christian,” it seems that we all ought to take a look at the actual Words of Christ as a starting point. This particular piece focuses on the ‘red letters’ as found in the Book of Matthew. I cannot help but find that faith alone, without daily living proof of that faith (i.e., acts of and through Faith), will not suffice. Contrary to the position of a good number of mainline preachers, this is simply not “working your way to salvation.” Demonstrating and affirming one’s faith on a daily basis is the Opus Dei. Simply resting on one’s laurels is not what was preached by Christ, the very center of what it means to be Christian. If He thought that we didn’t need to do anything other than believe in him, why would he have spent so much time talking about what he wanted us to do on a daily basis? Is it not true that even Satan believes in the power of Christ and the salvation story? Why would Evil be so afraid of the Message unless there was an acknowledgment of the power of Christ?

I believe this article is timely given the 2009 death of the Kansas late-term abortionist, George Tiller. Many of us pro-lifers, whether we want to admit it or not, felt a refreshing sense of relief that he is no longer able to tear apart babies who would have otherwise survived outside of the womb, but for his act of dismembering them or vacuuming out their brains. By his own account, he may have taken as may as 60,000 infants’ lives.

Of course, for the Christian, the question becomes, “What if Dr. Tiller gave his life over to Christ in the last 30 seconds of life?” Moreover, there exists a serious theological question as to whether the murderer of Tiller blasphemed the Holy Spirit by taking the life of Tiller in a church. If Tiller’s potential plea for last-minute salvation failed, he went straight to Hell. Even if Tiller’s shooter, Scott Roeder, was a holy person till that moment, if blasphemy unto the Holy Spirit occurred, he’s done as well. The ‘red letters’ actually don’t leave much room for debate on these points. Obviously, if one thinks that the Words are just a form of philosophy, good advice, or just simply one view among many, there is no sense in even attempting to understand the clear choices put before us. The Good News is that we don’t need to personally worry about Tiller’s and Roeder’s issues since we have plenty to do ourselves to act upon our own Faith.

With these points in mind, a step-by-step analysis of Matthew reveals some interesting answers about whether we are required to engage in certain works before we may avoid the fires of Hell. Again, this is not a matter of “working for salvation,” but it is a matter of living up to our end of the New Covenant insomuch as we claim to believe and have faith. What exactly does it mean to “believe” or have “faith”? It certainly can’t be the existence of an idle faith. For me, the question is readily answered by even a cursory review of Jesus’ words. The Great Story of the Book of St. Matthew is set forth as follows.

First of all, we are told that we cannot live by material means alone. It is written that we must live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4, KJV). In this same vein, it also naturally follows that we should not participate in the temptation of God with the help of the Enemy (4:7). These commands are then concluded with the thought that we are to commit ourselves unto God through our service and worship to Him alone. (4:10). Oddly, the Scripture does not say that we are to make this commitment only by worship or belief alone. This can only be reasonably construed to mean that my faith is not sufficient for salvation, but that faith with works is. Our faith, however small, can grow into the greatest of works (even so much as moving a mountain) and we will need the Grace of God to be fully sanctified. (17:20; 19:23-24, 26; 21:21-22).

After Matthew recounts the time Christ spent in the desert with Satan, we are given a not so subtle description of why all of this matter. It is summed up by saying “Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. [...] Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” (4:17, 19).

Well, what could “follow me” possibly mean? Using the words literally, as I expect most conservatives would want me to, one can only get the conclusion that “follow me” requires acts coupled with faith.

Moreover, what does it mean to “repent”? Fundamentally, it means you must do something. It can only mean that you carry out your life as though you were in acknowledgment of your sins. We all know that true repentance can only be shown by how we live our lives. The “why” of how we live our lives is not something we can ever answer sufficiently. When life is over, we will only find out why we lived our lives the way we did. We will then know what our Divine Purpose was. As we are later told in the Gospels, there will be plenty of folks knocking on the door, claiming His Name, and the door is simply not going to be answered. I think we are supposed to live by and through His Name and not merely stake a claim to it.

Nevertheless, Matthew leads us to the first big sermon in Chapters 5 through 7. Interestingly enough, these Chapters are not a big sermon on altar calls and faith standing alone. Moreover, it certainly is not a call to idle faith. The Words focus almost exclusively on the omissions and commissions to/of acts which lead to our place in Heaven, or, where in disregard of His Word, we end up with weeping, gnashing of teeth, or the fires of Hell. It is also interesting that these words are being directed at people who obviously came to listen to Jesus, already believed in what he was doing, and he had to have already known that he was going to Calvary. If he knew that he was going to Calvary to wash the entire slate for anyone who believed in him, he certainly spent a whole lot of arguably unnecessary time talking about what needed to be done by the believers and what they needed to avoid. If the words were only suggestions, I sincerely doubt that he would have followed up commands or prohibitions with words stating that either Heaven or Hell would follow, not purely by the decision to believe in Him, but by how these things were done.

This said, the followers were told that the “blessed” are those who are poor in spirit, meek, who mourn, who hunger and thirst after righteousness, who are pure in heart, who are merciful, who are peacemakers, who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, and when one is reviled for His sake. (5:3-11). The result of which is made very clear. It is said , “Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad: for great is your reward in heaven [...]” (5:12). What could this possibly mean? If I do the things commanded, I will find great reward in Heaven. Each and every single one of the things mentioned requires that I do something. There is no way to be any of these things without a work of the conscience, often coupled with an overt act toward another human being. What makes a “saint” is not whether the person simply believed – it is founded in how he/she lived her life as a Christian.

By way of our contemporary reference point, there are cogent arguments to be made that neither Tiller, nor his killer, demonstrated any of these characteristics as they completed their final works in life. Whether or not their lives were an Opus Dei is not for us to decide per se. We can only use their examples as a way to define or redefine our own daily existence.

After giving a description of those who will be blessed and given comfort, Christ goes on to tell the multitudes that they need to be a “light of the world” and that we are to “[l]et your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works. [emphasis added].” (5:16). Now, obviously, given His prior words, our works cannot be done or committed in such a way that we are prideful, vain, or arrogant. Our works need to flow forth from a heartfelt desire to allow our lives to become the ultimate act of service unto our Maker and those that he created to live with and amongst us. If one sits idly in a silent faith, one certainly cannot be a light unto the world!

Well, maybe you still have John 3:16 in mind (i.e., the penultimate “altar call” verse cited so often by contemporary Christians), and just don’t think that following the commands set forth in Chapter 5 are mandatory for entrance to heaven. I must ask you then, why does Matthew 5:19 go onto say that the failure to abide in “these” commandments will result in being called “the least in the kingdom of heaven”?

Maybe that’s not enough for you. It goes on to say, “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. [emphasis added]. ” (5:20). I’m not the brightest guy in the world, but this does certainly seem unequivocal. Moreover, the “righteousness” being referred to follows directly from the beatitudes given to the crowd as instructions on what it means to follow Him. Nary a word is said about simply doing an altar-call and being relieved of further duty to actually do works that one is capable of within one’s own calling in life or given environment.

Now, how these acts are carried out by each of us can only depend on where we are in life. For example, a lawyer may be able to share his/her light in the courthouses. An invalid may only be able to share his/her light in a convalescent home. A mother may only be in a position to share her light with her husband and family. A mentally disabled person may share the light through something as simple as a smile. I don’t think that He said that our works must occur in any certain place. These works just must simply occur with the precedence of a pure, humble and willing heart. Again, the failure to abide by the commandments to fulfill his Law and Word, results in being called the least in heaven. The good news, at this early juncture in Matthew, is that one can conceivably still end up in heaven. However, as will be seen later in the Book, there are several things one can do to make sure that you have no chance at the proverbial entrance ticket.

After given the admonition that the failure to abide in specific commandments will lead us to becoming the least in heaven, Jesus goes on to give some specific instructions about what will actually get us near or into the fires of Hell. (5:22). The first one of these instructions being that simply calling a brother a fool is good enough to put us “in danger of hell fire.” This is followed by the command that we not come before God to place our gifts before His altar until and unless we have forgiven others of whatever perceived transgressions they may have committed against us. To the extent that we are called to lay our entire lives before the altar as a testimony unto Him and our fellow man, it does not seem to matter if we have not forgiven others. I think it is all too easy to say that one has done an altar-call, placed their lives at the altar, but yet completely forget to forgive others in that process. All too many of us do the altar-call, but don’t engage in the conscious act/work of forgiveness.

All too many of us forget that forgiveness is an act or work. Any “act” or “work” by a human requires that we direct our conscious will toward a given outcome and take the steps necessary to fulfill the intended outcome. Forgiving is not an idle act or just a belief. If I want to forgive someone, then I must first will it so and then commit myself to the act of completing the forgiveness by consciously letting go any desire to seek revenge, to carry the baggage of the other’s sin, or to otherwise ‘hold it against the person’ until they have somehow repented in my view. In fact, if there is any one consistent theme in the New Testament, it is that we are to engage in the work of forgiving others and in the work of accepting His Grace so that our works might be sanctified and our negligent omissions overlooked. (22:37-40). By the way, it is so often said that “it isn’t easy to forgive.” Actually, it is supposed to be easier than anything Christ did. (9:3-6).

Along these same lines, with regard to what it means to commit an “act,” Christ further admonishes His listeners to make sure that they not only avoid murder, adultery and other offenses, but that we avoid even the very intentional thoughts of these things. With respect to those thoughts that occur to us without apparent reason, we are instructed to remove them immediately and take an immediate view toward the end goal. In fact, we are specifically warned that if we do not commit the act of removing sinful thoughts and doings from our existence, that the whole “body should be cast into hell.” (5:27-32).

As though we didn’t have enough to do after actually listening to His words in Chapter 5: 3-32, Christ goes on to speak about what our words shall be unto others. We are told that we are to keep our words simple and that we are not to swear by anyone, anything, or even by our own veracity. (5:33-37).

Now as for Tiller’s murderer, Verses 38-44 are particularly compelling. This is where we are specifically told that the “eye for an eye” system of morality is done. We are now to “turn the other cheek.” In fact, we are even told to “love your enemies.” We are “bless them that curse you.” We are to “do good to them that hate you.” We are to “pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” (5:39-47). In fact Verse 46 clearly suggests that there may be no “reward” for the failure to do these things that are commanded. Where in Verses 38-44 does it say anything to the effect that we are just to have faith and that we not fully commit to doing these things as Christians? Is prayer something other than an act of faith (i.e., a work)?

Chapter 5 ends by saying, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. [emphasis added].” (5:48). How would one be “perfect” unless one acted in a way which presented itself as a standard by which God will judge whether or not we have achieved what his Son commands? Obviously, what we do matters just as much as what we claim we believe. The strength or existence of any belief in Christ can only be ascertained by our conduct since it is the conduct that defines the concept of what it means to have “faith.” If one is not doing the acts which suggest the existence of actual faith, one cannot claim to have the faith.

Naturally, one would expect that this is all fine and dandy in theory. However, one is left to wonder about how it is that one is supposed to commit all of these acts unto our Maker, without violating the requirement that we not do them for our own glory, but unto the Glory of our Maker alone. This is answered in Chapter 6. We are told not to do our alms before Man, we are not to pray openly only for the purpose of being seen by others, we are not to make a big show out of our faith and sacrifices, and we are not to engage in vain repetition of prayers. (6:1-8, 16-17). None of this suggests that we cannot rejoice with each other in our salvation, our reasons for acting the way we do, or in the consolation that we have a good reason for doing good unto others. We can be a light unto the world without being blinding to others.

We are commanded, however, to pray in a way in a way that is in acknowledgment of the power of God, which respect His will for all of us (here and in heaven), that we receive the basic provisions of life, that we be forgiven as we forgive others, that we be given the help to avoid the sinful thoughts and actions that come, and that all glory be properly placed with Him and not us. (6:9-14). This is immediately followed up with the statement that, “But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” (6:15). Again, this sounds very unequivocal to me. If you don’t do this (i.e., forgive others), you will not be saved of your sins. How many Christians believe in Christ or the Story of Salvation, but do not forgive others? Do they deny the Truth of His words on forgiveness and the exchange of our forgiveness of others for our own forgiveness from the Father?

It is not enough that you simply have faith that so long as you believe in forgiveness, you will be forgiven. You must actually do it in order to receive your reward !!! As we engage in a life of forgiveness and service, we earn our due treasures. (12:35-37). Our eyes must constantly be focused on this purpose and be focused in such a way as to where others have no doubt as to what we are looking at. (6:20-23). Along these same lines, you probably should not spend to much time thinking about what those who are already acting a in a Christian way are doing. (9:13). Our Master will see to it that the requisite number of workers are put into the field of life without us doing anything other than what is required of us whilst we act through and by a Christian heart and soul. (9:37-38). If you attempt to have an influence on someone through your humble service, or words of preaching, and they want no part of it, don’t worry about it. (10:5-15). It is expected that you will be persecuted for doing what is right and you better be prepared to face your prosecutors with a glad and humble heart !!! (10:16-28).

While we are busy doing all of the things required of us, so that we might avoid the fires of hell, we are also commanded not to worry. (10:25-31). Well, how am I not going to worry? Obviously, we must, again, take a conscious direction toward ignoring worry, and act in a way that testifies to our full faith in Him alone. That is, we must actively pursue the conscious act of destroying all worry. This is no easy task. We must trust that He will take care of all of our needs and that he will pave the way for His glorification and that He will take of evil on His own. (6:24-34; 10:32-33).

Our ultimate trust in Him is, and must be, founded upon our spiritual and mental acts of conscience, purpose, and servitude. How easily we forget that we have control over our attitudes, philosophies, theology, and mindset. Freewill is not a matter of controlling external circumstances, which we cannot. Freewill is premised only in the notion that we can only change our attitude toward our circumstances, and, generally speaking, our circumstances will naturally change as our spiritual attitude does. (6:33-34).

Well, now the difficult part comes. Chapter 7 speaks to us on the topics of judgment of others, judgment of ourselves, hypocrisy, evilness, false prophecy, corruption, and the intent of our works. (7:1-23). In no way is it suggested that our works alone will save us. (7:16-23). Our works must be, as stated before, with a view toward glorification unto our Maker. They must be committed with a view toward spiritual, mental, and physical servitude unto something higher than ourselves. The works we commit may be good unto themselves and, in fact, may be very pleasing or admirable to others. However, this is completely irrelevant to the Christian. The Christian can have but one purpose in fulfilling his or her Divine Destiny. We must know why we do what we do before it can be given any credit worthy of Him. (7:22-23). Commit yourself to the act of building your house on a rock !!! (7:24-27).

It should also be noted that so many of us think in linear terms. We often think that our purpose is to serve God, family, friends, and business (in respective order). This is simply not true. You cannot put your family before your faith. That’s a serious work. (10:37).

We’ve got a lot of hard, but gladful, work before us. (10:34-42). “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” Where is the “rest” coming from then? Does salvation remove the yoke from our necks? Easing the burden of life comes from the peace of acting through and in Him. Nowhere is it suggested that our works don’t matter or aren’t necessary. They will be made easy by our faith in Him, through Him and with Him. What makes life burdensome is when we falsely define what work is required and how it ought to be performed. It really isn’t that hard to feed the poor, to be merciful, to forgive, to make peace, or to preach the truth, when all is done from a humble heart directed at a Divine Purpose. Our purpose ought to emanate a natural and warm light unto the world. Our lives cannot be defined by our material possessions, even if we worked hard to get them. (19:29).

So aside from acting or failing to act, what can get us in real spiritual trouble? The answers are given in a fairly straightforward manner. Even a “believer” can get himself or herself to Hell. Remember, even Satan believes in the power of God – that’s why he fears God so much. It is said, “Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And, whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. [bold emphasis added].” (12:25-37). This is, again, an unequivocal statement that there are acts of speech which will be completely unforgiven, regardless of Calvary nor the reasons for Calvary. Not only do your physical acts need to be conducted in conformity with your faith, your speech must also be as well. These are matters of works/acts, and not simply matters of perceived “faith.” (12:35-37).

At this point, it is also probably worth noting that the common denominator amongst all of the parables in Matthew is that they all involve forms of hard work (i.e., building, sowing seeds, buying and selling, toiling in a field, repayment of debts, working the vineyard, preparing for a wedding, grinding at the mill, serving the man of the house, spending our money/goods wisely). Moreover, the parables seem to end with the result that someone is rewarded for doing the right thing, or, in the alternative, ends up burning, weeping, gnashing their teeth, and/or being cast out into the darkness. (13:3-9, 18-23, 25-43, 44-50; 18:23-35; 20:1-16; 21:27-40; 22:2-14; 24:40-41; 24:43-51; 25:1-30).

In Matthew 15 we are again reminded that it is our words that can defile us. (15:8-11, 18-20). The problem with words is that they are most often outright intentional or certainly a byproduct of the will of the heart. When we engage in unholy speech-acts, we defile ourselves, regardless of whatever we may somehow believe. It is not the beliefs that we hold which most see or hear, it is the words and actions that accompany our day-to-day interactions with others. Our words are works of Faith.

Following the above sayings, instructions, and admonitions, Jesus then, after being asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”, responds with a rather lengthy discourse in Chapter 18 on what it means to be a believer. (18:1-2). The analysis is deep and again speaks to the conduct which will separate the sheep from the goats. (18:3-35). Indeed, we are reminded that our faith should be as that of a child – innocent, pure, and unaffected. Again, we are also given a dire description of what happens to those who mislead his “little ones.”

In fact, misleading a child results in the notion that one would be better off being drowned in the sea than to have interfered with the faith of a child. (18:3-7). Well, how does one mislead a child? Obviously, one can only mislead another through setting a bad example through conduct or speech or by directly doing wrong unto the “little one” (i.e., through our works). It is even stated that his “little ones” have direct representatives before the “face of my Father.” (18:10). For me, anyway, there is plenty to think about with respect to our contemporary culture of consistently misleading children by direct interference with their innocence and pure faith. Are not many children being misled from the Truth by parents who proclaim the Truth of Christ? Indeed, many church organizations are ostensibly dedicated to destroying the faith of children and supplanting it with secular values or no values at all.

With respect to disputes between Christians, Matthew 18:15-17 gives us a form of conduct by which they are to be resolved. We are to work it out amongst ourselves. If that does not work, then we are to work it out as a private situation within the Church. In the event this does not work, we are simply to separate ourselves from the problem. Each one of these steps takes work and has very little to do with inactive faith. In fact, with respect to forgiveness, we are immediately told that our forgiveness must not be once, or seven times, but seventy times seven. (18:21-23). That’s some serious work for anyone.

As to the conduct of our sexual lives, the call to certain conduct continues again in Matthew 19, where we are reminded that man and woman are made for each other and it was so from the beginning. We are reminded that we have the responsibility to cleave to our wives and to become one with them. The Scripture, in this area, is very clear and unequivocal. A direct command not to interfere with the relationship is also made and divorce is viewed as a form of direct judgment. Remarrying is adultery, save the cause of fornication by the wife. The new husband of the cheater is, by his conduct, deemed an adulterer as well in this instance. How does he become an adulterer, you ask? — By his works. (19:4-9).

Interestingly, it is accepted by Jesus that not all will marry and, since being in the womb, were not meant to be married. (19:12). To some extent, Christ was aware of the arguments that might be made against those who don’t marry (i.e., accusations, gossip, questions as to their sexuality). He did not condemn these people, but reminded us of the purpose given to them by Him and not us. (Id.).

Next, comes the Greatest Commandments, which are:

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. [emphasis added].” (22:37-40).

This is the summa theologica. Who amongst us thinks that love is simply a matter of faith? I don’t know about any of you, but I know that love requires hard work, intentional and humble sacrifice of self, and an undying need to acknowledge that we cannot control the object of our love nor the source of the Greatest Love. While my faith has helped me love when I thought I had none left, I have always had to meet God halfway with my private dedication, servitude, and willingness to will my mind, soul and body to do the right things to strengthen my love of others and even of self.

After setting forth the Great Commandments, Christ then goes on to point out that we should not merely expect others to do the works required of us. Rather, we must do honor to the value of works of servitude by serving others ourselves. Moreover, we are again our works cannot be for show or for the purpose of building more impressive churches. (23:2-39). As though one could be surprised, we again find a very negative result for those who do not pay heed to these admonishments. Indeed, should we abide in our institutionalized and personal religious hypocrisy, our house shall be left unto us “desolate.” (23:38).

Even in the face of persecution, deliverance of our bodies for earthly punishment, hatred, deception, and iniquity, we “shall endure unto the end.” (24:4-13). Well, what does “endure” mean? It can only mean that, along with faith, we do what is required to get to the end of what life means for us in even a hostile culture. We are to act toward the end of being a faithful “servant.” (24:43-51).

After reminding us of the end game, the pragmatic lessons of Matthew essentially wraps up with the following summation:

And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. (25:31-46).

And so it is that the Great Story told in Matthew ends with a clear how-to guide as to what acts will show our faith and those omissions which place ourselves in jeopardy of eternal damnation. Where in this final admonition does it say that our mere faith, our mere knocking on the door, our mere religious affiliation, or our mere belief in God, gets us into Heaven? It simply doesn’t. What we are left with is a clear command that we must do certain things and the failure to do them will result in something eternally bad.

Unless someone is going to claim that these Words cannot be taken at face value, they are unequivocal. Our works matter and they are essential to the goal of reaching the end as a good and faithful servant. Do not be so blind as to lead another to complacency by asking them to buy off on the idea of ‘salvation by faith alone’ with nary a living proof that the faith has a foundation in daily life. To do so would be to mislead one of His “little ones.”

For those of us who already know these truths, we are further instructed to teach all others to likewise abide, by our conduct, in observing His commandments. (28:20). As for me and my house, permissum meus fides exsisto a Opus Dei. That is, may my faith be an acceptable work of God unto Him.

There seems to be no end to the number of battles in our war against the abuse of statistics. Take a look at this graph:

(source)

A poll of presidential approval ratings is a public opinion poll, so one expects to see the diverse opinions of the entire public represented in the results. That’s not the case here. As you can see, the numbers for the red and green lines don’t add up to 100%. Only the extreme opinions – strong approval and disapproval – are shown. Now, strictly speaking, there’s nothing to object: all necessary information is given, there’s no undue manipulation of the scales etc.

However, there’s approximately a third of public opinion that’s not included in this graph. At a minimum, this should have been made clear. I admit that my first, quick impression of this graph was that I was looking at a graph that shows the entirety of public opinion. Only after a few seconds of looking more closely did I realize that the graph doesn’t in fact offer a measurement of public opinion, but only of the opinion of the most outspoken parts of the public. Why not include a third and fourth line for “moderately (dis)approve”? Or, even better, include the moderates in the totals and just give the number for approval and disapproval, combining strong and moderate? What’s the added value of only showing the extremes? Or is this part of the current media culture?

I understand that it’s useful to know the strength of the groups who strongly approve and disapprove, but this is misleading. The graph as it is now clearly hints at a strong swing towards disapproval of Obama, but including the moderates could change that impression, and could, theoretically, show an increase in overall approval (moderate and strong). The difference between strong approval and strong disapproval is smaller than the total share of the moderates who are left out; if all or most of those moderates moderately approve (unlikely but possible), then the total approval ratings would be higher than the total disapproval ratings.

For example, the 2004 exit poll put George W. Bush’s strong approval at 33%, to strong disapproval of 34%. But his overall approval was 53% to disapproval at 46%, and he was re-elected 51%-48%. (source)

But maybe the point of this graph is precisely the creation of the impression that Obama is going down the drain. If that’s the case, then this is an example of statistical fraud. There’s no way to know this, however. One thing I know is that all this will strengthen the persistent criticism that Rasmussen, the author of the graph, has a republican bias.

I said before that strictly speaking, there’s nothing wrong with this graph, apart from the fact that it could have mentioned more explicitly that a large chunk of public opinion is left out. However, if we look at this graph against the background of contemporary politics, it becomes more problematic. Politics today is often a shouting match between extreme positions. Such a spectacle is, after all, more entertaining than intelligent discussions that look for a common ground and a real possibility of persuasion of the other side. Hence, cable TV and the internet promote this kind of “gladiator politics“. Graphs such as this one only drive people further down the cul-de-sac of us-against-them politics. I don’t believe democracy was intended to end up there.

Geert Wilders held this speech on 6 september 2007 in front of the Dutch Parliament, the Dutch original can be found on the website of his party.

I translated the entire speech, for your convenience. It was is part of a political debate, following the release of a Dutch Government report on Islamic activism.

This speech can be seen as the blue print for all his later speeches and interviews, here Geert Wilders makes his famous comparison between the Koran and Mein Kampf for the first time. He also calls the Prophet Muhammad a barbarian, advocates a complete ban on the Koran and making Islam at large and the building of Mosques illegal in the Netherlands. One can also see how his statements on Muslim criminals evolve, that he later developed into his call for the deportation of all Muslims.

Notice how smartly written and well thought out the whole thing is. It is evident from these words, that Geert Wilders above all things seeks media exposure, and that he understands how to get it. His recipe: raise as much controversy as possible, be the talk of the town. Towards the end of the speech, the scapegoating uncannily resembles the Nazi propaganda on jews, as propagated during the rise to power of Adolf Hitler. Geert Wilders is of course very much aware of that, and of the avalanche of indignant press it will trigger. I am quite convinced he actually uses these phrases on purpose. In his political CV you can read that before Geert Wilders started his own movement, the Party for Freedom, he worked a speech writer for the VVD-party for 8 years. That definitely shows… Every thing he says has a very clear purpose: more exposure, i.e. a bigger electorate and more power. So, here it is:

”First of all, my sincere thanks to you personally, madam chairman, for planning a debate on Islam today, on my birthday. I could not have wished for a better gift!

Madam chairman, about 1.400 years ago war was declared on us, by an ideology of hatred and violence, that arose in those days,  proclaimed by a barbarian who called himself Prophet Muhammad. I am talking about Islam.

Madam chairman, let me start with the book that is the foundation of Islam, the Koran. The obligation for all Muslims to resist non-Muslims is the core theme of the Qur’aan, the Islamic Mein Kampf, and this resistance means war, jihad. The Koran is above all a war book – it calls for the slaughter of non-Muslims (sura’s 2:191, 3:141, 4:91, 5:33), roasting them (4:56, 69:30-69:32) and starting blood baths among them (47:4). It compares Jews to apes and swine (2:65, 5:60, 7:166). People who believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, according to the Koran should be fought at all cost. (sura 9:30).

Madam chairman, the West has no problem with Judaism and Christianity, but it does have a problem with Islam. The Koran’s texts, which are for ever applicable to all Muslims,  can easily be read by Muslims as a license to kill, even today. And this happens. The contents of the Koran are phrased in such a way that it’s commands are addressed to the Muslims of all times, including Muslims today. This stands in sharp contrast with the texts in the Bible, that are formulated as semi-historical stories, and in which the events portrayed are placed in a distant past. It is therefore no wonder that the catastrophic terrorist attacks in New York, Madrid and London were performed by Muslims, and not by Jews or Christians. It is no accident that  Theo van Gogh was brutally slaughtered by Muslim Mohammed Bouyeri

Madam chairman, there are certainly moderate people, who call themselves Muslims and do respect our laws. The Party for Freedom (Wilders Political Party, SG) has nothing against them, but the Qur’aan hates them. The Koran says in Sura 2, verse 85, that Muslims who believe only part of the Koran will be humiliated and will receive the severest punishment in the afterlife, in other words: they will roast in Hell’s fires. According to the Qur’aan, people who say they are Muslims, but do not subscribe to for instance Sura 9 verse 30, that says that Jews and Christians must be fought, or Sura 5 verse 38, that says that the hand of a thief should be hacked off,  these people will be humiliated and will roast in Hell. I am not making this up, madam chairman, this is what the Qur’aan says. According to the Qur’aan, Muslims who only believe a part of it’s content are in fact apostates, people who have deserted their religion, and we know how the Qur’aan thinks about apostates:  they must be slain.

Madam chairman, the Koran is an inflammatory book, and the distribution of seditious writings such as it, is prohibited under Article 132 of our Criminal Code. This book also inspires hatred in peoples hearts, and calls for murder and manslaughter; the spreading of such texts is forbidden by Article 137 of our law. The Qur’aan is an extemely dangerous book, it is completely hostile to our legal and constitutional democracy. If we want to consolidate our national defenses, our laws and the Dutch civilization at large, it is urgently necessary to completely ban the Koran, and I shall take political steps to achieve this in my second term.

Madam chairman, there is no such thing  as a moderate Islam.  Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan recently said this literally, and I quote: “There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” Islam is all about world domination. Islam wants to enforce its imperialist agenda globally, with brute force (sura 8:39). Many examples of this can be found in European history. Fortunately, the first Islamic invasion of Europe was stopped at Poitiers in 732 A.D., and a second invasion was stopped in 1683 in Vienna. Madam chairman, let us make sure that the third Islamic invasion, which is now in full swing, is brought to a standstill. In contrast to the 8th and 17th centuries it goes slowly, creepingly right now, there is no visible Islamic army. But none is needed, since the scared dhimmis of the West (Dhimmi, Arabic: ذمّي, is the traditional term for “non-Muslims” under Sharia law in an Islamic country. SG) among them many Dutch politicians, leave our country’s doors wide open for the Islam and Muslims. (Here Geert Wilders conveniently forgets that the Netherlands actively recruited immigrants, from Morocco and Turkey in the seventies, to do dirty jobs. SG)

Besides conquest and world domination, madam chairman, the Islam also strives to install a completely different social order in our country and in Europe, with it’s own legal system: the Sha’ria. Beside being a religion for hundreds of millions of Muslims, the Islam is above all a political ideology (with it’s own politics, constitution and Islamic norms and values etc). This ideology has no respect for others, not for Christians, not for Jews, not for unbelievers and not for apostates. Islam only wants to dominate, enslave, kill and wage war.

Madam chairman, the growing Islamization of Europe must be stopped. Islam is the Trojan horse of Europe. If we do not stop the Islamization, Eurabia and Netherabia are only a matter of time. A century ago there were approximately 50 Muslims in the Netherlands. Today there are about 1 million Muslims that live in our country. (Again, the Netherlands actively recruited.. SG) Where is this heading?

We are facing the end of our European and Dutch society as we know it. But prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende responded coolly to my parliamentary questions this week, and said that Islamization in our country is not an issue. This has already become a historical case of miss-judgement. Many Dutch people, Mr. Prime Minister, see the Islamization of the Netherlands every day, as it is happening. And many people have had enough of burkas, headscarves, the ritual slaughter of animals, honor killings, of minarets booming, of imams screaming, of female circumcision and hymen reconstruction, of the abuse of gay people, of reading Turkish and Arabic texts in busses and trains and on official documents, of halal meat in our biggest grocery store chains Albert Heijn and Al Hema, of Sharia wills, Wouter Bos’es Sharia mortgages  and the enormous overrepresentation of Muslims in crime in the Netherlands, including street terrorism by young Moroccans.

However, madam chairman, there is hope. Fortunately. The majority of the Dutch people are aware of the danger that has become so common, and have opened their eyes to see Islam as a threat to our national culture. The PVV (The Party For Freedom, Geert Wilders own right wing party SG) takes these people seriously and wants to represent their voice as best as it can.

Many Dutch are sick to their stomach of the whole situation and yearn for action against the Islamization. But Hague politicians sit back and do nothing, paralized by fear, political correctness or simply by electoral motives: a fear of losing Muslim voters, as is obviously the the case with the Labor Party. The Prime Minister has said  in Indonesia that the Islam poses no danger. Minister Donner of legislation sees no reason why the Sha’ria shouldn’t be introduced  in the Netherlands, if the majority wants it. Minister Vogelaar babbles that the Netherlands will become a Jewish-Christian-Islamic society in the future, and that she wants to help Islam to take further root  in Dutch society. This minister shows us that she has become completely insane. Her statements betray our Dutch culture and insult the Dutch population.

Madam chairman, the Party for Freedom demands that Minister Vogelaar retract het statements. If the Minister does not do so, the fraction of the Freedom Party will publicly express a loss of confidence in her capabilities. The Netherlands must never know an Islamic tradition, not now, and not for the coming centuries. (Geert Wilders here forgets the long standing Islamic tradition in the Netherlands, that includes a.o. the obvious Arabic Numerals, Chemistry, Wind Mills, that came from medieval Persia and Delft Blue, which was adapted from Islamic tiles.)

Madam chairman, I will now briefly quote from the responses of the government on the WRR report. On page 12 of its response, the government says that Islam is not incompatible with democracy and human rights. Just as I thought this whole thing cannot get much crazier…

Madam chairman. It is a few minutes to midnight. If we carry on like this, Islam will be the end of our Western civilization and of Dutch culture.

I would like to end my contributions to this parliament in this first term of mine, with a personal appeal to the Prime Minister, on behalf of many Dutch people: Stop the Islamization of the Netherlands!

There is an historic task that now rests on your shoulders, Mr. Balkenende. We need you to be brave, and do what so many Dutch people are screaming for, do the right thing, that what the Netherlands needs most, right now. Stop all immigration from Muslim countries, forbid the building of more new mosques, close all Islamic schools, forbid the burqaa and the Koran. Send criminal Muslims, like our young Moroccan  street terrorists that drive the Dutch people crazy, back to the country where they came from. (This is not possible, the young Morrocan trouble makers Geert Wilders is talking about were born in the Netherlands. SG) Take your responsibility, mister Balkenende! Stop the Islamization right now! Enough is enough Mr. Balkenende. Enough is enough.”

Geert Wilders

I used to really look up to the Ralph Lauren label.

90% of my high school wardrobe was from them – my shirts, my jeans, my perfume, my socks, my sneakers, and I even had both the Polo Country and Polo Sportsman moccasins for those special dates at TGIFriday’s and various Soph Nights.

(The old Chapsville in Shoppesville sure made a lot of money off of me.)

Yet despite the uproar over this tragically-mutated-through-the-demonic-powers-of-Photoshop print ad, it seems that their art directors just don’t have a clue when it comes to good taste.

Seriously. What is going on here?

Either they need to start hiring new art directors, or at the very least start paying their models with cheeseburgers and a good protein shake or two.

Did nobody learn anything from that wonderful classic “Campaign For Real Beauty” that Dove launched three years ago?

Here is 10 simple questions that most American taxpayers would love for President Obama to answer:

10. Do you intend to honor your promise and hold a serious line by line review of proposed health care legislation with members of Congress or was your July 29 promise to do so merely an insincere political gesture?

9. Why should the American people trust the Administration’s numbers rather than the final estimates of the C.B.O. on the cost of your health care proposals?

8. Why should seniors trust the Administration more than the nonpartisan C.B.O. that your health care proposals will reduce health care benefits to seniors?

7. How can you accuse critics of creating lies about your health care proposals when on several occasions, including your incorrect reference to the circumstances of an Illinois man in your September 9 speech to Congress, your own words have been found to be misleading?

6. If competition can be expected to reduce costs and increase coverage, why is interstate competition not a key part of your health care proposals?

5. How do you expect Americans to believe you have a grasp and knowledge of the healthcare proposals when you appear to be unaware that the language of the Baucus proposal specifically includes the word “tax”?

4. Is the Congressional Research Service in error when it states that HR 3200 contains no restrictions on illegals receiving health care benefits?

3. Why aren’t you currently acting to stop the waste and fraud you claim to have identified that currently exists in the health care system?

2. Why won’t government employees and elected officials be covered under a nationwide health care plan?

1. Is there a good reason or explanation you can give the American people why your plans don’t include a single word that addresses this terrible problem of lawsuit abuse?

Adverts for vitamin-enriched water made by Coca-Cola are criticised by the advertising watchdog…. From BBC News. Full story

This site may contain information about: depths ocean. For a different topic see here. The blog is also related to: sea temps.

By Anthony Keane

Property statistics can be confusing unless you analyse what they mean, writes Anthony Keane.

While the numbers don’t lie, they don’t tell the whole truth. Statistics don’t always paint a clear picture and property is no exception.

For everyone looking to invest in property, it pays to take your statistics with a grain of salt.

Many people use stats as “proof” without understanding their limitations, Property Investment Adviser director Will Chapman says.

“If you make a large financial decision such as buying a property based on limited data, the wrong decision can be made,” Chapman says.

Anyone who watches housing values knows “median house prices” can vary by more than $50,000 depending which research is used.

So it pays to make sure you are comparing apples with apples.

Despite the differences, the companies that supply real estate data play a valuable role.

Statistics can help people make accurate investment decisions as long as buyers understand the issues.

Median house prices the most common form of measuring real estate values may vary wildly because of all kinds of things which, when they are properly analysed, don’t really alter the value of your house.

For example, a major new subdivision in a suburb can have a massive impact on the median value.

Hundreds of new small blocks selling at a lower price can dramatically affect data.

“If parents sell their home to their kids at a discount nice parents the statistics may still show it as a normal sale,” Chapman says.

“If you’re looking at a property’s past sales and can’t work out why it went so cheap, this may be a reason.

“In some cases, only half a property will be sold if the partner buys the other half out.

“Generally, this will be noted but be aware that it can mislead.”

Inner-city and central business districts also have big variations. Properties in these areas can range from $300,000 apartments to $6 million residences. But a suburb of three-bedroom houses on 500sqm blocks won’t have much variation.

While the numbers don’t lie, they also don’t tell the whole truth either, Chapman says.

Remember that median house prices are not an average of all sales in a suburb or city.

The median price is the middle sale, the seventh in a group of 13, for example.

Australian Property Monitors, one of several data providers, says the different median prices reflect the analysis by each researcher and their historical data base.

“Essentially everyone has access to the same data you buy it from the state governments,” APM spokesman Matthew Bell says.

“But the trick is how you clean the data. Sometimes providers will look at a dwelling price but not split it between houses and units.”

It also depends on the size of a property. Bigger also doesn’t always mean a higher price.

“The majority of two-bedroom houses tend to be closer to the CBD and therefore more expensive, whereas three-bedroom houses span right out to the outer suburbs,” Bell says.

And don’t get too upset if you suddenly see prices in your area plunge.

“If a median price falls by 50per cent in a suburb, it doesn’t mean the value of most houses has fallen 50 per cent. It might mean a lot of two-bedroom homes have been sold,” he says.

It also pays to read the commentary and notes included with any data to help work out the “lies, damn lies and statistics”.

*Article sourced from www.news.com.au