A Biblical Definition of Marriage

I had posted a transcript of my June 10th sermon on Facebook, and Hansen commented that it was blog material. Since I have ditched Facebook, I suppose this is a good resting place for it.

----------------------------- We're faced with a lot of tumult in the world; we're faced with a lot of decisions to make. There are contrary opinions floating here and there and we often have to make statements because people ask us what do we think about this thing or that thing. It's good to understand exactly what the Scripture has to say about certain things. I'd like to begin reading in the book of Genesis, all the way back in the second chapter. God had created man, He set man in the Garden of Eden, and He gave Adam a task. In the 18th verse:

Gen 2: 18-24 "18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

I would also like to read from Matthew, the 19th chapter, where Jesus was faced with a question. Matthew 19, beginning with the 3rd verse:

MT 19:3-9 : "3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. "

Recently, a Federal court made a ruling that parts of the law known as the Defense of Marriage Act were unConstitutional. That aroused a good bit of unhappiness because one of the things the Defense of Marriage Act says is that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman. Anybody running for office is faced sooner or later with the question, "Where do you stand with regard to this?" As Christians, we're often expected to say, "We agree with the Defense of Marriage Act." Yet the Scripture tells us something that is slightly different -- it's enough that we have to stop and think about what it's actually saying -- because Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." And when we stop to think about that, we have to stop to think about what it is that God has set up in His regime that is different from the world's.

Peter writes that in the last days, it will be just like in the days of Noah. He says they are going to be marrying and giving in marriage. So we have to think a little bit about this question. What is marriage? That's a big argument that's going on in our society today -- What is marriage? How do you define marriage? Is marriage just the relationship between one man and one woman?

I read a very interesting article, by Dr. R. Albert Mohler -- he's the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary -- writing as a contributing writer to CNN. He said that the question about homosexual marriage is one of the things that he is asked about most frequently. He pointed out what the Scripture has to say about homosexuality, and then he made a statement that caught my attention He said that the church has an opportunity at this point, and that it needs to make sure that it does what's right because it made a mess of the question of divorce.

I thought about that. You see, one of the things that people are upset with Christians about today is that we say marriage is just between one man and one woman. They ask, "What's so wrong about some other kind of arrangement? How can you Christians be so judgmental?" In fact, we find that in all the Scripture, it doesn't talk too much about what marriage is, so much, as it talks about the union between a man and his wife. So in Genesis we see that God declares that the two become one flesh. And we see in Matthew that Jesus repeats that, and He goes right back to that verse in Genesis, and says, "Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and they twain shall be one flesh?" For the most part the Christian world looks at that and says, "OK, that means one man and one woman."

However, the Apostle Paul writes something very, very interesting. He says this in the 6th chapter of 1st Corinthians :

"13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh."

Throws an interesting light on it, doesn't it? What happens in an adulterous situation? What happens if you have one man and one woman and they have been joined together as one flesh, and one of them steps outside the relationship and becomes joined to another person as one flesh? Is that also a marriage? It would be, according to the Word of God. At that point the world says, "Wait a minute, we can't handle that."

In fact, under the law, people said, "We can't handle this." So Jesus pointed out, "Because of the hardness of your hearts God gave you divorce." But, he says, "It wasn't like that from the beginning. Divorce -- simply the fact that somebody says you are no longer married -- doesn't undo what God did."

The world says, "Wait a minute -- that means that if a man divorces his wife and marries somebody else, he now has two wives!" Yeah, it does. And they are both marriages. And the question becomes, "How do we get around the Word of God? How do we satisfy our consciences so that we can say it's all OK?" Jesus said divorce was permitted because of the hardness of peoples' hearts -- the unwillingness to obey God. What God has joined together, nobody can take apart. And Paul writes in Romans, that under the Law, when a woman is married to a man, the only thing that separates them is death.

At this point someone -- the government -- steps in and says "We're going to define marriage." I suppose they can do all the defining they want, but they can't undo what God said. That creates some other problems, too, doesn't it?

The Apostle Paul in Romans talks about those who have left the intended use of the body; about homosexual relationships. That leaves you wondering exactly what God is looking at in those. Are those marriages in the sense of becoming one flesh? Scripture is really not that clear on it, but the possibility exists. If the mere physical act is enough to trigger the joining as one flesh, would that illuminate the statement in the Law that bestiality creates confusion?

But our problem is that we fail to understand, we fail to admit, we fail to cling to what the Scripture says. God says, "The two become one flesh." And the Apostle Paul says, "You fool around? You go out and have an affair with a harlot, or more than one, and when you do, you become one flesh with that person or persons!"

It doesn't talk about any marriage ceremonies, it doesn't talk about any legal arrangements, it talks about the fact that the two become one flesh. And THAT's Gods standard, His definition.

Brother Froelich wrote a very interesting book, and it ought to be required reading for everyone. We've got it on our website, so if anybody wants to read it, it's there. You see, he had a problem. He had a very big problem, because in Switzerland, in his canton, if you did not belong to the established church, if you did not go to the established church, you couldn't get married.

He met his wife, and they wanted to get married, and the canton said, "No, you don't belong to our church. We won't issue a marriage license for you." So he searched the Scripture, and his book, Matrimony According to the Word of God , is an interesting read because he tells about what he found. Nowhere in the Scripture is there a marriage ceremony! It all comes down to the two becoming one flesh.

So, free in conscience, he and his bride went before his church, and they asked the church's blessing. Then they set up housekeeping, without a marriage license, without a ceremony, without official sanction from the state. And every time his wife bore a child, she was thrown in prison for prostitution. That's what happens when there is no First Amendment.

What is our stand on marriage? Do we go with the world, or do we go with the Word of God? If we go with the Word of God, are we willing to accept the discomfort that comes with accepting what the Word of God says, because Jesus says this, " Whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication and shall marry another committeth adultery, and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Now -- is adultery sin? Do we call sin, sin? Do we admit to it? Or do we shovel it under the rug and say, "Well, that was for those people. We don't have to worry about that, because our government says something different."

I don't think we have that liberty if we want to be faithful to God.

So I think the church may need to change its terminology a little bit. We may need to redefine things a little bit, because when the world talks about marriage, it talks about a contractual relationship between people and it talks about legal relationships. You know, in Ohio, we no longer have common-law marriage. We did, up until the 1970's. Common law marriage came out of Anglo-Saxon tradition where two people could simply say, "We're married" and set up housekeeping. Simply because they agreed and said so, the state accepted it. But then the lawyers passed a law, and they said, "No, you can't do that any more, because it produces legal problems. It makes it difficult for the state to determine who owns what property. So, you can't do that any more." And that is the reason why everybody's so interested in defining marriage -- because there is money involved. Not because they want to take the high road, not because they want to take God's definition, but because there is money involved.

So maybe the church needs to sit back and think about this a little while, because as Froelich wrote, matrimony is something that is honorable, just as the Apostle Paul also wrote. And it's something that is good and clean. But it has to be within the constraints of what God says, and there's a difference between that which is blessed by God, and that which people do on their own.

Maybe that term that seems to have fallen out of use -- the idea of Holy Matrimony -- ought to be revived. Not that we would talk about marriage, because as we see from the Scripture, somebody who is promiscuous could be married to an awful lot of people, but it's not HOLY matrimony. It's not God's plan, it's not what He intended. We need to understand that.

Yes, the church has made a big mess of the question of divorce. Because of the hardness of their hearts, people didn't want to look at what God said. They looked to government rather than God, and the government gave them an out and said, "If you want to do it, we'll let you do it."

So people make excuses. The Apostle Paul talks about that too, in Romans -- it's kind of interesting the way he phrases it -- he talks about them excusing and accusing one another -- because they know that the things they do are condemned by God. In chapter 2,

"14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."

See, all those excuses aren't going to stand up. People make up rules and they make up laws and they define things but if they don't look into God's word, and see what their conduct ought to be, it's all in the vanity of their own minds. They're all going to have to give account of it someday because there will be a judgment. We have to ask ourselves whether we want to be included among those who accuse or excuse base on worldly judgments; based on the darkness of our own minds, the hardness of our own hearts.

Oh, yes, it leaves a lot of problems. What do we do when people sin; how do we handle it? What happens within our own families when people sin? How do we treat those who sin? Scripture has a remedy for that also, and the first place we need to look is how does Jesus treat us when we sin? It is easy to condemn someone for an infraction of the law. Its easy to condemn someone for something that we might say is a really big sin. Do we condemn, or do we intercede?

Scripture tells us that if we offend in one point, we've broken the whole law. We might try to weigh good and evil and we might try to say that this sin is worse than that one, but in God's eyes, the businessman who takes home pencils from the office is just as guilty as the murderer. We don't like that, do we? We don't like that standard of judgment because we'd rather say, "My sin is not as bad as his!" But all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. That is the measuring stick -- the glory of God. When God says that something is, and in this case, He says the two shall be one flesh, then I'd better believe it. We'd better listen to what He has to say.

When the world comes to us and asks, "How do you define marriage?"; we've got it here: the two become one flesh. Throw aside all the little conditions that people might put on it. Throw aside all the things that they might say, like, "It doesn't count unless the state sanctioned it" or, "It doesn't count unless it's done in a church" or, "It doesn't count unless it's between two people who are ... whatever." Throw that all aside. God says, "The two become one flesh." That is HIS definition of marriage. Where do we stand? Do we look at marriage as being just a convenience or do we really take it for what it was intended -- Holy Matrimony? Maybe we need to bring our own thinking in line with God's.

Bloggy Blues

Privacy is a wonderful thing. Control of your own BLOG is a great idea. That stuff can get a bit out of hand, though. Maybe.

I went to Maria's blog to see what she had been up to. Tried to leave a comment, but could not get past the Captcha nonsense. It may as well be Mandarin; I could not make sense of the pictographs (well -- they sure weren't decipherable text!).

I went to the Weebles blog, but I'm not privileged, so I can't get past the gate.

Went to Suzi's blog. Ah! There is a sociable person. Even got to leave a comment. I know where I'm welcome.

Now to go back to talking to myself...

Why Stocks?

Having stated my defense for the activity of investing, and the history leading to my involvement, I need to answer the question, "Why stocks?"

I will not say that investing in stocks is the only or best way to practice capitalism. There are many people who prefer to invest in other types of privately held enterprises such as rental real estate, or other entrepreneurial businesses. Such investments may seem to provide larger gains. Investment in real estate, prior to the financial collapse of 2006-2008, actually appeared to be a superior type of investment. There are, however, great risks involved; it should be remembered that the higher the rate of return, the greater the risk associated with the investment.

While investing in rental real estate may seem to produce a high rate of return, all of the factors that bear on the investment need to be considered. In appraising rental property one of the critical errors observed has been the underdevelopment of replacement reserves, because small landlords rarely anticipate depreciation of their property. (After all, haven't they been told repeatedly that real estate always appreciates, and never goes down in value?) Over an anticipated 30 year life of a property, the roof, furnace, and windows can be expected to require replacement at least once in order for the building to hold its value, and water heaters are notorious for their less-than-10-years lifespans. Carpet, paint, landscaping -- these are all robbers of profit.

Vacancy rates are rarely studied by budding landlords, yet the lack of cash flow created by a two-month vacancy has resulted in many a foreclosure. A landlord may buy a house to rent for $100,000 with $20,000 down, and find that over 30 years, at a 5% interest rate, he has paid $155,000 in principal and interest to the bank, plus taxes and insurance and maintenance costs. If he anticipates $800/month for 30 years ($288,000 gross rent) to be offset by the loan ($155,000) plus taxes ($2000/year) plus maintenance ($1000/year) and sells the house at the end of 30 years for near his original purchase price (a not uncommon thing in many Mid-western towns), he may find that his $20,000 would net about $143,000.

This would require that the landlord pay out about $680/month from the gross rent, and assumes no vacancies -- an ideal situation. In reality, there would be some months when due to vacancies and repairs the landlord would be paying out of pocket. It also assumes that the landlord will be directly managing the property himself. If a management company is needed, it can be expected to demand about 10% of the annual rent as its fee, which would reduce the net by just under $29,000, to about $114,000, and the impact of a typical 5% vacancy rate would bring the net to about $100,000.

That is not a bad return on a $20,000 investment over 30 years -- roughly 17% annually, and the landlord is providing housing for his tenants. However, there are still risks involved -- unplanned assessments or repairs, changes in the neighborhood which might affect appeal and rentability, and the possibility that property values might decline near the time of final disposition of the property. There is also the very real problem that real estate investment is not very liquid, and having to sell real estate under compulsion can be disastrous.

To be fair, there is also the possibility of a significant rise in real estate prices; that has been the dream of many a real property investor. There is also the possibility that market rents could increase in such a way that the monthly cash flow would make a very comfortable addition to ordinary income. Still, the percentage of would-be landlords who actually make a net profit on their residential rental properties is in reality very small. To be a successful small-scale landlord requires the ability to repair and maintain dwellings (or the willingness to hire someone else to do so) and excellent people skills in not only interviewing and initializing the rental agreements but also dealing with less-than-ideal or deadbeat tenants (or, again, the willingness to pay someone to do that for you).

Few people have the ability to successfully manage residential rentals, and to subcontract the necessary management to others requires a different set of skills possessed by an even smaller population of investors.

What then of other investment vehicles? Since the post-WW2 recovery, many mutual funds have track records over the lifetime of the fund returning about 12% annually. A $20,000 one-time investment left to grow at 12% would yield about $720,000 at the end of thirty years. I wish that had been impressed in my head back in the days when I was single and was making more money than my Dad.

In fact, a fund returning only 10% on the same size initial investment would yield about $400,000 at the end of 30 years, and would be throwing off dividends of over $10,000 per year -- a very nice supplement to Social Security indeed -- without even touching the principal. Or having to deal with tenants!

In contrast, the $20,000, if placed in stocks paying 4% annual dividends reinvested quarterly, would yield a net of about $66,000, assuming no stock splits over a 30 year period, and again, assuming no increase in the share value. The dividends on that sum at 4% would be only $2600 per year. Why, then, would I choose stocks over real estate or mutual funds as an investment vehicle?

I mentioned in a previous post the fact that fund managers, whether for regular or tax-deferred accounts, charge for their services. Indeed, the managers of well managed funds deserve every bit of the fee they charge. However, aside from the ability to vote for the directors of the fund at the annual meeting, the shareholder has no input into the decisions made regarding the investments. If you look at the composition of most of the best performing growth-and-income funds, the largest holdings will be in financials (banks and insurance companies) and companies which produce beverages (the adult kind) and tobacco.

I have an aversion to supporting either. That may make me a hypocrite with respect to the adult beverages, since I buy and consume them, but I don't feel right about producing and selling them to the general public. In the wrong hands, alcohol and tobacco can be (notice -- I am avoiding total condemnation of them) destructive to the Project Earth workforce. I prefer to err on the side of caution. Likewise, I prefer to avoid the financials because of their role in enslaving that same workforce.

So why stocks? There are several practical reasons, one being that a shareholder does not have to manage the company directly. He doesn't actively participate in the business, and is not legally liable for the company's actions. Another is the liquidity of the investment -- not only can he buy the interest in the business in small chunks, but he can also dispose of it in the same way. A third reason is that the investment can be spread over several sectors of the general economy -- a means of keeping all your eggs out of the same basket.

There are also altruistic reasons, the reasons which are most important from the standpoint of stewardship of God's Project Earth. As a shareholder in a company, you are an owner. You provide work for the employees of your company, since the capital you have injected helps maintain the cash flow. As an owner you also have the ability to influence the moral direction the company takes. Granted, your influence is only proportional to your ownership, but it can still be brought to bear.

Finally, there are the fun reasons. When you invest in a business, you tend to try to find out how it works. You develop an interest in the factors that drive that trade. You find yourself examining the issues that affect the workers you employ. Your horizons broaden; my portfolio makes me an energy baron, a food supplier, a telecommunications provider, and a shipping magnate, to name a few sectors. My Suezmax tankers are bigger than your pleasureboat, are they not?

I hope that no one reading this takes these ideas as points of dogma. I see nothing wrong with investing in real estate; it just isn't "my bag". There is nothing absolutely wrong with mutual funds; I simply prefer to control a bit more closely what my money is doing (and I do own shares in a fund which carries between 3-5% of its investments in financials). I just have a preference for industrial holdings from the stand point that making useful things seems to me to be a good way to exercise dominion over the Earth.

How then, do I chose which companies to invest in? We will look at that next.

Bronze Geezer

That last post reminded me of a link to a cold, hard memorial :

"GENERATIONS" BY JOE KINKEL

The geezer in the center was one of my favorites.

You half expect him to take out his glass eyeball and laugh. We had some wonderful times together with Uncle Mike.

Ends and odds

Time for some random rambling. Which, as I have maintained before, is not a realistic way of examining reality. See. Circular logic is not authentically logical. What we call randomness is probably a manifestation of dill pickles (or something similarly rotten) floating in hot chocolate. Are you sick to your stomach yet? If not, a bit of circularity might help push you into the sink.

Item. Today was Dad's birthday. Had he survived dying, he would have been 98 years old. Two weeks from now is Uncle Emil's birthday; he would have been 101. Uncle Mike would have been 99 back in April. I miss those old geezers.

Item. There was a rebuttal letter in the Norton Post this past weekend from the Medina County Auditor, Michael Kovack, in response to a letter last week. The former letter, by James Navratil, the Sharon Center real estate broker and developer, had blasted Kovack's office for being one of six Ohio County Auditors (out of 88) which did all its property valuation in-house rather than using "professional appraisers". Kovack stated in his reply that no Ohio Auditor used such appraisers. I suppose the 21 months I spent commuting to Geauga County for the 2011 reval was a figment of my imagination. When I showed the clipping of the article to the boss, he simply laughed and said that Kovack was clueless.

Item. My reverse osmosis system is now set up and putting out almost chemically pure water. Time to start buying electrolyte supplements to replace the minerals that have been removed? Americans are weird, sir.

Item. JAMEZ3 gave his grandpa a container of cherry tomatoes which he grew from plants he got from Grandpa Jim. They were a tasty sample. (That was an Uncle Mike-ism.)

Item. A few more family members seem to be bailing out of Facebook and going back to blogging. Good for them. Unlike them, I don't think I want to make this blog private, since I would probably end up talking to just myself.

Farewell to Facebook

Tonight I delete my Facebook account. Farewell to an addiction. I have to get used to blogging again.

How I Became a Dirty Capitalist

Life is evolutionary in the broadest sense of that term. Constant change occurs, both qualitatively and quantitatively, and that change is directed by God. (I do not believe in randomness as a pure function of existence, for while randomness is a useful mathematical concept and tool, much on the order of imaginary numbers, it is simply a subset of a more complex, highly directed universe. Entropy is not a proof of randomness, but an evidence of direction in existence.) God set up His creation at the highest level of organization, set mankind within it to maintain it to the best of their ability, and gave to people sets of goals and limits to maximize their success in Project Earth.

God also intervenes in the affairs of men, a function which was often described by people of an earlier time as "Providence", but which needs to be understood as something like a number line, where values can be perceived as either positive or negative, depending on a person's relationship to the zero point. Those who lack a proper relationship with God may find fault with "negative Providence", but in every instance, that which is "negative Providence" for one person will in some way be "positive Providence" for someone else. The truism is that, for those who love and respect God, everything is working to achieve God's intended goal.

I admit I am a neophyte in the world of capital investments. It was not until I was 44 years old that I began to invest in stocks, and that happened in an evolutionary sort of way.

I was always impressed by my father's ability to make do with a relatively meager income. He came of age at the start of the Great Depression. Graduating from high school at the beginning of FDR's regime, he felt extremely fortunate to have a job where his talents were totally unappreciated. Although he took college preparatory courses in high school, he had no money for college tuition; he would spend his life as a laborer. I remember him counting his pennies at the end of each day, journalling his expenses.

Dad kept track of every cent, and was not about to risk what he had in a stock market that he had been led to believe was not worthy of trust. Conventional wisdom of his time held that stock market investment was merely a form of gambling. His tales of the Depression and his own experience with stocks colored my perception of such investments.

There was little effort put forward during my schooling to explain that ownership of stock was ownership of the industries that employed people. Those were the days when public schooling was keyed to turning out workers rather than owners. Not much has changed since then, I suppose. As a teenager in the 1960's, my teachers were liberal in their persuasion and my life philosophy was a crazy amalgam wherein I viewed "big business" -- my perception of capitalism -- as somewhat "dirty". Further, my religious orientation at the time was such that it seemed wrong to be laying up treasures on earth. (Laughably, communism -- the doctrine of community ownership of capital -- was railed against but its tenets could not legally be taught in public schools. Had it been properly taught and contrasted with private ownership of capital, the socialistic leanings of the political power-mongers would have been exposed for what they were.)

In the mid-1950's the company Dad worked for instituted a profit-sharing plan in which the customary annual bonuses would be invested in the company's stock. Dad went along with it simply because he had no choice. In 1962, faced with the physical necessity of getting out of the meat coolers or dying, he accepted a job, at minimum wage, with Myers Tire Supply. Due to his financial necessity -- a new house, new car, five kids -- he persuaded his old company to give him the principal amount he had invested (via unpaid annual bonuses) in their profit-sharing plan.

His old employer grudgingly gave him the money, but only to the limit of the principal amount of the bonuses he was entitled to. A few months later that company filed for bankruptcy protection; to Dad's knowledge, he was the only employee that saw anything out of the profit-sharing plan. Thus he was extremely skeptical when Uncle Bill urged him to participate in Myers' profit-sharing plan, but he agreed to try it. Unknown to us was the future, in which dividends from Dad's steady investment in Myers stock, with its occasional splits, would form a small but welcome addition to Mom's income beyond Social Security.

My true education in economics began in the late '80's, as I struggled to maintain a business with employees. I had never before been faced with the problem of cash flow in a situation where the livelihoods of others was at risk. Not only was my position with regard to the role of capital fiscally disastrous, it also became apparent that it was at odds with the more important tenets of my faith. You simply cannot share or give to others that which you do not have.

In 1991, hearing stories of money to be made, I succumbed to temptation and invested $1000 in BCCI -- the Cayman Island Bank. Dad and Mom had taken out a $500 life insurance policy (through Prudential) for me when I was a newborn; over the years the policy amount had swelled to over $3000 and I was able to scrape up the cash by borrowing against the policy. Shortly after the investment was made, the assets of BCCI were seized. By the grace of God -- Providence -- a limited amount of principal was recovered. To put it in a safe place, my brother-in-law, Mark Novkov, reinvested it for me in a mutual fund, the Investment Company of America (ICA).

I knew nothing about mutual funds, their investment strategies, or their management. ICA, however, was a company with a long track record, and I was pleased with the dividends that began to be reinvested every quarter. Investing in the stock market was something I was now willing to try, but I was uncertain how to find a broker. Besides, we were financially strapped, paying back money that had been borrowed to pay ruinous Federal employment taxes, medical bills, and to keep my business afloat. Most years, I had no spare cash to even make more than token repayments on the principal amount of the policy loan; for some years I was able only to make the small required annual interest payment.

Then, in 2001, Prudential de-mutualized and issued stock to each of its policyholders. I was issued 24 shares. I cheerfully accepted my annual dividend check, which offset the annual interest on the policy loan. In 2003, I was hired as staff appraiser by Charter One Bank, and for the first time in years my income allowed me to make substantial progress in eliminating my debt. Also, the company matched employee investment in its profit-sharing plan, and I took advantage of the opportunity to get some free money.

When Charter One was bought out by Royal Bank of Scotland in 2004 and all the appraisers were let go, the amounts I had vested in the profit-sharing plan were rolled into IRA mutual fund accounts, but ICA was not an available choice through the IRA manager. I was introduced to several other mutual funds, and learned that IRA accounts were not free. IRA account managers collect a percentage each year from the accounts. This is not a problem when the funds in the IRA are growing and producing income, but if the funds show a loss, the IRA account will be charged for the manager's fund. That worried me, since, as an appraiser with a grasp of how mortgage financing was supported in the marketplace, I was well aware that the economy was overheated and ready for a downturn.

Additionally, all of the dismissed former Charter One employees had been given stock options as part of the buyout package. The company that would manage my RBS stock options was Computershare, which was also the agency used by Prudential for stock management. I logged into Computershare's website, set up my account, and discovered that I could buy and sell stock through them. They would act as agent, holding the shares in my name, and would reinvest any dividends according to my instructions. The stage was set for my entry into the World of Wall Street.

While part of the Charter One severance package was full vesting in all profit sharing, another part was the granting of options on Royal Bank of Scotland stock. The package gave me an option on 150 shares at £15.53, to be exercised between September 1, 2007 and March 31, 2008. In early 2007, as the advance ripples of the global banking meltdown began to trouble the banks, the Plan was altered with a 2-for-1 bonus issue; I was then holding an option on 450 shares at £5.1766 per share.

Needless to say, I became extremely interested in the price of RBS stock in 2007, and realized that due to the European bank meltdown (which I had been expecting for some time, although I was frustrated that no one else seemed to see it) exercise of the options would be touch-and-go. In February 2007 RBS hit its high of nearly £6. On March 21 it was beginning to slide, at £5.80. On September 14, 2007, the stock was at £4.56; if I wanted to exercise the option, I would have to pony up £277.47, or about $550 at current exchange rates. By March 20, 2008 RBS was at £2.75 and my options would have cost about $2,100 to exercise. I was not impressed, and in what I now consider to have been one of my finest hours, I let the options expire. Today RBS is trading at about £0.25. Good riddance.

There was an upside to that experience. While doing all that sleuthing in the markets, I also discovered that Dominion Energy, our natural gas supplier, had a program whereby its customers could purchase Dominion stock directly through them, and Dominion would reinvest the dividends (or send a check, whichever you might prefer) at no cost to the shareholder. I began to look for ways to come up with cash to open an account through Dominion Direct. My rationale was that as a Dominion customer I might as well get some of my heating bill money back as dividends.

A second discovery was that Computershare, as agent for a number of companies, offered a long list of stocks which could be purchased directly, and many of the companies which used Computershare would also pay any brokerage fees for the reinvestment of dividends. Throughout 2008 I studied a number of stocks available through Computershare, looking for companies which paid good dividends and which also paid the reinvestment fees. In late 2008 I took the plunge, buying 100 shares through Dominion Direct, and investing $1,000 in J. M. Smucker (we drink Folger's coffee and eat Jiff peanut butter) and $500 in Pfizer (seemed to be a low priced stock with a good dividend) via Computershare.

Throughout 2009 and 2010, the interest rate on our passbook savings account steadily declined. I began to look for an alternative bank. ING was recommended. In August 2010 several events occurred which would trigger a bank switch.

The funds in my IRA account had been a choice made when I had no known options for a different type of investment, and they were weak performers. They were also subject to annual management fee charges, as I mentioned above. Those accounts had lost heavily in the 2007-2008 downturn, but in mid-2010 they perked up and regained to the point that they were worth, in August 2010, what they had been worth two years earlier. I decided to sell and reinvest in stocks that had a track record for good dividend performance.

ING offers its depositors a brokerage account called Sharebuilder. Sharebuilder differs from Computershare in that Computershare is an agent which holds the stock in the name of the purchaser whereas the Sharebuilder account is a brokerage account which holds the stock for the depositor. Also, Computershare executes trades on set days of the month, whereas the Sharebuilder depositor is able to make trades in real-time and has more choices as to available stocks. If the investor chooses, shares purchased in real-time (at opportune prices) can be transferred from Sharebuilder to Computershare. There are valid reasons for holding the shares in either account, depending on the type of strategy the investor wants to use for growth or trading.

I deposited the funds from the sale of the IRAs into an ING Orange account which I then linked to a Sharebuilder account. Instead of the 0.84% that FirstMerit was currently paying, ING Orange was paying 1.10%. Further, the first purchase I made through Sharebuilder was for 100 shares of First Energy, which currently has a rate of return of about 5.2%. ($2.20 annual dividend on today's [1/18/2012] close of $41.97 per share.)

It isn't all gravy. There are dangers in investing in stocks. There are no guarantees that a company will stay in business or even make a profit. The day I bought my 100 shares of First Energy (at $39.33), the stock price tumbled almost 10% immediately after my purchase and only very slowly recovered over a period of several months. Had I made the purchase for speculative purposes, it would have had to be viewed as a huge loss, but because I am looking for long-term growth and income, I am confident that the investment is sound.

Owning part of a company brings to the shareholder the same kinds of concerns a sole proprietor faces on a daily basis, but usually without the urgency. It can also bring the satisfaction and reward that comes with successful business performance. I have learned a lot in a short time, and have formulated some concepts that I would like to pass on. Remember though-- there are no guarantees in stock ownership, and I, myself, am still learning on a daily basis.

Some Moral Implications of Capitalism

My view of motivation in life is that all of a person's actions are driven by that person's belief system. Every human, whether a devout worshipper of a deity or an atheist, is religious, because there are certain fundamental things which every person simply assumes without proof, and that is the essence of belief. Thus it is that a person's true religion will be revealed in his or her business dealings.

I am a Christian, believing in God Who created and maintains the universe (and thus by logical extension He is not a part of His universe), and Who gave to mankind a set of definitions of right and wrong contained in the Bible. God will, at some future date, judge both the righteousness and the accomplishments (two separate charges) of every person who has ever lived. The Bible assures me of the conditions for my righteousness, and instructs me as to the proper way to attain my accomplishments. For these reasons the arguments which follow may be uncomfortable for many people who do not hold the same beliefs; I can say that because they are at times uncomfortable for me as well.

The Bible begins with a story that is an allegory with respect to human nature. People had been given instruction as to what constitutes proper behavior. They had been given work to do, and were permitted to enjoy their labor and the fruits of their labor, with one restriction -- the property rights of their Creator must be respected. The desire to take what was not rightfully theirs lead to perversion of their assigned task and dissatisfaction with their gain.

That story of the Beginning is a summation of all of human economic history.

God chose one family, that of Jacob the grandson of Abraham, to hold the instructions for morally correct economic activity. Because the members of that family have more often than not followed the instructions, they have tended to prosper financially, and that prosperity has incited jealousy and persecution throughout history. Anyone wishing to know the secrets of economic propriety has only to read the Torah.

At the root level, the instructions teach that God Who created the universe is the ultimate owner and King of His creation. People are both citizens and employees of Project Earth, and the goal of the enterprise is to maximize both the size of the company workforce and its production, using the provided resources. The competition (The Adversary), on the other hand, works to thwart that goal.

Every person born is provided with some capital; each has a function within the company, and each is given, at some time and at some level, abilities, skills, and/or material goods, to invest in the project. I am of the persuasion that the gifts of The Almighty allow the individual to use the given abilities to develop skills to maximize the capital.

Because the capital is a distribution in trust from The Almighty, absolute human ownership of the capital does not exist. Each human is a steward of some portion, small or large, of the capital intended for the operation of the enterprise. Further, the hoarding of capital, whether the withdrawal of land from the production of food, the failure to use a medium of exchange to encourage work by others, or the restriction of the use of new ideas so as to prevent the profiting by others, is a breech of stewardship, thwarting the goals of Project Earth.

Capital is popularly seen as only money, but labor and ideas are equally important kinds of capital. How that capital is utilized within the micro-economic setting, whether through a free-market system or through a planned-market system, will determine its effectiveness because at the core of human nature is dissatisfaction with what we have been given (in trust) coupled with desire for that we lack. Further, the person's view as to the origin of that capital will influence his perceptions respecting ownership, stewardship, and disposition of that capital.

Maximizing the size of the company workforce and its production (which involves employee working conditions) is a basic goal of the project, so treatment of the employees is a critical concern of the owner. Thus rules were formulated -- don't steal reputations, or money, or spouses, or anything God gave to another employee for any reason. In this is seen the importance to the owner of individual workers, and the need to protect and take care of them. It is also the reason for lower, middle, and upper management, positions which God assigns and uses to govern various branches of the company (nations and kingdoms). Politics is thus a subset of economics, and war is destructive to both.

Profit is the result of attaining the goals of the company. The amount of profit is not necessarily significant to a particular work-shift since the company is a long-term operation, but profit is the goal. Jesus told several parables to illustrate that concept. Profit will result in people having more satisfying lives. Therefore, employees of Project Earth who do not invest in the company in some way (again, amount is not the critical factor) will be condemned for that failure. Extending this concept to monetary investment has encountered some resistance among those who fancy themselves morally pure, since the love of money is the root of all evil.

Profit from the loaning of capital is not wrong in itself, but when it impacts the welfare of the employees, particularly through mortgage interest on their homes, clothing, or food, it endangers the goals of the company. For this reason banking is one of those shadow activities with questionable morality. Usury involves the loaning of capital coupled with holding collateral hostage (a mortgage situation). It is described by the Bible as being evil. The collection of interest on money is not intrinsically evil, and may be legitimate where business lending is needed, but no collateral may be held. The antidote to personal mortgage lending is charitable giving; in the words of Jesus, lending without expecting to be repaid.

Investment is quite different from usury in that the purchaser of a share of an enterprise has no anticipation of a repayment except through sharing the increased profits (or losses, as that may be) of the company. If a business venture is formed through selling 1 share of stock to each of 100 investors, each investor is owner of a 1/100 share of the entire business, with the right to collectively dictate how the business is to be run, and to collect 1/100 of the business profits set aside to be paid to the owners (dividends). No individual shareholder can hold the company assets hostage as collateral. If, through the collective decisions of the shareholders, the business fails, they have no recourse, since it can be argued that the failure was a result of inattention by the shareholders to properly control the management of the work at hand. It can also be argued that the minority shareholders are not necessarily responsible for either the success or failure of the business when there is one stakeholder who controls a majority interest.

In the case of Project Earth, God is the majority shareholder, and He delights in profit-sharing with His employees. For that reason He distributes, as He sees fit, the dividends which each employee then is able to plow back into the enterprise. Dissatisfaction with the type and quantity of capital gain distributed by the King is a symptom of rebellion, but the desire to emulate the King, by donating capital to those who might in some way have less, is encouraged and rewarded by Him, often through a grant of a more diverse and profitable form of capital.

You cannot give to others that which you do not have. Profit from the investment of capital is the engine behind charitable giving. However, reliance on charitable giving to meet the needs of those who lack essentials will rarely bring about the satisfaction the recipients would prefer. If the recipients of such charity fail to find a suitable investment venue in turn, their gift will merely extend their misery. Coveting what another person has is evil, whether the covetous person has little or much. Those who have are expected (but not obligated) to share with those who have not; God will judge the adequacy of their donation. Those who receive a gift are expected to be satisfied with what the donor shares; God will judge the level of their thankfulness. Jesus implied that equality of opportunity is not the same as equality of participation; opportunity would be provided regardless the amount of capital a person would start with. Equality of results is not guaranteed.

What is the function of upper management (the government) in all this? It is to provide oversight of the conditions under which the size of the company, the amount of production, and the level of profit, can be maximized. While the ability to govern is a form of capital, management is not ownership; when management attempts to judge the actions of the shareholders, particularly with regard to disposition of the profits, it risks being replaced by new management more conducive to the desires of the owners. Management which reduces production by starving the enterprise of workers (either through reduction in actual numbers or by discouragement of inflows of new investment capital) and/or resources (by refusing to make them available) is being subversive and will be judged accordingly.

Applying these concepts to individual action leads to the conclusion that surplus capital should be invested in gainful enterprises whenever possible in order that it might be multiplied and ultimately used to provide for those whom God might direct to the individual for assistance. Again, you cannot give to others that which you do not have, and failure to invest carries greater condemnation than investing and failing.

Alas, Babylon!

When the book with the above title was published just over 50 years ago the Cold War raged; the United States was the champion of freedom and Godless Russian Communist atheism was seen as the enemy of that freedom. The worm has turned. To everything there is a time and a season. Last night was Christmas Eve in Russia : the readers of ITAR-TASS 50 years ago would have stopped their breath in wonder.
---------------

Medvedev congratulates Russian believers on Christmas
Photo ITAR-TASS

MOSCOW, January 7 (Itar-Tass) — President Dmitry Medvedev has congratulated Orthodox believers and all Russian citizens marking Christmas.

“The Christmas days give us eternal light of belief and fill us with joy and hope. This is the time of good thoughts and good deeds, care about family and unknown people who need our helping hand,” he said in his congratulatory message.

“Sharing with you the joy of this holiday I wish you health, happiness and all the best. Let the light from the Star of Bethlehem bring happiness, love and harmony to every family and prosperity to our country,” Medvedev said in his message.

© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved.
You undertake not to copy, store in any medium (including in any other websites), distribute, transmit, re-transmit, broadcast, modify or show in public any part of the ITAR-TASS website without the prior written permission of ITAR-TASS.

---------------
We need only contrast this with the attention paid to Christmas in Washington this past December -- a tree with an Obama Ornament on it.

“12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning? and cut down to the ground, which didst cast lots upon the nations?

13 Yet thou saidest in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, and exalt my throne above beside the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the Congregation in the sides of the North.

14 I will ascend above ye height of the clouds, and I will be like the most high.

15 But thou shalt be brought down to the grave, to the sides of the pit.

16 They that see thee, shall look upon thee and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, and that did shake the kingdoms?

17 He made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof, and opened not the house of his prisoners.

18 All the Kings of the nations, even they all sleep in glory, everyone in his own house.

19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch: like the raiment of those that are slain, and thrust through with a sword, which go down to the stones of the pit, as a carcass trodden under feet.

20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in the grave, because thou hast destroyed thine own land, and slain thy people: the seed of the wicked shall not be renowned forever.

21 Prepare a slaughter for his children, for the iniquity of their fathers: let them not rise up nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with enemies.

22 For I will rise up against them (saith the Lord of hosts) and will cut off from Babel the name and the remnant and the son, and the nephew, saith the Lord:

23 And I will make it a possession to ye hedgehog, and pools of water, and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the Lord of hosts.” Isaiah 14:12-22(Geneva 1560)

THE END IS NEAR!

As I write this, the clock moves onward and soon the end will come. The end of the second, the minute, the hour, the day. the week, the YEAR A.D. 2011. Wait a minute -- it already happened, a few hours to the east.

Bummer.

So 2012 is upon us. A Presidential election year, and according to the ancient Mayan calendar the world will end next December, after the American people choose a new President. Coincidence? All events are related somehow, tied together by that mysterious elementary particle of the universe, the elusive foo boson.

I ran for Congress in 2000, a triad of leap years ago, as a Republican primary candidate in the 14th District. Then I tried it again in 2010, same party, in the 13th District. Now its the 16th District, and once more it is Leap Year, but my cheering section has disassembled itself, the deadline for filing in the primary is long past, and beside all that, I have no wish to be abused by the Republican party again.

Oh, my ideals have not changed. My positions have become clearer. The results of policies I decried have become even more deadly to the welfare of my country. I fear, however, that America has a secret death wish.

The primary season opened with multiple challengers jockeying for anointment by the press and pundits as the challenger to the man seen as the destroyer of all that is good about America. They are wrong, though, the people of America have themselves presided over the destruction of their nation.

As one who is under oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic, I find myself turning to the policies, written so long ago, which undergird that document; to the Bible, which ordains that all should be treated equally, that fraud and all that contributes to fraud is detestable, and that life is precious and must be protected and enhanced with all the power at our disposal. If we simply would do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God, His blessings will fall upon us like the springtime rain.

I look for one who would uphold those things, but such a person faces numerous enemies who would serve their own interests rather than the good of the Republic. I have had enough of the posturing of those who worship Democracy and hate the ordinances of God. Good riddance to the Year 2011.

THE END IS NEAR!

On Hornets and Hackers...

It was when I was a newly feathered teenager that we one day discovered in the pine trees on our extra side lot a big hornet nest. Being exceptionally bright cookies, my brothers and I decided that it would be bad medicine to disturb that paper metropolis from up close. Being exceptionally mischievous malingerers, we also craved the excitement of demolition. Besides, everyone knows hornets are evil; harassing them would be a good deed. The solution -- we stood back about 50 feet away and shot into the nest with our BB guns.

Did you know that hornets can detect the direction and angle of fire of projectiles at significant distances from their source? We learned something new that day; a victim will only be a victim until he discovers a way to turn the tables on his tormentor.

On Christmas Eve the Internet terrorist organization known as "Anonymous" reportedly broke into the database of Stratfor Global Intelligence, a company that does news analysis for a world-wide client base. The terrorists stole subscriber usernames and passwords, gained access to their credit card accounts, and ran up charges by donating money to charitable organizations.

Reading the comments generated on a number of websites and blogs, it is obvious that there are large numbers of people who are morally degenerate enough to think that Robin Hood tactics are a means of doing good. That should have been obvious from the support that the Occupy Movement has had, even from people who otherwise have a reputation as good citizens. The fact that even political leaders seem to feel that evil deeds will solve the Nation's problems ought to serve as warning that we are headed for catastrophic anarchy, and the eventual loss of cherished freedoms.

I have a number of friends, many now retired, who have worked in the IT field since the 1960's (some even longer) who contemptuously call such troublemakers "script kiddies". They spent a good part of their careers working to foil people who either as a game, or as part of organized espionage, attempted to circumvent security features and access data which was not intended for public exposure. They are well aware that most security breeches are caused by laxity on the part of an IT department which has not considered itself a target for one reason or another. They are also quite confident that as such exploits grow in number, there will be retaliatory measures taken.

"Anonymous", "Occupy Whatever", and other such self-absorbed dreamers need to understand that their mischief to this point has been directed at groups and organizations which have not attempted retaliation. The clients of Stratfor, however, are a mixed bag of corporate and governmental entities, and includes private contractors for security concerns. One of the reasons for attacking that site was that Stratfor was somehow considered "evil", merely on the basis of who they accepted as clientele. One of the reasons for shooting BBs at the hornets' nest was that they could possibly sting people.

In all the wide world there probably are well trained and genuinely evil people who patronize think tanks like Stratfor. That should give the terrorists pause. Just as they are able to use their technological skill to break in, steal information, and use it to create havoc, their victims are also technologically capable, and will eventually be able to track down their tormentors.

At that point, the Internet terrorists had better hope that their victims are much less evil than they originally believed. Back in the bad old days, if you attacked a robber baron and stole his money or embarrassed him, he might not only come after you to kill you, but he might also strike at those near and dear to you. It is said that "Anonymous" tried to shake down a Mexican drug gang, and was warned that the consequences would be dire. They should not sleep too comfortably in the misapprehension that their victims on Wall Street and in other high places around the world are less serious about revenge than the drug lords who have no compunction about hanging their tormentors on wires from bridges, or removing body parts to send a message. Hornets do not like to have their nests disturbed.

Sigh. Time Flies.

It is amazing the difference 10 years can make. I wonder what it will be like 10 years from now...

Christmas 2011

Christmas 2011 (the Western version) has come and is slipping past as I write this. I enjoy the Christmas story, and am thankful that God was willing to bless me -- and all other people -- with the gift of Himself as our Savior, and that He would choose to do so in precisely the manner in which He did it. For years now, however, the Christmas season has made me somewhat uneasy. It has been a bit of a fretful time; a time that produces a sort of melancholy in me, even to the point of depression.

Within the Christmas story is the account of the journey of the wise men from the east, who carried gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh to Jesus. Around this story has grown up the custom of gift-giving, which for most of the world, is the total meaning of Christmas. This custom of exchanging gifts at the celebration of the nativity is nowhere commanded in the Scriptures. Throughout most of Western history it seems to have been a relatively low-key activity, and does not appear in early Church history as a significant factor. It is even suspected by some groups of believers to be an assimilation of a pagan activity.

Then there are always those each year who cry out against the "commercialization" of Christmas, and there are those for whom the "commercialization" of Christmas is the difference between having food on the table and going hungry. Additionally, the bizarre shenanigans of shoppers willing to camp out for "Black Friday" sales, or to fight one another or riot over some particular piece of merchandise, always causes saner citizens to doubt whether Christmas gift-giving is worth the demeaning of the memorial.

To counter that, and because the gift-giving by the wise men has never seemed to be sufficient reason for some people to participate, the rationale has been trotted forth that the giving of gifts is appropriate because it mirrors the very activity of The Eternal in giving Himself. I am persuaded that giving gifts under such reasoning more truly memorializes Christmas, but I fear that in actual practice, it is usually quite banal and trivializes what was done.

We glibly sing the carols and fail to consider the depth of the words; "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. " Within that message is an announcement of more than just the birth of a child. It is the flat statement that a pressing need was met, and that disaster had been averted.

Christmas is actually the acknowledgment of that dreaded idea of Original Sin and the Just Wrath of God. Those who celebrate Christmas admit by doing so, whether willingly or unwillingly, that they have sinned, come short of the Glory of God, and are worthy of spending all of Eternity with that enemy of God, the Devil himself. Had Jesus not been given to us, and had He not subsequently paid the ransom for us on the cross, our future would have been one of eternal torment.

Christmas. The Savior is born. Peace is extended to mankind as a gift from God. It is no mystery that non-Christians should want to take Christ out of Christmas, since His presence, even as a babe in a manger, is a reminder of the presence of sin in our lives, and the price we could not ourselves pay to redeem the glory lost by Adam.

Thus the quandary. The gift that was given by God was a gift that was essential for meeting a need. We do not celebrate Christmas because God in some moment of merriment decided to visit His creation with His presence. We celebrate Christmas because He gave the gift of Eternal Life, the escape from Hell -- "peace, good will toward men."

I suppose what has always bothered me about the Christmas season is that great triviality with which it is treated, and the accompanying triviality in the gift-giving which is supposed to commemorate the Gift of God. For this year, the celebration of the Day is about at an end. It has come and gone. I have participated in the triviality, but will I do better in the future?

Would it not be more appropriate for me to consider my great need that was met, and look about for needs that others have that could be met by me? Rather than a box of candy, or a toy, or even the consideration of a gift for someone else who might be equally well off, would not the true sense of what God did for me be better expressed if, as a gift, I gave something that would meet the needs of a person who was totally unable to reciprocate?

Does Christmas come just once a year for me? He went from the manger to the cross, and the gift took him a lifetime to give. "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

Issue 2

I was asked to put together a brief explaining the reason for Issue 2. Issue 2 is a referendum on Ohio Senate Bill 5. SB 5 changed the Ohio Revised Code with regard to what was and was not permitted in bargaining between public employers (AKA “taxpayers”) and public employees. A “YES” vote is a vote to keep the changes. A “NO” vote is a vote to reject the changes.

SB 5 has been opposed by the unions. There are a number of important reasons for their opposition. New section 4113.80 prohibits discrimination in laying off employees. Section 4117.80 was changed to remove from collective bargaining certain items. New section 4117.081, which applies only to public schools, prohibits public schools from bargaining with unions over certain workplace rules, fixes at 85% the maximum amount the public might be required to pay for public school employee health care insurance premiums, and specifically exempts personal safety equipment from the prohibition. Section 4117.09 was changed to prohibit requiring non-union public employees to pay union dues, or to require union membership. Section 4117.26 was added to define public employee compensation as anything of value given to the employee in exchange for service.

While most private employees would see these changes as making public employee pay and benefits conform to the “real world”, the requirements that teachers agree individually in writing to pay union dues is rightly viewed as a major attack on union power. The unions have resorted to lies about what the bill contains, and many of the people who say they are opposed have simply been mislead or are otherwise ill-informed. Few of the opponents of Issue 2 will flatly admit that it challenges the feathering of their own nests.

The Official Argument and Explanation for Issue 2 (one page) can be found on the Ohio Secretary of State’s website. A synopsis of the critical changes follows; text in red has been added to (underlined) or deleted from (struck through) the existing ORC.



Sec. 4113.80. (A) As used in this section, "public employer" means the state or any agency or instrumentality of the state, and any municipal corporation, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision or any agency or instrumentality of a municipal corporation, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision.
    (B) "Age," "ancestry," "color," "disability," "military status," "national origin," "race," "religion," and "sex" have the same meanings and shall be construed in the same manner as in Chapter 4112. of the Revised Code.
    (C) When determining whether to lay off an employee as part of a reduction in force, a public employer shall not consider the race, color, religion, sex, military status, national origin, disability, age, or ancestry of the employee in violation of Chapter 4112. of the Revised Code or any applicable federal law.

Sec. 4117.08. (A) All matters pertaining to wages, hours, or and terms and other conditions of employment and the continuation, modification, or deletion of an existing provision of a collective bargaining agreement are subject to collective bargaining between the public employer and the exclusive representative, except as otherwise specified in this section and division (E) of section 4117.03 4117.081 of the Revised Code. Any existing provision of a collective bargaining agreement that was modified, renewed, or extended from a prior collective bargaining agreement that does not concern wages, hours, and terms and conditions shall not be a mandatory subject of collective bargaining and shall not be subject to any impasse procedure without the mutual agreement of both the public employer and exclusive representative. The inclusion of a provision in a previous collective bargaining agreement shall not be used as a basis for the provision being determined to concern wages, hours, and terms and conditions.
    (B) The following subjects are not appropriate subjects for collective bargaining:
    (1) The conduct and grading of civil service examinations, the rating of candidates, the establishment of eligible lists from the examinations, and the original appointments from the eligible lists are not appropriate subjects for collective bargaining;
    (2) Health care benefits, except that, subject to division (E) of this section, the amount of the cost of those benefits for which a public employer and the public employees of the public employer pays is an appropriate subject of collective bargaining;
    (3) The payment of a contribution by a public employer to the public employees retirement system, the Ohio police and fire pension fund, the state teachers retirement system, the state highway patrol retirement system, or the school employees retirement system on behalf of an employee, contributor, or teacher, as applicable, that the employee, contributor, or teacher otherwise is required to pay;
    (4) The privatization of a public employer's services or contracting out of the public employer's work;
    (5) The number of employees required to be on duty or employed in any department, division, or facility of a public employer.
    (C) Unless a public employer specifically agrees otherwise in an express written provision of a collective bargaining agreement, nothing in Chapter 4117. of the Revised Code impairs the right and responsibility of each public employer to:
    (1) Determine matters of inherent managerial policy which include, but are not limited to areas of discretion or policy such as the functions and programs of the public employer, standards of services, its overall budget, utilization of technology, and organizational structure;
    (2) Direct, supervise, evaluate, or hire employees;
    (3) Maintain and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of governmental operations;
    (4) Determine the overall methods, process, means, or personnel by which governmental operations are to be conducted;
    (5) Suspend, discipline, demote, or discharge for just cause, or lay off, transfer, assign, schedule, promote, or retain employees;
    (6) Determine the adequacy of the work force;
    (7) Determine the overall mission of the employer as a unit of government;
    (8) Effectively manage the work force;
    (9) Take actions to carry out the mission of the public employer as a governmental unit Hire, discharge, transfer, suspend, or discipline employees;
    (2) Determine the number of persons required to be employed or laid off;
    (3) Determine the qualifications of employees;
    (4) Determine the starting and quitting time and the number of hours to be worked by its employees;
    (5) Make any and all reasonable rules and regulations;
    (6) Determine the work assignments of its employees;
    (7) Determine the basis for selection, retention, and promotion of employees;
    (8) Determine the type of equipment used and the sequence of work processes, except as provided in division (F) of this section;
    (9) Determine the making of technological alterations by revising either process or equipment or both, except as provided in division (F) of this section;
    (10) Determine work standards and the quality and quantity of work to be produced;
    (11) Select and locate buildings and other facilities;
    (12) Establish, expand, transfer, or consolidate work processes and facilities;
    (13) Transfer or subcontract work;
    (14) Consolidate, merge, or otherwise transfer any or all of its facilities, property processes, or work with or to any other municipal corporation or entity or effect or change in any respect the legal status, management, or responsibility of such property, facilities, processes, or work;
    (15) Terminate or eliminate all or any part of its work or facilities.
    The employer is not required to bargain on subjects reserved to the management and direction of the governmental unit except as affect wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment, and the continuation, modification, or deletion of an existing provision of a collective bargaining agreement. A public employee or exclusive representative may raise a legitimate complaint or file a grievance based only on the violation of the express written provisions of a collective bargaining agreement.
    (D) During negotiations between a public employer and an exclusive representative, the parties shall consider, for purposes of determining the ability of the public employer to pay for any terms agreed to during collective bargaining, only the financial status of the public employer at the time period surrounding the negotiations. When determining whether the employer can pay for those terms, the parties shall consider the employer's inability to pay. The parties shall not consider either of the following when determining the ability of the public employer to pay for those terms:
    (1) Any potential future increase in the income of the public employer that would only be possible by the employer raising revenue, including, but not limited to, passing a levy or a bond issue;
    (2) The employer's ability to sell assets.
    (E) The provision of health care benefits for which the employer is required to pay more than eighty-five per cent of the cost is not an appropriate subject for collective bargaining. No public employer shall agree to a provision that requires the public employer to pay more than eighty-five per cent of the cost paid for health care benefits.
    (F) Notwithstanding division (C) of this section, equipment issues directly related to personal safety are subject to collective bargaining.

Sec. 4117.081. (A) This section applies only to school districts, educational service centers, certain conversion community schools established under Chapter 3314. of the Revised Code, and STEM schools established under Chapter 3326. of the Revised Code.
    (B) No public employer to which this section applies shall enter into a collective bargaining agreement on or after the effective date of this section that does any of the following:
    (1) Requires the public employer to employ a minimum number of total personnel or any category of personnel;
    (2) Restricts the authority of the public employer or a district or service center superintendent to assign personnel to school buildings or restricts the authority of a building principal to designate the responsibilities and workloads of personnel assigned to the building;
    (3) Establishes a maximum number of students who may be assigned to a classroom or teacher;
    (4) Prohibits the public employer from making reductions in teachers or nonteaching employees for any applicable reason specified in division (B) of section 124.321 or section 3319.17 or 3319.172 of the Revised Code or in a policy adopted under section 3319.171 of the Revised Code;
    (5) Restricts the authority of the public employer, when making personnel reductions, to determine the order of layoffs;
    (6) Restricts the authority of the public employer to acquire noneducational services from another public or private entity through competitive bidding;
    (7) Restricts the authority of the public employer to acquire any products, programs, or services pursuant to section 3313.841, 3313.842, 3313.843, or 3313.845 of the Revised Code;
    (8) Otherwise relinquishes, impairs, or restricts the managerial rights and responsibilities of the public employer described in division (C) of section 4117.08 of the Revised Code.
    (C)(1) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(2) of this section, each collective bargaining agreement entered into on or after the effective date of this section between a public employer to which this section applies and its employees shall comply with all applicable state or local laws or ordinances regarding wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of public employees.
    (2) A collective bargaining agreement entered into on or after the effective date of this section may include a provision that conflicts with an applicable law or ordinance, if the provision establishes benefits that are less than the benefits conferred by the law or ordinance and division (A) of section 4117.10 of the Revised Code does not require that the law or ordinance prevail over the conflicting provision. Any provision of the agreement that conflicts with an applicable law or ordinance and does not meet these requirements shall be void.
    (D) Notwithstanding division (A)(5) of section 4117.11 of the Revised Code, a public employer to which this section applies is not required to, and may refuse to, collectively bargain on the continuation, modification, or termination of a provision of an existing collective bargaining agreement.

Sec. 4117.09. (A) The parties to any collective bargaining agreement shall reduce the agreement to writing and both execute it.
    (B) The agreement shall contain a provision that:
    (1) Provides for a grievance procedure which may culminate with final and binding arbitration of unresolved grievances, and that are based on the disputed interpretations of the express written provisions of the agreements, and which is valid and enforceable under its terms when entered into in accordance with this chapter. No publication thereof is required to make it effective. A party to the agreement may bring suits for violation of agreements or the enforcement of an award by an arbitrator in the court of common pleas of any county wherein a party resides or transacts business.
    (2) Authorizes the public employer to deduct the periodic dues, initiation fees, and assessments of members of the exclusive representative upon presentation of a written deduction authorization by the employee so long as the employee organization has filed and maintained its financial report outlining the organization's expenditures.
    (C) The No agreement may contain a provision that requires as a condition of employment, on or after a mutually agreed upon probationary period or sixty days following the beginning of employment, whichever is less, or the effective date of a collective bargaining agreement, whichever is later, that the employees in the unit who are not members of the employee organization pay to the employee organization a fair share fee. The arrangement does not require any employee to become a member of the employee organization, nor shall fair share fees exceed dues paid by members of the employee organization who are in the same bargaining unit. Any public employee organization representing public employees pursuant to this chapter shall prescribe an internal procedure to determine a rebate, if any, for nonmembers which conforms to federal law, provided a nonmember makes a timely demand on the employee organization. Absent arbitrary and capricious action, such determination is conclusive on the parties except that a challenge to the determination may be filed with the state employment relations board within thirty days of the determination date specifying the arbitrary or capricious nature of the determination and the board shall review the rebate determination and decide whether it was arbitrary or capricious. The deduction of a fair share fee by the public employer from the payroll check of the employee and its payment to the employee organization is automatic and does not require the written authorization of the employee. The internal rebate procedure shall provide for a rebate of expenditures in support of partisan politics or ideological causes not germaine to the work of employee organizations in the realm of collective bargaining. Any public employee who is a member of and adheres to established and traditional tenets or teachings of a bona fide religion or religious body which has historically held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting an employee organization and which is exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code shall not be required to join or financially support any employee organization as a condition of employment. Upon submission of proper proof of religious conviction to the board, the board shall declare the employee exempt from becoming a member of or financially supporting an employee organization. The employee shall be required, in lieu of the fair share fee, to pay an amount of money equal to the fair share fee to a nonreligious charitable fund exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code mutually agreed upon by the employee and the representative of the employee organization to which the employee would otherwise be required to pay the fair share fee. The employee shall furnish to the employee organization written receipts evidencing such payment, and failure to make the payment or furnish the receipts shall subject the employee to the same sanctions as would nonpayment of dues under the applicable collective bargaining agreement.
    No public employer shall agree to a provision requiring that a public employee become a member of an employee organization as a condition for securing or retaining employment. Any agreement that purports to require that employees join any exclusive representative is void and unenforceable.
    No public employer shall agree to a provision that provides for the payroll deduction for any contributions to a political action committee using any other method than the method prescribed in sections 3517.082, 3517.09, and 3599.031 of the Revised Code.
    (D) As used in this division, "teacher" means any employee of a school district certified to teach in the public schools of this state.
    The agreement may contain a provision that provides for a peer review plan under which teachers in a bargaining unit or representatives of an employee organization representing teachers may, for other teachers of the same bargaining unit or teachers whom the employee organization represents, participate in assisting, instructing, reviewing, evaluating, or appraising and make recommendations or participate in decisions with respect to the retention, discharge, renewal, or nonrenewal of, the teachers covered by a peer review plan.
    The participation of teachers or their employee organization representative in a peer review plan permitted under this division shall not be construed as an unfair labor practice under this chapter or as a violation of any other provision of law or rule adopted pursuant thereto.
    (E) No agreement shall contain an expiration date that is later than three years from the date of execution. The parties may extend any agreement, but the extensions do not affect the expiration date of the original agreement.
    (F) No public employer shall agree to a provision that requires the public employer, when a reduction in force is necessary, to use an employee's length of service as the only factor to determine whether to lay off the employee.


Sec. 4117.26. (A) As used in this section, "compensation" means wages, salary, and other earnings paid to a public employee by reason of employment. "Compensation" includes all of the following that are provided by a public employer to a public employee:
    (1) Allowances for food or drink;
    (2) Allowances or stipends for clothing;
    (3) Compensation in addition to base salary for labor performed or services rendered by the public employee, including any additional compensation paid for attending an event that occurs outside the public employee's normal work schedule;
    (4) Payments for length of service;
    (5) Allowances for dry cleaning services;
    (6) Insurance coverage, including health insurance, vision insurance, dental insurance, disability insurance, or life insurance;
    (7) Anything of value given to a public employee by a public employer for labor performed or services rendered by the public employee that is not generally offered to any of the public employer's employees that are not subject to a collective bargaining agreement, unless they are de minimis.

Scraping the Bottom

In a lot of ways, Facebook is a fiasco. Certainly it allows contact between large groups of people, and it allows you to find long-lost acquaintances, often by chaining to other acquaintances. Of course, there are some acquaintances you would rather forget, but that is a slightly different problem ...

I need to stay more up to date via blogging. The advantage over Facebook notes is that there is less distraction from the trivia that oozes to the surface of Facebook on a constant basis. The disadvantage is missing out on the trivia. Thus, at times a disadvantage is an advantage in disguise. Next I suppose I will discuss the genius aspects of an oxymoron.

The garden is producing. Saturday I picked a pile of cucumbers -- note that I just skipped the opportunity for onomatopoetic excess -- and several tender little zucchinis. The latter I sliced into 1/2" wafers and froze on a cookie sheet, and then stored them in a baggie. Today I treated another threesome the same way.

I tried some of the bok choy a week or so ago and was disappointed, because it has failed to head the way the picture on the seed package showed. In fact, one of the plants began to bolt, so I yanked it and whacked off the top portion. On a whim, I brought the remainder into the house, not sure what I would do with it. This evening I chopped it into chunks and boiled some of it. With butter and salt and pepper it was actually acceptable.

The remainder has been cleaned and is currently in a colander waiting to go into the refrigerator. Between the cucumber salad and some Swiss chard at supper, and now this cabbage snack, I may be offsetting a good bit of the rat poison in my system. Wednesday we shall find out.

As for Uncle Emil's artifacts, I have to say that the bundle was not quite as advertised. There are some WW2 memoirs -- I think he was putting stuff together to try to write a book and basically only got as far as the outline -- and a series of letters from 1957-1959. What is there is an interesting picture of life at sea, but there is not the detail that I was hoping for to fill in the stories that Uncle Mike and Dad told. One thing is certain; Uncle Emil was a stickler for detail, and had both a flair for drama and a wicked sense of humor.

He also had the dreaded Hrubik temper. The notarized statement accompanying his official resignation of command on 24 October 1945 contains an apology for what he had "written in the heat of anger".

So I suppose I need to catalog the stuff and then create a blog page just for that. For now, I'll just post this : Capt. Emil Hrubik, on the flying bridge of his new post-war command, the S.S. William A. Henry (Matson Lines), 1946.