
Friday, October 30, 2009
Weekly Transformers Feature: Classics Grimlock

Thursday, October 29, 2009
Not-Quite-Transformers Feature: WST Dinorobots


These toys are amazingly faithful (if scaled-down) representations of the original toys (in fact, that's why I put the quarter in the picture, just so it's clear that I am talking about these smaller toys, as opposed to the original ones), which means that the legality of what Justitoys is doing is still in a gray area, at best. One could easily consider these toys "derivative works" of copyrighted designs. But that's the last I'm going to say about legality. I'm not going to get into the question of whether Hasbro or TakaraTomy can or even should do something about this purported infringement. That's up to them.

One more note, for the sake of accuracy. Although these toys were sold packaged with stickers, there were early widespread reports that they didn't adhere to the toys well, so I never even bothered with them. Instead, I got stickers from Reprolabels, designed to go with these toys. I even got the WST "rub symbols" to make them as G1-like as I could, although you really can't see any of the rubsigns in these pictures (Grimlock's is on his foot, and you can kind of make out the one on Swoop's dino mode, if you know where to look).
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
David Scholer on Hebrews Part 5: Pilgrimage of Believers
This week's lesson: "The Pilgrimage of the Believers in Hebrews" (File uploaded by Larry Harnisch)
My observations:
- Dr. Scholer mentions during his introduction that some of what Hebrews has to say about salvation may make many Baptists uncomfortable, because it sounds at times like one can lose his/her salvation. It is important to remember that Scholer, an American Baptist, is teaching a group from his home church. Since Scholer notes that Baptists have been more or less "Reformed" since 1660, I expect the issues would pertain equally well to Presbyterians (my own tradition).
- If Christians are said to be on a journey (emphasized often during this lecture), Christ can be said to have made that journey, as well.
- Scholer suggests that the message "delivered through angels" is the giving of the law itself. There was apparently a tradition that Moses was surrounded by angels, referenced in other New Testament works, as well, but I don't see any references to angels in the Mosaic texts, even in Deuteronomy, which Scholer specifically cites. I can only assume that there is a translation issue, here, and that the word translated "angel" in some English versions is translated as some other word in the version I'm consulting.
- Scholer relates an account that he had shared with some reporters in then-recent past, reflecting on the significance of the 9/11 terrorist attacks (barely more than a month previously). He suggested that the attacks could be seen as a "wake up call" to return to God. Hebrews seems to arguing something similar to that audience.
- Hebrews 11 gives a long list recounting examples of people who lived by faith. People who endured while on "the journey" before the coming of Christ. The author suggests that Abraham (and, perhaps less explicitly, the other figures mentioned) was looking forward to God's eternal city. This is not explicitly mentioned in the Old Testament text, but Abraham is depicted as a person who "believed God," and thus is suggested to have taken part ("deep down") in promises of God that have been made known in the centuries since.
- Scholer counts 32+ figures mentioned in Chapter 11. Hebrews says that none of them got the promises God had made to them, but that they would get them when the Christians get them, too. ("So don't let them down!" Scholer suggests the author is saying)
- Five characteristics that should be true of people on the journey:
- The pilgrim believer is not to neglect the salvation offered by Christ (the price of neglect is high). That's why there are so many strong warnings in Hebrews. (Next week, we'll get to how serious this warning is. Can you lose salvation?)
- A believer ought to grow toward maturity.
- Pilgrim believers must engage in mutual support. You don't care just for yourself, but try to make sure that everyone else makes it.
- The pilgrim believers are encouraged to accept discipline and suffering, because Jesus did. This is difficult, not just because we don't like to be disciplined, but also because we know about issues of abuse and oversimplification when this teaching is cited. But the fundamental idea of this teaching holds--God will make us stronger, and more able to cope.
- Believers must have perseverance and a clear focus on Jesus. Related to this is the call to "go outside the camp," a reference to Christ's death on the cross (which could not be done within the city itself for religious reasons. Sacrificial animals were slaughtered outside the city walls, as well, and the blood then brought inside for offering in the temple).
- In the question and answer session at the end of the lecture, Scholer is asked how he might apply some of the lessons of Hebrews discussed in this lecture (specifically, the call to "go outside," mentioned above) to their congregation. I expect some of these ideas will work for other congregations, as well, and I appreciate Scholer's suggestion that people need to learn about cultures and ways of living that are different from one's own.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Dinobots in the Marvel Comics


Monday, October 26, 2009
Dinobot Week Begins


Kids have been fascinated with dinosaurs for forever, so it makes sense that someone would have thought to incorporate them into the transformable robots concept (the Dinobots, like most early Transformers, were actually created for a Japanese toyline—Diaclone, in this case—and brought over to the Transformers line when Hasbro decided to have Marvel put together a storyline concept to go with those toys). The fusion of dinosaur and Transformer was so successful, in fact, that hardly a Transformers line has gone by without some kind of an homage to the idea (it might even be easier to name the lines that don't seem to have such an homage, but that would require defining terms far more pedantically than I care to at the moment).
Even though the original Dinobot toys (being somewhat larger than the typical Autobot cars) were generally outside of my price range at the time, I still found them to be fascinating characters. So what if Slag, Sludge, Snarl, and Swoop got almost no characterization in any of the official fiction (Grimlock really was something of a glory hog, wasn't he?). They transformed into dinosaurs! How cool is that? I think that I can safely say that it was the Dinobots that provided my first real connection into becoming a Transformers fan (in fact, the first Transformers comic I ever purchased was issue #8, but more about that tomorrow).
Having established that the Dinobots, both as a concept in general and talking about the Generation One team in particular, have had an enormous impact on the Transformers franchise, here's is the schedule with which I'm looking to honor them for the rest of the week:
- Tomorrow: Dinobots in the Marvel Comics
- Wednesday: David Scholer on Hebrews Part 5 (OK, this one isn't really about the Dinobots at all. Sorry!)
- Thursday: Not-Really Transformers Feature: WST Dinorobots
- Friday: Weekly Transformers Feature: Classics Grimlock
Friday, October 23, 2009
Weekly Transformers Feature: Universe Sharkticon




Incidentally, these Universe versions still show up at Big Lots from time to time. Now that the Christmas holidays are just around the corner, I see that they've unloaded a bunch from their warehouses yet again, so if Sharkticon appeals to you, feel free to head down and see if you can find it!
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
David Scholer on Hebrews Part 4: Christology (Part 2)
This week's lesson: "The Christology of Hebrews: Part 2" (MP3 file uploaded by Larry Harnisch)
My observations:
- The priesthood of Christ is the major discussion in Hebrews, taking up more space than any other single topic in the book. Scholer calls this method of describing Christ to the audience of Hebrews "clever." The author of Hebrews argues that Jesus is a priest of a different order than the order of the priests of Israel (that is, the Levitical order). Since Christ is a priest of a different order, the author of Hebrews is able to argue that Christ's priesthood is different than, and superior to, the traditional Levitical priesthood. More on this "clever" usage later.
- The author of Hebrews is arguing less with the literal practices of Judaism of the time, and more with the theological heritage of that perspective. Scholer notes how Hebrews tends to discuss the "tabernacle," and not the "temple."
- After some introductions, the first real area where Hebrews discusses Jesus as high priest occurs in 4:14-5:10. The identity of Jesus with humanity is emphasized--"in every way," with one exception: Jesus was without sin. Jesus can represent the people because he himself was subject to the weaknesses that people are subject to. Likewise, Hebrews paints Jesus as a priest by noting that Jesus was called by God, and that Jesus made sacrifice for the sins of the people. It is at the end of this section that the author identifies Jesus' priestly order as being the order of Melchizedek.
- As Scholer notes, "Hebrews is replete with Old Testament passages." In particular, Hebrews uses two Psalms: Psalms 2 and 110. These are sometimes called "Royal Psalms," and were originally addressed to the leader of Israel (perhaps King David). So when the Psalm says "you are My Son. Today I have begotten you," or (paraphrasing) "you're in the priesthood of Melchizedek," this was originally understood as being God's word to the ruler of Israel. When the early church read these Psalms, they saw them as applying to Christ in a special way, and this is how Hebrews uses them.
- If the author of Hebrews wants to describe Jesus as being a priest, there's one major hurdle to overcome. Jesus is not a Levite, and all Jewish priests were Levites. This is where the author's argument is "clever" (in Scholer's terms). The only other priesthood alluded to in the Old Testament is that of Melchizedek in Genesis 14 (the only other time Melchizedek is even mentioned outside of Psalm 110:4). Not only is Melchizedek described in Genesis as a priest, but he is also a King. The King of Salem (believed to be the same as Jerusalem). And not only all this, but Abraham himself pays the tithe to Melchizedek (Abraham is basically paying for safe passage through Melchizedek's land). The author of Hebrews can then use this fact to suggest that, since Abraham is the father of the Jewish people, all Jews have paid the tithe to Melchizedek through Abraham, including Levi (and thus all Levitical priests). Thus, if Jesus is a priest of Melchizedek's order, his priesthood is superior to the Levitical priesthood.
- After Genesis 14 and Psalm 110, the next time we hear about Melchizedek is in the Qumran community (the folks who created the Dead Sea Scrolls). The Qumran community percieved of Melchizedek as an almighty, divine person--in essence, as one who sat at God's right hand (as in Psalm 110). The people at Qumran even suggested that Melchizedek, as God's divine agent, had the authority to forgive sins. Scholer reads from a passage about Melchizedek, written before Jesus' birth (perhaps 100-50 BC), which uses language we today would associate with Jesus. Perhaps the author of Hebrews was aware of this tradition? (This can't be proven)
- Some of the argument from Hebrews regarding the Melchizedekian priesthood's superiority over the Levitical priesthood sounds a lot like Plato's Forms. This development of thought seems to be one of the reasons that Scholer supposes that the author of Hebrews might have been from Alexandria (see also the second lecture in this series), as other thinkers from Alexandria (the academic center of the era)--notably the Jewish scholar, Philo--have demonstrated similar concepts.
- The concept of a "new covenant" wasn't unique or original to Christianity. The Qumran community used a term like this to refer to themselves, as well. They wanted to express that the "old" covenant was corrupt and that they had the "truth." Indeed, this sounds to me quite a lot like what a lot of religious sects and cults claim....
- The emphasis of Hebrews on Jesus' humanity has historically made the Church (which tends to stress Jesus' divinity) uncomfortable. Scholer especially notes how Hebrews says that Jesus "learned obedience." Jesus is "not a fake human being." For an example of how difficult it was for the Church to grasp this concept, Clement of Alexandria (a 2nd century theologian who actually spent a lot of time defending Jesus' humanity) suggested at one point that Jesus only ate and drank "for appearances sake" and never defecated.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Perseverance and Persecution Complexes
One of the professors I work for at Fuller teaches courses on Spirituality. As part of my job, I sometimes I have to type out prayer services to be used in his classes. This "Prayer Appointed for the Week" comes from The Divine Hours by Phyllis Tickle, for use on the "Monday - Nearest to October 19" (how convenient that October 19th is Monday this year!)"
It's hard for me to hear a thought like that without being reminded of the constant barrage of statements by certain Christians about our faith being "under attack," usually by certain political elements. My gut instinct is usually to dismiss such proclamations as those of people with a "persecution complex." That is, people who fear that, if they don't get their way on a particular issue, everything they hold dear will cease to exist. It's almost as if they're living in a house of cards. One poorly placed card, or an unfortunate sneeze on the part of an onlooker, and everything will come crashing down.
I do not think that the Christian faith is so fragile. However, I believe this precisely because I trust God to maintain the Church. The Church of the future may not look like the Church of today--indeed, I hope that it doesn't! But I trust that God will provide whatever is necessary for the Church to survive.
Perhaps that sounds a bit complacent. If that is indeed my attitude, then I ask for forgiveness. I need reminders that the Church needs God's provision in order to survive. Prayers like this are important, and I do not wish to dismiss them, even if I don't agree with those who make the Church's survival sound as fragile as a house of cards.
Almighty and everlasting God, in Christ you have revealed your glory among the nations: Preserve the works of your mercy, that your Church throughout the world may persevere with steadfast faith in the confession of your Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen. †I am struck by the reference to perseverance. Since the "Church" is the antecedent in that sentence, this doesn't sound to me like the kind of thing we talk about when we talk (for example) about needing God's strength to help us through hard times. There are lots of prayers for that, too, of course (and we certainly need them!). Rather, this strikes me more as a statement about the Church, that is, the collective body of Christian believers, needing God's assistance to survive as an institution.
It's hard for me to hear a thought like that without being reminded of the constant barrage of statements by certain Christians about our faith being "under attack," usually by certain political elements. My gut instinct is usually to dismiss such proclamations as those of people with a "persecution complex." That is, people who fear that, if they don't get their way on a particular issue, everything they hold dear will cease to exist. It's almost as if they're living in a house of cards. One poorly placed card, or an unfortunate sneeze on the part of an onlooker, and everything will come crashing down.
I do not think that the Christian faith is so fragile. However, I believe this precisely because I trust God to maintain the Church. The Church of the future may not look like the Church of today--indeed, I hope that it doesn't! But I trust that God will provide whatever is necessary for the Church to survive.
Perhaps that sounds a bit complacent. If that is indeed my attitude, then I ask for forgiveness. I need reminders that the Church needs God's provision in order to survive. Prayers like this are important, and I do not wish to dismiss them, even if I don't agree with those who make the Church's survival sound as fragile as a house of cards.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Weekly Transformers Feature: Kiss Players Position Set






Thursday, October 15, 2009
Blog Action Day 2009: Big Change From Little Straws

It's no secret that the political climate of America has become more than a little toxic. Bring up a charged topic like "Climate Change" and there's pretty much no way to win. You'll be dismissed for being too "liberal" by "conservatives" if you present a sense of too much urgency about the issue, but you'll be dismissed as "not caring enough" if you don't sound "urgent enough." However much climate change may be "an inconvenient truth" that needs wrestling with, it often seems like almost nothing can be done--certainly not on the scale required to make real change--simply because it's so difficult to get the average person to listen.
Personally, while I do care about environmental issues, I have little patience for a lot of sites out there (many of which are Christian faith-based) that, perhaps without entirely realizing it, foster an attitude of "whatever you're doing, it's not enough." I think such an attitude does more to paralyze than it does to encourage action. That's not to say that I think that most people are doing enough when it comes to good stewardship of the resources we've been given. It's to say that I think we need to be careful about how we make our case for change.
Dr. Glen Stassen is a professor of Christian Ethics here at Fuller Theological Seminary, and I took his course about a decade ago. While he makes choices that I think I could safely say are "too extreme" for me, personally (Note to students: don't bring a plastic bag into his presence if you can help it!), he is good about advocating for small changes, done consistently. Car pool more. Drive less (bike to work if you can). Put a brick in your toilet (or, perhaps even better, get one of those low volume models). Use your air conditioner and your heater less. I'm sure that there's nothing new here. My favorite example is far more subtle: say "no" to the straw.
Basically, if you eat at a restaurant where you're allowed to self-serve, don't take a straw if you're not going to be traveling with the food (the more aggressive among you might even try telling your waiter or waitress not to give you a straw at the nicer restaurants, but I've never been very successful at that, and once it's on your table, they're just going to throw it out, so the damage is already done). The plastic used in straws is generally non-recyclable (plastic straws tend to be code #5, and most recycling centers only take codes #1 and #2), and thus is just thrown out once it's been used (usually only that one time!). One straw is obviously only a tiny thing, but multiply that by however many times you eat out, and by however many people follow the same advice, and that's a significant amount of plastic that isn't being wasted. Naturally, fewer straws used means fewer straws ordered by the restaurant. Fewer straws ordered means less plastic being created and consumed. That means less waste for landfills, and fewer of the chemicals used to create the plastics being thrown out or pumped into the atmosphere, as well.
Politicians often talk like making changes to business structures that are bad for the environment would be too expensive to be practical. But clearly a change like using fewer straws would actually be economically beneficial! If businesses don't have to order straws so often, they save money. Granted, in this example, the "straw industry" stands to lose some money. But since greater efficiency is gained overall, I can't say that I'm too worried on that count.
Obviously, there will be those who argue that I'm not going nearly far enough. They would say (I assume) that only radical changes can achieve that kinds of improvements that are needed. I'm not unsympathetic to that concern. However, I firmly believe that if we only look for radical change, the amount of change that actually occurs will be far too small to be meaningful. Big changes multiplied by only a few people = little impact. However, I think that by encouraging people to make small, but consistent, changes in their lifestyles, we stand a far more realistic chance of making a real difference. Little changes multiplied by many people = Big impact!
So, the next time you're at a restaurant, just say "no, thanks" to the straw!
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
David Scholer on Hebrews Part 3: Christology (Part 1)
This week's lesson: "The Christology of Hebrews: Part 1" (File uploaded by Larry Harnisch)
My observations:
- Scholer opens by introducing his friend, Father Robert Karris. I've met Father Karris on a number of occasions. Last I heard, Karris was working on a book detailing Scholer's teachings on "Women, the Bible, and the Church." I wonder how that's coming along?
- Although Hebrews contains quite a lot of comment about the person and work of Jesus Christ, the author did not sit down to write thinking "the church needs a good Christology, so I'm going to write one." Rather, Hebrews was written in response to pastoral concerns, specifically, concern that the audience of the letter might fall away from the faith. The Christological material of Hebrews is merely the framework in which the exhortation addressing these concerns took place. First and foremost, people can have hope because of who Jesus Christ is, and what Jesus Christ does.
- The concept of the "last days" was closely tied to the concept of God acting, specifically for the salvation of God's people. Since God was clearly acting in this way through the coming of Jesus Christ, the idea that Christians were living in the "last days" was a natural conclusion.
- The conviction that Jesus was God was a difficult thing for the early the church to wrestle with. In the midst of a generally polytheistic world, the Jews accused the early Church of having two Gods, and therefore not being truly monotheistic, as they were. Even today, the concept of the trinity (including the Holy Spirit as God, as well) remains one of the most difficult concepts of the Christian faith to understand.
- There are some parts of the apocryphal book of Wisdom (written in the first century before the birth of Christ, according to Scholer) where Wisdom is described in practically divine terms that sound a lot like how Jesus is described in the book of Hebrews.
- There is an interesting "rabbit trail" in the middle of the discussion whereby Scholer discusses feminine imagery for God (stemming from the discussion of "Lady Wisdom"). 14th century mystic Julian of Norwich (a woman, the "male" name notwithstanding) even describes Jesus as a "mother."
- The discussion in Hebrews of Jesus as superior to angels may reflect a concern that people were giving too much attention to angels.
- There were three pivotal figures in Judaism: Abraham (father of the Jewish people), Moses (the liberator), and David (the great king). Jesus is, at various points, compared to each one of these to demonstrate Jesus' superiority to them all. Scholer specifically mentions how Hebrews deals with Moses in relation to Jesus. The author of Hebrews is very careful never to criticize Moses. Jesus, however, is worthy of "more glory" than Moses.
Monday, October 12, 2009
I Hate Columbus Day!

Then I found the notice on the FSA's web page: "Forms will not be processed on October 12, 2009, due to the Columbus Day holiday."
Why do we even continue to "celebrate" (and I use the term loosely) Columbus Day, anyway? It's been long-established that he didn't actually discover the new world (and we certainly don't celebrate Leif Ericson day*), and the vast majority of us still have to go to work or school. The only groups that actually do seem to get the day off are the banks, the post office, and other organizations that the rest of us actually depend on to get stuff done.
I'm apparently not the only person opposed to the celebration of Columbus Day, but I really don't care about the political reasons given there. I just resent not being able to do what I need to do because of a holiday that routinely comes without warning, and doesn't actually provide any of the actual benefits that a holiday is supposed to provide. At least give me the day off, for crying out loud!
*Actually, Wikipedia says we do celebrate Leif Erikson Day (Note the alternate spelling of Ericson's name, as Wikipedia has it, specifically in regard to the day), but since I've never ever heard of it, I think I can safely say, "No, I don't!"
Friday, October 09, 2009
Weekly Transformers Feature: Classics Megatron


As to the mildly Generation One-esque weapon mode, there's actually a debate that's raged on in the fan community over the years about just how viable a handgun alternate mode would have been for the evil Decepticon leader, anyway. In the cartoon, for example, Megatron usually has to be held by one of his soldiers to be used (and most often, it seems, that soldier is Starscream, the guy who's always trying to knock him off and take over leadership! Yeah, like that makes sense!). And in the Transformers club-produced comic that featured the Classics characters, Megatron is never actually seen using his weapon mode (granted, a lot of characters never seem to actually transform in these comics, perhaps a side-effect of only getting six pages every two months...). So, I figure I'm in good company if I just keep this toy in robot mode all the time.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
David Scholer on Hebrews Part 2: Purpose and Structure
This week's lesson: "The Purpose and Structure of Hebrews" (File uploaded by Larry Harnisch)
Some highlights:
- Although Hebrews is collected with the epistles (letters), Hebrews doesn't have the salutation/blessing pattern that opens all (Scholer's emphasis) letters of this era. Hebrews does have an ending that is similar to letters, however. Scholer explains this by suggesting that Hebrews is, in fact, an early sermon (the book refers to itself as an "exhortation").
- Dr. Scholer's lecture last week gave brief mention about the encouragements and warnings contained within Hebrews. He elaborates on that considerably here. Apparently the warnings become more and more intense as the letter progresses. It seems clear that the writer of Hebrews was deeply concerned about the people being written to. The encouragements serve to help soften the blow of those warnings. The letter follows a pattern of Christology, warning, encouragement throughout.
- I was especially impressed by a story Dr. Scholer told about an experiment his wife Jeannette conducted as part of a Bible study she was leading. Having gotten a letter from a long-time friend, she read the letter to the rest of the group without telling them anything about the friend (who none of them already knew) to provide context. The group was then able to reconstruct a considerable portion of the friend's background just from what was contained within the letter. This is very much the same kind of thing that modern scholars have to do with ancient texts (such as those of the Bible) to try to determine their context and purpose. Naturally, some of this depends on speculation and cannot be proven, and some texts provide more information than others, but this nonetheless provides a considerable amount of insight into the letter once this exercise is completed.
- Best clue to the context of Hebrews comes in Chapter 10 (starting in verse 32). The author hints at persecution, but indicates (in a later passage) that this persecution has not yet resulted in loss of life. We can't tell what particular persecution is being referred to here, but there's plenty of evidence of local persecutions in the first century. The author of Hebrews seems concerned that the people being written to are in danger of falling away from the faith out of fear of persecution.
- Pliny the Younger describes male and female deacons in Christian worship. I need to look this bit up....
- One clue as to the location of congregation is at the very end, where it is written that some Italian friends of the author send greetings. Perhaps the author was in Italy, but it seems more likely it was the congregation that was in Italy.
- Scholer argues that the author was most likely a Jew living in Alexandria, Egypt, based on the pattern of the author's argumentation. Alexandria was the 2nd-largest city in the entire Roman Empire, and it contained the largest Jewish community in the entire Empire (even more than in Jerusalem). We know a lot about this era and community through the writings of Philo, a Jewish scholar who lived in Alexandria.
- Guesses as to the identity of the author:
- Luke - because Luke/Acts has very sophisticated Greek, as does Hebrews
- Paul - suggested more strongly around the 3rd century, based mostly on the fact he wrote so many of the OTHER books. Origen said "only God knows who wrote Hebrews" at about the same time, but suggested that "if by saying Paul wrote it, people will read it, let's say Paul wrote it." Indeed, Hebrews almost didn't make it into the New Testament, and seems only to have included in the canon on the belief that Paul wrote it, even though this is now known to be almost certainly incorrect.
- Apollos - originally posited by Martin Luther, noting that Apollos came from Alexandria. A lot of scholars think this may be right.
- Priscilla - originally suggested by Adolf von Harnack, who thought there were some "feminine touches" in Hebrews.
- We don't know when Hebrews was written, as the internal clues don't help much. Some scholars argue that it has to be before AD 70 because it fails to mention the destruction of the temple, although Scholer dismisses this reasoning because the relevant arguments in the text discuss the tabernacle (i.e., referencing a far earlier period of Jewish history) and thus the temple wouldn't be a reference point either way. It was almost certainly written within the later half of the first century, but greater specificity is difficult, if not impossible.
Monday, October 05, 2009
No Tax? How Did That Happen?
I was struck by an article on CNN.com this past week that suggested that 47% of households will owe no federal income tax in 2009. My first reaction to such a statement is "that can't possibly be true!" Even allowing for the fact that many of this 47% will still be paying state and local taxes, as well as Medicare and Social Security taxes taken right out of their paychecks, that is an amazingly high number! But the more I think about it, the more I feel that the figure may not be so far off....
We've been told for some time now that unemployment rates are hovering around 10%. Of course, that 10% isn't "households," but rather "10% of adults." A married couple with only one spouse working, for example, would mean that the "non-working" spouse is counted as "unemployed," without respect to whether or not the working spouse makes enough for the entire household to live on. To put it another way, this kind of a "household" isn't unemployed. One spouse has a job, and it may possibly pay well enough that this household won't be in the 47%. Naturally, if one spouse doesn't have a paying job, the odds of being in that 47% are indeed greater. Indeed, it's been the case for decades now that it's getting harder and harder to make ends meet without both parents having incomes in a household with children. Indeed, this phenomenon has had more than a few youth workers concerned that children aren't getting the parental attention they need. Parents have to make a choice between enough food on the table and proper supervision, and there are no easy answers.
I imagine that the problem is especially difficult in a state like California, where the cost of living is ridiculously high (although at least we're not as bad as New York, judging from the chart on the left!). I actually doubt I'll be in that "tax free" 47% percent, myself (I guess I'll find out sometime between January 31st and April 15th), but I still struggle to make ends meet. And I'm most definitely one of the lucky ones! The unemployment rate in California is over 12%! So a smaller percentage of us even have jobs with which to try to earn even more money needed to get by.... So I'm thankful that both my wife and I have jobs, however much we wish that they paid better (or, perhaps even more to the point, that my wife, who's working on a PhD, didn't have to hold a job in order for us to be able to pay for rent and food. Then she might have the time she needs to study and prepare for her upcoming dissertation work). I have to imagine that means that things are that much worse for many, many of my fellow California citizens (who may not even have the option of selling Transformers or e-books to try to make up the difference. Yes, this is a shameless plug!).
I'm not looking to get into the question (raised by the original article) about whether or not the tax system is too "progressive," or if the current situation is "sustainable" or not. We already know that the government will have to start taking in more revenue anyway, even without accounting for whether or not they're getting funds from a broad enough base of the America people. Thankfully, there are signs that the economy is starting to turn around. Although this still hasn't translated into a reduction of the unemployment rate (at best, the rate of growth in the numbers of people who are unemployed may be slowing down, but that's still not an actual reduction), there is perhaps reason to hope that such a reduction will come sooner rather than later. I certainly would argue that it can't come soon enough!
We've been told for some time now that unemployment rates are hovering around 10%. Of course, that 10% isn't "households," but rather "10% of adults." A married couple with only one spouse working, for example, would mean that the "non-working" spouse is counted as "unemployed," without respect to whether or not the working spouse makes enough for the entire household to live on. To put it another way, this kind of a "household" isn't unemployed. One spouse has a job, and it may possibly pay well enough that this household won't be in the 47%. Naturally, if one spouse doesn't have a paying job, the odds of being in that 47% are indeed greater. Indeed, it's been the case for decades now that it's getting harder and harder to make ends meet without both parents having incomes in a household with children. Indeed, this phenomenon has had more than a few youth workers concerned that children aren't getting the parental attention they need. Parents have to make a choice between enough food on the table and proper supervision, and there are no easy answers.
I'm not looking to get into the question (raised by the original article) about whether or not the tax system is too "progressive," or if the current situation is "sustainable" or not. We already know that the government will have to start taking in more revenue anyway, even without accounting for whether or not they're getting funds from a broad enough base of the America people. Thankfully, there are signs that the economy is starting to turn around. Although this still hasn't translated into a reduction of the unemployment rate (at best, the rate of growth in the numbers of people who are unemployed may be slowing down, but that's still not an actual reduction), there is perhaps reason to hope that such a reduction will come sooner rather than later. I certainly would argue that it can't come soon enough!
Friday, October 02, 2009
Weekly Transformers Feature: Classics Optimus Prime



Sadly, the Classics line was only ever intended as "filler" between the end of Cybertron and the beginning of the 2007 movie-based line of toys, and so lasted for only about 8 months or so, nowhere near as long as many fans would have liked. However, the concepts behind Classics have continued into other lines since then, and although toy stores are currently saturated with movie-based toys again (since the release of the sequel, Revenge of the Fallen), Hasbro promises to revisit these characters and concepts as long as they can be convinced that such toys will sell.