What Bilderberg Really Has Planned For 2015
Friday, July 10, 2015
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
Supreme Court’s Re-definition of Marriage
From Dr. William Lane Craig's site:
Question:
Hello Dr. William Lane Craig,
With the recent Supreme court decision regarding same sex marriage I reread some of your Q/A response regarding homosexuality. In a question regarding the connection between interracial marriage and same sex marriage you said "Once we start down that route, anything goes: a man and two women, a man and a child, two men and a goat, etc. I see no reason at all to start down that road." with regards to same sex marriage. My question is does this statement constitute a slippery slope fallacy? My concern is that non believers would easily dismiss it.
Thank You,
R.C.
USA
Dr. Craig responds:
I’m going to use your question, R.C., an excuse for addressing the Supreme Court’s tragic and misguided decision to re-define marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges.
We need to understand clearly that that is exactly what the Supreme Court has done. By ruling that same-sex unions can count as marriage the Court has implicitly redefined what marriage is. Marriage is no longer taken to be essentially heterosexual, as traditionally conceived, but has been implicitly redefined so that men can be married to men and women to women.
The Court’s majority opinion, written by Anthony Kennedy, shows a clear consciousness of what the Court is doing. Referring to the traditional view, Kennedy writes, “Marriage, in their view, is by its naturea gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view long has been held—and continues to be held—in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world” (my emphasis). It is this view which Court’s majority declares is now obsolete.
What is ironic about Kennedy’s opinion is that he eloquently extols marriage as foundational to American society and to civilization itself. He writes,
From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.
The centrality of marriage to the human condition makes it unsurprising that the institution has existed for millennia and across civilizations. Since the dawn of history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives, binding families and societies together.
One would think that this provides good reason for preserving the traditional concept of marriage, rather than radically redefining it! Instead, the Court throws caution to the wind and has decided to revise this fundamental cultural institution.
In the Court’s view, marriage should no longer be considered to have an essence or nature but is a mere social convention, indeed, whatever the Court declares it to be. The majority opinion justifies this move by pointing out how marriage has evolved: for example, marriage was once viewed as “an arrangement by the couple’s parents” but no longer is so today. Such examples, however, concern only contingent properties of marriage, not its nature or essence (indeed, arranged marriages are still common in parts of the world today). Such contingent changes provide no grounds for the fundamental, essential change wrought by the Court.
By redefining marriage the Court has handed homosexual activists what they have aimed and worked for: the deconstruction of marriage itself. Kennedy admits, “Were their intent to demean the revered idea and reality of marriage, the petitioners’ claims would be of a different order. But that is neither their purpose nor their submission.” How does Kennedy know what their intent is, and why should that matter? Although the majority opinion of the Court portrays the issue before the Court as the petitioners’ seeking the benefits of marriage, such an interpretation is naïve. Surveys show that promiscuity is rampant in the gay subculture, such that the number of homosexual men in lasting, monogamous relationships is so tiny as to be statistically meaningless. This is not about so-called “gay marriage.” The petitioners are chess pieces in the hands of a movement bent on fundamentally changing American culture by deconstructing traditional marriage. The Supreme Court has delivered them checkmate.
On what grounds has the Court done this? The majority opinion provides four reasons why the Constitutional right to marry should be extended to same-sex couples. One can look at these arguments from two angles: (i) as philosophical justification for redefining marriage to include same-sex couples or (ii) as Constitutional grounds for an implicit right of same-sex couples to marry. The first is a philosophical question; the second is a legal question.
Most of the majority opinion and especially of the several dissents from the other justices concern the legal question, not the philosophical question. As the Court’s minority urges, it is not within the purview of the Court to define marriage but simply to settle the Constitutional question as to whether there is an implied right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution of United States. The dissenting opinions are blistering criticisms of the majority with respect to this Constitutional question.
In order to justify a right which is not enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, the Court must act with caution and find justification deeply rooted in American history and tradition. Justice Alito observes,
To prevent five unelected Justices from imposing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the Court has held that ‘liberty’ under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are ‘“deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”’. . . And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights.
Chief Justice John Roberts summed up the Constitutional question by saying,
The truth is that today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to, and that ‘it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.’ Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no . . . basis in the Constitution. . . .
If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. . . . But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.
I’m going to leave the Constitutional question to others. In contrast with the justices, I as a philosopher am interested in the philosophical question of whether marriage should be redefined to include same-sex unions. So I want to consider the four arguments offered by the majority opinion in this light.
Here, in summary, are the four reasons the Court gives for extending the Constitutional right to marry to same-sex couples:
1. The right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.
2. The right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals.
3. Marriage safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.
4. Marriage is a keystone of the nation’s social order, and there is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle.
Most of these reasons either do not support same-sex marriage or beg the question by assuming that marriage is a mere social convention to begin with.
Take (1), for example. Of course, everyone has a prima facie Constitutional right to marry if desired. Any man can marry any woman, regardless of their sexual orientation. But what prevents a man from marrying another man is the same thing that prevents a bachelor from being a husband or parents from being childless or a square from being a circle. The obstacle is not legal but logical. Only after one has redefined marriage as a social convention can (1) provide a reason for allowing same-sex marriages. It cannot provide a reason for such a deconstruction.
Similarly for (2). Indeed, as noted above, this reason actually provides grounds for not mucking with the definition of marriage.
Reason (3) is tragically ironic, since studies have shown that children raised by same-sex couples are significantly disadvantaged compared to children raised by a mother and father. Indeed, one of the most interesting developments in the debate over same-sex marriage has been the emergence of adult children of same-sex couples who are now speaking out in favor of preserving traditional marriage due to difficulties they have experienced as a result of being raised by same-sex couples. They have powerfully argued that children’s rights are being sacrificed on the altar of the adults’ claims to personal freedom and autonomy.
Finally, as for (4), married couples do enjoy advantages, like jointly filing income taxes, which are not enjoyed by single persons. But that provides no reason for redefining what marriage is or allowing men to marry men. In their dissents, some of the justices observed with concern that the reasoning of the majority would apply not merely to same-sex couples but to all sorts of aberrant unions. John Roberts writes, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” He observes that “Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective ‘two’ in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not.” Indeed,
why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise ‘suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,’ why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry ‘serves to disrespect and subordinate’ gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same ‘imposition of this disability,’ serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?
This is not slippery slope reasoning. It’s more like falling off a cliff. By deconstructing marriage so that it is purely conventional, dependent upon the opinion of five justices, the Court makes marriage become whatever they want.
Still, the Court has decided the Constitutional question in favor of same-sex marriage. The United States has now passed a cultural watershed, and I fear that there is no return. Just as Roe v. Wade legalized by judicial fiat homicide against babies in utero, so now Obergefell v. Hodges has deconstructed the foundational institution of American society. My head reels. It is like a nightmare from which one wants to awaken. I no longer live in the same country in which I grew up. I feel a tremendous sadness at this realization.
So where do we go from here? How shall Christians, in particular, who believe in traditional marriage, act in this brave, new world? Two things come to mind.
First, Christians must resolve to be resolutely counter-cultural. Like Roe v. Wade before it, Obergefell v. Hodges perpetuates American culture’s decline into moral degradation. (One can only imagine how vindicated the Muslim world must feel in light of this decision about its condemnation of American culture!) With this decision the pressure to conform will become intense in pop culture, the academy, the corporate world, and even in the church. Those who refuse to conform to the new orthodoxy will be vilified and pushed out. My fear is that the next generation of Christians will not have the strength to resist these pressures and will accommodate itself to same-sex marriage. Already, I hear young Christians saying that homosexual activity is not immoral if it is in the confines of marriage, a view that would have been unthinkable to first century Jews like Jesus of Nazareth. Just as early Christians were willing to take a stand against the corrupt pagan culture of the Roman empire, so today Christians must dare to be different and to live counterculturally.
That implies Christian activism. Following the Supreme Court decision, I received a circular letter from the president of the denomination in which I am ordained. He observed that we evangelicals tried to elect a President to deal with the problem, and that didn’t work. We tried to elect senators and representatives to deal with the problem, and that didn’t work. We tried to make our case in the courts, and that didn’t work. His conclusion was that these all represent “Saul’s armor” that doesn’t fit us. His solution? Prayer and preaching the Word! The cynic in me is tempted to say, “We tried that, and they didn’t work!” Are they Saul’s armor, too? Of course not! But just as we should continue to pray and preach, so Christians must not abandon the political process but see this setback as a call to deeper engagement in the process.
In his dissent, Justice Scalia observed that “Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination” sits on the Court. That fact is a stinging indictment of the evangelical church. We have not set before our youth the vision of serving God by pursuing a career as a judge. We are reaping the whirlwind of our own passivity and lack of engagement. Now is not the time to withdraw to the sanctuary of our churches and institutions (which, in the opinion of the dissenting justices, will come increasingly under threat as a result of this very decision), but to involve ourselves in those public institutions that so shape the culture in which we live.
Second, Christians should continue efforts to evangelize the American people. It has been rightly said that America is a nation whose people are as religious as the people of India but whose government is as secular as the government of Sweden. Because of the separation of Church and State in this country—an increasingly precious Constitutional guarantee—we do not need governmental support in order for the Christian church to be dynamic and flourishing. Revival can come to this country even as its governmental institutions go to hell.
The recent Pew survey on religious affiliation shows that while the mainline Protestant denominations and Catholics are declining as a percentage of the American population, the evangelical church is holding its own and is actually increasing in terms of absolute numbers. For a corrective of the view that America is becoming more irreligious, I recommend the videos of the recent conference at Baylor University on “The End of Religion? An Essential Corrective to the Secularization Myth”https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0JmtbsEea3iZ6GLoOIsEHrKZUKiZ5J7Z
At that conference Prof. Gordon Melton drew attention to the surprising statistic that it was only by the time of the Second World War that so much as 50% of Americans were church members, and that percentage has continued to increase until today 78% of Americans are church members, a figure which he says is unprecedented among free peoples in the history of the world. Obviously, many of these people are merely nominally Christian. Still, it provides the soil for a revival of living faith in this country.
I think we have yet to see the cultural impact of the revolution in Christian philosophy that has been taking place over the last half-century or so. I am tremendously encouraged by all the letters we receive from people who have come to faith or come back to faith through the medium of apologetics. I remain optimistic about the future and am determined to do all I can through the ministry of Reasonable Faith to help bring about the revival of the church and the evangelization of the American people.
|
Greeks Reject Bailout Terms in Rebuff to European Leaders
By Suzanne Daley, NY Times, July 5, 2015
ATHENS–Greeks delivered a shocking rebuff to Europe’s leaders on Sunday, decisively rejecting a deal offered by the country’s creditors in a historic vote that could redefine Greece’s place in Europe and shake the Continent’s financial stability.
As celebrants gathered in Athens’s central Syntagma Square, the Interior Ministry reported that with almost 90 percent of the vote tallied, 61 percent of the voters had said no to a deal that would have imposed greater austerity measures on the beleaguered country.
The no votes carried virtually every district in the country, handing a sweeping victory to Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, a leftist who came to power in January vowing to reject new austerity measures, which he called an injustice and economically self-defeating. Late last month he walked away from negotiations in frustration at the creditors’ demands, called the referendum and urged Greeks to vote no as a way to give him more bargaining power.
While Mr. Tsipras now appears to have his wish, his victory in the referendum settled little, since the creditors’ offer is no longer on the table. There remains the possibility that they could walk away, leaving Greece facing default, financial collapse and expulsion from the eurozone and, in the worst case, from the European Union.
At stake, however, may be far more than Greece’s place in Europe, as experts have offered wildly differing opinions about what the referendum could mean for the future of the euro and, indeed, the world’s financial markets.
The vote took place under what some analysts called a financial carpet bombing. The European Central Bank severely limited financial assistance to Greek banks, forcing them to close a week before the referendum, making it hard for retirees to get their money and raising widespread fear here that people would lose their deposits.
The news media, dominated by Greek oligarchs, saturated the airwaves and the newspapers with stories about losing gasoline and medicines, while the plight of elderly pensioners was afforded far more attention than in the past, media experts said.
Nonetheless, many voters, tired of more than five years of soaring unemployment and a collapsing economy, said they could not accept the terms of the European offer, which imposed yet more pension cuts and tax increases, without any hint of debt relief.
As word spread of a likely victory for the no vote, people began gathering in Syntagma Square. They streamed out of the metro–which is free in this week of capital controls–and drove by, honking horns. Vendors sold Greek flags, and there was a peaceful, celebratory atmosphere.
For some voters, the week of hardship–they could withdraw only 60 euros, or about $67, a day from A.T.M.s, and already some pharmacists were refusing to fill prescriptions–only strengthened their sense that Greece needed to stand up for itself.
After five years in which unemployment soared beyond 20 percent and the country’s economy contracted by 25 percent, many said that a no vote was at least a vote for hope, the possibility of a new deal, rather than following the mandates of creditors who had failed to set Greece on a course to recovery.
For others, the hardship only proved that Greece, like it or not, was in the hands of its creditors and could do little but take whatever terms were being offered–the alternative of default, financial collapse and withdrawal from the euro being unthinkable. In many cases, they blamed Mr. Tsipras’s young government for having returned the country to recession when it had shown small signs of recovery just before the January elections.
ATHENS–Greeks delivered a shocking rebuff to Europe’s leaders on Sunday, decisively rejecting a deal offered by the country’s creditors in a historic vote that could redefine Greece’s place in Europe and shake the Continent’s financial stability.
As celebrants gathered in Athens’s central Syntagma Square, the Interior Ministry reported that with almost 90 percent of the vote tallied, 61 percent of the voters had said no to a deal that would have imposed greater austerity measures on the beleaguered country.
The no votes carried virtually every district in the country, handing a sweeping victory to Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, a leftist who came to power in January vowing to reject new austerity measures, which he called an injustice and economically self-defeating. Late last month he walked away from negotiations in frustration at the creditors’ demands, called the referendum and urged Greeks to vote no as a way to give him more bargaining power.
While Mr. Tsipras now appears to have his wish, his victory in the referendum settled little, since the creditors’ offer is no longer on the table. There remains the possibility that they could walk away, leaving Greece facing default, financial collapse and expulsion from the eurozone and, in the worst case, from the European Union.
At stake, however, may be far more than Greece’s place in Europe, as experts have offered wildly differing opinions about what the referendum could mean for the future of the euro and, indeed, the world’s financial markets.
The vote took place under what some analysts called a financial carpet bombing. The European Central Bank severely limited financial assistance to Greek banks, forcing them to close a week before the referendum, making it hard for retirees to get their money and raising widespread fear here that people would lose their deposits.
The news media, dominated by Greek oligarchs, saturated the airwaves and the newspapers with stories about losing gasoline and medicines, while the plight of elderly pensioners was afforded far more attention than in the past, media experts said.
Nonetheless, many voters, tired of more than five years of soaring unemployment and a collapsing economy, said they could not accept the terms of the European offer, which imposed yet more pension cuts and tax increases, without any hint of debt relief.
As word spread of a likely victory for the no vote, people began gathering in Syntagma Square. They streamed out of the metro–which is free in this week of capital controls–and drove by, honking horns. Vendors sold Greek flags, and there was a peaceful, celebratory atmosphere.
For some voters, the week of hardship–they could withdraw only 60 euros, or about $67, a day from A.T.M.s, and already some pharmacists were refusing to fill prescriptions–only strengthened their sense that Greece needed to stand up for itself.
After five years in which unemployment soared beyond 20 percent and the country’s economy contracted by 25 percent, many said that a no vote was at least a vote for hope, the possibility of a new deal, rather than following the mandates of creditors who had failed to set Greece on a course to recovery.
For others, the hardship only proved that Greece, like it or not, was in the hands of its creditors and could do little but take whatever terms were being offered–the alternative of default, financial collapse and withdrawal from the euro being unthinkable. In many cases, they blamed Mr. Tsipras’s young government for having returned the country to recession when it had shown small signs of recovery just before the January elections.
Sunday, July 5, 2015
Leading Israeli Rabbi Says the Arrival of the Messiah is Imminent Read
Link
“I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you are scattered, with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out.” (Ezekiel 20:34 )
image: http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/rabbi-chaim-kanievsky.jpg
Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky (C) has issued a call for Jews to move to Israel in preparation for the imminent arrival of the Messiah. (Photo: Dudi Friedman/ Wiki Commons)
Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, a leading authority in mainstream Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, has been giving clear and unequivocal messages recently that the coming of the Messiah is imminent. He is urging Jews to make Aliyah as soon as possible. Aliyah, the Hebrew verb for “going up”, refers to immigrating to Israel, which is seen as higher spiritual action that can help herald in the coming of the Messiah.
It was reported that the Rabbi Kanievsky was presented with a pamphlet, written by Rabbi Yitzchak Ben Tzvi from the city of Bnei Brak, dealing with the End of Days and many other related prophecies. Rabbi Kanievsky, who is a pillar of the Jewish community and known for his authoritative books on Torah law, read the pamphlet carefully. After a short consideration, he told those around him that the pamphlet needed to be distributed and that Jews living outside Israel should return to their ancestral land.
In yet another instance of Rabbi Kanievsky’s call for aliyah, author Rabbi Yekutiel Fisch revealed advice that was given to his cousin, a teacher at a prominent Lakewood Yeshiva who visited Israel recently and went to Rabbi Kanievsky to receive a blessing at the end of his visit.
The Rabbi told him that he should not leave Israel because the Messiah would be arriving very soon. The teacher responded that he had 700 students waiting for him in Lakewood. Rabbi Kanievsky told him that he must bring all of the students to Israel. Upon his arrival in Lakewood, the story spread quickly, creating quite an impression on the students who all revere Rabbi Kanievsky.
After a lifetime of immersing himself in classical Jewish texts, Rabbi Kanievsky’s study partner informed various media sites that the Rabbi is talking about the messiah “all the time.” Since last summer’s war in Gaza, the Rabbi has been spreading this message of imminent return. In one instance, Rabbi Kanievsky instructed a Jew from Argentina who asked for a blessing that he should “gather your family and come to Israel. Otherwise, there won’t be enough room for you on the airplanes.”
image: http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/wp-content/uploads/useful_banner_manager_banners/18-HebrewNameCertificate-Chana-600WIDE.jpg
When asked about the timing of the Messiah’s arrival, Rabbi Kanievsky answered, “At the end of the Sabbatical year.” Several people have asked the Rabbi to verify this and he has given the same answer each time. This year is the Sabbatical year and it will be ending on the 29th day of Elul, which, by the Gregorian calendar falls on Saturday, September 12, 2015.
In answer to Rabbi Kanievsky’s call, the Jews of France have begun to arrive in Israel in blessed droves. The impetus is certainly a reaction to increasing anti-Semitic and Islamic fueled violence across Europe.
After the horrific terror attack at a Kosher market in Paris six months ago, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu urged French Jews to come home to Israel. His remarks drew criticism from some, however last week, in the wake of Ramadan violence in several countries including France, Zeev Elkin, the Israeli Minister of Immigration and Absorption, called on French Jews to make Aliyah, echoing his leader’s words.
“Come home! Anti-Semitism is growing, terrorism is on the rise and the sickly ISIS activists carry out murders in the light of day. We are prepared to accept the Jews of France with open arms,” he said.
Last year, 7,000 French Jews made aliyah to Israel, making it the number one country of origin for new immigrants. The Jewish Agency and the Ministry for Aliyah and Immigrant Absorption are expecting more than 3,000 French Jews to immigrate to Israel this summer alone, many of them families with children who want to arrive and integrate before the beginning of the school year.
It should be noted that it is considered a positive trait to always be anticipating the Messiah. The Chofetz Chaim, Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan, a great Torah sage, is told to have said that any time he heard a loud noise, he would say, “Perhaps the Messiah has arrived?” Similar stories have also been told of the leading Moroccan Kabbalist, the Baba Sali, Rabbi Israel Abuhaseira.
Read more at http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/44534/leading-israeli-rabbi-messiah-imminent-jewish-world/#6s4gwhbqFTirvCJI.99
“I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you are scattered, with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out.” (Ezekiel 20:34 )
image: http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/rabbi-chaim-kanievsky.jpg
Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky (C) has issued a call for Jews to move to Israel in preparation for the imminent arrival of the Messiah. (Photo: Dudi Friedman/ Wiki Commons)
Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, a leading authority in mainstream Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, has been giving clear and unequivocal messages recently that the coming of the Messiah is imminent. He is urging Jews to make Aliyah as soon as possible. Aliyah, the Hebrew verb for “going up”, refers to immigrating to Israel, which is seen as higher spiritual action that can help herald in the coming of the Messiah.
It was reported that the Rabbi Kanievsky was presented with a pamphlet, written by Rabbi Yitzchak Ben Tzvi from the city of Bnei Brak, dealing with the End of Days and many other related prophecies. Rabbi Kanievsky, who is a pillar of the Jewish community and known for his authoritative books on Torah law, read the pamphlet carefully. After a short consideration, he told those around him that the pamphlet needed to be distributed and that Jews living outside Israel should return to their ancestral land.
In yet another instance of Rabbi Kanievsky’s call for aliyah, author Rabbi Yekutiel Fisch revealed advice that was given to his cousin, a teacher at a prominent Lakewood Yeshiva who visited Israel recently and went to Rabbi Kanievsky to receive a blessing at the end of his visit.
The Rabbi told him that he should not leave Israel because the Messiah would be arriving very soon. The teacher responded that he had 700 students waiting for him in Lakewood. Rabbi Kanievsky told him that he must bring all of the students to Israel. Upon his arrival in Lakewood, the story spread quickly, creating quite an impression on the students who all revere Rabbi Kanievsky.
After a lifetime of immersing himself in classical Jewish texts, Rabbi Kanievsky’s study partner informed various media sites that the Rabbi is talking about the messiah “all the time.” Since last summer’s war in Gaza, the Rabbi has been spreading this message of imminent return. In one instance, Rabbi Kanievsky instructed a Jew from Argentina who asked for a blessing that he should “gather your family and come to Israel. Otherwise, there won’t be enough room for you on the airplanes.”
image: http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/wp-content/uploads/useful_banner_manager_banners/18-HebrewNameCertificate-Chana-600WIDE.jpg
When asked about the timing of the Messiah’s arrival, Rabbi Kanievsky answered, “At the end of the Sabbatical year.” Several people have asked the Rabbi to verify this and he has given the same answer each time. This year is the Sabbatical year and it will be ending on the 29th day of Elul, which, by the Gregorian calendar falls on Saturday, September 12, 2015.
In answer to Rabbi Kanievsky’s call, the Jews of France have begun to arrive in Israel in blessed droves. The impetus is certainly a reaction to increasing anti-Semitic and Islamic fueled violence across Europe.
After the horrific terror attack at a Kosher market in Paris six months ago, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu urged French Jews to come home to Israel. His remarks drew criticism from some, however last week, in the wake of Ramadan violence in several countries including France, Zeev Elkin, the Israeli Minister of Immigration and Absorption, called on French Jews to make Aliyah, echoing his leader’s words.
“Come home! Anti-Semitism is growing, terrorism is on the rise and the sickly ISIS activists carry out murders in the light of day. We are prepared to accept the Jews of France with open arms,” he said.
Last year, 7,000 French Jews made aliyah to Israel, making it the number one country of origin for new immigrants. The Jewish Agency and the Ministry for Aliyah and Immigrant Absorption are expecting more than 3,000 French Jews to immigrate to Israel this summer alone, many of them families with children who want to arrive and integrate before the beginning of the school year.
It should be noted that it is considered a positive trait to always be anticipating the Messiah. The Chofetz Chaim, Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan, a great Torah sage, is told to have said that any time he heard a loud noise, he would say, “Perhaps the Messiah has arrived?” Similar stories have also been told of the leading Moroccan Kabbalist, the Baba Sali, Rabbi Israel Abuhaseira.
Read more at http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/44534/leading-israeli-rabbi-messiah-imminent-jewish-world/#6s4gwhbqFTirvCJI.99
The forgotten origins of Greece’s crisis will make you think twice about who’s to blame
By Ana Swanson, Washington Post, July 1, 2015
Stop me if you’ve heard this one.
The Greeks, Italians, Spaniards and Irish walk into a bar, where the French and Germans are the bartenders. It’s happy hour, and the Germans and the French are serving half-price drinks. Although everyone quickly drinks too much, the bartenders keep on serving. Eventually, the inebriated customers head home and get into all kinds of trouble–fights, car accidents, some broken windows.
So who’s to blame? Clearly, the Greeks shouldn’t have drunk so much. However, the French and Germans also shouldn’t have served the Greeks when they were clearly drunk–especially if the French and Germans mind having broken glass in their neighborhood.
Unfortunately, this isn’t much of a joke. After an extended binge, Greece is now mired in financial crisis and is dragging the European economy down with it. In the last few days, Greece has defaulted on a important payment to the IMF and shuttered its banks to prevent massive flows of money from leaving the country. On Sunday, the country is slated to hold a referendum on whether to approve tough austerity measures demanded by Europe–a decision that could determine whether Greece will stay in the euro zone.
Some of the reasons for the crisis are obvious to anyone who looks. Greece has a lot of well-recognized economic problems: Its public sector is bloated and marred by corruption, and many analysts say that the country cooked its books to hide the real amount of debt from the rest of Europe.
There are also many well-documented problems stemming from the design of the euro zone itself–that the countries share a common currency even though they have different tax-and-spending policies. So that means that even though Greek workers aren’t as economically competitive as Germans, Greece can’t lower the value of its currency to make its products cheaper abroad and stimulate exports.
The same holds true for inflation, where Greece might benefit from a higher inflation rate that would make debt in today’s prices become cheaper, while Germany has a historic unease with any policy that might stimulate inflation.
There are some other ideas about the deeper origins of the Greek crisis that you may be less familiar with.
Once the Greeks joined the euro in 2002, they could borrow at very cheap rates given they were now borrowing under the continent’s implicit guarantee, and they dramatically over-borrowed.
“But given that there was high growth, no one was really worried about it,” says Matthias Matthijs, a professor at Johns Hopkins University SAIS and co-editor of the new book, “The Future of the Euro,” who relayed the bar metaphor.
Between 1998 and 2007, Greece’s annual economic growth per person was 3.8 percent–the second fastest rate in Europe.
But there were weaknesses within. The booming economy in Greece and other countries such as Ireland and Spain caused prices to rise, and the countries gave generous pay rises to their workers, which made their exports more expensive. That made the countries less competitive, but since they were growing so fast, it didn’t matter too much.
Then the financial crisis hit. As economic growth slowed, these countries’ competitive weaknesses and unsustainable debt loads suddenly became glaringly obvious.
“It’s when the tide goes out that you see who’s swimming naked,” Matthijs says.
Matthijs says there is a lesser known narrative he finds more compelling. Basically, he says, it helps to explain why the bartenders kept on serving.
In the mid-1990s, even before it came into existence, markets made a huge bet that the euro would be a reality. Specifically, investors, many in northern Europe, bet that interest rates in northern and southern Europe would converge. At the time, interest rates in southern Europe were much higher than in northern Europe, simply because people thought investing in countries like Greece was much riskier than investing in countries like Germany.
In anticipation of the euro zone, investors put lots of money in the cheap, high-yielding bonds of southern Europe. That helped to drive down yields and fueled borrowing and an economic boom in southern countries.
Ultimately, investors were right–Greek interest rates on 10-year bonds fell from around 20 percent in the early 1990s to only 3 percent in 2002. “They made a lot of money in the north betting against higher interest rates there. That fueled the boom, before the euro came, that overheated these economies.”
As economies overheated, it’s not a surprise that their competitiveness suffered, says Matthijs.
In short, many in the north pushed for a financial regime that didn’t fit the Greek economy, because they personally stood to benefit. Many rightly blame the Greeks for its current crisis, but some of the blame belongs farther north as well, he argues.
Matthijs compares the situation to the U.S. subprime crisis. Who was really at fault for the housing crisis in the U.S.: The subprime borrowers who bought houses they couldn’t afford, or the predatory lenders who encouraged them to take them out?
“The Germans don’t like that comparison. But they were greedy. They wanted the higher yielding bonds there, they wanted to invest there,” he says of southern Europe.
Stop me if you’ve heard this one.
The Greeks, Italians, Spaniards and Irish walk into a bar, where the French and Germans are the bartenders. It’s happy hour, and the Germans and the French are serving half-price drinks. Although everyone quickly drinks too much, the bartenders keep on serving. Eventually, the inebriated customers head home and get into all kinds of trouble–fights, car accidents, some broken windows.
So who’s to blame? Clearly, the Greeks shouldn’t have drunk so much. However, the French and Germans also shouldn’t have served the Greeks when they were clearly drunk–especially if the French and Germans mind having broken glass in their neighborhood.
Unfortunately, this isn’t much of a joke. After an extended binge, Greece is now mired in financial crisis and is dragging the European economy down with it. In the last few days, Greece has defaulted on a important payment to the IMF and shuttered its banks to prevent massive flows of money from leaving the country. On Sunday, the country is slated to hold a referendum on whether to approve tough austerity measures demanded by Europe–a decision that could determine whether Greece will stay in the euro zone.
Some of the reasons for the crisis are obvious to anyone who looks. Greece has a lot of well-recognized economic problems: Its public sector is bloated and marred by corruption, and many analysts say that the country cooked its books to hide the real amount of debt from the rest of Europe.
There are also many well-documented problems stemming from the design of the euro zone itself–that the countries share a common currency even though they have different tax-and-spending policies. So that means that even though Greek workers aren’t as economically competitive as Germans, Greece can’t lower the value of its currency to make its products cheaper abroad and stimulate exports.
The same holds true for inflation, where Greece might benefit from a higher inflation rate that would make debt in today’s prices become cheaper, while Germany has a historic unease with any policy that might stimulate inflation.
There are some other ideas about the deeper origins of the Greek crisis that you may be less familiar with.
Once the Greeks joined the euro in 2002, they could borrow at very cheap rates given they were now borrowing under the continent’s implicit guarantee, and they dramatically over-borrowed.
“But given that there was high growth, no one was really worried about it,” says Matthias Matthijs, a professor at Johns Hopkins University SAIS and co-editor of the new book, “The Future of the Euro,” who relayed the bar metaphor.
Between 1998 and 2007, Greece’s annual economic growth per person was 3.8 percent–the second fastest rate in Europe.
But there were weaknesses within. The booming economy in Greece and other countries such as Ireland and Spain caused prices to rise, and the countries gave generous pay rises to their workers, which made their exports more expensive. That made the countries less competitive, but since they were growing so fast, it didn’t matter too much.
Then the financial crisis hit. As economic growth slowed, these countries’ competitive weaknesses and unsustainable debt loads suddenly became glaringly obvious.
“It’s when the tide goes out that you see who’s swimming naked,” Matthijs says.
Matthijs says there is a lesser known narrative he finds more compelling. Basically, he says, it helps to explain why the bartenders kept on serving.
In the mid-1990s, even before it came into existence, markets made a huge bet that the euro would be a reality. Specifically, investors, many in northern Europe, bet that interest rates in northern and southern Europe would converge. At the time, interest rates in southern Europe were much higher than in northern Europe, simply because people thought investing in countries like Greece was much riskier than investing in countries like Germany.
In anticipation of the euro zone, investors put lots of money in the cheap, high-yielding bonds of southern Europe. That helped to drive down yields and fueled borrowing and an economic boom in southern countries.
Ultimately, investors were right–Greek interest rates on 10-year bonds fell from around 20 percent in the early 1990s to only 3 percent in 2002. “They made a lot of money in the north betting against higher interest rates there. That fueled the boom, before the euro came, that overheated these economies.”
As economies overheated, it’s not a surprise that their competitiveness suffered, says Matthijs.
In short, many in the north pushed for a financial regime that didn’t fit the Greek economy, because they personally stood to benefit. Many rightly blame the Greeks for its current crisis, but some of the blame belongs farther north as well, he argues.
Matthijs compares the situation to the U.S. subprime crisis. Who was really at fault for the housing crisis in the U.S.: The subprime borrowers who bought houses they couldn’t afford, or the predatory lenders who encouraged them to take them out?
“The Germans don’t like that comparison. But they were greedy. They wanted the higher yielding bonds there, they wanted to invest there,” he says of southern Europe.
Ian Tilling went to Romania to help children in need—and never left
By Kit Gillet, CS Monitor, July 2, 2015
BUCHAREST, ROMANIA–It’s been a journey to Romania of a quarter-century-and-counting for Ian Tilling. During that time he has been instrumental in setting up long-term shelters in Bucharest, the capital, initially for orphans, later for the homeless, and later still for families suffering from domestic abuse.
Casa Ioana, which he founded 20 years ago, recently opened a second night shelter in Bucharest, where women and children can go to feel safe and start to rebuild their lives. The charity is also about to roll out a series of courses to help recovering women develop job skills.
“Without a job the chances of changing the situation [for these women] is quite remote. The only way out really is through employment,” says Mr. Tilling, sitting in the historic Old Town neighborhood in the heart of downtown Bucharest.
Tilling, a retired police detective from England, first came to Romania after seeing disturbing televised images of institutionalized children that were broadcast around the world following the Romanian revolution in December 1989.
“My wife asked me if I had seen the pictures coming out of Romania, the awful images of children languishing in orphanages,” says Tilling, explaining his first glimpse of the country that would come to dominate his life.
Within six weeks he and a British nurse had gathered up supplies and were driving across Europe in a borrowed van filled with donated baby food, diapers, toys, and medicine. They ended up at an orphanage called Plataresti, a “hellhole 40 minutes drive outside Bucharest,” Tilling recalls.
At Plataresti, Tilling was asked to help with a group of twenty 7- to- 9-year-olds who lived together in one room. Their cots were lined up 10 on each wall “like a row of prison cells” and the children never left them, he says. Most were still being bottle fed. The smell was awful. Tilling was tasked with talking with the children and keeping them clean, neither an easy task.
“For the month I was working there I was numb,” he says. Yet during the drive back across the Continent to Britain he decided he must go back to Romania. A little while later he did return, this time with 298 other people and a convoy of 100 trucks with supplies.
At the time of his first visit Tilling had been coming to the end of a long police career and wondering what to do next.
“I joined the police at 16 as a cadet. It was all I knew,” he says. He was living in the south of England with his wife and four children. Then in 1991 his eldest son, just 19, died in a motorbike accident and Tilling’s life fell apart.
In 1992 he took early retirement and moved to Romania to run a British charity he had established to provide lifelong care to some of the children from Plataresti.
“Looking back I was clearly escaping the hurt I felt back home,” he says.
However, rather than helping to heal his pain the project proved to be a nightmare itself, with the Romanian government breaking promises and officials demanding bribes. He was left trying to manage a small apartment block in Ferentari, a district of Bucharest that was fast becoming a ghetto inhabited primarily by desperately poor Roma (commonly called Gypsy) families. To top it off his marriage was breaking up.
“It was the lowest point in my life, but I was fortunate in that I finished my grieving process,” he says today.
Near the end of that winter friends gathered to urge him to leave, even going so far as collecting money for his plane ticket. But he didn’t want to return to England defeated. Instead he regrouped, creating a new charity–a Romanian one–that would pick up where the British charity had left off.
Casa Ioana was born. Over the next few years it became a halfway house for formerly institutionalized young adults and a resource center that helped local organizations set up a school for children with profound disabilities, as well as a kindergarten for local Roma families.
In 1997 Tilling was approached by the mayor of Bucharest with a request to open a night shelter for homeless men, who had become a growing problem in the city. He eventually agreed after the mayor offered to supply a building to house the shelter.
It opened as an emergency shelter for homeless men. But after a few years Tilling noticed the large number of women who came looking for a place to stay together with their children.
Recognizing that the system was failing these families at a time when they needed to keep together he refocused his efforts. Today, Casa Ioana is the largest provider of temporary shelter for survivors of domestic abuse in Bucharest. “I do what I do out of a profound sense of justice,” he says. “I hate to see people suffering.”
Those who know Tilling say he works day and night. “He is a one-man tornado,” says Nigel Bell, a British expatriate businessman who volunteers his time and expertise to Casa Ioana. “He tries to do everything himself; it is absolutely personal to him.”
Despite having the title of president of Casa Ioana, Tilling is often found painting the walls or cleaning the toilets.
Women and children who arrive at the shelters are left alone for the first few weeks. When they are ready they sit down with members of his team, which includes psychologists working pro bono, to develop a plan for moving forward.
Families can stay for as long as a year but Tilling says the vast majority move on within six to eight months. The women get jobs and are able to afford their own places, he says.
Casa Ioana perpetually faces challenges of space and money. It has room for 20 families and nine single women; last year it had to turn away 200 families. “We simply didn’t have room,” Tilling says.
His charity has a budget of about $100,000 a year; 80 percent of its funding comes from private donors and 20 percent from the Romanian government. It employs six staff members. Tilling himself takes no salary and lives on his British pension.
“Ian keeps us together. He brings people in from outside, and he opens the right doors,” says Monica Breazu, one of the social workers employed at Casa Ioana.
Parts of Romania are very traditional, and domestic abuse is often swept under the rug. Women who break away from abusive relationships and end up at Casa Ioana are likely to have been almost completely reliant financially on their husbands.
“Many haven’t got high school diplomas, and without that they can’t access formal training,” Tilling says. “So we created the opportunity for them to return to school. We give them the equivalent of a minimum salary in order to study.” Casa Ioana is also developing a financial-literacy program and six other courses that cover what employers will be looking for from new hires.
Tilling’s journey has never been easy. In 1998 the first Casa Ioana was ransacked by outsiders; everything was stolen right down to the fixtures and electrical wiring. “There were many occasions when I was close to saying enough is enough,” he says. “I’ve invested so much of myself. The good thing was I literally had nothing to go back to, so that was a good incentive to persevere.”
In 2000 Tilling was honored with an MBE from Queen Elizabeth II, shortly after Prince Charles visited Casa Ioana. Two years later he was awarded Romania’s equivalent.
Tilling knows that eventually he’ll have to pass the responsibility for Casa Ioana along to someone else. But it appears that it isn’t going to be anytime soon.
BUCHAREST, ROMANIA–It’s been a journey to Romania of a quarter-century-and-counting for Ian Tilling. During that time he has been instrumental in setting up long-term shelters in Bucharest, the capital, initially for orphans, later for the homeless, and later still for families suffering from domestic abuse.
Casa Ioana, which he founded 20 years ago, recently opened a second night shelter in Bucharest, where women and children can go to feel safe and start to rebuild their lives. The charity is also about to roll out a series of courses to help recovering women develop job skills.
“Without a job the chances of changing the situation [for these women] is quite remote. The only way out really is through employment,” says Mr. Tilling, sitting in the historic Old Town neighborhood in the heart of downtown Bucharest.
Tilling, a retired police detective from England, first came to Romania after seeing disturbing televised images of institutionalized children that were broadcast around the world following the Romanian revolution in December 1989.
“My wife asked me if I had seen the pictures coming out of Romania, the awful images of children languishing in orphanages,” says Tilling, explaining his first glimpse of the country that would come to dominate his life.
Within six weeks he and a British nurse had gathered up supplies and were driving across Europe in a borrowed van filled with donated baby food, diapers, toys, and medicine. They ended up at an orphanage called Plataresti, a “hellhole 40 minutes drive outside Bucharest,” Tilling recalls.
At Plataresti, Tilling was asked to help with a group of twenty 7- to- 9-year-olds who lived together in one room. Their cots were lined up 10 on each wall “like a row of prison cells” and the children never left them, he says. Most were still being bottle fed. The smell was awful. Tilling was tasked with talking with the children and keeping them clean, neither an easy task.
“For the month I was working there I was numb,” he says. Yet during the drive back across the Continent to Britain he decided he must go back to Romania. A little while later he did return, this time with 298 other people and a convoy of 100 trucks with supplies.
At the time of his first visit Tilling had been coming to the end of a long police career and wondering what to do next.
“I joined the police at 16 as a cadet. It was all I knew,” he says. He was living in the south of England with his wife and four children. Then in 1991 his eldest son, just 19, died in a motorbike accident and Tilling’s life fell apart.
In 1992 he took early retirement and moved to Romania to run a British charity he had established to provide lifelong care to some of the children from Plataresti.
“Looking back I was clearly escaping the hurt I felt back home,” he says.
However, rather than helping to heal his pain the project proved to be a nightmare itself, with the Romanian government breaking promises and officials demanding bribes. He was left trying to manage a small apartment block in Ferentari, a district of Bucharest that was fast becoming a ghetto inhabited primarily by desperately poor Roma (commonly called Gypsy) families. To top it off his marriage was breaking up.
“It was the lowest point in my life, but I was fortunate in that I finished my grieving process,” he says today.
Near the end of that winter friends gathered to urge him to leave, even going so far as collecting money for his plane ticket. But he didn’t want to return to England defeated. Instead he regrouped, creating a new charity–a Romanian one–that would pick up where the British charity had left off.
Casa Ioana was born. Over the next few years it became a halfway house for formerly institutionalized young adults and a resource center that helped local organizations set up a school for children with profound disabilities, as well as a kindergarten for local Roma families.
In 1997 Tilling was approached by the mayor of Bucharest with a request to open a night shelter for homeless men, who had become a growing problem in the city. He eventually agreed after the mayor offered to supply a building to house the shelter.
It opened as an emergency shelter for homeless men. But after a few years Tilling noticed the large number of women who came looking for a place to stay together with their children.
Recognizing that the system was failing these families at a time when they needed to keep together he refocused his efforts. Today, Casa Ioana is the largest provider of temporary shelter for survivors of domestic abuse in Bucharest. “I do what I do out of a profound sense of justice,” he says. “I hate to see people suffering.”
Those who know Tilling say he works day and night. “He is a one-man tornado,” says Nigel Bell, a British expatriate businessman who volunteers his time and expertise to Casa Ioana. “He tries to do everything himself; it is absolutely personal to him.”
Despite having the title of president of Casa Ioana, Tilling is often found painting the walls or cleaning the toilets.
Women and children who arrive at the shelters are left alone for the first few weeks. When they are ready they sit down with members of his team, which includes psychologists working pro bono, to develop a plan for moving forward.
Families can stay for as long as a year but Tilling says the vast majority move on within six to eight months. The women get jobs and are able to afford their own places, he says.
Casa Ioana perpetually faces challenges of space and money. It has room for 20 families and nine single women; last year it had to turn away 200 families. “We simply didn’t have room,” Tilling says.
His charity has a budget of about $100,000 a year; 80 percent of its funding comes from private donors and 20 percent from the Romanian government. It employs six staff members. Tilling himself takes no salary and lives on his British pension.
“Ian keeps us together. He brings people in from outside, and he opens the right doors,” says Monica Breazu, one of the social workers employed at Casa Ioana.
Parts of Romania are very traditional, and domestic abuse is often swept under the rug. Women who break away from abusive relationships and end up at Casa Ioana are likely to have been almost completely reliant financially on their husbands.
“Many haven’t got high school diplomas, and without that they can’t access formal training,” Tilling says. “So we created the opportunity for them to return to school. We give them the equivalent of a minimum salary in order to study.” Casa Ioana is also developing a financial-literacy program and six other courses that cover what employers will be looking for from new hires.
Tilling’s journey has never been easy. In 1998 the first Casa Ioana was ransacked by outsiders; everything was stolen right down to the fixtures and electrical wiring. “There were many occasions when I was close to saying enough is enough,” he says. “I’ve invested so much of myself. The good thing was I literally had nothing to go back to, so that was a good incentive to persevere.”
In 2000 Tilling was honored with an MBE from Queen Elizabeth II, shortly after Prince Charles visited Casa Ioana. Two years later he was awarded Romania’s equivalent.
Tilling knows that eventually he’ll have to pass the responsibility for Casa Ioana along to someone else. But it appears that it isn’t going to be anytime soon.
Is Involuntary Euthanasia in Our Future?
by Jim Denison, Breakpoint, July 2, 2015
Laura is a 24-year-old in Belgium who plans to die by euthanasia this summer. She is not terminally ill. Rather, she explains that she has wanted to die ever since she was a child. “Life, that’s not for me,” she says. She has been approved for death by lethal injection. The chairman of Belgium’s federal euthanasia commission recently stated that 50 to 60 psychiatric patients like Laura are euthanized each year.
Belgium legalized euthanasia in 2002. Last year it became the first nation to legalize child euthanasia. According to The New England Journal of Medicine, Belgian doctors also “hasten the death” of patients “without an explicit request.” More than 1,000 patients a year are euthanized in this way. As Cambridge professor Jack Keown explains, “If a doctor thinks death would benefit the patient, why should the doctor deny the patient that benefit merely because the patient is incapable of asking for it?”
More countries are asking similar questions. In a recent poll, a majority of people in 13 out of 15 nations agreed that euthanasia should be legal. Some 20 states in America are considering euthanasia measures. According to Gallup, 69 percent of Americans believe physicians should be able to legally “end patient’s life by some painless means.” This is nearly double the percentage who supported euthanasia in 1950.
Expect to see more countries go the way of Belgium. A culture that views truth as subjective opinion has no objective reason to value human life. But God does. He made each of us in our mother’s womb (Psalm 139:13-16) and engraved us on the palms of his hands (Isaiah 49:16).
And since we’re all dying, he invites us to say with Paul, “We do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day.”
Laura is a 24-year-old in Belgium who plans to die by euthanasia this summer. She is not terminally ill. Rather, she explains that she has wanted to die ever since she was a child. “Life, that’s not for me,” she says. She has been approved for death by lethal injection. The chairman of Belgium’s federal euthanasia commission recently stated that 50 to 60 psychiatric patients like Laura are euthanized each year.
Belgium legalized euthanasia in 2002. Last year it became the first nation to legalize child euthanasia. According to The New England Journal of Medicine, Belgian doctors also “hasten the death” of patients “without an explicit request.” More than 1,000 patients a year are euthanized in this way. As Cambridge professor Jack Keown explains, “If a doctor thinks death would benefit the patient, why should the doctor deny the patient that benefit merely because the patient is incapable of asking for it?”
More countries are asking similar questions. In a recent poll, a majority of people in 13 out of 15 nations agreed that euthanasia should be legal. Some 20 states in America are considering euthanasia measures. According to Gallup, 69 percent of Americans believe physicians should be able to legally “end patient’s life by some painless means.” This is nearly double the percentage who supported euthanasia in 1950.
Expect to see more countries go the way of Belgium. A culture that views truth as subjective opinion has no objective reason to value human life. But God does. He made each of us in our mother’s womb (Psalm 139:13-16) and engraved us on the palms of his hands (Isaiah 49:16).
And since we’re all dying, he invites us to say with Paul, “We do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day.”
Older Athletes Have a Strikingly Young Fitness Age
By Gretchen Reynolds, NY Times, July 1, 2015
Older athletes can be much younger, physically, than they are in real life, according to a new study of participants in the coming Senior Olympics. The study found that the athletes’ fitness age is typically 20 years or more younger than their chronological age, providing a clear inspiration to the rest of us to get out and start moving more.
I wrote last year about fitness age, a concept developed by researchers at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim who had taken note of epidemiological data showing that people with above-average cardiovascular fitness generally had longer life spans than people with lower aerobic fitness. So at any given age, fit people were relatively younger than were people who were out of shape.
But the researchers decided that their insight was not useful unless people could easily determine their fitness age. So using a mobile exercise laboratory, they went out and tested the fitness and health of more than 5,000 Norwegian adults and used the resulting data to create a sophisticated algorithm that could rapidly calculate someone’s aerobic capacity and relative fitness age based on his or her sex, resting heart rate, waist size and exercise routine.
They then set up a beguilingly simple online calculator that people could use to determine their fitness age.
When I wrote about the calculator last year, Dr. Pamela Peeke took note. An assistant professor of medicine at the University of Maryland and board member of the foundation that runs the National Senior Games–which are informally known as the Senior Olympics–she is also a competitive triathlete.
And biologically, it seems, she is a spring chicken. When she plugged her personal data into the online fitness calculator, it told her that her fitness age is 36.
Chronologically, she is 61.
Delighted, she wondered whether other older athletes would be similarly youthful. And she had a plan for how to find out. Contacting the scientist who had led the development of the fitness age calculator, Ulrik Wisloff, she suggested that together they study a particular group of older people–the participants in this year’s Senior Olympic Games.
The Senior Olympics are a biennial competition for athletes over 50 and consist of a variety of sports, from track and field and swimming to pickleball. To compete, athletes must first qualify regionally.
Nearly 10,000 men and women aged from 50 to 100 have qualified for this year’s Games, which begin on Friday in and around Minneapolis-St. Paul, in Minnesota.
Senior Olympians are not professional athletes, but most train frequently, Dr. Peeke knew. They tend to be more physically active than other people of the same chronological age.
To see just how their lifestyle affects their biological age, she and Dr. Wisloff asked all of this year’s Senior Olympic qualifiers to complete the online calculator. They set up a special, dedicated site for the participants, so that their data could be isolated. (The fitness calculator itself was unchanged.)
Many of the participants complied, producing more than 4,200 responses.
The results were impressive. While the athletes’ average chronological age was 68, their average fitness age was 43, a remarkable 25 years less.
“This is a massive difference,” Dr. Wisloff says. “I had expected a big difference,” he continued, “since these people have trained for years. However, I was surprised that it was this big.”
The effect was similar for both male and female athletes, he pointed out. Virtually every athlete, in fact, had a lower fitness age than his or her chronological age.
Dr. Peeke and Dr. Wisloff have not yet determined whether athletes in certain of the sports at the Senior Olympics, particularly endurance events such as distance running and swimming, have a younger fitness age, in general, than athletes participating in less-vigorous sports.
But they plan to parse the data extensively in the coming months to answer that question and to look for other patterns among the Senior Olympians. They expect to publish their findings soon.
Even in advance of that information, though, the takeaway message of the data should be inspiring, said Dr. Peeke, who will be competing in the triathlon event at the Senior Olympics.
“A majority of the athletes at the Senior Games didn’t begin serious training until quite late in life, including me,” she said. “We may have been athletes in high school or college. But then, for most of us, jobs and families and other commitments got in the way, at least for a while.”
Few Senior Olympians returned to or began exercising and training regularly until they were middle-aged or older, she said.
“So you can start any time,” she said. “It’s never too late.”
Older athletes can be much younger, physically, than they are in real life, according to a new study of participants in the coming Senior Olympics. The study found that the athletes’ fitness age is typically 20 years or more younger than their chronological age, providing a clear inspiration to the rest of us to get out and start moving more.
I wrote last year about fitness age, a concept developed by researchers at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim who had taken note of epidemiological data showing that people with above-average cardiovascular fitness generally had longer life spans than people with lower aerobic fitness. So at any given age, fit people were relatively younger than were people who were out of shape.
But the researchers decided that their insight was not useful unless people could easily determine their fitness age. So using a mobile exercise laboratory, they went out and tested the fitness and health of more than 5,000 Norwegian adults and used the resulting data to create a sophisticated algorithm that could rapidly calculate someone’s aerobic capacity and relative fitness age based on his or her sex, resting heart rate, waist size and exercise routine.
They then set up a beguilingly simple online calculator that people could use to determine their fitness age.
When I wrote about the calculator last year, Dr. Pamela Peeke took note. An assistant professor of medicine at the University of Maryland and board member of the foundation that runs the National Senior Games–which are informally known as the Senior Olympics–she is also a competitive triathlete.
And biologically, it seems, she is a spring chicken. When she plugged her personal data into the online fitness calculator, it told her that her fitness age is 36.
Chronologically, she is 61.
Delighted, she wondered whether other older athletes would be similarly youthful. And she had a plan for how to find out. Contacting the scientist who had led the development of the fitness age calculator, Ulrik Wisloff, she suggested that together they study a particular group of older people–the participants in this year’s Senior Olympic Games.
The Senior Olympics are a biennial competition for athletes over 50 and consist of a variety of sports, from track and field and swimming to pickleball. To compete, athletes must first qualify regionally.
Nearly 10,000 men and women aged from 50 to 100 have qualified for this year’s Games, which begin on Friday in and around Minneapolis-St. Paul, in Minnesota.
Senior Olympians are not professional athletes, but most train frequently, Dr. Peeke knew. They tend to be more physically active than other people of the same chronological age.
To see just how their lifestyle affects their biological age, she and Dr. Wisloff asked all of this year’s Senior Olympic qualifiers to complete the online calculator. They set up a special, dedicated site for the participants, so that their data could be isolated. (The fitness calculator itself was unchanged.)
Many of the participants complied, producing more than 4,200 responses.
The results were impressive. While the athletes’ average chronological age was 68, their average fitness age was 43, a remarkable 25 years less.
“This is a massive difference,” Dr. Wisloff says. “I had expected a big difference,” he continued, “since these people have trained for years. However, I was surprised that it was this big.”
The effect was similar for both male and female athletes, he pointed out. Virtually every athlete, in fact, had a lower fitness age than his or her chronological age.
Dr. Peeke and Dr. Wisloff have not yet determined whether athletes in certain of the sports at the Senior Olympics, particularly endurance events such as distance running and swimming, have a younger fitness age, in general, than athletes participating in less-vigorous sports.
But they plan to parse the data extensively in the coming months to answer that question and to look for other patterns among the Senior Olympians. They expect to publish their findings soon.
Even in advance of that information, though, the takeaway message of the data should be inspiring, said Dr. Peeke, who will be competing in the triathlon event at the Senior Olympics.
“A majority of the athletes at the Senior Games didn’t begin serious training until quite late in life, including me,” she said. “We may have been athletes in high school or college. But then, for most of us, jobs and families and other commitments got in the way, at least for a while.”
Few Senior Olympians returned to or began exercising and training regularly until they were middle-aged or older, she said.
“So you can start any time,” she said. “It’s never too late.”
Becoming a Better Public Speaker: Tips From the Greats
By Megan Allen, Education Week, July 1, 2015
Heart thumping so loud I know everyone can hear it. Face and neck flushing red. Sweat beads beginning to sprout and then trickle down my forehead.
No, this is not the moment in front of the crowd and under the spotlights–this comes from just THINKING about that moment! Whether it’s speaking in front of our school faculty, presenting at a local school board meeting, or testifying in front of Congress, many of us feel anxiety about public speaking. So what can we do to be better prepared as public speakers? Here’s a few lessons from some speaking greats.
Embrace the Anxiety. Did you know that Warren Buffett used to be terrified of speaking in public? According to a story in Forbes magazine, he picked out his college courses based on whether he’d have to speak in front of the class, avoiding the ones where he knew he’d be forced to face his fear. He even dropped a public speaking course.
But then he decided he would have to overcome this fear to be in business. And that he did–becoming not only one of the world’s richest people but also a well-respected storyteller.
We can all do the same thing. A fear of public speaking is not just common; it is innate. We have to acknowledge our fears; don’t try to pretend they’re not there! Instead, harness the jitters and refocus them by thinking of those nerves as positive energy and excitement. If we reframe anxiety as our desire to do our best, it can help us control those feelings.
Connect With Your Audience. Have you ever watched Bill Clinton speak? I recently talked with several people who have, and one thing rang true for them all: He can make connections! Clinton seems to have a way of making people feel like he is connected to them and who they are.
So the lesson here? Don’t talk to people, talk with people. Whether it’s 25 or 250 people, in your head, frame it as a conversation, not a speech. Think of the faces in front of you as your flock. Nurture them and your relationship with them. Make eye contact. Bring them along on the conversational journey.
Be Aware of Your Body Language. This is another homage to Bill Clinton. He smiles during positive points, gestures with his palms for added inflection, and furrows his brows during serious moments. When he is making a point, he uses his index finger to tap the podium in front of him.
This behavior is backed by Harvard professor Amy Cuddy’s TED talk and research, which shows that our body language can send just as big of a message as our words. Albert Mehrabian, a UCLA professor who has done extensive research on nonverbal communication, stated in a communication study that, in regards to liking a speaker, seven percent happens in spoken words, 38 percent happens through voice tone, and 55 percent happens through general body language.
This can be hard to focus on while you’re up in front of the masses, so sometimes I need some help. I write messages to myself in the margins to relax. Smile. Have fun. Think about what message my body is sending that I might not be aware of.
Tell a Story. Think about the elements and flow of a great story. What drew you in? What kept you reading or listening? Chip and Dan Heath mention this in the book Made to Stick. The same elements go into a great speech! Paint a picture with your words. When it comes to advocacy, this is especially important.
Connect With Your Emotions and Show Passion. Don’t be afraid to be human in front of an audience. There is something great about human connection that builds relationships, even from behind a podium.
Be Succinct. Think of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Big message, 265 words. I think we sometimes think more is more, but the mantra “less is more” really stands true.
Use Wit. Think of the last line of Socrates’s famous speech, given after he was condemned to death: “But it is now time to depart–for me to die, for you to live. But which of us is going to a better state is unknown to everyone but God.” Now, I wasn’t a literature major, but I am a connoisseur of witty banter and comments. I took that comment as the ultimate example of a witty closing comment (pun intended).
Think About Cadence, and Don’t Be Afraid of Silence. The perfect example of cadence? Martin Luther King, Jr., in “I Have a Dream.” The intonation, the inflection of his words, the rhythm, and the power of a carefully placed pause. Don’t be afraid of silence–it can be more powerful than any word. I have another trick here: I write notes to myself. “Pause,” written in capital letters, or underlining words to emphasize. I read lines over and over again until the cadence feels right.
Use Repetition as a Golden Thread. Repetition can tie your message together. Think of Winston Churchill’s “Blood, Toil, Sweat, and Tears,” where this great orator would weave a phrase through both the beginning and end of a speech. I wouldn’t use this strategy all the time, but it’s a good trick to have in your back pocket.
Relax and Have Fun. I have to remind myself to do this. So at the top of my notes for a speech, I write two words: “Breathe. Relax.” When your adrenaline is pumping and the spotlight is on you, what seems like common sense may slip our mind. A reminder really helps.
Know Your Style. Do you need notes? How much practice do you need until you feel comfortable? How much scaffolding do you need so you are comfortable in the moment? Should you print out your whole speech to have on hand in case panic strikes (yes, this happens.)?
Know yourself and give yourself whatever support you need to be the best “you.” I practice my speech and record it so I can listen, reflect, and refine. I also make sure to time my speeches so I know what content to cut and what needs additional work.
Keep Your Print Large. Twelve-point font is not always helpful under the spotlights, in front of a crowd, and when your heart is thumping like the Energizer Bunny on Red Bull. If you decide to print out your speech and notes, do so with a larger font size that you can easily read when you glance down. Also, highlight the important pieces of your speech so if you go off on a tangent, you make sure to hook back into those key points.
Heart thumping so loud I know everyone can hear it. Face and neck flushing red. Sweat beads beginning to sprout and then trickle down my forehead.
No, this is not the moment in front of the crowd and under the spotlights–this comes from just THINKING about that moment! Whether it’s speaking in front of our school faculty, presenting at a local school board meeting, or testifying in front of Congress, many of us feel anxiety about public speaking. So what can we do to be better prepared as public speakers? Here’s a few lessons from some speaking greats.
Embrace the Anxiety. Did you know that Warren Buffett used to be terrified of speaking in public? According to a story in Forbes magazine, he picked out his college courses based on whether he’d have to speak in front of the class, avoiding the ones where he knew he’d be forced to face his fear. He even dropped a public speaking course.
But then he decided he would have to overcome this fear to be in business. And that he did–becoming not only one of the world’s richest people but also a well-respected storyteller.
We can all do the same thing. A fear of public speaking is not just common; it is innate. We have to acknowledge our fears; don’t try to pretend they’re not there! Instead, harness the jitters and refocus them by thinking of those nerves as positive energy and excitement. If we reframe anxiety as our desire to do our best, it can help us control those feelings.
Connect With Your Audience. Have you ever watched Bill Clinton speak? I recently talked with several people who have, and one thing rang true for them all: He can make connections! Clinton seems to have a way of making people feel like he is connected to them and who they are.
So the lesson here? Don’t talk to people, talk with people. Whether it’s 25 or 250 people, in your head, frame it as a conversation, not a speech. Think of the faces in front of you as your flock. Nurture them and your relationship with them. Make eye contact. Bring them along on the conversational journey.
Be Aware of Your Body Language. This is another homage to Bill Clinton. He smiles during positive points, gestures with his palms for added inflection, and furrows his brows during serious moments. When he is making a point, he uses his index finger to tap the podium in front of him.
This behavior is backed by Harvard professor Amy Cuddy’s TED talk and research, which shows that our body language can send just as big of a message as our words. Albert Mehrabian, a UCLA professor who has done extensive research on nonverbal communication, stated in a communication study that, in regards to liking a speaker, seven percent happens in spoken words, 38 percent happens through voice tone, and 55 percent happens through general body language.
This can be hard to focus on while you’re up in front of the masses, so sometimes I need some help. I write messages to myself in the margins to relax. Smile. Have fun. Think about what message my body is sending that I might not be aware of.
Tell a Story. Think about the elements and flow of a great story. What drew you in? What kept you reading or listening? Chip and Dan Heath mention this in the book Made to Stick. The same elements go into a great speech! Paint a picture with your words. When it comes to advocacy, this is especially important.
Connect With Your Emotions and Show Passion. Don’t be afraid to be human in front of an audience. There is something great about human connection that builds relationships, even from behind a podium.
Be Succinct. Think of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Big message, 265 words. I think we sometimes think more is more, but the mantra “less is more” really stands true.
Use Wit. Think of the last line of Socrates’s famous speech, given after he was condemned to death: “But it is now time to depart–for me to die, for you to live. But which of us is going to a better state is unknown to everyone but God.” Now, I wasn’t a literature major, but I am a connoisseur of witty banter and comments. I took that comment as the ultimate example of a witty closing comment (pun intended).
Think About Cadence, and Don’t Be Afraid of Silence. The perfect example of cadence? Martin Luther King, Jr., in “I Have a Dream.” The intonation, the inflection of his words, the rhythm, and the power of a carefully placed pause. Don’t be afraid of silence–it can be more powerful than any word. I have another trick here: I write notes to myself. “Pause,” written in capital letters, or underlining words to emphasize. I read lines over and over again until the cadence feels right.
Use Repetition as a Golden Thread. Repetition can tie your message together. Think of Winston Churchill’s “Blood, Toil, Sweat, and Tears,” where this great orator would weave a phrase through both the beginning and end of a speech. I wouldn’t use this strategy all the time, but it’s a good trick to have in your back pocket.
Relax and Have Fun. I have to remind myself to do this. So at the top of my notes for a speech, I write two words: “Breathe. Relax.” When your adrenaline is pumping and the spotlight is on you, what seems like common sense may slip our mind. A reminder really helps.
Know Your Style. Do you need notes? How much practice do you need until you feel comfortable? How much scaffolding do you need so you are comfortable in the moment? Should you print out your whole speech to have on hand in case panic strikes (yes, this happens.)?
Know yourself and give yourself whatever support you need to be the best “you.” I practice my speech and record it so I can listen, reflect, and refine. I also make sure to time my speeches so I know what content to cut and what needs additional work.
Keep Your Print Large. Twelve-point font is not always helpful under the spotlights, in front of a crowd, and when your heart is thumping like the Energizer Bunny on Red Bull. If you decide to print out your speech and notes, do so with a larger font size that you can easily read when you glance down. Also, highlight the important pieces of your speech so if you go off on a tangent, you make sure to hook back into those key points.
