text:
I had a recent discussion with a friend I'd grown up around. We went to Jr. High and High School together. We shared a few stories about this and that and more than a few laughs. Facebook united me with a large number of people with whom I attended high school.
I never went back "home" after I graduated from high school. My story with those people ended there. It's interesting to catch up with them at this point after so much water has passed under the keel. I'd been voted 'most likely to succeed' in my senior year. I think that they'd hoped that I would have been a politician or would have cured the common cold. One former classmate said that she was disappointed that I didn't make more of myself. Be that as it may...
The movie, "Napoleon Dynamite", has meaning to young men who grew up in or around farming areas. The bit where the farmer provides a farm lunch to young men who may have been hauling hay or doing something like that makes me flash back. Particularly the bit about being paid in change. I was paid in loose change more than once - the farmer raided his change jar. The farmer complained a season later that boys were too lazy to come work for him. It wasn't about lazy. I was also paid in used soda bottles with a redemption value once, by a different farmer. Yes, I did take them to the market to get something like $4 for a day's backbreaking labor, but I never worked for that guy again either. They used to deduct the price of the lunch from the pay for hauling hay. And they deducted it whether or not you ate the lunch. Lunches were nasty about 50% of the time. The farmers who put out a decent lunch tended to fill up their work slots much faster. Some farmers encouraged boys to brown bag it. Most of them worked us through lunch and we just ate when the sun went down and work stopped. I remember diving into my sack lunch on the ride back to town in the back of a pick up and being dropped with the other boys on the main drag. We walked home to supper.
Then there were the Future Farmers of America that Brig writes about in her blog. I avoided the FFA, and they generally avoided me, but this is more what I considered to be the text of FFA programs. I wasn't ever cut out to be a farmer. I did do ranching work in the summer, but that's different than traditional mud farming, milking cows, etc.
And I preferred Credence Clearwater to Marty Robbins. That was a death knell to anyone who wanted to rise in the ranks of future farmers.
I decided to see the world instead of being tied to the land.
Sunday Compendium
It's been a weird couple of weeks for me because of work stuff (mostly delegated), hanging out with eccentric friends and when not with them, with kids and grandkids, which is always very nice. This a mishmash of different thoughts based on recent stuff. The coming week, it's back to Latin America and all that charm.
Your Thought for the Week:
To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target.
What a Wimp
Because this is your Sunday Sermonette, the "Lordy" comment is as close as I can get to being profound. James Comey is one of the more inept FBI Directors in history from all indications. I don't know whether or not his successor will be any better. Since light travels faster than sound, some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
I have a friend who lives off the grid. He's lived off the grid as long as I've known him. We met under circuitous circumstances that are best left unexplained. A long time ago he and a small squad were trained to assassinate Fidel Castro in Cuba, but that op never moved beyond the training and planning phases. My kids know him as Uncle ___, who kept a pet rattlesnake named "Loser".
The first name I knew him by was the name of a dead man, killed in a deniable USGOV action in Peru a long time ago when the government was chasing Sendero Luminoso (The Shining Path).
On September 12, 1992, Peruvian police captured Guzmán and several Shining Path leaders in an apartment above a dance studio in Lima. That essentially ended the revolution - but I've heard that it more recent years it's picked up again.
The reader's digest version is that USGOV betrayed its own operation in the Upper Huallaga Valley to the Maoist Shining Path and my friend is the guy who wasn't killed. He made his way to the US Embassy in Lima and was exfiltrated through circuitous means. Taking the name of his dead friend, he dropped off the map officially, though he is one of very few masters at Savate, and competed well into his 60's.
I mention him because he only deals in cash, pays cash for clunkers that he drives, lives in a warehouse, rented under another name, works for cash and so forth. He does not and has not owned a computer, has no credit cards. He only uses 'burner' telephones. He's paranoid - but just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you. He's also been in trouble from time to time and I've been able to get him out of it - though now, pushing 80, I tell him he's too old for trouble. Even so, he's going to roller skate through Death Valley in high summer once again. (he's in excellent shape)
Most people can't live off the grid. It takes a lot of effort and requires a lot of sacrifice. He called me a few weeks ago and said that he was in town. We had breakfast and talked of old times. He has a girlfriend, half his age, who lives about fifty miles from me and was visiting her.
Grandsons
I've always liked baseball. Now I have a seemingly endless series of baseball games to attend as my oldest grandson transitions from the regular Little League season to the summer season (All Stars).
The older three grandsons (from two daughters) wanted me to take them to see a new film that just came out...Captain Underpants.
Synopsis: It's a cartoon in which two fourth-graders hypnotize their principal in order to transform him into Captain Underpants, the superhero from their homemade comic book. The trio soon battle a new teacher at their school, who's secretly a mad scientist. It's funny to boys between 5 and 10...
Naturally, I filled the boys with sugary drinks and treats before returning them to their mothers... It's my job.
Destroying Arizona
Last week I was in Arizona, doing similarly dastardly things to my granddaughters (spoiling them rotten). They went through half a tub of that red licorice that is sold at Costco. It's more addicting than potato chips, but is better for the movies than the stuff sold at the concession stand, and about 1/10th the price.
While in AZ last weekend, a Cessna 172 crashed downhill (like 30 miles down hill) from the White Wolf Mine. The Payson Airport has a cafe and a lot of Phoenix people fly up for breakfast.
Both pilot and passenger (two brothers about my age) walked away from the crash with only scratches and bruises. The smoke plume brought people to check it out. The pilot missed the runway by a few miles, which goes to show that you should leave the mimosas for after you land. But who am I to judge?
The plans for the shack are still with Coconino County...patience is called for, and I've never been particularly patient. The Raptor no longer gets angry glares from the locals since it has an Arizona license plate on it.
Soon to be a Best Seller?


The very creative curator, Souleo, has teamed up with Rush Gallery in an exhibit with artwork created by using buttons. The Button Show highlights eleven artists using buttons as either a dominant medium, or a featured element in work from sculptures to wearable art. Many of the artists in this exhibit grew up surrounded by buttons collected by mothers and aunts and have been creating with buttons for years, like artist Beau McCall, whose numerous pieces of artwork took up one entire room of the Rush Gallery multi-room event.
The Button Show will be on view through March 12 at Rush Gallery, located at 526 West 26th Street, Suite 311.


text:
Van Commenee defends handing GB captaincy to US-born Porter
http://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/17303331
UK Athletics head coach Charles van Commenee has defended naming Tiffany Porter as British team captain for the World Indoor Championships.
US-born hurdler Porter has a London-born mother and British passport.
She was asked by one reporter if she knew the first few lines of 'God Save the Queen' but chose not to sing it.
Van Commenee said: "I choose the team captain for leadership skills, athletics skills and credibility, not memorising words or her vocal skills."
DOHA MEDAL HAUL
Britain won four medals in Doha two years ago, with Jessica Ennis and Dwain Chambers winning gold in the pentathlon and 60m respectively. Jenny Meadows took silver in the 800m and the men's 4x400m relay team claimed bronze
Porter, who was born and raised in Michigan, said: "I do know the first lines, I know the whole of God Save the Queen. I'm not known for my singing ability. I don't think that's necessary."
The 24-year-old, who has been dubbed 'a Plastic Brit' by critics, later added: "It's a huge honour and I'm very very excited about it. When Charles approached me it was a very easy 'yes'."
Van Commenee usually sets targets ahead of major competitions, but has chosen not to for the World Indoor Championships in Istanbul.
The Dutchman explained: "The world championships is always an event we take seriously, although not many athletes in the world will peak specifically for this as the most important event of the year is obviously the Olympic Games."
Jenny Meadows is absent through injury, but Jessica Ennis and Dwain Chambers will be out to defend their titles, while world 5,000m champion Mo Farah competes over 3,000m. Holly Bleasdale faces world record holder Yelena Isinbayeva in the pole vault.
Farah said: "We have to use this as an opportunity to race against other people but we are in 2012 and it's all about the Olympics."
Ennis will be up against Russia's Tatyana Chernova, the woman who took her world outdoor title in Daegu last summer. Two years ago Ennis was just 54 points shy of Irina Belova's world record of 4,991, and she admits it would be a "nice bonus" to set a new record.
"I got quite close to it last time in Doha and it was something I had not really thought of before," Ennis said.
Ennis heads the cast at World Indoors
Read more on Ennis heads the cast at World Indoors
Farah named in GB team for Worlds
Read more on Farah named in GB team for Worlds
2012 contender: Tiffany Porter
Read more on 100 Team GB contenders for London 2012: Tiffany Porter

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
cOAlition S: Making Open Access a Reality by 2020
Today, 11 national research funding organisation, with the support of the European Commission and the European Research Council (ERC), are announcing the launch of cOAlition S, an initiative to make full and immediate Open Access to research publications a reality. It is built around Plan S, which was announced at ESOF in Toulouse in July 2018.
cOAlition S signals the commitment to implement, by 1 January 2020, the necessary measures to fulfil its main principle: "By 2020 scientific publications that result from research funded by public grants provided by participating national and European research councils and funding bodies, must be published in compliant Open Access Journals or on compliant Open Access Platforms."
The 11 national research funding organisations that form cOAlition S have agreed to implement the 10 principles of Plan S in a coordinated way, together with the European Commission and the ERC. Other research funders are also invited to join cOAlition S.
The initiative was born from the cooperation between the Heads of the participating Research Funding Organisations, Marc Schiltz the President of Science Europe, and Robert-Jan Smits the Open Access Envoy of the European Commission. It also drew on significant input from the Scientific Council of the ERC.
Speaking about the initiative, Marc Schiltz highlighted that "Open Access to research results is foundational to the scientific enterprise. 15 years have passed since the Berlin Declaration and Open Access is still far from being a reality. I am glad that a core group of research funders, driven by their collective duty of care for the good functioning of the science system, have committed to take a decisive step to change the situation."
The funders participating in cOAlition S will work together with researchers, universities, libraries, and publishers to coordinate swift implementation. "I call upon funders, from Europe and beyond, to join cOAlition S and upon researchers, universities, research organisations, libraries, and publishers to express publicly their support to the ambition of the coalition to accelerate the transition to full and immediate Open Access by 2020" added Robert-Jan Smits.
Preamble by Marc Schiltz, President of Science Europe
10 principles of Plan S
Participating Funders
Statement by Commissioner Carlos Moedas
Statement by the European Research Council


text:
package org.apache.flink.test.streaming.runtime;

import org.apache.flink.api.common.functions.AggregateFunction;
import org.apache.flink.configuration.Configuration;
import org.apache.flink.runtime.taskexecutor.GlobalAggregateManager;
import org.apache.flink.streaming.api.environment.StreamExecutionEnvironment;
import org.apache.flink.streaming.api.functions.sink.DiscardingSink;
import org.apache.flink.streaming.api.functions.source.RichSourceFunction;
import org.apache.flink.streaming.api.operators.StreamingRuntimeContext;
import org.apache.flink.test.util.AbstractTestBase;

import org.junit.Test;

import java.io.IOException;

import static org.junit.Assert.assertEquals;

/**
 * Tests for GlobalAggregate functionality.
 */
public class GlobalAggregateITCase extends AbstractTestBase {

	@Test
	public void testSuccessfulUpdateToGlobalAggregate() throws Exception {
		StreamExecutionEnvironment streamExecutionEnvironment = StreamExecutionEnvironment.getExecutionEnvironment();

		streamExecutionEnvironment
			.addSource(new TestSourceFunction(new IntegerAggregateFunction(), false))
			.addSink(new DiscardingSink<>());

		streamExecutionEnvironment.execute();
	}

	@Test
	public void testExceptionThrowingAggregateFunction() throws Exception {
		StreamExecutionEnvironment streamExecutionEnvironment = StreamExecutionEnvironment.getExecutionEnvironment();

		streamExecutionEnvironment
			.addSource(new TestSourceFunction(new ExceptionThrowingAggregateFunction(), true))
			.addSink(new DiscardingSink<>());

		streamExecutionEnvironment.execute();
	}

	/**
	 * Source Function that uses updateGlobalAggregate() functionality exposed via StreamingRuntimeContext
	 * to validate communication with JobMaster and test both failure and sucess scenarios.
	 */
	private static class TestSourceFunction extends RichSourceFunction<Integer> {

		private GlobalAggregateManager aggregateManager = null;
		private final AggregateFunction<Integer, Integer, Integer> aggregateFunction;
		private final boolean expectFailures;

		public TestSourceFunction(AggregateFunction<Integer, Integer, Integer> aggregateFunction, boolean expectFailures) {
			this.aggregateFunction = aggregateFunction;
			this.expectFailures = expectFailures;
		}

		@Override
		public void open(Configuration parameters) throws Exception {
			super.open(parameters);
			StreamingRuntimeContext runtimeContext = (StreamingRuntimeContext) getRuntimeContext();
			aggregateManager = runtimeContext.getGlobalAggregateManager();
		}

		@Override
		public void run(SourceContext<Integer> ctx) throws Exception {
			Integer expectedAccumulator = 0;
			int exceptionCount = 0;
			for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
				Integer actualAccumlator = 0;
				try {
					actualAccumlator = aggregateManager.updateGlobalAggregate("testAgg", i, aggregateFunction);
					expectedAccumulator += i;
				}
				catch (IOException e) {
					exceptionCount++;
				}

				if (expectFailures) {
					assertEquals(i + 1, exceptionCount);
				}
				else {
					assertEquals(expectedAccumulator, actualAccumlator);
				}
			}
		}

		@Override
		public void cancel() {

		}

	}

	/**
	 * Simple integer aggregate function.
	 */
	private static class IntegerAggregateFunction implements
		AggregateFunction<Integer, Integer, Integer> {

		@Override
		public Integer createAccumulator() {
			return 0;
		}

		@Override
		public Integer add(Integer value, Integer accumulator) {
			return value + accumulator;
		}

		@Override
		public Integer getResult(Integer accumulator) {
			return accumulator;
		}

		@Override
		public Integer merge(Integer accumulatorA, Integer accumulatorB) {
			return add(accumulatorA, accumulatorB);
		}
	}

	/**
	 * Aggregate function that throws NullPointerException.
	 */
	private static class ExceptionThrowingAggregateFunction implements
		AggregateFunction<Integer, Integer, Integer> {

		@Override
		public Integer createAccumulator() {
			return 0;
		}

		@Override
		public Integer add(Integer value, Integer accumulator) {
			throw new NullPointerException("test");
		}

		@Override
		public Integer getResult(Integer accumulator) {
			return accumulator;
		}

		@Override
		public Integer merge(Integer accumulatorA, Integer accumulatorB) {
			return add(accumulatorA, accumulatorB);
		}
	}
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Allow your customers to pay using the Worldpay standard checkout app - Fast, reliable and secure.
Freewebstore has formed a partnership with Worldpay to offer a payment solution for UK customers. Freewebstore offers a seamless integration allowing you to quickly start accepting credit card payments through Wordpay's innovative system.


text:
Home › Uncategorized › U.S. Supreme Court Allows Portions of President Trump's Travel Ban
U.S. Supreme Court Allows Portions of President Trump's Travel Ban
Posted on June 27, 2017 by Parker Gallini LLP
On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States (the "Supreme Court") issued an order (the "Order") granting certiorari to hear the Administration's appeal of several lower court injunctions against President Trump's revised Executive Order (the "Executive Order") that was originally to go into effect on March 16, 2017. The Executive Order (which replaced an earlier Executive Order also blocked by the Federal courts), sought to: (a) institute a 90-day travel ban to prevent nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen (the "Six Affected Countries") from entering the U.S. (the "Travel Ban"), and (b) both suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program ("USRAP") for 120 days and then cap the number of refugees admitted to the United States to 50,000 for the Government's fiscal year 2017 (the "Refugee Ban").
See: Full text of Supreme Court Order.
The Executive Order was blocked by the lower courts, and the above provisions were prohibited in their entirety. Two Circuit Courts of Appeals upheld the lower courts' rulings and the Trump Administration appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court's Order states that it will hear arguments during its first session in October.
Additionally, the Order removes the injunctions of the lower courts in part. Specifically, the Supreme Court finds that the lower courts' injunctions will be lifted and limited versions of the Travel Ban and Refugee Ban will apply only for individuals "who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." In contrast, the injunctions by the lower courts on the Executive Order will remain in place for individuals "who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States" – in other words, this group of individuals will not be subject to the Travel Ban. This same standard will apply to the Refugee Ban, so the Government can in theory allow more than 50,000 refugees to enter the United States before the fiscal year ends provided that these refugees have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with an individual or entity in the United States.
The Supreme Court's Order also defines what it means by a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." In order for an otherwise affected foreign national to claim a bona fide relationship with a person, it must be a close family relationship (e.g. entering the U.S. to live with or visit a family member such as a spouse or mother-in-law). Where an otherwise affected foreign national is claiming a bona fide relationship with an entity, it must be a formal, documented relationship that was formed in the ordinary course (e.g. students who are coming to attend University, workers who have accepted offers of employment, or lecturers who have been invited to address an American audience).
Note that the Trump Administration issued a Memorandum on June 14th which clarified that if the injunctions preventing the Travel Ban or Refugee Ban were lifted, the Bans will go into effect three days after the injunction is lifted, i.e. June 29, 2017.
The Supreme Court's Order is clearly a win in part for President Trump. Under the Order he can ban the subset of individuals from the Six Affected Countries who do not have the right kinds of connections with U.S. persons or entities from entering the United States until September 27, 2017. Similarly, President Trump can prevent certain refugees who do not have any connections to the United States from entering the U.S. until October 27, 2017. But the Order does acknowledge that the Federal government's interest in securing our borders may not necessarily extend to persons from the Six Affected Countries who have a bona fide relationship or basis for traveling to the United States. It is also important to note that this Order applies only until the Supreme Court reaches a final decision on the injunctions sometime after October 1st.
In a concurrence that was issued along with the Order, three of the Justices have already signaled that they will side with the Trump Administration's argument that it has close to plenary authority to block the entry of foreign nationals to the United States. The other six Justices have not expressed which position they support.
Lastly, a final decision by the Supreme Court on the legality of the Executive Order may depend on whether the Trump Administration seeks to extend or make permanent the provisions contained in the Executive Order. One of the stated reasons for the Executive Order was to give various Administration agencies the opportunity to investigate the risk to U.S. security of allowing people from the Six Affected Countries to travel to the U.S. as well as the USRAP. The Supreme Court's Order notes specifically that this partial lifting of the injunction should allow the Administrative the time that it originally said it needed to make these assessments. In the event that the Administration, after performing its assessment, concludes that some or all of the provisions contained in the Executive Order should not be extended, it would arguably render moot the legal fight at the Supreme Court over the validity of the injunctions by the lower courts.
Please contact any of the immigration attorneys at Parker Gallini LLP to discuss questions you have concerning this important Supreme Court Order and the future of President Trump's Travel and Refugee Ban Executive Order.
www.parkergallini.com.
‹ Premium Processing Suspended for H-1B Petitions Beginning on April 3, 2017
The Rescission of the DACA Program ›
Tagged with: #immigration #travelban #trump #supremecourt


If your clients own certain foreign property costing more than $100,000, they have to report it to CRA using the T1135 Foreign Income Verification Statement.
The T1135 requires Canadian taxpayers to report certain information regarding their interests in what's known as specified foreign property (SFP) if the total cost base of the property exceeds $100,000 (all figures in Canadian dollars).
the detailed method for taxpayers with SFP in excess of $250,000.
In both the simplified and detailed method, taxpayers are required to disclose (among other information) the total amount of income produced by the SFP as well as any capital gains or losses realized during the calendar year.
What is specified foreign property?
precious metals, gold certificates, and futures contracts held outside Canada.
The T1135 reporting requirement, as well as disclosure of income and capital gains (losses), can be confusing. This is especially the case where specified foreign property is jointly owned with a family member, particularly where the attribution rules apply. Let's use an example to illustrate.
John and Sally are spouses and recently purchased a U.S. rental property for $150,000. The U.S. rental property is a SFP. John contributed $75,000 cash and gifted $75,000 cash to Sally toward the property purchase. Under the attribution rules in the Income Tax Act (ITA), John must report 100% of the income and capital gains earned on the property since he solely contributed to the purchase of the property. That is, regardless of the fact that the property is held in joint tenancy with Sally, John reports all income and capital gains on his personal tax return.
As a result of these attribution rules, many taxpayers are left wondering what they should report on the T1135. In John and Sally's case, assuming the U.S. property is the only SFP they own, must John file a T1135 given the fact that only he contributed to the purchase of the U.S. rental property, which cost $150,000 and therefore exceeds the $100,000 threshold? In addition, how is any income or capital gains reported on the T1135; must John report all income and capital gains because of the attribution rules, or must John and Sally each report their respective shares?
Fortunately, CRA recently clarified this issue. In layman's terms, CRA said that for T1135 reporting, it does not distinguish between a legal owner and a beneficial owner and therefore, each owner would simply report their share (i.e., ownership interest) as specified foreign property. In John and Sally's case, each spouse's interest in the SFP would have a total cost of $75,000, which falls below the $100,000 minimum threshold individually; neither spouse would have to file the T1135.
Read: Should coupled clients have joint accounts?
What happens to personal tax reporting?
With respect to the income and capital gains reporting, CRA also commented that the T1135 reporting requirements were independent of any related income reporting requirements with respect to the attribution rules.
To illustrate, let's say John and Sally had actually bought an SFP for $300,000. Sally contributes $150,000 cash and gifts $150,000 to John, taking them above the T1135 threshold and triggering the attribution rules for income (i.e., Sally must report all income and capital gains on her personal return related to the $300,000 property).
Under these circumstances, both Sally and John would each have to submit their own Form T1135s. Their T1135s would include not only their ownership interest in the SFP ($150,000 each), but also their 50% respective share of any income or capital gains realized on this property — without consideration for the attribution rules. That is, even though Sally, as John's spouse, would be required to pay income tax on 100% of any income or gains earned on the SFP due to the attribution rules, she would only be required to disclose her 50% share of income and/or gains on the T1135.
Some taxpayers may consider gifting and holding an asset in joint ownership with a family member to bring themselves below the T1135 threshold so they don't have to file the form. If they do this, make sure they understand they may trigger the attribution rules and that the gifting taxpayer may have to report all gains and/or income, depending on whom the gift is made to. Help them weigh the benefits of avoiding the form versus the application of the attribution rules.


text:
Posts filed under 'Devotional Thoughts'
Stinky Sacrifices and Sweet Offerings
Credit: The Altar of Incense / Martin Luther / Wikimedia
When God is giving Moses instructions for the tabernacle, one of the things He instructs him to build is an incense altar:
Make an altar of acacia wood for burning incense. Aaron must burn fragrant incense on the altar every morning when he tends the lamps. He must burn incense again when he lights the lamps at twilight so incense will burn regularly before the LORD for the generations to come. (Exodus 30:1, 7-8)
This incense altar served a couple of different purposes. On the one hand, it was used in worship. When the father of John the Baptist, Zechariah, famously receives word from the angel Gabriel that he will soon be a father, even though he is well past his child-rearing years, he is stationed at the altar of incense while "all the assembled worshipers were praying outside" (Luke 1:10). On the other hand, this altar served a much cruder purpose. With all the sacrifices that were made at the tabernacle and later at the temple, the fetor from the dead animals would have been overwhelming. The incense helped cover the stench of death.
The stench of death, as offensive as it may have been, was a reminder to the Israelites that sin came with a cost. As the apostle Paul explains: "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). The question was: is there anything that can stem the stench of sin and death?
In Ephesians 5, Paul writes about a unique sacrifice:
Follow God's example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (Ephesians 5:1-2)
Sacrifices were stinky! But when Christ gave Himself up as a sacrifice, it was "fragrant." Why? Because Christ was both an "offering and sacrifice." He was the sacrificial "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29) as well as "an aroma that brings life" (2 Corinthians 2:16). He was slaughtered as a sacrifice and sweet-smelling like incense, all at the same time.
I've had more than one person tell me that life stinks right now. Nationally, culturally, and personally, we have our share of struggles thanks to sin. And yet, the fragrance of Christ can still overwhelm and overcome the sin of this world. This is the hope we have. And this is the message we are called to share:
Thanks be to God, who always leads us as captives in Christ's triumphal procession and uses us to spread the aroma of the knowledge of Him everywhere. (2 Corinthians 2:14)
May we spread Christ's aroma and make someone's life sweeter with Him.
January 11, 2021 at 5:15 am Leave a comment
Practicing Contentment in 2021
Moses finishes building the tabernacle
Phillip Medhurst Collection of Bible Illustrations
As the Israelites wind their way through the wilderness on a trek to the Promised Land, they construct a tent of meeting. This is the place where Moses goes to meet directly with God. The tent is quite elaborate, containing yarns, fine linen, gold, silver, and bronze. Because a project of this magnitude is costly, Moses begins the project with a capital campaign of sorts where:
Everyone who was willing and whose heart moved them came and brought an offering to the LORD for the work on the tent of meeting. (Exodus 35:21)
By all accounts, the capital campaign proves to be wildly successful – so much so that they wind up raising far more than they need for the completion of the tent of meeting. As the workers are assembling the tent from what has been brought, they say to Moses:
"The people are bringing more than enough for doing the work the LORD commanded to be done." Then Moses gave an order and they sent this word throughout the camp: "No man or woman is to make anything else as an offering for the sanctuary." And so the people were restrained from bringing more, because what they already had was more than enough to do all the work. (Exodus 36:5-7)
The workers receive a windfall of gifts for their work on the tent of meeting. But what is really important is this: they recognize the windfall. They know they have more than enough.
It's hard to recognize a windfall. We are too easily tempted, no matter how much we have, to always want more – and to believe we don't yet have quite enough.
In Luke 3, John the Baptist preaches about the impending judgment of God. In response, the listening crowd asks:
"What should we do then?"John answered, "Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same." Even tax collectors came to be baptized. "Teacher," they asked, "what should we do?" "Don't collect any more than you are required to," he told them. Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely – be content with your pay." (Luke 3:11-14)
To avoid God's judgment, John calls the people to be content with what they have and not hoard more than they need.
As we head into 2021, a good resolution to make might be this:
I will practice contentment.
After all, as we reflect on 2020, it can be tempting to focus on all the things we didn't get:
I didn't get a raise because my company is struggling financially.
I didn't get to keep my job because I got caught in a round of layoffs.
I didn't get to spend time with my family over the holidays because of social distancing.
I didn't get to go out to eat or go much of anywhere at all because so many places were closed.
I didn't get more time with my loved one because COVID-19 took them.
All these things may be true – and some of them are downright devastating – but they're still incomplete. Because at the same time there is much we are lacking, there is much we still have:
I still have a job even if I didn't get the raise.
I still have the wherewithal to look for a job even if I lost my old one.
I still can see my family on Facetime even if I can't be with them in person.
I still can order food in even if I can't go out.
I still have loved ones who are with me and God now has a loved one who is with Him.
Statements of loss, with some practice, can turn into reflections of contentment.
No matter what this year may bring, of this much we can be sure: God will provide. And, more than likely, He will provide more than enough. Perhaps we should take some time to recognize that we might just be sitting on a windfall.
January 4, 2021 at 5:15 am Leave a comment
Sunshine & Branches
Credit: Pixabay.com
When an elderly priest named Zechariah is chosen by lot to burn incense at the temple in Jerusalem, it marks a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for him. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, there were around 20,000 priests serving at the temple in the first century. Many of them never got to bring such an offering before God. So, Zechariah, when his lot is drawn, is obviously overwhelmed by the magnitude of the moment. But an already overwhelming moment becomes even more potent when, in the middle of Zechariah's liturgical service, an angel appears to him, telling him that he and his wife Elizabeth, both of whom could have easily qualified to be members-in-good-standing of the AARP by this point in their lives, will have a child who will, in fulfillment of ancient prophecy, "prepare the way for the Lord" (Isaiah 40:3). At first, Zechariah is skeptical of this angelic announcement, but his suspicion quickly melts into praise and hope, both at the promise that he and his wife will have a child and that his child will prepare the way for the arrival of God's salvation. At the end of a song of celebration, he muses:
You, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High; for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for Him, to give His people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, by which the rising sun will come to us from heavento shine on those living in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the path of peace. (Luke 1:76-79)
In his song, Zechariah celebrates both his child and God's Messiah. He describes the Messiah as "the rising sun" who will come "to shine on those living in darkness and in the shadow of death."
This picture of light was a common metaphor for the Messiah among the prophets:
The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them a light has shined. (Isaiah 9:2)
For you who revere My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays. (Malachi 4:2)
In a world full of the darkness of sin, the Messiah would bring the light of righteousness.
When Zechariah speaks of the coming Messiah as "the rising sun," the Greek word Luke employs is anatole, a word which refers to the east, the place from which the sun rises. What is fascinating about this word is that it can also be translated as "branch," as it is when God speaks through the prophet Zechariah, who lived over 500 years before the priest Zechariah did:
I am going to bring My servant, the Branch. (Zechariah 3:8)
God calls the Messiah "the Branch," the Greek word for which is anatole. In a world full of death, the Messiah would be like a tree that sprouts and brings life.
This one little word speaks to who the Messiah is in multiple ways. He sheds light in the darkness of sin and he branches out from death with life. Though Zechariah, more than likely, did not understand the fullness of who the Messiah would be and what He would accomplish when he sang his song, we live in what the apostle Paul once called "the fullness of time" (Galatians 4:4). In other words, we have the benefit of historical retrospection to understand more fully how Jesus changed the world – and how Jesus still changes lives. And because of this, we, like Zechariah, can have praise to offer and hope to hold this Christmas.
December 21, 2020 at 5:15 am 3 comments
More Than A List Of Names
Credit: John Snyder / Wikimedia
Last week on this blog, I took a look at one of the most beloved parts of the Christmas story – the journey of the wise men. This week, I'd like to take a look at one of the most often overlooked sections of the story. The Gospel writer Matthew opens his version of the Christmas story not with an angel, or with a star, or with some startled shepherds, but with a genealogy:
This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham: Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife, Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, Zerubbabel the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Elihud, Elihud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah. Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah. (Matthew 1:1-17)
You can be honest: did you read the genealogy above just now, or did you skip to the bottom to see what in the world could be said about a list like this? I know the temptation. When I'm reading through the Bible, I'm tempted to skip sections like this, too.
In the ancient world, genealogies were considered critical. They reminded the Jewish people of their history and God's faithfulness. Genealogies were ways of keeping track of how God had guided and grown His people through the ages. This is especially true in Matthew's genealogy. Matthew includes a section in his genealogy he titles, "After the exile to Babylon" (Matthew 1:12). When the Babylonians ransacked the city of Jerusalem and carried its residents into captivity, the Israelites wondered if God had turned against them. In the book of Lamentations, they cry:
The Lord is like an enemy; He has swallowed up Israel. (Lamentations 2:5)
Oftentimes, when the Old Testament writers speak of God, they call Him "LORD." The capitalization of all the letters is meant to cue the reader that the Hebrew behind this translation is "Yahweh," the personal name for God. The Israelites called God by name because they believed He knew their names – and cared about their lives. But in this line from Lamentations, they do not cry out to God personally, using His personal name Yahweh. Instead, they talk about Him formally – not as "LORD," but as "Lord," the Hebrew word here being "Adonai," which is not a personal name, but a title meaning, "Master." The God the Israelites once spoke to personally now feels like a harsh Master who is abusing them savagely, as they languish in exile in Babylon.
Matthew's genealogy reminds us that, even during their darkest moments, God had not given up on His people. The names of those who were driven from Israel were still and recorded in the annals of God's people and are now remembered as ones who pointed to the One in whom this whole genealogy finds its apogee: "Jesus who is called the Messiah" (Matthew 1:16).
In a year that has been full of so much pain for so many people, this genealogy can remind us that we are also in the annals of God's family, even when we feel exiled – from friends, from family members, and from normal routines as a pandemic that just won't quit drags on. My encouragement to you is to take a moment to reflect on the names in Matthew's genealogy. After all, because of Christ, this genealogy is not just a list of names, it's your family history in faith – and we should all take some time to learn about our family.
December 14, 2020 at 5:15 am 1 comment
King Jesus, King Herod, and "Three Kings"
One of the most beloved sections of the Christmas story is when wise men come to visit Jesus and His family:
After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw His star when it rose and have come to worship Him." When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. "In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written: 'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd My people Israel.'" Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find Him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship Him." After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child with His mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped Him. Then they opened their treasures and presented Him with gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route. (Matthew 2:1-12)
Part of what makes this particular section of the Christmas story so compelling is the evil king who serves as a foil to the so-called "three kings" who are looking to present gifts to Jesus. King Herod feels threatened by Jesus and wants to slaughter what he perceives to be the competition. This kind of ghastly plot comports with what we know about Herod historically. Herod was the king who had his wife Mariamne and his sons Alexander, Aristobulus, and Antipater all executed because he suspected they were trying to usurp his throne. Herod's conduct toward his own family was so gruesome that Caesar Augustus, who was the Roman Emperor at this time, is said to have quipped, "I'd rather be Herod's pig than Herod's son." The first-century historian Josephus once wrote that Herod's "character had nothing human to recommend to it." And yet, if you would have asked him, Herod would have self-identified as a religiously observant Jew. After all, Herod was the one who expanded the temple in Jerusalem into a glorious showcase of Jewish religious sensibility and sacrifice.
Herod's willingness to build a monument to Jewish religious rituals while acting so depravedly in his relationships with his own family is manifestly hypocritical. The fact that wise men who were not Jewish would gladly worship Jesus as the Messiah while a self-identified Jew would fearfully despise Jesus because he thought He might be the Messiah just further confirms how spiritually blind Herod really was. As Andreas Köstenberger and Alexander Stewart put it in their book The First Days of Jesus:
Herod powerfully illustrates the fact that it's not enough to identify outwardly with God's people. It's not enough to give sacrificially of your funds and your energy to build God's house (or temple) and to help others worship. It's not enough to learn about God and His plan through His Scriptures. Every one of us is confronted with a choice…Who will we serve? For whom will we live?
These are questions that still come to us. The Christmas season is not merely about favorite carols, idyllic nativity scenes, and warm religious observances, as wonderful as all these things may be. This season is about a newborn King. And trusting in and living for this King cannot be captured in just one holiday. It is God's call to us every day. May this Christmas be a time to renew our commitment to this call.
December 7, 2020 at 5:15 am Leave a comment
Losing to Win
A couple of weekends ago, we sat down as a family to play games. At this stage in my kids' lives, the games are simple – Go Fish, Old Maid, and Crazy Eights were the chosen fare for our fun. But in the middle of some family frivolity, an unexpected display of the dark side of human nature broke out. As my kids were playing Old Maid, they both became determined to make sure they would not be the one holding that final, dreaded card. So, they engaged in peaking and grabbing and even a bit of fighting in an attempt to emerge victorious. There's just something in human nature that loves to conquer someone else. There's just something in human nature that loves to win.
In the final book of the Bible, John has a vision of Christ who sends seven letters to seven churches all over ancient Asia Minor. In these letters, Jesus makes promises to those who conquer and win against the forces of evil:
To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God. (Revelation 2:7)
The one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death. (Revelation 2:11)
To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna. (Revelation 2:17)
The one who conquers and who keeps My works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations. (Revelation 2:26)
The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God. (Revelation 3:12)
The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with Me on My throne, as I also conquered and sat down with My Father on His throne. (Revelation 3:21)
Jesus celebrates those who win. The obvious question, then, is: how do you win? Later in his vision, John hears a voice from heaven declaring victory over the devil. And this is how God's people have conquered him:
They have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death. (Revelation 12:11)
It turns out that winning, in this instance, involves losing. John hears of a lamb who loses His blood – who sacrifices His life – to vanquish Satan. And, as followers of Jesus, we are called to be willing to lose in order to win, too – loving not our lives even unto death.
Are we willing to fight our battles and gain our victories against darkness by losing? In the world – and to the world – winning by losing may be derided as naïve and ineffective. But in a world where usual victories prove fleeting and the usual way of winning always seems to give way to losing, perhaps it's time to see if it works the other way around – if a loss can actually give way to a win. That's the story of Good Friday and Easter Sunday – a loss of life gave way to victory over death. Let's make that story our stories, too.
November 30, 2020 at 5:15 am Leave a comment
Why This Thanksgiving Should Be A Happy One
Credit: Marcus Quigmire / Wikimedia
In what has become a tradition on this blog, this is the week I like to look back on a presidential Thanksgiving proclamation and take a moment to reflect on its significance. Thanksgiving may be a uniquely American holiday, but it is a universally needed and spiritually beneficial practice. This year, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1941 stood out to me:
I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, do hereby designate and set aside Thursday, the twentieth day of November, 1941, as a day to be observed in giving thanks to the Heavenly Source of our earthly blessings.
Our beloved country is free and strong. Our moral and physical defenses against the forces of threatened aggression are mounting daily in magnitude and effectiveness.
In the interest of our own future, we are sending succor at increasing pace to those peoples abroad who are bravely defending their homes and their precious liberties against annihilation.
We have not lost our faith in the spiritual dignity of man, our proud belief in the right of all people to live out their lives in freedom and with equal treatment. The love of democracy still burns brightly in our hearts.
We are grateful to the Father of us all for the innumerable daily manifestations of His beneficent mercy in affairs both public and private, for the bounties of the harvest, for opportunities to labor and to serve, and for the continuance of those homely joys and satisfactions which enrich our lives.
Let us ask the Divine Blessing on our decision and determination to protect our way of life against the forces of evil and slavery which seek in these days to encompass us.
On the day appointed for this purpose, let us reflect at our homes or places of worship on the goodness of God and, in giving thanks, let us pray for a speedy end to strife and the establishment on earth of freedom, brotherhood, and justice for enduring time.
There are lots of good thoughts in President Roosevelt's proclamation. His recognition that there is a "Heavenly Source of our earthly blessings" reminds us that everything we have ultimately comes from God. His thankfulness for "opportunities to labor and to serve" reminds us that we can be thankful not only for what we have, but for what we can do. And his invitation to "reflect at our homes or places of worship on the goodness of God" is certainly well taken. Thanksgiving, at its heart, is an act of worship.
But it is the historical context that surrounds this proclamation that was especially remarkable to me. President Roosevelt issued this proclamation on November 8, 1941. A month earlier, on October 6, the House of Representatives passed a resolution declaring the last Thursday in November to be Thanksgiving Day. Up to this point, the day of Thanksgiving was not officially set and different presidents chose different dates. Two months later, on December 9, the Senate amended the House resolution to fix the date of Thanksgiving on the fourth – rather than the final – Thursday of November to account for those occasions when November has five Thursdays. President Roosevelt signed the resolution into law on December 26. What makes all this so interesting is what happened in the midst of this legislative history on Monday, December 7, 1941. The United States was plunged into a second world war. And yet, even while our Armed Forces began fighting and our nation was reeling from that "date which will live in infamy," Congress and the President still found it important to declare a time for our nation to give thanks. They recognized that giving thanks is not only important when times are good, it is also critical when times are terrible.
Though we are blessedly not embroiled in a world war, 2020 has nevertheless been a difficult year for many. This is why it is so important that we pause to give thanks. Giving thanks is not and cannot be based on how well things have gone. It must be a recognition of how gracious God is. As the Psalmist says:
Give thanks to the LORD, for He is good, for His steadfast love endures forever. (Psalm 136:1)
God's goodness and love remain steadfast even when this world's brokenness shakes us to our cores. Indeed, God's goodness and love are so steadfast that God steps into the brokenness of this world in His Son to suffer with us and for us. This is why we cannot only give thanks to the Lord, we can give thanks for the Lord, for the Lord has come for us.
This Thanksgiving, may that be our thanksgiving.
Discerning Right From Wrong
Jacob and Laban with Rachel and Leah / Italy, 17th century / Wikipedia
When Jacob marries both the daughters of his uncle Laban in Genesis 29, it is difficult not to suspect that these marriages will go nowhere good fast. The story goes that Jacob falls in love with Laban's youngest daughter, Rachel, and agrees to work seven years for his uncle as a kind of dowry to gain the girl. But after Jacob's seven years of service are completed, his uncle gives him his older daughter, Leah, instead, insisting:
It is not our custom here to give the younger daughter in marriage before the older one. Finish this daughter's bridal week; then we will give you the other one also, in return for another seven years of work. (Genesis 29:26-27)
Jacob is so smitten by Rachel, he gladly obliges. The problem is that now Jacob has two wives – and one is clearly his favorite. Unsurprisingly, this causes a host of problems in both marriages. At first, only Leah is able to bear children for Jacob, which was critical in the ancient world. The continuation of a family line was a primary source of pride in this culture. When Rachel sees that Leah is bearing her husband children, she becomes jealous and gives Jacob one of her servants named Bilhah to sleep with, so he can have children she can claim through this servant. This arouses Leah's jealousy, who responds by offering to her husband her servant, Zilpah, through whom he can have even more children.
In the middle of this marital mess, Jacob sleeps with Leah and she becomes pregnant. She is delighted and proclaims, "God has rewarded me for giving my servant to my husband" (Genesis 30:18).
Really? Leah really believes that God is pleased with her for offering her servant to her husband so he can sleep with her? Morally, this sounds preposterous to us. But it seems to have sounded sensible to Leah. After all, the proof of God's pleasure at the arrangement was in the gift God gave her – a son. Right?
The Psalmist once prayed: "Who can discern their own errors? Forgive my hidden faults" (Psalm 19:12). Human beings are so deeply sinful that, sometimes, we sin and don't even know it. This is true of Leah. She is so desperate for her husband's affection that she is willing to bring an extra woman into a relationship that is already problematically polygamous and then interpret the fruit of that sin as a sanction from God.
A story like this should instill in us a little humility. If Leah could think that something as deeply morally wrong as offering another woman to your husband is right, is there a possibility that we might get morally confused, too?
The prophet Isaiah once warned:
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight. (Isaiah 5:20-21)
Morally, we can often try to be too clever by half. We cleverly excuse our lies using a cloak of confidentiality. We cleverly cover our gossip with a patina of prayer. And we, like Leah, can cleverly misinterpret a blessing from God as a divine imprimatur on some kind of bad behavior.
To understand right and wrong, morality and immorality, righteousness and wickedness, we must constantly return to the clear certainty of God's commands. He is the One who can take our worst moral instincts and replace them with a godly conscience, shaped by His Spirit and truth. So, let's not fool ourselves. Let's listen to the Lord.
A Very Good Blessing for Esau…and Us
"Esau and Jacob" by Giovanni Andrea de Ferrari / Wikipedia
In the story of Jacob and Esau, Jacob famously steals his brother's blessing from his father, Isaac. Jacob, who dresses up like his brother to dupe his near-blind dad, receives this blessing from Isaac:
Ah, the smell of my son is like the smell of a field that the LORD has blessed. May God give you heaven's dew and earth's richness – an abundance of grain and new wine. May nations serve you and peoples bow down to you. Be lord over your brothers, and may the sons of your mother bow down to you. May those who curse you be cursed and those who bless you be blessed. (Genesis 27:27-29)
In this blessing, Isaac promises Jacob four things. First, he promises Jacob material blessing – he will be blessed with much food and drink. Second, he promises Jacob political power – that nations and people will bow down to him. Third, he promises Jacob familial patronage – he will be the patriarch and guardian for his whole family. Fourth, he promises Jacob a spiritual legacy. Isaac's words "may those who curse you be cursed and those who bless you be blessed" echo God's words to Jacob's grandfather Abraham (cf. Genesis 12:3). Jacob, rather than his older brother Esau, will be the one to carry the spiritual mantle of Abraham forward in the family – and for the world.
This is quite a blessing. And unsurprisingly, when Esau finds out that his brother Jacob has received such a stellar blessing, which his dad intended to be his, he is furious – and desperate. He pleads to his father, "Haven't you reserved any blessing for me" (Genesis 27:36)? What his father musters for him sounds quite meager:
Your dwelling will be away from the earth's richness, away from the dew of heaven above. You will live by the sword and you will serve your brother. But when you grow restless, you will throw his yoke from off your neck. (Genesis 27:39-40)
This seems more like a curse than a blessing! Isolation from others and subordination to a scorned sibling hardly sound enticing. And yet, embedded in this "blessing" is a glimmer of hope: "But when you grow restless, you will throw off his yoke from your neck." When Esau first hears these words, he immediately interprets them as a license for violence. In the very next verse, we find Esau looking forward to his father's imminent death and saying to himself: "The days of mourning for my father are near; then I will kill my brother Jacob" (Genesis 27:41). Murder is how Esau believes that he will throw off the yoke of his brother's betrayal.
But things don't turn out the way Esau plots them.
Instead, Jacob, learning of his brother's secret plot, flees. Over five decades pass before they see each other again. But when they finally do, the scene is moving:
Esau ran to meet Jacob and embraced him; he threw his arms around his neck and kissed him. And they wept. (Genesis 33:4)
At first, Esau believed that he would be able to throw off the yoke of his brother's betrayal by exacting vengeance from him. But, it turns out, he was only able to throw off the yoke of his brother's betrayal by forgiving him.
As the holidays approach, many of us have family members – or others – by whom we may feel betrayed. Perhaps this is the time of year to trade a weak hope for vengeance for a better blessing of forgiveness. This is the only way the yoke of the betrayal someone has committed against you can truly be removed from you. This is what Esau learned, and this is the way Jesus shows.
It turns out Esau received a pretty good blessing after all.
November 9, 2020 at 5:15 am 1 comment
"Let us" vs. "I will"
The Tower of Babel by Pieter Bruegel (c. 1563) / Wikipedia
Human arrogance is nothing new. It's as old as sin itself. Adam and Eve, after all, were tempted into sin by a delusion of grandeur – if they broke a command of God, they could "be like God" (Genesis 3:5).
Another early instance of human arrogance comes in the form of an infamous building project:
Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. They said to each other, "Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth." (Genesis 11:1-4)
The arrogance of humanity in this project can be summed up in two words:
"Let us."
"Let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly," they say. "Let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves," they plan. They believe that there is nothing they can't do. They don't need God when they have a "Let us."
When God discovers the people's plot, He stops them by confusing their language so they can no longer communicate with each other, which is why we now call this building project "Babel – because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world" (Genesis 11:9). But God does not merely judge these people by confusing their communication. He does something else. He does something more. He tries something better.
In the very next chapter of Genesis, God calls a man named Abraham and says to him:
Go from your country, your people and your father's household to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you. (Genesis 12:1-3)
God is not only promising to bless Abraham here, He is also working to undo the calamity of Babel by responding to humanity's arrogant "Let us" with two words of His own:
"I will give you a new land," God explains. "I will make you into a great nation," God declares.
On the one hand, the words "I will" can trouble us, because what God will do always outdoes and overcomes what we might want to do. On the other hand, these words of God are a great promise for us. They remind us that our accomplishments, our worth, and our lives are not in our hands. We do not live by what we do. We live because of what God has done – and will do – for us.
At a time like this, the temptation to say "Let us" can become overwhelming. "Let us get a raise so we can live more comfortably." "Let us airbrush our lives on social media so we can present ourselves perfectly." "Let us win this presidential election so we can beat our opponents into submission politically." What we need most at a moment like this, however, is not another "Let us." We need God's "I will." "I will provide for you." "I will grant you My perfect righteousness." "I will be your perfect king and your loving heavenly Father." His "I will" always works better than our "Let us."
The One who calls you is faithful, and He will do it. (1 Thessalonians 5:24)


text:
Prunus virginiana — вид квіткових рослин із підродини мигдалевих (Amygdaloideae).

Біоморфологічна характеристика
Це дерево чи кущ, 10–60(100) дм, без шипів. Гілочки голі чи запушені. Листки опадні; ніжка 4–22(27) мм, зазвичай гола, іноді волосиста, дистально залозиста; пластина від обернено-яйцюватої або еліптичної до яйцеподібної чи зворотно-ланцетної, 2.5–9(11) × 1.2–5(6.6) см, краї від зубчастих до зазубрених, верхівка загострена, гостра чи тупа, абаксіальна (низ) поверхня гола чи волосиста (особливо вздовж середніх жилок), адаксіальна гола. Суцвіття — 18–64-квіткові, китицеподібні. Квіти розпускаються після появи листя; чашолистки від випростано-розпростертих до відігнутих, напівкруглі, 0.7–1.4 мм, краї вирізані, зазвичай залозисто-зубчасті, іноді майже не залозисті, поверхні голі; пелюстки білі, від обернено-яйцеподібних до майже округлих, 2–5(7) мм. Кістянки червоні, пурпурні, темно-пурпурні чи чорні, кулясті, 6–14 мм, голі; мезокарпій м'ясистий; кісточки від майже округлих до еліпсоїдних, не сплющені.

Поширення, екологія
Росте в Канаді, США, Мексиці, Сен-П'єр і Мікелоні.

Використання
Плоди їдять сирими чи приготовленими. М'якуш жорсткий, темний і соковитий. Кора і гілки є заміною чаю.

Чорноплідна черешня широко використовувалася в медицині багатьма індіанськими племенами Північної Америки, які використовували її для лікування різноманітних захворювань, особливо цінуючи її терпкість і позитивний вплив на дихальну систему. У сучасному травництві він мало використовується, якщо взагалі використовується. Коріння і кора є кровозміцнювальним, в'яжучим, грудним, заспокійливим, тонізувальним і збудливим апетит засобом. Настій використовували для лікування лихоманки, кашлю та застуди. Настій кори кореня застосовували як засіб для промивання при опіках, застарілих ранах і виразках. Внутрішню частину кори використовують зовнішньо при лікуванні ран. Відваром внутрішньої кори лікували ларингіт і болі в шлунку. Висушені і подрібнені плоди використовують для збудження апетиту, лікування діареї і кров'янистих виділень з кишківника. Терпкі незрілі плоди використовувалися дітьми для лікування діареї. Фруктовий сік використовувався для лікування ангіни.

Рослина може бути висаджена для боротьби з ерозією. Це вид-піонер покинутих полів і вирубок. Рослини можна використовувати для формування привабливого живоплоту, особливо якщо використовується червонолистий сорт «Шуберт».

З листя можна отримати зелений барвник. З плодів можна отримати барвник від темно-сірого до зеленого. З плодів отримують багряно-червоний барвник.

Деревина червонувато-бура, дрібнозерниста, середньої міцності, тверда, важка. Він не є цінним через свій невеликий розмір і неправильну форму, але використовується для шампурів тощо. Коли виходять шматки більшого розміру, вони цінуються для столярних робіт. Дерево не горить легко.

Галерея

Примітки

virginiana
Флора Канади
Флора Сен-П'єр і Мікелон
Флора США
Флора Мексики

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


This weekend I had the pleasure of photographing Sajida's maternity session in Kingston. They had the lovely henna artist, Shafeena, produce stunning artwork on her. It was easy to tell that Sajida and her husband Zumil are very proud parents and excited about the arrival of their first child!


High-test molasses or inverted rich syrup is a sugarcane juice that can be used as a feed ingredient for non-ruminants. Trials have shown that it may replace cereals with little or no effect on bird performance.
This article can also be found at World Poultry Volume 19 number 9. To view the article online simply click on the link below.


The Fox Rothschild associate team of Megan Center and Alex Radus recently gave a presentation at the International Franchise Expo in New York City on the "Top Ten Provisions to 'Never' Negotiate in a Franchise Agreement". We have prepared a summary of this presentation in four separate blog posts. The first post focused on central themes of franchise negotiation, the second post addressed protecting the confidentiality of franchise negotiations, and the third post addressed the first five of our top ten provisions.
This last installment details the second set of our top ten provisions to "never" negotiate.
Typical Provision: Franchisors can require franchisees to update and renovate their units, as well as upgrade furniture, fixtures and equipment, at any time during the franchise relationship. This also includes franchisors' rights to change their marks.
Franchisee Argument: Franchisees want to limit uncertainty in their financial obligations. Depending on the circumstances, they may request a spending cap, reimbursement from the franchisor, and a grace period while they ramp up when they will not be obligated to spend more. Franchisees may request additional concessions with respect to new marks, because they will be helping build goodwill from day one.
Franchisor Argument: Franchisors have weighed the liabilities they may incur in connection with the franchise agreement and priced the initial franchise fee because of that analysis. Shifting any additional liabilities on franchisors skews this analysis. This practice can be extremely expensive even if granted this for one franchisee. Renovations and upgrades will likely benefit the unit by modernizing the unit and keeping up with customer preferences. Customers could be turned off by a stagnant brand. Franchisors need to ensure consistent experience from the brand across the board.
Compromise: Franchisors can agree to a maximum expenditure during the term of the franchise agreement. Franchisors can agree to not impose this requirement during the first few years of the term of the franchise agreement. Franchisors can also agree to provide franchisees with a certain credit against its local advertising requirement depending upon the expenditure.
Typical Provision: Franchisors can terminate the franchise relationship for a whole host of reasons. These reasons, or defaults, commonly fall into curable defaults and non-curable defaults.
Franchisee Argument: Franchisees will seek to de-risk their investment by requiring notice of violations and period in which to cure, with extensions if they are attempting to cure. Franchisees will be especially sensitive to the possibility of losing their business due to "technical violations" or cross-defaults (i.e., breach of agreements other than the franchise agreement).
Franchisor Argument: Some defaults of the Franchise Agreement are so egregious that they cannot be cured. These types of defaults attack the heart of the franchise relationship and are likely irreparable. While there may be required revisions based on state law, these provisions are drafted with particular precision and attention.
Compromise: Our first bit of advice to lighten the situation is to blame the lawyer! Termination rights are impactful and drive franchisor outcomes. Franchisor counsel understandably spends significant time and energy focusing on this section of the franchise agreement and that is why it can be so voluminous. If a franchisee has concerns about a specific event of default, the franchisee and franchisor can deal with each in turn.
Typical Provision: Franchisees are required to indemnify franchisors for any claims or losses that franchisors incur in connection with that franchisee's operation of its franchised unit.
Franchisee Argument: Franchisees seeking parity will ask for the franchisor to indemnify them. They will argue this is fair due to the risk that they could face litigation based on the franchisor's acts and omissions.
Franchisor Argument: This practice can be extremely expensive even if granted for one franchisee. Franchisors' time and resources are better spent further developing the franchise system instead of reimbursing franchisees for or defending lawsuits against franchisees, many of which can be frivolous.
Compromise: Franchisors can agree to indemnify a franchisee for any suits related to trademark infringement if the franchisee was using the trademarks in accordance with the franchisor's standards and specifications. Additionally, franchisors can agree to indemnify their franchisees if such claims are directly caused by franchisors' willful misconduct or gross negligence. That way, franchisees will get a bit of comfort that they will not have to pay for claims arising from certain of franchisors' actions.
Typical Provision: Franchisors can freely assign their rights under the franchise agreements without obtaining franchisees' consent.
Franchisee Argument: Franchising is a relationship-driven business model. Franchisees invest not only on the strength of the system, but also because they believe in the management team's ability to grow the system and support their franchisees. Franchisees may seek to restrict founder's and management's ability to exit the system, including approval rights over assignment.
Franchisor Argument: Franchisors are unable to predict every future business opportunity they may encounter. Franchisor founders need to ensure an exit strategy. Franchisors cannot restrict the sale of the entire franchise system because one franchisee objects. The ultimate acquisition by a larger franchise system, even if competing, could increase efficiencies and levels of support of the underlying brand.
Compromise: Franchisors can agree to only assign the franchise agreement to third parties that agree to assume the responsibilities and obligations underlying the Franchise Agreement. Franchisors will be required to do this regardless and it will give franchisees a bit more comfort in a sale situation.
Typical Provision: All of franchisee's owners and each owner's spouse must sign a personal guaranty making each individual personally liable for, and personally bound by, the terms and covenants in the Franchise Agreement.
Franchisee Argument: More than nearly any other provision, the personal guarantee will keep franchisee's up at night. For obvious reasons, they will not want their or their spouse's personal assets at stake. They may argue that, like other investments and business ventures, their risk should be limited to their contributed capital.
Franchisor Argument: Franchisors are entering into this relationship with the expectation for a relationship of a certain duration and the expectation of a royalty and advertising fund revenue stream. Franchisors expend significant costs and expenses in assisting a franchisee with opening its franchised unit. The use of the personal guaranty ensures that the franchisee has some skin in the game and franchisors are not left chasing shell entities. The personal guaranty risk is part of the analysis a franchisee has to take in connection with the operation of its independent business.
Compromise: Generally, franchisors can agree to waive the requirement for a non-owner spouse to sign a personal guaranty so long as the spouse signs a confidentiality and non-compete agreement. If the franchisee candidate is someone a franchisor strongly desires to have in the system, the franchisor can impose limits on time and amount of money it can obtain against the franchisee. However, any concessions that are granted in connection with the initial franchise agreement should lapse with any renewal franchise agreement or purchase of additional units because the uncertainty of the relationship is removed from the equation.
We hope you have enjoyed this recap of our presentation and found the information helpful and insightful. Please do not hesitate to reach out to us with any questions about this series of blog posts.
The proposed rule specifically acknowledges the effects of the 2015 shift in joint employer analysis evident in the Board's decision in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186 ("Browning-Ferris"). Following the Browning-Ferris decision, franchisors, temporary employment firms, contract employers and others whose businesses necessitate some degree of interaction with and arguable control over non-employed workers found themselves as joint employers, despite decades of precedent otherwise. The effect on such businesses was immediate and profound.
I respectfully suggest amending the proposed rule to include language which provides that the status of joint employment is inappropriate based solely on a licensor's policing or enforcement of its patent, trademark or service mark requirements and standards. Intellectual property owners should not be dissuaded from enforcing their rights to control, police and enforce their patent, trademark or service mark rights.
Note: Comments were originally due November 14th, but that deadline has been extended to December 13, 2018. See 83 FR 55329.
The Fox Rothschild associate team of Megan Center and Alex Radus recently gave a presentation at the International Franchise Expo in New York City on the "Top Ten Provisions to 'Never' Negotiate in a Franchise Agreement". A summary of this presentation will be prepared in four separate blog posts. The first post focused on central themes of franchise negotiation, and the second post addressed protecting the confidentiality of franchise negotiations.
This installment details the first five of our top ten provisions to "never" negotiate.
Typical Provision: Upon transfer, renewal or purchase of an additional unit, the franchisee must sign the franchisor's then-current form of franchise agreement.
Franchisee Argument: Franchisees want the same terms for the entire franchise relationship. Uncertainty increases investment risk and hinders growth.
Franchisor Argument: Franchisors spend time and money on continually developing and refining their form of franchise agreements. Franchisors need to rely on the uniform use and enforceability of their then-current franchise agreements. Franchisors cannot predict the future and, given that a renewal franchise agreement will be signed many years after the initial franchise agreement, franchisors need the flexibility to use their then-current form of franchise agreements at that time.
Compromise: Parties often agree not to change fees, territory and terms they initially negotiated. If any terms were negotiated due to the "newness" of the relationship, these generally lapse as the relationship matures.
Typical Provision: Except for the franchisee's right to operate in the territory, the franchisor reserves all other rights, including to open units in non-traditional venues (stadiums, shopping malls, etc.) and to operate competitive brands in the franchisee's territory.
Franchisee Argument: Franchisees won't want to compete with company units, which may have greater resources, preferred pricing from suppliers, and may not pay royalties. They may also seek locations near non-traditional venues to capitalize on that market.
Franchisor Argument: Franchisors are unable to predict every future business opportunity they may encounter and need flexibility for future growth. Franchisors cannot restrict the sale of the entire franchise system because one franchisee objects. Franchisors need to reach customers through every avenue possible, including non-traditional venues, which may increase brand exposure and visitation of a franchisee's unit.
Compromise: Parties can mitigate competition risk by carving out venues near the franchisee's location, or granting the franchisee a ROFR to purchase units in non-traditional venues.
Typical Provision: Except for the right to operate in the territory, the franchisee has no other rights to operate additional units (within or outside the territory).
Franchisee Argument: From the franchisee's perspective, a right of first refusal ("ROFR") to purchase additional units is optimal: if the investment is successful, the franchisee can double down, while avoiding the obligation to open additional units under a development agreement.
Franchisor Argument: Franchisors need to protect their right to make additional sales without having to check with franchisees. Franchisors will likely be starting out a relationship with a new franchisee and may be unsure as to whether this franchisee would be a good fit as a multi-unit owner.
Compromise: The parties can agree to a ROFR subject to certain stipulations. First, the ROFR should lapse if a franchisee refuses it more than a certain number of times. Second, the ROFR will only be available after the franchisee has been successfully operating a unit for a certain period of time. Lastly, it's important to outline a process for how a franchisee can exercise this right, including a time period on the response.
Typical Provision: The franchisee must contribute to a national marketing fund. The franchisor can spend the funds as it sees fit.
Franchisee Argument: Franchisees want assurances that marketing funds will be spent in their territories. They may also seek to limit the franchisor's discretion via restrictions on the use of proceeds or oversight (including audits or formation of a franchisee advisory committee).
Franchisor Argument: Franchisors are in the best position to determine the most effective way to advertise the franchise system on a national basis. Franchisors need flexibility to promote the franchise systems, including ability to spend in any geographical region. The purpose of the marketing fund is to promote the brand on a national basis and the franchisee should focus its efforts on local advertising in its territory.
Compromise: If franchisors have an internal marketing team, they can offer franchisees additional marketing assistance free of charge. Alternatively, franchisors can waive a franchisee's requirement to contribute to the marketing fund only after a certain number of units are open and operating. In exchange, the franchisee must expend the amount it would have contributed to the marketing fund on local advertising. That way, the funds are still being utilized to promote the brand.
Typical Provision: Franchisee has the right to renew the franchise agreement a limited number of times (1-2) if certain conditions are satisfied.
Franchisee Argument: Franchisees want unlimited renewals. They will argue that as long as they are in compliance with the franchise agreement, they should not lose their business, which is often a franchisee's livelihood.
Franchisor Argument: Franchisors want to avoid creating an evergreen contract. An evergreen contract has an indefinite duration and is difficult to terminate. Franchisors need the ability to evaluate franchisees on a semi-regular basis to determine whether they are still a good fit for the franchise system.
Compromise: The parties may agree to longer renewal terms (e.g., one 10-year renewal term instead of two 5-year renewal terms). Clear renewal conditions and a cap on renewal costs will also help franchisees budget and prepare.
In a major policy announcement, on Friday, September 14, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board (the "Board") proposed a new regulation establishing the standard for determining whether two employers, as defined in Section 2(2) of the National Labor Relations Act (the "NLRA"), are a joint employer of a group of employees under the NLRA.
Under the regulation proposed by the Board, an employer may be considered a joint employer of a separate employer's employees only if the two employers share or codetermine the employees' essential terms and conditions of employment, such as hiring, firing, discipline, supervision, and direction. More specifically, to be deemed a joint employer under the proposed regulation, an employer must possess and actually exercise substantial direct and immediate control over the essential terms and conditions of employment of another employer's employees in a manner that is not limited and routine.
This proposed rule will overrule the Browning-Ferris decision, under which a company could be deemed a joint employer even if its "control" over the essential working conditions of another business's employees was indirect and limited, or contractually reserved but never exercised. The Board, in its proposed rule, explains that Browning-Ferris' relaxation of the concept that both of the putative employers of an employee must have "direct and immediate" control over the employee to be particularly troubling. In what it calls an attempt to "clarify" the proposed standard, the proposed rule also includes a number of examples.
There was a dissent from one member of the Board. The dissent essentially argues that the proposed standard of "direct and immediate" is no more clear that the Browning-Ferris standard, and that the Board is interfering with the natural development of the NLRA through the common law. I think it is fair to criticize the proposed rule due to the the proposed standard of "direct and immediate" being less than clear, and I expect that it will be further developed in the rulemaking process. Any proposed rule, however, is intended to short circuit the common law, and so I find that criticism to be extremely weak.
Comments, of course, are a key element of the rulemaking process. They must be received by no later than November 13, 2018. Reply comments to initial comments must be received by November 20, 2018. Comments may be submitted electronically through http://www.regulations.go or sent by mail or hand delivery to: Roxanne Rothschild, Associate Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street SE, Washington, DC 20570-0001. The Board cautions that comments sent via mail are often delayed due to security concerns.
This is THE time for the franchising community to be heard on the joint employer question. Comment now. Let your voice be heard.
I attended the International Franchise Association's Franchise Action Network ("FAN") Annual Meeting last week in Washington D. C. Basically, this is an educational event culminating in the participants being sent out to the "Hill" to lobby their senators and representatives on issues effecting small businesses – and especially franchised businesses. Speakers from the Hill, this year including Donna Brazile, Michael Steele and Senator Rand Paul, spoke to the delegations about the state of politics and the issues we were presenting to our representatives. I was part of the Pennsylvania delegation and most of the attendees in my district were franchisees.
The issues we discussed with our representatives focused in the joint employer issue and tax reform. Though some headway has been made regarding the joint employer issue, there is still work to be done for those wishing to reverse the standard set forth in 2015 by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in the Browning-Ferris Industries decision, which replaced the "direct and immediate control" standard with a test based on "indirect" and "potential" control. Many feel this shift will cause franchisors to be "joint employers" with their franchisees which could invalidate the franchise model's goal of providing opportunities for small business owners to run their own independent business.
Recent headway on the joint employer issue has been the passage in 2017 by the US House of Representatives of the Save Local Business Act (HR 3441) to simplify the joint employer standard for franchised businesses. However, that legislation has stalled in the Senate. In addition, the NLRB has announced plans for rulemaking relating to the joint employer standards.
Our first task on the Hill was to ask our congress to sign onto letters written by their fellow congressmen and senators to ask Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta to begin rulemaking on the joint employer issue under the Fair Labor Standards Act, under which franchises have seen many joint employer lawsuits as it allows individuals to file private actions. The hope is that this would help standardize the varied rulings that are coming out of the different federal circuit courts on the issue.
The second issue on our list to discuss with our congressional representatives was also related to the joint employer issue. The Trademark Licensing Protection Act was recently introduced into the House of Representatives by Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) and Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) to help resolve the conflict between federal trademark law and the rationale supporting claims of joint employment. Federal trademark law requires the owners of trademarks, in this case the franchisor, to maintain control over its trademark and to monitor its use. Franchisors do this by controlling the use of the mark, which could be wearing standard uniforms, use in advertisement or otherwise, and the quality of the products supported by the mark, as well as other controls. However, this control supports the claim that a franchisor is a joint employer of the franchisee, thus catching the franchisor in the middle of these two laws. The Trademark Licensing Protection Act is being proposed to clarify that franchisors who control the actions of franchised businesses to maintain their brand will not be considered "joint employers" as a result under federal law.
The last issue for discussion was tax reform, particularly focused on aspects impacting pass-through entities, like limited liability companies which is the dominant form of company franchisees employ. First, we asked to make the individual tax cuts permanent as they effect owners of pass-through entities. Second was to clarify the exemption relating to professional service entities from those tax cuts. Certain professions, such as attorneys, are exempt from the tax cuts, but due to the vagueness of the wording, other unintended businesses may be covered by the exemption such as home health services. The IFA has requested that the Department of the Treasury fix this so this may go forward without the need for congressional action. Finally, because of a purported error in the tax bill, the ability to depreciate certain property and capital expenses at an accelerated rate has been eliminated so that these assets depreciate over an extremely long period of time. This causes a great disincentive for businesses to renovate and buy new equipment. The final ask was to fix that error and allow bonus depreciation.
I have gone to the Hill to lobby for similar issues before. I enjoy the meetings with the Representatives because the groups are smaller and the Representatives and their staff seem to be more responsive. I have always met with staff members for the Senators, but it is important to communicate with the staff as they are the ears of the Senators. Of course, for issues that are not bipartisan, if the congressman or senator is of the other party, they are less likely to act. But this is an important part of our democracy and I encourage all to go to the Hill or your state capital to meet with your representatives on issues important to you.
The Fox Rothschild team of Megan Center and Alex Radus recently gave a presentation at the International Franchise Expo in New York City on the "Top Ten Provisions to 'Never' Negotiate in a Franchise Agreement." A summary of this presentation is being presented in four separate blog posts. The first post focused on the central theme of franchise negotiation from the perspective of the franchisor and franchisee.
This installment highlights a few practice pointers that can save time and money during the negotiation process and protect the confidentiality of your negotiations. Installments three and four will examine the top ten things never to negotiate in in detail, including typical franchisee requests, franchisor counter-arguments, and common compromises.
When negotiating a franchise agreement, the franchisee should provide a memorandum of the terms he or she proposes to revise. This can take many forms, from a formal letter of intent to an informal email. The level of detail will vary, but at a minimum it should cover all of the franchisee's requests and be thorough enough for the parties to begin negotiations and understand what they are agreeing to. This process focuses the parties on the most impactful terms and identifies potential deal breakers early in the process, saving time and money.
Once the negotiated terms are established, we suggest that they should preferably be included in an addendum to the franchise agreement, which will be attached to the franchisor's standard form of franchise agreement. We strongly encourage you to avoid revising the standard franchise agreement. There are a few reasons for this. First, it is generally easier and faster to draft and negotiate an addendum rather than redline the entire franchise agreement. Second, sticking to an addendum will keep revisions focused and precise. The franchisee's attorney is likely to make more changes if he or she has the opportunity to redline the entire franchise agreement. Finally, when you need to review the negotiated terms of multiple franchise agreements, short addendums will be easier to review than redlined franchise agreements.
Finally, be sure to protect the confidentiality of your negotiations – but don't go overboard. Franchisees will talk to each other, which can be both good and bad. You want your star franchisees to speak with new and prospective franchisees. They're in a great position to give advice that will boost performance, and to be a cheerleader for your system. However, avoid permitting them to share negotiated terms, which can hurt morale and give new franchisees unreasonable expectations. For example, original or early franchisees may have obtain concessions that were appropriate for a startup system may no longer be appropriate at later stages of the brand's development. Moreover, you must be sure to understand the franchise laws of the states where you are offering franchises, which may require you to disclose negotiated terms in certain cases as briefly mentioned in our first post. Also, as you probably know, disclosures and representations respecting financial performance are fraught with danger and should never be made by franchisees.
Your addendum should include a confidentiality provision that balances these considerations. The negotiated terms, and the fact that you negotiated your franchise agreement, should be protected from disclosure. After all, those are private terms between two business partners. However, franchisors shouldn't be so specific as to prevent franchisees from communicating in ways that benefit all members of the system.
We, Megan Center and Alex Radus, recently gave a presentation at the International Franchise Expo in New York City on the "Top Ten Provisions to 'Never' Negotiate in a Franchise Agreement" and want to share the highlights of that presentation here. This first of four blog posts will focus on central themes of franchise negotiation from the perspective of both the franchisor and franchisee.
In each of the blog posts that follow, we will discuss the typical provision in a franchise agreement, the typical request by a franchisee, and how both a franchisee and franchisor may argue for its respective provision or revision.
By way of introduction, we want to briefly touch on why a franchisor may want to, or in certain circumstances be required to, negotiate provisions of its franchise agreement. First, economic factors may contribute to negotiation points. As the economy ebbs and flows, the sales of franchises often will follow. A franchisor may have to grant more concessions in a bad economy, or vice versa, in order to make a franchise sale.
Second, if an emerging brand, a franchisor may need to offer its original franchisees a more incentivized franchise package than an established franchisor would. Similarly, if a franchisor is trying to entice a multi-unit franchisee or a franchisee that has experience in operating other franchised businesses to join its franchise system, a franchisor may have to "sweeten the pot" and offer more concessions than it would a standard-single unit-franchisee.
Additionally, if a franchisor is expanding internationally, similarly to an emerging brand, a new franchisee will be developing the brand in an entirely different country, often with no brand recognition. As such, it may need further incentives to take on this additional obligation.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, certain states require that a franchisor amend certain portions of its franchise agreement via a state law addendum. Generally, these changes relate to dispute resolution procedures, governing law, and termination procedures. Further, if you negotiate changes with franchisees in California, you are required to comply with the Negotiated Changes Law in California which mandates disclosure of all material revisions to the franchise documents granted to California franchisees to all California prospects for a year from the closing of the negotiated deal.
The next post in this series will focus on practice pointers if a franchisor chooses to, or is required to, negotiate a franchise agreement.


If you have owned your car for more than 30yrs. and sell it for say 18K. What all do you do. Do I report it to someone?
In general, if the vehicle was personal use only with no business connection, no.
Typically the buyer will have to pay sales tax on the purchase.
If you live in some greedy state like Massachusetts, maybe.
you'll want to make sure the title and tags are transferred out of your name.
Look on-line or call your state vehicle administration for answers.
The buyer pays the sales tax in Massachusetts too.
However, if you sell the car for more than you have invested in it, the difference is a capital gain. Capital gains are reported on schedule D, form 1040. I doubt many private sales report that capital gain though.
is subject to Federal tax.
Have the buyer bring cash, and use your imagination.
Will you be using that dingle berry hone?
Just remember to subtract all the maintenance, parts and labor.


Hey Guys, for the past year now I've been running fs9 at 30 fps. Lately when I fly, i fly for 20 minutes and then my fps goes down to like 4. Does anyone know why I am having trouble with this?
Why is the topic title Laptop?