Some days before He was destined to die on the cross, Jesus the Christ, on being challenged for allowing Mary of Bethany to anoint His feet with expensive perfume by the one who would betray Him, Judas Iscariot, responded: “…the poor ye always have with you; but me ye have not always.” (John 12:8)
This passage in the Bible is used often by the rich and the well-off in the world to justify their having what they have, while some in our midst have nothing. The message is that no matter what we do, no matter what system man devises, there will always be poor people.
Poverty can be considered as relative, but we shouldn’t get lost in such debates. Poverty is not being able to afford three wholesome meals every day, not being able to pay for basic medicines, needing assistance to pay utility bills and buy school books for our children, not having adequate sleeping space in our homes, not having savings.
It is accepted that generally it is more stress on your mind if you are poor in an urban area than if you are poor in a rural area, because the wealth disparity is usually less in the latter, and food, the most important need of all of God’s animal creations, is cheaper in the countryside.
Craig Greenfield, the author of the books, The Urban Halo and Subversive Jesus, wrote on his blog, craiggreenfield.com/blog, that Jesus was actually “advocating generosity and action to eradicate poverty, rather than hands-up-in-the-air, shoulder-shrugging apathy.”
Greenfield says that when Jesus chided Judas, He was actually referencing the Book of Deuteronomy, Deut. 15:7-11 to be specific, which ends thusly, “…For the poor you will always have with you in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’”
Lost on many people who use Jesus’s statement to justify poverty is that John 12:6 says that Judas challenged Jesus, not because he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief. Greenfield says, “…when we use Jesus’ words to justify not caring about the poor, we are actually repeating the very sin of Judas himself, who was robbing the poor.” I say, go Greenfield!
Jules can’t get a high off him
Ai, I had planned to place a different piece here, but somebody has to answer this barrage of unfair comments from Brother Jules Vasquez, his relentless effort to sell a report card that Bernard performed poorly as mayor of Belize City. Yep, I got in from where I was at and turned on the television, and when I scrolled Channel Seven, there was Mister Jules, saying the worst things about Bernard, again.
Jules isn’t a House member, so he should be off my radar, but some balance is necessary here. I really didn’t want to, but I guess I have to tell you what the forensics say about his nausea.
Da man’s a palabras junkie who is bored to death by most of us in Belize, and he’s after his high. Me, I don’t need much, I just need a lee space and a lee drink now and then to find my ecstasy. Some folk need more, and as far as a man can figure out another man, my nose says that Mr. Vasquez is a hound after the parrying (word games), for his high.
Yep, he lives to parry, and that explains why he so doted on Mr. Barrow. You remember the loaded press conferences, and how excited Barrow became when Jules got the microphone. You saw, and I bet the same thing came to your mind that came to mine, that those two felt they were in a world all their own as they jabbed words at each other to feed their need.
Jules was and is savage when talking about Bill Lindo. Bill might not like it, but he’s no glitter-man like his cousin, Dean. Bill can’t talk his way out of a murder charge in Belize, and that explains how Jules has/had an absolute unending field day over how Bill got a job to do some work on the Belize City swing bridge. Bill is a devil, but he has his creds working with steel. If you don’t know that, then you’re talking too much.
Jules said he doesn’t respect Bernard because Bernard refuses to give him an interview. Jules has unflattering things to say about Bernard, and if you factor in his craving, you might say, bait, and if you don’t you might say, hate.
Really, Bernard versus Jules is not a match made for theater. The former wants to roll up his sleeves and get the job done, and the latter is eager to spar with words.
So, Jules likes Orson. Ah, and Orson shows a little glitter. Remember Darrell Bradley? Oh how that smooth brother did make Jules drool. Forget the horrible mess he left behind at City Hall; he had the Blarney. Incidentally, Orson is not exactly Irish. You need to undergo speech training at law school to roll it off the tongue like Darrell and company.
I’ll tell you the harsh truth about parry. Parry built a City Center where only the rich and famous can play because only they can pay the humongous electricity bill.
Hmm, parry puts bread on a journalist’s table, and it can, as the lawyers have shown us time and time again, dismantle the police’s most airtight murder charge, but you won’t find it organizing youth camps, too much physical labor there.
Jules says no one is objective —why, because he isn’t. I read these newscasts as much as I can, and I saw his little stabs at balanced reporting when he had a news story wherein he was suggesting that Bernard is not a complete saint. Jacinta, my niece, Bernard’s wife, probably knows Bernard’s business. I don’t, and I won’t discuss here what I have little knowledge of. I will ask what investigations Jules has done into the doings of Brother Orson, whom he says he likes. Orson isn’t that young a person. Even without a history in politics he has a record.
Jules, to his credit, does go after hard news, but he is all intellectual, devoid of empathy for people whose worlds don’t spin on phraseology.
Sometime back I told this story about parry, the glib, and it fits here, so let’s do a re-run. A number of my male in-laws in Camalote were/are masons, and when they were in between jobs they told me that their favorite pastime was to go to Magistrate’s Court in Belmopan, and after observing the accused for a while they used to make friendly bets about who would get off and who would get the orange suit.
They told me that after some time they got so good at predicting the outcome of certain cases they didn’t bet anymore, because they all had the same opinion about the outcomes. They said that in cases where accused persons took the witness stand, the verdicts weren’t based on evidence; they were based on how well they could talk, parry, possessed the glib. If yu ku taak gud, yu get off, if yu kyaahn talk gud, the magistrate punished you.
Eh Bernard, the Juuk in Huck Finn said some people were after raw comedy. No amount of progress will win you votes from that brother there, that’s not what he needs. Your good deeds and sound management and de-mudding the canals are for naught, because he’s about his copy, and getting satisfaction for his desperation. I have sympathy for all addicts. What a pity he can’t be like most of us, what a pity he can’t just reach for a bottle, for his fix.