Cause to Pause

On Ron Paul

2012-01-01T00:10:00.002-07:00

I like a lot of what Ron Paul stands for, but so many of his supporters seem so extremely passionate about him, just like Obama's supporters have been, and it's a bit scary.

Nevertheless, RP's foreign policy seems to be the biggest sticking point for most people. So, somebody please enlighten me: What's the big problem with Ron Paul's foreign policy?

On Global Warming

2011-08-15T21:34:00.001-06:00

In short, I believe that anthropogenic global warming is bunk, pure and simple. While we may be experiencing some global warming, it is probably not caused by human activity, and it is not enough to destroy the world, civilization or humankind. Any global warming that we may be experiencing is probably just natural climatic variablity and beyond the control or influence of human beings. I am not a skeptic, I am a denier.

Consider the information found at the following links and decide for yourself, as I have.

Facts about Global Warming:

http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.basics.asp

http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/a-global-warming-primer

Regarding the so-called "consensus":

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

More about "consensus science" from Michael Crichton's talk 'Aliens Cause Global Warming':

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. . . .

See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122603134258207975.html

Recorded debate motioning that global warming is not a crisis:

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/global-warming-is-not-a-crisis/

(Yes, I am a fan of Michael Crichton and his extraordinary intellectual and logical gifts, and storytelling talent.)

The Rules of Computing, Revisited

2011-06-26T00:48:00.001-06:00

I made some revisions to my Rules of Computing. You can check them out at: http://seronac.blogspot.com/2009/08/rules-of-computing.html

Enjoy.

Lies, Energy and More Lies

2011-05-11T22:08:00.001-06:00

The truth about America's oil supply is that we have plenty, we should be producing much more than we are, we could even be a major exporter, and we can be energy independent, but the progressives and environmentalists want us to be poor and subservient. These lies are getting old. Too many people buy them, and do nothing to expose them. Their propagation is nothing short of evil.

Get the details here, and then write to your Senators and Representatives and tell them about it:

Setting the record straight on America’s oil

Deliberately Making Americans Poorer: Obama’s energy policies hit hardest below the poverty belt

The Big Energy Lie

The Big Energy Lie, Revisited: The truth behind all that 'The U.S. has only 2% of the world's oil reserves' malarkey.

And this:

Gas Prices Are High Because the Liberals Want It that Way

On The Demise of Osama bin Laden

2011-05-04T14:34:00.003-06:00

Many in the country are celebrating the killing of Al Qaida leader and 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden, and this concerns me. Not that killing the man was wrong, he certainly was evil and deluded enough that we are completely justified (An excellent article on that subject was written by Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.) and he needed to be removed from this world and sent to God, but that people are celebrating it.

After the 9/11 attacks and the deaths of over 3000 people, we were appalled to see video of Palestinians and other Muslims dancing and cheering in the streets. We thought them sick and evil for rejoicing in such violence, tragedy and carnage. Now many of us are doing the same thing. We have allowed ourselves to be brought down to their level; allowed them to make monsters of us, as well. While I'm sure this does not sit well with those who are looking for an excuse to kill us and our freedoms, their vengeance isn't really the main reason for my concerns.

What really concerns me about these celebrations is the fact that more people have died, and thus have lost their opportunities to repent, and that some other person had to do it to them, and that act must abide in their souls forever. While I'm sure that justice was done (see Doctrine and Covenants 134:8,11), and that the military operatives who carried it out don't feel bad for it, the truth is that the taking of life has a cost, whether we see it now or not, and these acts dwell in our national conscience, as well.

Osama bin Laden was a deluded and evil man, and the cause of much evil, sorrow and trouble in the world. But he was also a son of God. To someone else, he was husband, to another, he was father, and to others, friend. And while these relationships don't justify his heinous acts, our recent acts still create heartache, sorrow and trouble for others of our Heavenly Father's children. And, it's very likely that at least one of those children will rise up to avenge his earthly father--we have not yet seen the end of this drama.

But, aside from all of these things, the Lord has told us:

"Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:
Lest the Lord see it, and it displease him, and he turn away his wrath from him." (Proverbs 24:17-18)

And:

"Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded;" (Doctrine and Covenants 98:23, see verses 23-48 for details)

I wonder what rewards we are sacrificing in celebration of our vengeance.

-----

Why standest thou afar off, O Lord? why hidest thou thyself in times of trouble? (Psalms 10:1)

Who Are The Demigods?

2011-04-07T08:51:00.004-06:00

I was reading a little article on Big Think about how awesome Shakespeare is and thought that it might be interesting to explore this topic. The writer of the article refers to Shakespeare as "God", or "a god", citing the fact that The Bard created much of our language and has had such a tremendous influence that he can have no equal. In a word, Shakespeare is a demigod, which is defined as "a person who is highly honored or revered", but the connotation carries an air of awe and divinity. Such a person executes his or her craft with such talent, creativity and perfection that we feel a bit of the Divine when we experience their work, and we are tempted to worship them.

In the 1960's there appeared graffiti in London that declared Eric Clapton as God. No doubt written by adoring fans, but not too inaccurate, given the man's amazing talent and ability with the guitar. Like Shakespeare, Clapton has been placed on the pedestal of a demigod because of his talent, creativity and perfection. Of course, this designation ignores his (Clapton's AND Shakespeare's) personal weaknesses, faults and moral shortcomings, and focuses exclusively on his extreme ability in his chosen craft or occupation.

So, who else is a demigod? Some people seem to give Obama this status, but I don't think so, and won't get into why. But, I was wondering who else might deserve demigod status. Make your suggestions, but political and religious figures don't count.

Daylight Saving Time is Stupid, and Immoral

2011-03-16T08:46:00.005-06:00

I complain and threaten to move to Arizona twice a year when we are expected to change our clocks and habits in response to Daylight Saving Time. Just as an aside, it is Daylight *Saving* Time, not Daylight *Savings* Time. In this context, the word "saving" is an adjective referring to the verb form of saving; the act of saving, in this case, daylight. On the other hand, the word "savings" would refer to the noun form of the word that denotes banking something to get it back later; unfortunately, we can't bank daylight, nor time, and can't get it back once it's gone. So, referring to it as "Daylight Savings Time" just demonstrates ignorance, laziness or apathy.

Anyway, getting back to the subject, there is evidence that Benjamin Franklin was just joking when he proposed Daylight Saving Time (or DST), in a 1784 article. But some dunderhead Brit named William Willit actually took him seriously and proposed it for real in 1907. People, including and especially lawmakers, have asserted that DST helps farmers do their work, makes it safer for school children riding buses, and saves energy, and therefore money. I don't buy it.

You can research the reputed benefits on your own, but one enlightening article that I found on the subject reports that it saves a whopping $12 a year, about enough for a decent, good-sized meal at my favorite fast-food restaurant, with change left over. Other articles also report that DST results in an increased number of automobile crashes, industrial accidents, and heart attacks in the week after the change, particularly because of required changes to sleep patterns, which are fairly messed up already. Besides the money and effort expended to make the required changes to the various timekeeping and recording devices in home and industry nationwide; money and effort that could be applied to improving people's lives in a much more meaningful ways.

Since saving energy and money seem to be dubious reasons for DST, I began wondering about the real reason. So, I have come to the conclusion that, like most things the government does, it's about control. Laws requiring DST are draconian attempts to control the populace, and to test us to see how much control we allow them to have over us. Enough is enough. I think it's time to demand a repeal of DST, or, at least a permanent time change, rather than this twice-a-year-time-change nonsense. Write to your legislators today.

End Daylight Saving Time

Al-Qaida Plan: Islamic World in 15 Years

2011-02-09T11:49:00.002-07:00

I was just looking over some old notes today and was a little surprised when I read this document again. Given the recent anti-government protests throughout the Arab world, it looks like we are in Phase 4. This might indicate that we would be under a dominant theocracy by 2020, and, very likely, involved in another world war, by 2025. This also means that the culminating events described the book of Revelation are within sight.

Al-Qaida Plan:

Islamic World in 15 Years

Al-Qaida has a master plan to take over the world and turn it into an Islamic state - by the year 2020.

Wishful thinking? Not in the minds of the top terrorist lieutenants interviewed by Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein for a new book - including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, mastermind of many atrocities in Iraq.

The plan, which is revealed for the first time in the Australian publication The Age, has seven phases:

Phase 1: The "awakening" in the consciousness of Muslims around the world following the 9/11 attacks, which were aimed at provoking the U.S. into declaring war on the Islamic world and mobilizing Islamic radicals.

Phase 2: "Opening eyes," the current period, which should last until 2006. Hussein said the terrorists hope to make the "Western conspiracy" aware of the "Islamic community" as al-Qaida continues to form its secret battalions.

Phase 3: "Arising and standing up," which should last until 2010 and bring increasingly frequent attacks against secular Turkey and archenemy Israel.

Phase 4: Lasting until 2013, this phase will see the fall of hated Arab regimes, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Oil suppliers will be attacked and the U.S. economy will be targeted with cyber terrorism.

Phase 5: An Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared between 2013 and 2016.

Phase 6: "Total confrontation," beginning in 2016, will see the Islamic army begin the "fight between the believers and the non-believers" that has been predicted by Osama bin Laden.

Phase 7: "Definitive victory."

Hussein writes that this phase should be completed by 2020, and that the terrorists believe the caliphate will prove victorious because the rest of the world will be beaten down by an army of "one and a half billion Muslims."

Source: NewsMax.com, Sept. 11, 2005

Can One Be A Good Mormon AND a Democrat?

2010-11-01T20:01:00.008-06:00

I recently read an interesting tidbit from a local candidate who is LDS and also Democrat, citing a statement by LDS General Authority Elder Marlin K. Jensen that said that "any notion that it is impossible to be a Democrat and a good Mormon is wrongheaded and should obliterated." While I certainly sustain the General Authorities and try to be right with the standards of the Church, I also have some concerns about this statement.

By way of preface, let me be clear that our political system works very well, overall, and we certainly do need some diversity of thought and opinion, as well as some new ideas and approaches to solving problems. However, we should also be sticking to the basic principles of the Constitution (a divinely inspired document), as well as those of the Gospel and the Plan of Salvation. Similarly, I am totally open to the possibility that any person can be a Democrat and still be a good Latter-day Saint, and that there are both good and bad people in every political party and organization. But....

When asked how he led the people of Nauvoo, Joseph Smith said, "I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves." It is also clear from the Plan of Salvation that freedom of conscience and liberty in action is essential to our life here on earth. Therefore, any political party or politician must place freedom and liberty first. Likewise, we as citizens must place personal responsibility first, and not be taken in by the "philosophies of men" that encourage people to depend on the government for their sustenance and allow the government to burden the people with excessive taxes in some draconian attempt to right all the world's wrongs through legislation, taxation and redistribution of wealth.

We have also been repeatedly warned about the dangers of socialism, the "evil of the dole" and the lack of personal responsibility and independence. But, the Democratic Party has repeatedly demonstrated its affinity for dependence on the dole, and extreme tolerance for irresponsibility. Its present platform and actions are nearly indistinguishable from socialism, which is no more than watered down Marxism and is clearly NOT compatible with liberty, freedom of conscience, and personal responsibility. And, the Democratic Party has historically been more racist, more intolerant, less harmonious with "correct principles" and less Christlike than any other party (if there can be any such thing as a Christlike political party).

I have a hard time trusting a Democrat in public office because of the demand of the Party for its members to vote the party line. I have a concern that a candidate may not have the moral fortitude to vote his or her conscience rather than to vote with the party line in order to minimize friction and to keep his or her position. As former BYU President Ernest L. Wilkinson, stated,

"You should always place principle above party and not hesitate to change your party if it departs from the standards in which you believe or nominates candidates whom you do not consider experienced or worthy of your vote. Make up your mind calmly, devoid of political emotion. There is no one quite as politically blind as one who cannot see inconsistencies in the conduct of his own party or his own candidate. Judge the issues of the day from the standpoint of what is good for your country and not what is selfishly good for you as an individual. Both parties will attempt appeals to special classes and special groups when they ought to be thinking of what is good for the country as a whole."

So, politically, I tend toward a libertarian position, but affiliate with the Republican Party. While the Republican Party sometimes fares no better than the Democratic Party, it seems to me closer to being in harmony with the principles of the Founders, the Constitution, and the Gospel, than any other party. In the early 1970s, LDS general authority Ezra Taft Benson, who later became church president, was quoted in an Associated Press interview as saying it would be difficult for a faithful member to be a liberal Democrat. I think I tend to agree more with President Benson than Elder Jensen.

President Wilkinson's address has an abundance of wisdom, both political and otherwise, so I include a portion of it here:

The President Speaks
Address given to the Brigham Young University student body
President Ernest L. Wilkinson, October 5, 1960

(Excerpt)

Politics

Because this is a year for a national political election, I desire to make a statement with respect to the attitude of the university concerning politics.

Many people get so disgusted with politics that they take no interest in the issues of the time or the persons running for office. I remember a speaker on this campus when I was here as a student saying that "Politics is the worse kind of ticks and should be shunned like poison." In my judgment, this is an entirely wrong attitude whether you be a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent. Our political life is corrupt only when the people permit it to become corrupt. Our political life is sound to the extent that the people have wisdom and participate in politics. We therefore urge all students to become active politically. And when I say active, I do not mean that you become rabidly partisan.

I remember a couple of years ago when I was still a young man, hearing the story of a politician in Missouri. He was from St. Louis and attended the state convention as a delegate. He nominated someone for governor and in order to make it plain that he was a faithful Democrat he said that he had been so faithful that he would even vote for a yellow dog if he were on the Democratic ticket. His nominee did not become the nominee of the party and he bolted the party. And he went out and campaigned in favor of someone on the other ticket. In a speech he was giving, someone heckled him and said, "I thought that at the state convention you said you would vote for a yellow dog if he were on the Democratic ticket." He answered, "That is true, but lower than that, I will not go."

Now I would like to suggest to you, contrary to this Missouri Democrat, that you should always place principle above party and not hesitate to change your party if it departs from the standards in which you believe or nominates candidates whom you do not consider experienced or worthy of your vote.

Second, I should like to suggest that in making up your political mind, you become well informed. If, because of heredity or environment, you are inclined to believe in the views of one party, I suggest you take as many occasions as you can to read or hear the speeches of those representing the other party. One does not get informed if he merely listens to the speeches of the party he already favors.

In becoming informed, please analyze critically the speeches you hear. Separate the unfounded allegations and assertions from those which are well supported and based on fact. While I do not believe as yet there has been as much exaggeration, vituperation or demagoguery in this campaign as there often is, yet I suppose we will have it before the campaign is over.

Make up your mind calmly, devoid of political emotion. There is no one quite as politically blind as one who cannot see inconsistencies in the conduct of his own party or his own candidate. Many Democrats, for instance, applaud Kennedy's criticism of the Benson farm program without recognizing that he was one of a few Democrats who voted for that program. Many Republicans applaud Nixon for pointing out that the Democrats are ignoring the principles of Jefferson whom they pretend to worship without recognizing that Nixon too departs from them.

To the end that this student body may hear both sides, over two months ago I invited both candidates, Nixon and Kennedy, to address this student body, Because of their crowded schedules, neither of them will be able to accept our offer. We are, therefore, trying to get Governor Dewey and Governor Stevenson both of whom were illustrious candidates for President of their respective parties on two occasions. I am sorry school was not in session when John Kennedy appeared in Salt Lake so you who do not live here could have heard him; I hope when Richard Nixon comes, you will all either go to hear him or listen to him on the radio. He addressed us in this Fieldhouse two years ago. The crowd of 12,000, he informed me, was the largest crowd he had at that time spoken to in the 1958 senatorial campaign.

In any event, I suggest it is your duty as college students to listen to the remaining four national debates between the candidates. That ought to be minimum preparation for you to know the issues of the day and your duty as citizens.

Finally, may I suggest that you attempt to judge the issues of the day from the standpoint of what is good for your country and not what is selfishly good for you as an individual. Both parties will attempt appeals to special classes and special groups when they ought to be thinking of what is good for the country as a whole.

What we need is a return to the belief of our Constitutional fathers that it is our duty to support the government and not the duty of the government to support us. If we become in this country mercenary to the extent that we favor men for office because they are going to favor our particular group rather than the country as a whole, we will be ready in this country to cease as a nation and to go the way that nineteen other civilizations have gone when they came to rely upon the government for their sustenance.

We have altogether too many people in both parties today who are trying to purchase your votes by promising you certain things that will be of help to you individually. In my judgment that is wrong. These appeals to minority groups have resulted in the prevailing tendency of nearly all segments of our economy to run to the government for help every time they are in need. The result has been the development of class hatred and bitterness in our public life to an extent never previously imagined. Let me read the words of former Admiral Ben Moreel:

The industrialist says the politician is venal and self-seeking; the politician paints the industrialist as a greedy monster; the teacher, the minister, the doctor, the workman-all point the finger of criticism at other elements in our body politic.

We are torn by internal dissension. Each one denounces special privilege and government largesse-for the other fellow. But when it touches his own interest, he rationalizes his special privilege as being "for the public welfare."

We businessmen look for government subsidies or loans when we are unable to obtain funds from private sources. The farmer wants a guaranteed income, subsidized electricity, irrigation and tools, The workman wants a subsidized house, food, medical care, retirement and burial. The doctor is opposed to these things but wants subsidized training, research and laboratories. The educator points out the deplorable lowering of moral standards resulting from government hand-outs-and suggests that the government subsidize his university! The scientist implores government to provide funds for research "essential to the common welfare."

The young people want government to provide them with an education, a job and a pension. The old people are content, for the moment, with generous retirement provisions.

Over all looms the confident politician who is sure that appeals to self-interest constitute the winning ticket-so much so that the Democratic national committee's booklet on the Brannan Farm Plan in 1952 was issued under the title, "What's In It For You?" Apparently with complete assurance of an eager welcome by both farmers and consumers.

If I take a man's belongings by stealth or violence, then this is called theft. And the law provides that I be punished. But by some strange reasoning we appear to have rationalized a code of ethics "whereby under the guise of taxation a person's property may be taken from him-without his consent-and used for the special benefit of ourselves or others." We then call it "promoting the general welfare," and in this guise, there is no imputation of dishonesty. In fact, our legislators who do these things are looked upon by many as public benefactors!

Now admittedly some taxes have to be exacted for the benefit of the general welfare, such as for education of our children. But both parties are now vying with each other to see who can promise the most to various segments of our economy under the false guise of promoting the general welfare. I suggest you analyze these claims very carefully and determine for yourself which party or which candidate offends most in this particular.

Now lest any of you think I am partisan in this, let me quote for the Democrats the founder of their party, Thomas Jefferson. Certain comments of his are particularly pertinent today:

I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared . . . To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt . . .

He then in prophetic language warned us of the choice which we must now make:

We must make our choice between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude . . . If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and our comforts, in our labors and in our amusements . . . If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.

For the Republicans, I quote from Theodore Roosevelt. With prophetic vision he said:

The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price . . . and love of soft living and the get-rich-quick theory of life.

This philosophy of Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt transcends party lines for it is based upon the philosophy that the spirit of man is the most important thing in life and that this spirit nurtures and grows through self-development-through working out one s own economic as well as spiritual development. That is also good Christian doctrine-the doctrine of developing and being rewarded for the development of our own talents, of rendering unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's and unto God those things which are God's, but being primarily responsible for our own deeds and accomplishments.

In the words of Howard E. Kershner:

One may lose his eyes, his hearing and his voice, or all three, and still be useful and successful. One may lose his hands, his feet, or both, and still do useful work and be a credit to his family and his country. One may lose his health and suffer all his life and still be a great musician, a poet, an artist or a statesman.

No one has ever written sweeter music than Beethoven, who could not hear. No one perceived more clearly the beauties of nature than Milton who could not see. Blind men have achieved fame as lawyers, senators, educators, and ministers. One can overcome almost any handicap if he retains his spirit. If his spirit falters, even though he may have a strong and perfect body, he will accomplish nothing.

That which strengthens, emboldens and ennobles the spirit of man, improves society and carries the world forward toward its goal of better, finer and more righteous living.

Poverty is no disgrace and scarcely a handicap to the courageous of spirit. If men develop their self-reliance by meeting and solving the problems that present themselves, they achieve great strength, integrity and force of character. They demonstrate the fact that they were created in the image of God. They achieve the potential given them by the Creator.

On the other hand, when men become accustomed to living from subsidies, bounties, long-continued charity or any means of sustaining themselves by the effort of others, they lose confidence, integrity, courage, initiative and independence. The soul grows smaller and the spirit withers as one seeks more and more to cast the burden of his life upon his neighbors, the taxpayers. Herein lies the soul-destroying evil inherent in any type of collectivism, call it socialism, fascism, communism or welfare statism.

All of these ideologies teach men that they are not custodians of their own weal or woe but that they are meant to be groveling creatures forever pleading with stronger men who exercise the authority of government for bigger and better handouts of ever increasing variety.

Such men may have strong, healthy bodies, but, having lost their spirit the image of God dies within them and they become leaners and not lifters. They become a part of the problem and not a part of the answer.

That which ministers to the courage, bravery and independence of man is from God and that which teaches him to obtain as much as possible of his living from the labor of others is from Satan.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul is an ideology developed by the prince of the powers of darkness for destroying the souls of men.

I, therefore, suggest that irrespective of the party to which you belong you use your influence for the preservation of freedom of action on your part with concomitant individual responsibility; preserve in your life the spirit of adventure, of free enterprise, the right to choose your own vocation based on your individual responsibility, unsupported by government subsidies. I could say more on this point, but since I have urged restraint on each of you in formulating your own political views, I shall exercise that restraint myself. I think I may be pardoned, however, since at the present time my political affiliation is known to be Republican (it has not always been that) by referring to the philosophy of two great Democratic presidents.

Grover Cleveland, when he was presented with a legislative bill providing for a very modest gift of free seeds to farmers, vetoed it on the ground that though the people should support the government, the government should never support the people.

Woodrow Wilson in his day, with deep political insight, stated that he never wanted to see the little red school house subordinated to the political thinking of Washington.

In speaking of the typical American, he said: "He does not want a group of experts sitting behind closed doors in Washington, trying to pray Providence to him."

He observed that the things that had made America great were not the things which it did under compulsion of law, but of its own volition.

Finally, he concluded that "The history of liberty is the history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it." Oh, how far our political leaders have strayed from his philosophy!

Robert Muntzel has informed us that:

Great nations rise and fall-the people go from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back again into bondage.

Nineteen recorded civilizations have gone that way.

I hope the American people by their own action, regardless of party, will awaken to the fact that if this nation itself is to survive as a nation, we must avoid the dangers inherent in giving more powers to our government. If you think that I am biased in making that statement, let me quote from the father of our country, who was the only president we have ever had who was not affiliated with a particular political party. George Washington told us, "Government is not reason, government is not eloquence, government is a force; like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

May I conclude by saying a word with respect to our honor system. You have either seen or will see placards in the classrooms of this university containing a quotation from Joseph Smith which reads, "Make honor the standard with all men." Many of you may not know that statement comes from the political platform on which Joseph Smith aspired to be President of the United States. In that platform, some sixteen years before the outbreak of the Civil War, he urged:

Petition . . . your legislators to abolish slavery by the year 1850 . . . Pray Congress to pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public lands, and from the deduction of pay from the members of Congress. Break off the shackles from the poor black man, and hire them to labor like other human beings; for "an hour of virtuous liberty on earth is worth a whole eternity of bondage!" Abolish the practice in the army and navy of trying men by court martial for desertion; if a soldier or marine runs away, send him his wages, with this instruction, that his country will never trust him again; he has forfeited his honor. Make HONOR the standard with all men.

We congratulate you as a student body on making Honor the standard for all students, for the honor system is a creation of the student body. It follows in this school that if a student violates his word or breaches the honor code in any way, you or we will have to say to him, "You have not been honorable with yourself, and in the interest of the honor of this institution, I will have to maintain my own honor .and see that your dishonorable conduct is made known." And in some flagrant cases the administration may have to say, as the Prophet Joseph said, "This school will never again trust you; you have forfeited your honor. You shall no longer pollute the halls of this sanctuary." The roads that lead to BYU may also transport you away from this institution.

We know that there will be some violations. If there were not-if we were all perfect-we would be lifted up to heaven like the children of Enoch.

In a student body of over 10,000, there are certain to be some who cannot measure up to our standards. The obligation for the rest of us is that we not tolerate such conduct, for it is unbecoming a student of this institution. For we know that adherence to standards of integrity and honesty for this student body is very high. As one example, I am happy to report to you that during the school year 1959-60, the students of this university found and turned into the Lost and Found Department some 6,857 articles having an estimated value of $60,859.80.

One of my predecessors, President George H. Brimhall, in an address given to an earlier student body, told of one of the greatest schools ever to be taught by mortal man. It was not a very large school; there were but thirteen students, and it was held on an island. The school building was a barn, and the laboratory was the rocks, the waves, the sands, and the washing of the sea. The great teacher was Agassiz, in whose honor academic societies have been organized all over the world. When he went to this island he took eleven males, nine of whom were gentlemen. Two ladies were also enrolled in this school. There was some objection to the ladies going, but the great teacher believed in co-education. The barn was partitioned off, one end for the ladies, the other for the men, and between was the dining room and the experiment hall. It happened one evening that two of the male members of the school-in a half-playful way, as they tried to make the indulged in some indelicacy of subject or conduct. The next morning the great teacher was grieved and grave. At the breakfast table he took a note that he had written and read it. The contents of the note were this: "At 9 o'clock this morning a boat will touch at this land. Mr. So-and-So and Mr. So-and-So will embark. They will not return." Of course it was like a thunderbolt to those two persons. They pleaded to be reinstated, but the teacher was firm and in his greatness said, "We want men, we want men; we thought we had men." They never returned. Of the eleven, the two ladies and the nine men who remained, each one has become famous. That is why it is called the greatest school in the world, because it turned out a greater percent of its students as successful graduates.

The two who were expelled from the island spent most of their time in endeavoring to belittle this great teacher and lessen the influence of his school. But the nine men and the two women who remained carried his name high on the ladder of fame and in so doing made their names great.

The Agassiz school required that the moral standard and the intellectual standard be parallel. We have the same requirement here.

The Honor Council is to be commended for its desire to have the Honor Code executed in an honorable way through honorable students. We give it our complete support. May you, through prayer, self-restraint, and will make it the best administered honor code of any university.

If you are tempted to cheat, remember the charge of Karl G. Maeser.

My young friends, I have been asked what I mean by word of honor. I will tell you. Place me behind prison walls-walls of stone ever so thick, reaching ever so far into the ground-there is a possibility that in some way or another I may be able to escape; but stand me on the floor and draw a chalk line around me and have me give my word of honor never to cross it. Can I get out of that circle? No, never! I'd die first!

In that way you will maintain the maxim of George Washington, who wrote, "I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an 'Honest Man.'"

Some Thoughts on Health Care Reform

2010-10-19T00:03:00.001-06:00

Health Care Reform is why we need to be careful who we elect, watch them closely, and keep in touch with them. When you're in the voting booth, think FREEDOM, LIBERTY and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

We could simply defund this legislation at the federal level. And states could simply ignore the unfunded mandates--it will keep all the regulatory agencies in such a mess tripping over each other that the whole thing will collapse of its own weight and good riddance. Maybe it's time for some civil disobedience. If the entire country disobeys the law, it will just die.

Has it occurred to anyone that insurance IS the problem and getting the government involved has just made it worse? Having health insurance is no guarantee of health. And, just accept it: we die. Tragedy happens. No one gets out alive. There are much worse things than death, like living under a tyrannical government with no liberty and freedom of choice. Like being subjugated and manipulated into serving the government instead of our fellowmen.

Solutions?

1) If we must have insurance, then deregulate it. Let competition in the marketplace regulate it, across state lines and without it having to come through an employer. And make it just catastrophic coverage (for when a person gets cancer or has a serious accident), it shouldn't cover day-to-day expenses and routine visits, unless they are clearly preventative.

1a) Otherwise, reduce and simplify taxes so that people have more money in their pockets to save for health care and retirement. Stop taxing production and tax spending instead. Stop the government from meddling in and manipulating the economy and redistributing wealth. Stop promoting materialism that encourages people to live beyond their means. Phase out welfare, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Make sure people know that it is THEIR responsibility to take care of themselves and their families.

2) Tort reform. Limit frivolous lawsuits, make the loser pay the court and attorney's fees. Limit payouts for malpractice except in cases of severe negligence.

3) Implement electronic medical records and information sharing, repeal HIPAA.

Here are some more good ideas:
http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/research/even-more-conservative-health-reform-ideas/

Latter-day Saints and the "Christian" Label

2010-10-14T23:21:00.005-06:00

As a person who is a member of the "Mormon" or LDS Church, I am frequently frustrated at those who say that we are not Christians. The simple explanation is that the very name of Jesus Christ is in the name of our church, and by the most basic dictionary definition, we are certainly Christian.

However, the definition of "Christian" is subject to almost as many interpretations as there are so-called "Christian" religions, and each one defines it according to their doctrines, except for the Latter-Day Saints. We accept the simple dictionary definition as accurate and adequate. Any other definition is simply unfair, and cannot be justly imposed upon any other religion or person. Furthermore, we adhere to Jesus' advice in the maxim, "By their fruits ye shall know them." Any honest, objective observer of LDS people, doctrine, and actions will eventually conclude that we are Christians, meaning that we follow Jesus Christ and His teachings

But, many within the Church continue to assert some kind of equivalence to mainstream, evangelical Christianity. I think that is a losing battle that may not be the most wise course of action. There are at least two reasons for this.

First, mainstream, evangelical Christianity is not the equivalent of LDS doctrine. The honest student of LDS doctrine will realize that it is vastly different and better (more fair, just, logical, and ennobling) than evangelical Christianity. To make ourselves equivalent to such a definition of Christianity is to minimize the glorious simplicity and beautiful fairness of LDS theology.

Second, and the impetus of this article, is the attitude of Islam toward Christianity. Although some would try to convince us that Islam is a "religion of peace", the honest and objective scholar will learn that Islam has a very dim view of Christianity and Christians. Muslims are instructed to go to war to spread Islam, and to kill any nonbelievers (infidels) who do not convert to Islam. (Islam has soldiers, not missionaries.) Although, under some circumstances (particularly if it is not of immediate benefit to kill the infidels), the infidels may be allowed to live, and be subjects of the Muslims, and pay a tax instead. If we want to build and maintain good relations with Islam and Muslims, then it would be foolish to ally ourselves with the same "Christians" who fought the Crusades and who Muslims frequently revile.

Therefore, it would be to our benefit to distance ourselves from mainstream, evangelical Christianity and to promote ourselves and our religion as something different; believing in Christ, but having, teaching and living so much more.

The Only Constant is Change

2010-09-14T12:31:00.002-06:00

I've been thinking and reading, and it has occurred to me that we are becoming an endangered species. I don't mean humans, we have plenty of those, and some people would say too many. What I mean are white, conservative, freedom-loving Americans.

Consider that the reproduction rate of European and American people is down enough that our population is not sustainable, and also that the reproduction and immigration rates of non-white and Islamic people is higher than ever, and you can see that we are becoming the minority. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrA_9SoCitk.

Also consider that the Constitution of the United States is held sacred and inviolable by fewer and fewer people, and that we are quickly being taken over, legislatively, democratically, and demographically, by those who favor socialism, or worse, Marxism, over a constitutional republic like ours.

I see a grim future ahead of us. The United States will no longer be the most powerful or most influential nation on the planet. Our future is one with less freedom, more oppression, and lots of change and violence--people don't like change and will resist.

But, I think there is hope (and not the kind of "hope" that Obummer sells, real hope). We must start NOW to become more educated and literate in our history, our Constitution, and our founding philosophy and spread the word; teach everyone we can, who will listen, about, freedom, liberty, choice, and tolerance.

So, what are your thoughts? What do you think the world will be like for our children and grandchildren? What are you going to do to make it better?

In Response To The Mess That is Propostion 8.

2010-08-05T20:45:00.002-06:00

I wrote this in reponse to a friend's response to someone else's opposition to Prop. 8:

While I agree with the religious opposition to Prop. 8 and homosexuality, I think it's good to have a non-religous argument in support of one's positions, as well. In that vein, I think that it is naturally harmful to society to promote homosexual relationships that don't lead to the promulgation and continuation of the society, and homosexuality is incompatible with the continuation of the species. And while some might assert that homosexuality is found in nature, it is not the norm, and that some animals try it doesn't necessarily make it natural, or acceptable, and certainly not necessary.

Heterosexual, procreating relationships, in stable, committed, married families are the best for creating a good, stable and strong society. (As long as they are done properly--and living one's religion is the best way to do that.) I don't think there is any anthropological advantage to allowing, tolerating and promoting homosexual relationships.

However, it can theoretically be asserted that allowing homosexuals to marry would create more stable homosexual homes. But that ignores the fact that children learn best about gender roles and relating with others by interacting with dual-gender parents, and witnessing the interaction of those parents with each other.

In short, I think that homosexuality and the support of it is a product of ignorance--of making logical decisions with emotional arguments, rather than with logic--thinking with the heart, rather than the brain.

The Insidiousness of Pacifism by Frank Scoblete

2010-07-30T01:25:00.001-06:00

Something to consider as we continue the "War on Terrorism on (at least) two fronts:

The Insidiousness of Pacifism by Frank Scoblete (or, How To Solve A Bully Problem)

When I was a kid there was another kid named Sullivan (I don't remember his first name -- it's over 40 years ago) who tormented me day after day. He was an ugly kid, his ugliness highlighted by an even uglier disposition, and he was big -- almost six feet. He lifted weights, too. For some reason, or due to some chemical reaction, he hated me from the day he first laid eyes on me in 9th grade.

I was not a nerd or a bookworm, although I was a decent student. I was a good athlete, on a four-year scholarship to a parochial high school. I had no other enemies. In me there were none of the obvious reasons for a bully to do his bullying. I was not a member of an outcast group, and although I only had a few close friends, I was certainly no loner. It was not racism (we were the same race); it was not my religion (we both went to Catholic school); it was not that I wore glasses (at the time I didn't); it was not that I was a wise ass and insulted him in any way (I hadn't noticed him until he noticed me). I have no idea of what the "root cause" of Sullivan's animus was -- it just was.

He'd say things to me under his breath: F**k you, Scoblete, and your mother. I'd ignore his taunts.

Once I asked him why he was always getting on me and he replied: "Cause you suck."

I turned the other cheek so many times that I, metaphorically, had a neck ache.

On the basketball court Sullivan would try to physically hurt me. But thankfully I was much faster than he and a much better player. This frustrated him no end. Although he did occasionally slam me hard, he never could get in the licks he wanted.

As my 9th grade year wore on, Sullivan's verbal assaults increased in ferocity and decibel level. Now, it wasn't just whispered "f**k you and your mother!"; it was shouted ones in the presence of others. Now, there were bumps on the lunch line, and the occasional rock thrown when we were on the field and the priests weren't looking. I often tried to avoid him, but he always seemed to find me; he always seemed to be there.

Big, ugly, powerful Sullivan was getting more and more daring; more and more assaultive. "If I ever get you alone, Scoblete, I'm gonna eat you." Finally, one day he "accidentally" knocked over my lunch tray, spilling my lunch all over me. Although I did nothing at that moment, that was the moment that I knew I had to do something drastic or Sullivan would finally get me alone and, indeed, as he was a tough kid, probably "eat me."

I actually planned what I was going to do and in front of whom. We were in the schoolyard playing a pick-up game of basketball. There were a lot of kids in the schoolyard. Sullivan came along with two of his surly friends and called "winners." That meant whichever three-man team won, Sullivan's team would take them on. My team won. Sullivan and his bunch took the court. I was warmed up and ready. Sullivan was cold, having just come from wherever he had been smoking cigarettes.

"I got you, Scoblete," Sullivan called. That meant he was guarding me. My teammate took the ball out of bounds under the basket and threw it to me past the foul line. The game was on. I didn't wait. I started backing into Sullivan. He started bumping me. I faked a jumper. Sullivan went for the fake and jumped up to block my shot. As he was almost at the height of his jump, I took my jump shot all right -- right into his face with every ounce of strength I had. His nose exploded (he had a big nose) and blood gushed everywhere. Sullivan went down on his back on the blacktop, the wind knocked out of him, his head hitting hard as well. And I came down right on his chest. I didn't care if he was conscious, semiconscious, unconscious or dead, I wailed away at him. In the space of a few seconds, I paid him back for all his torture. I was dragged off him by my friends and his friends.

I had blood all over my hands and my face and, as I recall, I was snarling like some rabid dog. At first it looked as if his friends were going to jump in, but my growling probably stopped them. They lifted Sullivan to a sitting position and he was in no position to stand. I took one last kick at his face, just grazed it, and walked slowly out of the schoolyard. Probably 40 kids saw the end of that fight. Forty witnesses to the utter destruction of big, ugly Sullivan.

Unlike today, in those days if a kid got into a fight, the parents didn't sue. Sullivan returned to school several days later. He never tormented me again. In fact, he ignored me and I ignored him.
There is no doubt in my adult mind that had I not finally launched my attack on Sullivan when I did, he would have eventually gotten me alone (with a bunch of his friends) and beaten me to a pulp. This was a kid who only understood one thing -- power -- he was more powerful than you, or you were more powerful than him. Period.

The pacifist ethic does not work with the Sullivans of the world. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Osama bin Laden are monstrous versions of Sullivan. They cannot be assuaged ("Gee, Sullivan, why do you hate me so?" "Because you suck!"); they cannot be avoided; they are either more powerful than you or you are more powerful than they. Period. Had Mahatma Gandhi been Jewish, had the fate of all Jews in the world hinged on his decisions, and had he tried to use his pacifistic philosophy on the Nazis, there would be no Jews in the world today. Had Martin Luther King used "peaceful resistance" in a society with no sense of human values -- again we can reference Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao Zedong's China, and the bin Ladens of the world -- America would now be a study in shades of white.

For pacifism to work, the society has to have some inner core of shared values with the pacifists, otherwise they are looked upon as dross to be swept away. Obviously, America has had its share of pacifists. The Quakers come to mind. They refuse to fight in any war. In truth, the Quakers survive because others have kept them safe -- died violently so they could live peacefully. Just picture an entire nation of Quakers facing the threat of an advancing Hitler. It's a bloody picture, indeed.

The great playwright, George Bernard Shaw, a pacifist, when asked what he would do if he were Prime Minister and the Nazis entered England, said: "Welcome them as tourists." Witty, funny, and dead wrong. Those "tourists" would have ravaged the country, perhaps even killing old George Bernard himself.

Today, we are seeing the beginnings of an anti-war movement in America, especially among naive college students and their cynical professors. It has been reported that students at some universities are singing the old "all we are saying is give peace a chance" chant. In an ambiguous war such as Vietnam where national interests had to be defined in broad political brush strokes, a "peace movement" could be defended. After all, no one attacked us directly. But an anti-war movement against this war, which has been etched in the brush strokes of innocent blood, cannot be defended. The ones who attacked us are not tourists, they're terrorists.

As Hitler revealed his true plans in Mein Kampf, so bin Laden and other terrorists have told us in their many unambiguous, public statements their plan as well -- they are determined to wipe our way of life off the planet. They believe America is, at heart, a land of cowards. Bin Laden cites our withdrawal from Somalia, after losing "just 18 men," as proof that America is weak. The anti-war folks merely fuel his delusion and embolden him to continue his attacks.

I do not deny that some pacifists are brave men and women. Pacifism is not necessarily a synonym for cowardice, despite the fact that the bin Ladens, Hitlers, Stalins and Zedongs (and the Sullivans) of the world think it is. Many pacifists are willing to die for their beliefs. But in the face of those with no equivalent moral compass, the deaths of brave pacifists are utterly without meaning. Such men and women are not dying so that their children might live. They are dying so that their children might die, also. Clearly, pacifism, while laudatory in some respects, is ludicrous in others. Does anyone really think it is praiseworthy to sacrifice one's life in order to facilitate the sacrifice of other lives as well?

Truly, even Christ's statement, "There is no greater love than this, that a man sacrifice his life for a friend," was never intended to have as a corollary, 'that his friend might die as well." The intent was plain -- so that "his friend might live." Pacifism in the face of monstrous, conscienceless evil is an evil itself as it allows evil to win.

Source: http://www.casinocitytimes.com/article/the-insidiousness-of-pacifism-223

Statements of LDS General Authorities on Socialism and Freedom

2010-04-02T22:10:00.002-06:00

A few things that every American and every Latter-Day Saint should understand:

"No greater immediate responsibility rests upon members of the Church, upon all citizens of this Republic and of neighboring Republics than to protect the freedom vouchsafed by the Constitution of the United States."

David O. McKay

-----

"As important as are all other principles of the gospel, it was the freedom issue which determined whether you received a body. To have been on the wrong side of the freedom issue during the war in heaven meant eternal damnation. How then can Latter-day Saints expect to be on the wrong side in this life and escape the eternal consequences? The war in heaven is raging on earth today...

(" Ezra Taft Benson, "Not Commanded in All Things", LDS General Conference, April 1965)

-----

"The plain and simple issue now facing us in America is freedom or slavery. ...

"Our real enemies are communism and its running mate, socialism....

"And never forget for one moment that communism and socialism are state slavery....

". . . one thing seems sure, we will not get out of our present difficulties without trouble, serious trouble. Indeed, it may well be that our government and its free institutions will not be preserved except at the price of life and blood....

". . . the paths we are following, if we move forward thereon, will inevitably lead us to socialism or communism, and these two are as like as two peas in a pod in their ultimate effect upon our liberties....

"We may first observe that communism and socialism--which we shall hereafter group together and dub Statism--cannot live with Christianity nor with any religion that postulates a Creator such as the Declaration of Independence recognizes. The slaves of Statism must know no power, no authority, no source of blessing, no God, but the State....

"This country faces ahead enough trouble to bring us to our knees in humble honest prayer to God for the help which He alone can give to save us....

"Do not think that all these usurpations, intimidations, and impositions are being done to us through inadvertency or mistake, the whole course is deliberately planned and carried out; its purpose is to destroy the Constitution and our Constitutional government....

"We have largely lost the conflict so far waged. But there is time to win the final victory, if we can sense our danger, and fight."

(President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Deseret News, "Church Section," Sept. 25, 1949, pp. 2, 15.)

-----

"Satan argued that men given their freedom would not choose correctly therefore he would compel them to do right and save us all. Today Satan argues that men given their freedom do not choose wisely; therefore a so-called brilliant, benevolent few must establish the welfare government and force us into a greater socialistic society. We are assured of being led into the promised land as long as we let them put a golden ring in our nose. In the end we lose our freedom and the promised land also. No matter what you call it--communism, socialism, or the welfare state--our freedom is sacrificed. We believe the gospel is the greatest thing in the world; why then do we not force people to join the Church if they are not smart enough to see it on their own? Because this is Satan's way not the Lord's plan. The Lord uses persuasion and love."

(Elder Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, April 1965, Afternoon Meeting 123.)

-----

"America has traditionally followed Jefferson's advice of relying on the profit motive, individual action, and charity. The United States has fewer cases of genuine hardship per capita than any other country in the world now or throughout all history. Even during the depression of the 1930's, Americans ate and lived better than most people in other countries do today.

"History proves that the growth of the welfare state is difficult to check before it comes to its full flower of dictatorship. But let us hope that this time around, the trend can be reversed. If not, then we will see the inevitability of complete socialism--probably within our lifetime.

"Three factors may make a difference: (1) sufficient historical knowledge of the failures of socialism in contrast to the proven success of free enterprise; (2) modern means of rapid communications to transmit this information to a large literate population; (3) a growing number of dedicated men and women actively working to promote a wider appreciation of these basic concepts. The timely joining together of these three factors may make it entirely possible for us to reverse the trend.

"How is it possible to cut out the various welfare-state features of our government that have already fastened themselves like cancer cells onto the body politic? Can drastic surgery be performed without endangering the patient? Drastic measures are called for. No compromise actions will suffice. Like all surgery, it will not be without discomfort and perhaps even some scar tissue for a long time to come. But it must be done if the patient is to be saved--and it can be done without undue risk.

"Not all welfare-state programs currently in force can be dropped simultaneously without causing tremendous economic and social upheaval. The first step toward restoring the limited concept of government should be to freeze all welfare-state programs at their present levels, making sure that no new ones are added. The next step would be to allow all present programs to run out their term with absolutely no renewal. The third step would involve the gradual phasing-out of those programs which are indefinite in their term. The bulk of the transition could be accomplished, I believe, within a ten-year period and virtually completed within 20 years."

(Elder Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, October 1968, First Day, Morning Meeting 22.)

-----

"What is the real cause of this trend toward the welfare state, toward more socialism? In the last analysis, in my judgment, it is personal unrighteousness. When people do not use their freedoms responsibly and righteously, they will gradually lose these freedoms. . . .

"If man will not recognize the inequalities around him and voluntarily, through the gospel plan, come to the aid of his brother, he will find that through "a democratic process" he will be forced to come to the aid of his brother. The government will take from the "haves" and give to the "have nots." Both have lost their freedom. Those who "have" lost their freedom to give voluntarily of their own free will and in the way they desire. Those who "have not" lost their freedom because they did not earn what they received. They got "something for nothing" and they will neither appreciate the gift nor the giver of the gift.

"Under this climate, people gradually become blind to what has happened and to the vital freedoms which they have lost."

(Speeches of the Year 1965-1966, pp. 1-11, Howard W. Hunter, "The Law of the Harvest." Devotional Address, Brigham Young University, 8 March 1966.)

-----

...the Church has not found it possible to follow along the lines of the present general tendency in the matter of property rights, taxes, the curtailment of rights and liberties of the people, nor in general the economic policies of what is termed the "New Deal"....unless the people of America forsake the sins and the errors, political and otherwise, of which they are now guilty and return to the practice of the great fundamental principles of Christianity, and of Constitutional government, there will be no exaltation for them spiritually, and politically we shall lose our liberty and free institutions....We believe that our real threat comes from within and not from without, and it comes from the underlying spirit common to Naziism, Fascism, and Communism, namely the spirit which would array class against class, which would set up a socialistic state of some sort, which would rob the people of the liberties which we possess under the Constitution, and would set up such a reign of terror as exists now in many parts of Europe....We confess to you that it has not been possible for us to unify our own people even upon the necessity of such a turning about, and therefore we cannot unfortunately, and we say it regretfully, make any practical suggestion to you as to how the nation can be turned about.

(Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, Jr. and David O. McKay, signed as the First Presidency, Letter to the U.S. Treasury, September 30, 1941.)

And more here: http://www.latterdayconservative.com/faq/is-socialism-wrong-and-what-is-socialism

Now, does that not give us reason to think? Does that not give us reason to change course? Think, and act.

Eight Simple Rules for Dating My Daughter

2010-04-02T17:34:00.003-06:00

I'm not sure where this came from, but it's been on my hard drive for at least 11 years, since my daughter was born.

Eight Simple Rules for Dating My Daughter

When I was in high school I used to be terrified of my girlfriend's father, who I believe suspected me of wanting to place my hands on his daughter's chest. He would open the door and immediately affect a good-naturedly murderous expression, holding out a handshake that, when gripped, felt like it could squeeze carbon into diamonds.

Now, years later, it is my turn to be the dad. Remembering how unfairly persecuted I felt when I would pick up my dates, I do my best to make my daughter's suitors feel even worse. My motto: Wilt them in the living room and they'll stay wilted all night. "So," I'll call out jovially, "I see you have your nose pierced. Is that because you're stupid, or did you merely want to APPEAR stupid?"

As a dad, I have some basic rules, which I have carved into two stone tablets that I have on display in my living room.

Rule One: If you pull into my driveway and honk you'd better be delivering a package, because you're sure as heck not picking anything up.

Rule Two: You do not touch my daughter in front of me. You may glance at her, so long as you do not peer at anything below her neck. If you cannot keep your eyes or hands off of my daughter's body, I will remove them.

Rule Three: I am aware that it is considered fashionable for boys of your age to wear their trousers so loosely that they appear to be falling off their hips. Please don't take this as an insult, but you and all of your friends are complete idiots. Still, I want to be fair and open minded about this issue, so I propose this compromise: You may come to the door with your underwear showing and your pants ten sizes too big, and I will not object. However, in order to assure that your clothes do not, in fact, come off during the course of your date with my daughter, I will take my electric staple gun and fasten your trousers securely in place around your waist.

Rule Four: I'm sure you've been told that in today's world, sex without utilizing a "barrier method" of some kind can kill you. Let me elaborate: when it comes to sex, I am the barrier, and I WILL kill you.

Rule Five: In order for us to get to know each other, we should talk about sports, politics, and other issues of the day. Please do not do this. The only information I require from you is an indication of when you expect to have my daughter safely back at my house, and the only word I need from you on this subject is "early."

Rule Six: I have no doubt you are a popular fellow, with many opportunities to date other girls. This is fine with me as long as it is okay with my daughter. Otherwise, once you have gone out with my little girl, you will continue to date no one but her until she is finished with you. If you make her cry, I will make YOU cry.

Rule Seven: As you stand in my front hallway, waiting for my daughter to appear, and more than an hour goes by, do not sigh and fidget. If you want to be on time for the movie, you should not be dating. My daughter is putting on her makeup, a process which can take longer than painting the Golden Gate Bridge. Instead of just standing there, why don't you do something useful, like changing the oil in my car?

Rule Eight: The following places are not appropriate for a date with my daughter: Places where there are beds, sofas, or anything softer than a wooden stool. Places where there are no parents, policemen, or nuns within eyesight. Places where there is darkness. Places where there is dancing, holding hands, or happiness. Places where the ambient temperature is warm enough to induce my daughter to wear shorts, tank tops, midriffT-shirts, or anything other than overalls, a sweater, and a goose down parka zipped up to her Adam's apple. Movies with a strong romantic or sexual theme are to be avoided; movies which feature Chainsaw are okay. Hockey games are okay.

My daughter claims it embarrasses her to come downstairs and find me attempting to get her date to recite these eight simple rules from memory. I'd be embarrassed too -- there are only eight of them, for crying out loud! And, for the record, I did NOT suggest to one of these cretins that I'd have these rules tattooed on his arm if he couldn't remember them. (I checked into it and the cost is prohibitive.) I merely told him that I thought writing the rules on his arm with a ball point might be inadequate -- ink washes off--and that my wood burning set was probably a better alternative.

One time, when my wife caught me having one of my daughter's would-be suitors practice pulling into the driveway, get out of the car, and go up to knock on the front door (he had violated rule number one, so I figured he needed to run through the drill a few dozen times. She asked me why I was being so hard on the boy.

"Don't you remember being that age?" she challenged.

Of course I remember. Why do you think I came up with the eight simple rules?

Some additions:

Rule Nine: Do not lie to me. I may appear to be a slow, middle-aged, dim-witted, knuckle dragging jarhead. But on issues relating to my daughter, I am the all-knowing, merciless god of your universe. If I ask you where you are going and with whom, you have one chance to tell me the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I have a rifle, an e-tool, and five acres behind the house. Do not mess with me.

Rule Ten: Be afraid. Be very afraid. It takes very little for me to mistake the sound of your car in the driveway for a chopper coming in over a hot LZ outside Khe Sanh. When my Agent Orange starts acting up, the voices in my head frequently tell me to clean my weapons as I wait for you to bring my daughter home. As soon as you pull into the driveway you should exit your car with both hands in plain sight. Speak the perimeter password, announce in a clear voice that you have brought my daughter home safely and early, then return to your car - there is no need for you to come inside. The camouflaged face at the window is mine.

The Staggering National Debt

2010-02-24T14:43:00.002-07:00

In an article by noted historian Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton, our current national debt is outlined:

"Whether one accepts the government’s estimates of a national debt that nears $10 trillion, or whether one thinks the numbers provided by Richard Fisher of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, which includes all the “unfunded” parts of Medicare (A, B, and D) at another $85.6 trillion, for a total of $95.6 trillion, the United States faces a staggering level of debt.[i] And Fisher’s numbers do not include Social Security, which now, for the first time, has seen its out-flows exceed its income, and which adds another $10 trillion (at least) to the totals. The Medicare debt alone would stick each American family of four with a bill of $1.3 million, or about 25 times the average household’s income. Taken together, these levels of debt exceed the Gross National Product of probably half the nations in the world put together."
(Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/36680/)

Depending on how you do the math, that makes our national debt around $100 trillion. That's $100,000,000,000,000. Let's see if we can get a handle on this:

100 trillion is 10 to the 12th power.
According to an article on Wikipedia, a trillion is the number of bacteria on the human body, and half the amount of ants on the earth.
The national debt, in $100 dollar bills, would fill several hundred warehouses. Look at this page to get a better idea.
A single trillion dollars is a stack of $1000 bills that is 67.9 miles high, according to the video on this page. Therefore, the national debt, would be a stack of $1000 bills 679 miles high! Which would go beyond the earth's atmosphere, and reach out into space. A stack that size, laid down, would reach from Dallas, TX to Louisville, CO.
If a mile is 63,360 inches, then one trillion inches is still over 1.5 billion miles!
One hundred trillion miles is about a million times farther than our sun is from earth.
For more, click here.

So, $100 trillion in national debt is a staggering amount that we are leaving to future generations to pay off. The current events in Greece are what we have to look forward to, not to mention our loss of standing and power in the international community if we don't do something about it NOW!

Can a good Muslim be a good American?

2009-11-22T11:41:00.003-07:00

I got the following in an e-mail recently and it describes what, after considerable research into Islam, I've been thinking for a while.

Can a good Muslim be a good American?

Theologically - no.
Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.

Religiously - no.
Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam.

Scripturally - no.
Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).

Geographically - no.
Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no.
Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no.
Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.

Domestically - no.
Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him.

Intellectually - no.
Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no.
Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no.
Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly Father, nor is he ever called Love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore, after much study and deliberation, perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans.

Call it what you wish....it's still the truth.

While, out of kindness, I might not express it so boldly, and I might not conclude that ALL Muslims are dangerous, it certainly makes me suspicious and hesitant to trust them. It's unfortunate...

Our Amazing Solar System

2009-11-19T20:51:00.008-07:00

I got to thinking about the solar system, and the galaxies and the universe and just how vast and amazing it really is, and I did some research. Here are a few facts I found.

The Goldilocks Zone 1
An area of space in which a planet is just the right distance from its home star so that its surface is neither too hot nor too cold for liquid water, and, thus, life. For our planetary system that zone is:
from 67,000,000 to 141,000,000 miles (107,826,048 to 226,917,504 km),
or, a total distance of 74,000,000 miles (or 119,091,456 km),
Or just 2.01 percent of the solar system.

Average Distances of Planets from the Sun

Planet	Miles 3	km 2	AU 3	Relative 4
Mercury	35,983,606	57,910,000	0.39	1.00
Venus	67,232,363	108,200,000	0.72	1.87
Earth	92,957,130	149,600,000	1.00	2.58
Mars	141,635,350	227,940,000	1.52	3.94
Jupiter	483,631,840	778,330,000	5.20	13.44
Saturn	888,187,982	1,429,400,000	9.55	24.68
Uranus	1,783,950,479	2,870,990,000	19.19	49.58
Neptune	2,798,842,261	4,504,300,000	30.11	77.78
Pluto	3,674,490,973	5,913,520,000	39.53	102.12

Notes:
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone
2 http://nineplanets.org/data.html
3 calculated from km data
4 http://solargeometry.com/DistCalc.htm

So, as we see above, the Goldilocks Zone, or the Habitable Zone of our solar system is about 2% of it--something that would be statistically impossible to happen randomly. And yet, here we are.

The second part (Average Distances of Planets from the Sun) gives us an idea of just how huge and empty the solar system is. The chart below shows the planetary distances compared to one another. Another excellent exercise for this is The Thousand Yard Model, which I highly encourage you to get with 10 friends and try.

Some people would have us believe that all of this is the way it is because of random, accidental events in the history of the universe that we are just barely beginning to even begin to understand. On the other hand, others believe that there is some highly intelligent being controlling, constructing and in charge of it all. According to Ockham's Razor, the simpler explanation is most likely the correct one. And this is one reason why I believe in God.

A Letter to the RNC

2009-10-08T14:07:00.002-06:00

I recently got a request for money from the Republican leadership in Washington. Here is my reply (and yes, I have actually sent it to them).

October 8, 2009

To the National Republican Leadership;

I would be glad to send a donation, if I had some extra money. With the economy and the employment situation the way it is, I, and many other like-minded people, have no money to spare.

I see the problem this way: Our current economic climate was created by government interference in the free market. Then, in order to “solve” the problem, the government has interfered with the free market even more. My advice is to just leave it alone, reduce taxes, and let the free market work. This solution always produces more prosperity, more jobs, more income and more tax revenue for the government–which helps with our next big problem: the huge national debt.

So far, the Republican leadership has done very little to solve these problems and return the country to its former glory and to preserve the freedom and liberty of its people. We have moved too near the middle-of-the-road. I recommend a strong and principled return to the ideals of Reagan conservatism, where “Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.” This means less government, more freedom, and lower taxes and more income.

The spineless actions of the Republican leadership in recent years has led to a lot of disappointment with the Party and an exodus to the Libertarian Party or to some form of political independence. It’s time to have some guts, be strong, and stand up for Constitutional principles or freedom and righteousness.

"You should always place principle above party and not hesitate to change your party if it departs from the standards in which you believe or nominates candidates whom you do not consider experienced or worthy of your vote. Make up your mind calmly, devoid of political emotion. There is no one quite as politically blind as one who cannot see inconsistencies in the conduct of his own party or his own candidate. Judge the issues of the day from the standpoint of what is good for your country and not what is selfishly good for you as an individual. Both parties will attempt appeals to special classes and special groups when they ought to be thinking of what is good for the country as a whole." BYU President Ernest L. Wilkinson, October 5, 1960

The other problem I see with these surveys is that they are full of leading questions: questions that evoke a certain response or lead up to a previously determined conclusion. This is not only insulting to the constituents, it is also misleading and dishonest. And it makes it pretty clear that what you really want is just the money, but only a fool would give it to you.

Sincerely,

Richard A Smith
Orem, Utah

Health care shortage, anyone?

2009-09-17T10:48:00.004-06:00

A new poll by Investor's Business Daily of more than 1,300 physicians finds that nearly two-thirds (65%) oppose ObamaCare and nearly half (45%) would consider quitting if the liberal health care plan passes.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199

Does He Lie?

2009-09-10T16:19:00.003-06:00

Everyone (every Democrat, at least) is up in arms about Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst of, "You lie!" during President Obama's speech to Congress on Wed (09/09/09). I have heard about how it's rude, disrespectful, undignified, bad manners, etc, etc, Ad Nauseam. I personally, don't see how it's any different from Bush being booed and hissed during his speeches (just Google: "bush booed" "state of the union"). And Clinton was booed before him, as, I'm sure, have been many before him.

So, I don't see what all the offense and hoopla is about. There is more than enough bad manners and blame to go around, and no single party can claim a majority of it. Politics is just an exercise in bad manners.

Perhaps the real concern would be with the truth of the statement. Does Obama lie? Of course he does, he got elected didn't he? And don't take that as just cynical hyperbole. He certainly said untrue things during the campaign about John McCain, the country and the intentions of himself and the Democrats. Furthermore, there are certain things that he has not answered to, and he was very quiet about what, exactly, he was going to do once he took office. To me, silence when one should speak out is just as dishonest as saying something untrue.

Going further, heckling is just another form of dissent, and there's nothing wrong with it, as long as it's valid. (Libel and slander are a different discussion.) And Democrats and Republicans alike have defended dissent and heckling as being "part of the democratic process". To me, that's just calling 'em as you seem 'em.

Wilson quickly apologized for his outburst, but I don't think an apology was necessary. Maybe for interrupting his speech, but no man should apologize for speaking his mind, or telling the truth.

Post Script:
And there's this, too:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=677700

I Figured It Out

2009-09-09T11:53:00.006-06:00

Maybe I'm slow, but this morning in that dreamy state between sleep and waking, I had a epiphany: I realized why Obama won, besides the weak showing by the GOP, Libertarian Party, and everyone else.

First, a few background quotes:

"Great nations rise and fall-the people go from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back again into bondage." Robert Muntzel

"We are torn by internal dissension. Each one denounces special privilege and government largesse-for the other fellow. But when it touches his own interest, he rationalizes his special privilege as being 'for the public welfare.'" Admiral Ben Moreel

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic" Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

So, people have gotten lazy, greedy and selfish. They no longer value freedom over money and leisure. They ignore our history, and reject God. Because of this, they vote for the guy who promises them what they want, money for nothing. Thus our country has been taken over by the uneducated, godless and selfish. If this continues, we are doomed.

The Value of Books

2009-09-08T12:55:00.001-06:00

Today's lengthy quote:

It has often been said that we have but one life to live; that is nonsense. If one reads fiction he or she can live a thousand lives, in many parts of the world or in outer space. One can cross a desert, climb the Himalayas, or experience the agony of defeat, the triumph of victory, the pangs of starvation, or the choking thirst of the desert, all while safely at home.

The book has been man's greatest triumph, his most profound success. Seated in my library I live in a Time Machine. In an instant I can be transmitted to any era of history, any part of the world, even to outer space. Often I am asked in what period of history I would have preferred to live, and I wonder that they do not see, for I have lived in them all. I have listened to Buddha speak, I have marched with Alexander, sailed with the Vikings, or in their double canoes with the Polynesians. I have been at the courts of Queen Elizabeth and Louis the XIV; I have explored the West with Jedediah Smith and Jim Bridger; I have been a friend to Captain Nemo and have sailed with Captain Bligh on the Bounty. I have walked in the agora with Socrates and Plato, and listened to Jesus deliver the Sermon on the Mount.

Above all, and the most remarkable thing, I can do it all again, at any moment. The books are there. I have only to reach up on the shelves and take them down and live over again the moments I have loved. Surely, we live today in the greatest moment of history, for at no other time have books been so readily available, in the book stores, in the public libraries, and in the home.

- Louis L'Amour, The Sackett Companion, p.262,

Make Honor the Standard

2009-09-05T23:22:00.003-06:00

I recently encountered a speech given many years ago by BYU President Ernest L. Wilkinson. In it , he discusses politics and how we should conduct ourselves. With an upcoming minor election, I think he makes some very good points that would would do well to remember, hopefully until the next major election.

Because this is a year for a national political election, I desire to make a statement with respect to the attitude of the university concerning politics.

Many people get so disgusted with politics that they take no interest in the issues of the time or the persons running for office. I remember a speaker on this campus when I was here as a student saying that "Politics is the worse kind of ticks and should be shunned like poison." In my judgment, this is an entirely wrong attitude whether you be a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent. Our political life is corrupt only when the people permit it to become corrupt. Our political life is sound to the extent that the people have wisdom and participate in politics. We therefore urge all students to become active politically. And when I say active, I do not mean that you become rabidly partisan.

I remember a couple of years ago when I was still a young man, hearing the story of a politician in Missouri. He was from St. Louis and attended the state convention as a delegate. He nominated someone for governor and in order to make it plain that he was a faithful Democrat he said that he had been so faithful that he would even vote for a yellow dog if he were on the Democratic ticket. His nominee did not become the nominee of the party and he bolted the party. And he went out and campaigned in favor of someone on the other ticket. In a speech he was giving, someone heckled him and said, "I thought that at the state convention you said you would vote for a yellow dog if he were on the Democratic ticket." He answered, "That is true, but lower than that, I will not go."

Now I would like to suggest to you, contrary to this Missouri Democrat, that you should always place principle above party and not hesitate to change your party if it departs from the standards in which you believe or nominates candidates whom you do not consider experienced or worthy of your vote.

Second, I should like to suggest that in making up your political mind, you become well informed. If, because of heredity or environment, you are inclined to believe in the views of one party, I suggest you take as many occasions as you can to read or hear the speeches of those representing the other party. One does not get informed if he merely listens to the speeches of the party he already favors.

In becoming informed, please analyze critically the speeches you hear. Separate the unfounded allegations and assertions from those which are well supported and based on fact. While I do not believe as yet there has been as much exaggeration, vituperation or demagoguery in this campaign as there often is, yet I suppose we will have it before the campaign is over.

Make up your mind calmly, devoid of political emotion. There is no one quite as politically blind as one who cannot see inconsistencies in the conduct of his own party or his own candidate. Many Democrats, for instance, applaud Kennedy's criticism of the Benson farm program without recognizing that he was one of a few Democrats who voted for that program. Many Republicans applaud Nixon for pointing out that the Democrats are ignoring the principles of Jefferson whom they pretend to worship without recognizing that Nixon too departs from them.

To the end that this student body may hear both sides, over two months ago I invited both candidates, Nixon and Kennedy, to address this student body, Because of their crowded schedules, neither of them will be able to accept our offer. We are, therefore, trying to get Governor Dewey and Governor Stevenson both of whom were illustrious candidates for President of their respective parties on two occasions. I am sorry school was not in session when John Kennedy appeared in Salt Lake so you who do not live here could have heard him; I hope when Richard Nixon comes, you will all either go to hear him or listen to him on the radio. He addressed us in this Fieldhouse two years ago. The crowd of 12,000, he informed me, was the largest crowd he had at that time spoken to in the 1958 senatorial campaign.

In any event, I suggest it is your duty as college students to listen to the remaining four national debates between the candidates. That ought to be minimum preparation for you to know the issues of the day and your duty as citizens.

Finally, may I suggest that you attempt to judge the issues of the day from the standpoint of what is good for your country and not what is selfishly good for you as an individual. Both parties will attempt appeals to special classes and special groups when they ought to be thinking of what is good for the country as a whole.

What we need is a return to the belief of our Constitutional fathers that it is our duty to support the government and not the duty of the government to support us. If we become in this country mercenary to the extent that we favor men for office because they are going to favor our particular group rather than the country as a whole, we will be ready in this country to cease as a nation and to go the way that nineteen other civilizations have gone when they came to rely upon the government for their sustenance.

We have altogether too many people in both parties today who are trying to purchase your votes by promising you certain things that will be of help to you individually. In my judgment that is wrong. These appeals to minority groups have resulted in the prevailing tendency of nearly all segments of our economy to run to the government for help every time they are in need. The result has been the development of class hatred and bitterness in our public life to an extent never previously imagined. Let me read the words of former Admiral Ben Moreel:

The industrialist says the politician is venal and self-seeking; the politician paints the industrialist as a greedy monster; the teacher, the minister, the doctor, the workman-all point the finger of criticism at other elements in our body politic.

We are torn by internal dissension. Each one denounces special privilege and government largesse-for the other fellow. But when it touches his own interest, he rationalizes his special privilege as being "for the public welfare."

We businessmen look for government subsidies or loans when we are unable to obtain funds from private sources. The farmer wants a guaranteed income, subsidized electricity, irrigation and tools, The workman wants a subsidized house, food, medical care, retirement and burial. The doctor is opposed to these things but wants subsidized training, research and laboratories. The educator points out the deplorable lowering of moral standards resulting from government hand-outs-and suggests that the government subsidize his university! The scientist implores government to provide funds for research "essential to the common welfare."

The young people want government to provide them with an education, a job and a pension. The old people are content, for the moment, with generous retirement provisions.

Over all looms the confident politician who is sure that appeals to self-interest constitute the winning ticket-so much so that the Democratic national committee's booklet on the Brannan Farm Plan in 1952 was issued under the title, "What's In It For You?" Apparently with complete assurance of an eager welcome by both farmers and consumers.

If I take a man's belongings by stealth or violence, then this is called theft. And the law provides that I be punished. But by some strange reasoning we appear to have rationalized a code of ethics "whereby under the guise of taxation a person's property may be taken from him-without his consent-and used for the special benefit of ourselves or others." We then call it "promoting the general welfare," and in this guise, there is no imputation of dishonesty. In fact, our legislators who do these things are looked upon by many as public benefactors!

Now admittedly some taxes have to be exacted for the benefit of the general welfare, such as for education of our children. But both parties are now vying with each other to see who can promise the most to various segments of our economy under the false guise of promoting the general welfare. I suggest you analyze these claims very carefully and determine for yourself which party or which candidate offends most in this particular.

Now lest any of you think I am partisan in this, let me quote for the Democrats the founder of their party, Thomas Jefferson. Certain comments of his are particularly pertinent today:

I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared . . . To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt . . .

He then in prophetic language warned us of the choice which we must now make:

We must make our choice between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude . . . If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and our comforts, in our labors and in our amusements . . . If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.

For the Republicans, I quote from Theodore Roosevelt. With prophetic vision he said:

The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price . . . and love of soft living and the get-rich-quick theory of life.

This philosophy of Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt transcends party lines for it is based upon the philosophy that the spirit of man is the most important thing in life and that this spirit nurtures and grows through self-development-through working out one s own economic as well as spiritual development. That is also good Christian doctrine-the doctrine of developing and being rewarded for the development of our own talents, of rendering unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's and unto God those things which are God's, but being primarily responsible for our own deeds and accomplishments.

In the words of Howard E. Kershner:

One may lose his eyes, his hearing and his voice, or all three, and still be useful and successful. One may lose his hands, his feet, or both, and still do useful work and be a credit to his family and his country. One may lose his health and suffer all his life and still be a great musician, a poet, an artist or a statesman.

No one has ever written sweeter music than Beethoven, who could not hear. No one perceived more clearly the beauties of nature than Milton who could not see. Blind men have achieved fame as lawyers, senators, educators, and ministers. One can overcome almost any handicap if he retains his spirit. If his spirit falters, even though he may have a strong and perfect body, he will accomplish nothing.

That which strengthens, emboldens and ennobles the spirit of man, improves society and carries the world forward toward its goal of better, finer and more righteous living.

Poverty is no disgrace and scarcely a handicap to the courageous of spirit. If men develop their self-reliance by meeting and solving the problems that present themselves, they achieve great strength, integrity and force of character. They demonstrate the fact that they were created in the image of God. They achieve the potential given them by the Creator.

On the other hand, when men become accustomed to living from subsidies, bounties, long-continued charity or any means of sustaining themselves by the effort of others, they lose confidence, integrity, courage, initiative and independence. The soul grows smaller and the spirit withers as one seeks more and more to cast the burden of his life upon his neighbors, the taxpayers. Herein lies the soul-destroying evil inherent in any type of collectivism, call it socialism, fascism, communism or welfare statism.

All of these ideologies teach men that they are not custodians of their own weal or woe but that they are meant to be groveling creatures forever pleading with stronger men who exercise the authority of government for bigger and better handouts of ever increasing variety.

Such men may have strong, healthy bodies, but, having lost their spirit the image of God dies within them and they become leaners and not lifters. They become a part of the problem and not a part of the answer.

That which ministers to the courage, bravery and independence of man is from God and that which teaches him to obtain as much as possible of his living from the labor of others is from Satan.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul is an ideology developed by the prince of the powers of darkness for destroying the souls of men.

I, therefore, suggest that irrespective of the party to which you belong you use your influence for the preservation of freedom of action on your part with concomitant individual responsibility; preserve in your life the spirit of adventure, of free enterprise, the right to choose your own vocation based on your individual responsibility, unsupported by government subsidies. I could say more on this point, but since I have urged restraint on each of you in formulating your own political views, I shall exercise that restraint myself. I think I may be pardoned, however, since at the present time my political affiliation is known to be Republican (it has not always been that) by referring to the philosophy of two great Democratic presidents.

Grover Cleveland, when he was presented with a legislative bill providing for a very modest gift of free seeds to farmers, vetoed it on the ground that though the people should support the government, the government should never support the people.

Woodrow Wilson in his day, with deep political insight, stated that he never wanted to see the little red school house subordinated to the political thinking of Washington.

In speaking of the typical American, he said: "He does not want a group of experts sitting behind closed doors in Washington, trying to pray Providence to him."

He observed that the things that had made America great were not the things which it did under compulsion of law, but of its own volition.

Finally, he concluded that "The history of liberty is the history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it." Oh, how far our political leaders have strayed from his philosophy!

Robert Muntzel has informed us that:

Great nations rise and fall-the people go from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back again into bondage.

Nineteen recorded civilizations have gone that way.

I hope the American people by their own action, regardless of party, will awaken to the fact that if this nation itself is to survive as a nation, we must avoid the dangers inherent in giving more powers to our government. If you think that I am biased in making that statement, let me quote from the father of our country, who was the only president we have ever had who was not affiliated with a particular political party. George Washington told us, "Government is not reason, government is not eloquence, government is a force; like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

May I conclude by saying a word with respect to our honor system. You have either seen or will see placards in the classrooms of this university containing a quotation from Joseph Smith which reads, "Make honor the standard with all men." Many of you may not know that statement comes from the political platform on which Joseph Smith aspired to be President of the United States. In that platform, some sixteen years before the outbreak of the Civil War, he urged:

Petition . . . your legislators to abolish slavery by the year 1850 . . . Pray Congress to pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public lands, and from the deduction of pay from the members of Congress. Break off the shackles from the poor black man, and hire them to labor like other human beings; for "an hour of virtuous liberty on earth is worth a whole eternity of bondage!" Abolish the practice in the army and navy of trying men by court martial for desertion; if a soldier or marine runs away, send him his wages, with this instruction, that his country will never trust him again; he has forfeited his honor. Make HONOR the standard with all men.

(An excerpt of an address given to the Brigham Young University student body by President Ernest L. Wilkinson on October 5, 1960.)

A Lesson On Socialism

2009-09-05T22:42:00.001-06:00

I recently got this in an e-mail. It's just urban legend, but I would do this in an instant if my students pressed the issue.

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Why bother to study?
An economics professor stated he had never failed a single student before, but he recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, after the Great Equalizer plan was complete. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, and to their great surprise, the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that.

New Joker Poster

2009-08-31T22:34:00.008-06:00

We have likely all heard about or seen the Obama Joker posters that are being placed all over the country, the ones with a picture of Obama made up as Heath Ledger's Joker character from the Dark Knight Batman movie. What has amazed me about those is that nobody has really taken offense to them. Obama doesn't speak out about them, he has never denied being a socialist, and nobody seems to have a problem with socialism.

The reason for that is because they have nothing to deny, and Democrats are really just socialists in disguise, and the Republicans are heading there. But their secret is out. As Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate in 1940, 1944 and 1948 said:

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

I think we've reached that point, and we don't even realize it. Now, Obama and the DNC are going for a Marxist, communist America, with it's accompanying totalitarian political correctness. Glenn Beck says the American Marxist Revolution has begun. I say let the Counter-Revolution begin.

Therefore, I propose a NEW Obama protest poster: the one that tells the REAL truth: Obama as Marxist!

I bet they don't even bat an eyelash.
: D

Rules of Computing

2009-08-15T19:45:00.011-06:00

Things to remember if you use a computer. (And if you're reading this, you very likely do.)

1. Computers are stupid. They do only what they’re told, nothing more, nothing less, even if it’s the wrong thing to do.

Therefore:

2. Save often! Especially before printing. Because if you forget to save your work every 5 minutes, the computer will crash after you've been working for 5 hours. (See Murphy’s Law.)

Therefore:

3. Always keep back up! More than one! (Because Murphy was an optimist, and hard drives will fail. It's not a question of if, but when.)

4. You can't break it. Under normal circumstances, doing normal stuff, you can't break your computer just by working on it. So, make sure your data is backed up, and then go explore, play, learn, and take notes so you can get back to where you started. But, worst case scenario, if you really mess up something, you can wipe the hard drive, reinstall the operating system and you apps, restore your data from your backup and go on with life.

Those are the most important ones. Here are a few more:

A working program is one that has only unobserved bugs.

No matter how many resources you have, it is never enough.

Any cool program always requires more memory than you have.

When you finally buy enough memory, you will not have enough disk space.

Disks are always full. It is futile to try to get more disk space. Data expands to fill any void.

If a program actually fits in memory and has enough disk space, it is guaranteed to crash.

If such a program has not crashed yet, it is waiting for a critical moment before it crashes.

No matter how good of a deal you get on computer components, the price will always drop immediately after the purchase.

All components become obsolete.

The speed with which components become obsolete is directly proportional to the price of the component.

The hard drive on your computer will only crash when it contains vital information that has not been backed up.

Profanity is one language all computer users know.

A patch is a piece of software which replaces old bugs with new bugs.

The only program that runs perfectly every time is a virus

The likelihood of problems occurring is inversely proportional to the amount of time remaining before the deadline.

The smaller the size of your email account, the more junk mail you will get.

Antivirus systems only effectively work on a virus after given virus has passed its prime.

Proof-read all e-mails three or four times before sending it. All errors are detected immediately after being sent.

Can you suggest any others?
_

Obamacare = Post Office

2009-08-15T14:12:00.005-06:00

That title is important. Remember folks: Government health care = Post Office.

Here are a few links that are as fun as they are informative:

Obama's Post Office health care disaster

Explaining why he believes a public option would not crowd out and ultimately eliminate private insurance, Obama said, "My answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining--then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. I mean, if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

Ummm... Okay... (It was a non-teleprompter moment.)

Obamacare: The "Post Office" of Health Care Plans

But the most important question is this: if you have an urgent piece of mail you need delivered, life or death, who are you going to call? Everyone saying the government--please raise your hands. (crickets)

LOL!

Obama's Post Office Gaffe: More True that You Can Imagine

A couple years back, libertarian writer Wilton Alston contemplated a world in which the Post Office had genuine competition. He concluded that we would most likely have more services, lower rates, shorter lines, greater quality of service (no damaged, late, or lost packages), and easier access. But the worst thing is, we can’t know, because we’re not allowed to test it. The government forbids it, which governments always do once they’ve secured control.

And the best part, from the American Vision article:

At the end of last year [2006], the Post Office did some research and was surprised to find that customers at the nation’s 37,000 post offices were not happy about wait times in line. In response, the Post Office came up with a brilliant idea, something that could probably only come from the federal government. They removed the clocks from all 37,000 post offices. Stephen Seewoester, a Postal Service spokesman said, apparently with a straight face, "We want people to focus on postal service and not the clock."

Imagine such a solution in a government-run clinic. "We want you to focus on health care services, not the fact that you’ve waited nine hours and not seen anyone yet."

Precious. I don't make this stuff up, folks.

Questions That Need Answers

2009-08-11T16:24:00.006-06:00

I have recently been researching the national health care plan, and it seems that everybody, from the kooks in the White House to the kooks in the backwoods, has a different answer for all of the questions below. It also seems that there are scaremongers on both sides of the aisle, and up every tree. All I really want are straight answers, without any scare tactics, political patronization or double-talk.

However, I highly suspect that no one has any straight answers to these questions because nobody really knows, nobody has really read the whole bill, nobody really knows what Obama, Reid and Pelosi have up their sleeves and nobody trusts anybody with the truth.

So, I've posted some of what I feel are the most important questions here and I invite you to post your as well, and invite your friends to do so, as well. Then, after the August recess is over, I'll compile them into a strongly worded letter and send them off to Washington. We'll see what happens, but I don't expect much.

From The Heritage Foundation:

Can you promise me that I will not lose my current plan and doctor?
Can you promise that you and your family will enroll in the public plan?
Can you promise that Obamacare will not lead to higher deficits in the long term?
Can you promise that government bureaucrats will not ration health care for patients on the public plan?
Can you promise me that my tax dollars will not fund abortions?

From TCSDaily.com:

What will we do about the large projected deficit in Medicare?
What can we do to reduce government subsidies for extravagant use of medical procedures with high costs and low benefits?
What should we do about the health care needs of the very poor?
What should we do about the health care needs of the very sick?
What should we do about a scenario in which both income inequality and the share of average income devoted to health care rise sharply?

And a few of my own:

What proof do we have, and can the government truthfully promise us, that the government can manage health care better (i.e.: more efficiently, with more savings of time, money and life, and with more satisfied customers) than private entities?
How can we pay for health care, economic stimuli, bailouts, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare and all the other entitlements, without the country going deeper into debt?
At his point, is there any way at all that the country can get out of debt in my lifetime, so that this burden is not left to my children, grandchildren, and their posterity, or are we destined for bankruptcy?
What if I don't want health insurance? What if I want to be self-insured?
Is freedom more important than health, economics or political gain?

I'm anxious to see what you think about it.

Ten Axioms to Guide Your Life

2009-08-09T22:28:00.001-06:00

I just ran across these and thought it would be good to share them. The original article is here.

By Elder Robert D. Hales
Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

Axiom 1
It’s not the obstacle that counts, but how you overcome it.

Axiom 2
Pursue your goals with all your heart, might, mind, and strength. You are doomed to failure if you pursue them in a vacillating manner.

Axiom 3
From a tiny spark can come a large fire.

Axiom 4
Our greatest strengths can become our greatest weaknesses.

Axiom 5
Failure is one of the greatest teachers if we have the faith to learn from it.

Axiom 6
It is not how you start the race or where you are during the race. It is how you cross the finish line that matters.

Axiom 7
"If you wish to get rich, save what you get. A fool can earn money; but
it takes a wise man to save and dispose of it to his own advantage." (Brigham Young)

Axiom 8
You cannot learn the Lord’s will without exercising your agency and
becoming accountable for your decisions.

Axiom 9
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Axiom 10
The temple of God is the greatest university.

Interesting Photos

2009-08-06T15:22:00.003-06:00

I got a couple of pictures from a friend of mine that everyone should see.

One of them is of President Obama after his meeting with Officer Crowley and Professor Gates:

I am stunned that the official White House Blog published this picture and that it is in the public domain. The body language is most revealing.

Sergeant Crowley, the sole class act in this trio, helps the handicapped Professor Gates down the stairs, while Barack Obama, heedless of the infirmities of his friend and fellow victim of self-defined racial profiling, strides ahead on his own. So who is compassionate? And who is so self-involved and arrogant that he is oblivious?

In my own dealings with the wealthy and powerful, I have always found that the way to quickly capture the moral essence of a person is to watch how they treat those who are less powerful. Do they understand that the others are also human beings with feelings? Especially when they think nobody is looking.

I think this photo constitutes another major Obama blunder.

As some commentators point out, this picture becomes a metaphor for ObamaCare. The elderly are left in the back, with only the kindness of the Crowleys of the world, the stand up guys, to depend on. The government has other priorities.

At every stage of the entire Gates affair, Obama has provided a revealing tell. The "acted stupidly" blunder revealed that he automatically blames the police and thinks they really are stupid to begin with. It didn't trigger a single alarm bell in his mind as he figured out what to say.

Then, the non-apology apology revealed an arrogant man who cannot do what honest people do: admit it when they make a mistake.

Now at stage three, the beer photo op looked OK. It didn't turn into a disaster.

But then in a small moment that nobody in the White House had the brains to understand, Obama goes and send a body language message like this.

I think he is going to get deeper and deeper into trouble. He is no longer repeating the familiar scripts dreamed up for the campaign. He was a master performer.

But when he goes improv, as a president must do, he lets his true character show. This helps widen the level of doubt that Obama is the same guy a majority voted for. Those doubts can only grow.

However, there are two points that I disagree with here: First, I don't think the White House Staff are too stupid to see this, I think that they are too proud, and arrogant to see it. I don't think that the people will see this the same way, the people who voted for him are likely also too proud and arrogant to see it, but are also looking at what they can get from Obama and his hand-out government, or, they're the stupid ones.

The other photo is of President Bush with elderly Senator Robert Byrd, and creates a stark contrast.

Why People Vote Democrat

2009-08-03T13:10:00.003-06:00

Posted recently at the 912 Project Web Site. It would be funny, if it wasn't so true.

I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I’ve decided to marry my horse.

I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.

I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

I voted Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

I voted Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they’re doing because they now think we’re good people.

I voted Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Prius.

I voted Democrat because I’m not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.

I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite The Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my ass that it is unlikely that I’ll ever have another point of view.

Why I Oppose Nationalized Health Care

2009-07-29T21:30:00.012-06:00

I friend of mine asked me why I am opposed to "ObamaCare". Here it is:

The biggest problem that I have with nationalized health care is the lack of choice, the government will control our health care choices. I think that insurance companies and HMOs already have too much control of our health care choices. Those who are too young or too old and in need of more expensive care could be denied. We have seen by sad experience that government-run agencies are far less efficient and result in much worse customer service than private business. When we're talking about human life and quality of life, we must have and be the best.

I am opposed to the attitude of entitlement and seeking help and handouts from the government. People are most productive and happy when they are enabled to do and achieve for themselves, whether it's the day-to-day running of a household or business, making a million dollars, or overcoming great opposition or difficulties. But, certainly, there are some who need help, and that is best done by private or religious organizations.

Another problem I have with it is that it's so expensive, and that will drive up taxes, which are already a heavy burden on the average citizen. In the Middle Ages, peasants were required to pay their landlords one-third of their income, and they were considered to be in servitude. What are we when we pay taxes as high as twice that?

Finally, I am opposed to the enlargement of government bureaucracy that will result in greater government control and power. As Thomas Paine said,"That government is best which governs least."

Here are some other recommended articles about it (if you don't have time for all of them, read the last one):

From The Wall Street Journal: Canada's ObamaCare Precedent: Governments always ration care by making you wait. That can be deadly.

From The Washington Post: CBO Chief Says Democrats' Proposals Lack Necessary Controls on Spending

From Matters of Truth: Obamacare facing physician opposition from the AMA

From Political Crunch: Liberal lies and why Americans oppose Obama style health care reform

From The Spectator: Obamacare Could Kill You

From Town Hall: 10 Questions for Supporters of 'ObamaCare'

And, finally, the REALLY SCARY STUFF, from Family Security Matters: Look Here to See What’s in the Health Care Bill: CHILLING!

It almost leaves me speechless...

(And here is the actual bill.)

Health Care Fiasco in Progress

2009-07-24T14:46:00.003-06:00

Democrats refuse to allow Republicans to mail information on the Obama health care plan to their constituents.

See the bureaucratic mess which Obama is pushing by clicking the link to the PDF file:

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_12/news/37125-1.html?type=printer_friendly

This is very scary! What a crazy mess!

A Long Recession: On Purpose?

2009-07-24T13:29:00.003-06:00

"Many Americans have felt the pain of recession -- and have pay cuts or fruitless job searches to prove it. Evidence of the recovery, unfortunately, likely won’t be as tangible."

Why You Won't Like the Recovery

Obama has said that the recovery will be long in coming. The recession was caused by government activity, and recovery is being delayed by government activity Does anybody else see some odd, behind-the-scenes, cause-and-effect going on here? I mean, the best solution to the recession would be for the government to step back and let the market go, but they keep meddling.

If I were in a controlling position, I could see this set of circumstances as a perfect way of depressing and controlling the power and activity of the United States on the world stage. There is, of course, no proof of what I'm saying here, and I'm only going on intuitive supposition, but it looks really suspicious to me. Or maybe I'm crazy...

My Senator On Global Warming

2009-07-08T13:59:00.002-06:00

After the passing vote in the House on the cap and trade bill, I sent a note to my Senators voicing my concerns. What follows is My Senator's astute reply.

Thank you for your letter expressing opposition to cap and trade legislation as it pertains to energy policy in the United States. I share your concerns with the cap and trade proposals being considered, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

On May 15, 2009, Congressmen Henry Waxman and Edward Markey introduced, H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act which would establish a cap and trade program to control human activities resulting in carbon dioxide emissions. As you may know, on June 26, 2009, the House of Representatives narrowly passed this legislation with a 219-212 vote. Over the next several weeks, the Senate is expected to hold several hearings on climate change legislation and a full Senate vote is expected no earlier than September of this year.

Let me be clear, I have serious concerns with any legislation that proposes a cap and trade system to reduce human carbon emissions. I believe such proposals are not the most effective approach to reducing carbon emissions (CO2), and I question whether controlling human activity can have any influence on the climate. I believe it is important to look at the scientific basis for climate change legislation and to weigh the cost and benefits of such legislation.

Though it is not widely covered in the media, there is considerable debate within the scientific community regarding the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The United Nations Panel on Intergovernmental Climate Change (IPCC) bases its theory of AGW on a number of assumptions. The validity of these assumptions continues to be the basis for the debate surrounding global warming. If the assumptions are wrong, the theory is faulty.

The most obvious assumption is that a causal relationship exists between human carbon emissions and observed warming. If most of the global warming has resulted from human CO2 emissions, then real-world observations of these two variables should demonstrate a correlation. This assumption is not supported by one of the most comprehensive and widely accepted data sets available to climate science: the Vostok ice cores taken in Antarctica.

We now have 600,000 years of ice core data showing a very strong correlation between changes in temperature and carbon levels in the atmosphere. The most recent analysis of the data shows clearly that changes in atmospheric carbon follow changes in temperature with a lag of between 800 and one thousand years. In short, more than one half of a million years of observed data fail to support the very central IPCC assumption that CO2 is a primary driver of the climate. Instead, the data supports the possibility that the opposite relationship exists. Furthermore, climate models failed to predict the climate trends that scientists have observed over the past decade. Actual observations show that the Earth's climates has cooled since 1998.

Moreover, a simple cost-benefit analysis shows that if all provisions of the cap and trade program were implemented global temperatures would only decrease by nine-hundredths of a degree Fahrenheit. This means that for every dollar we spent to combat global warming through carbon emissions, we do far less than a dollar of good.

Proponents ignore the cost-benefit analysis by claiming the program would generate more than $1.6 trillion in revenues. What they do not tell you is who would pay for it. The fact of the matter is, Utahns and all American families across the country will pay for it. A study done by the Rural Electric Cooperative Association concluded that a carbon cap-and-trade program could result in a 70 percent increase in the average Utah family's electric bill, making it the highest increase in the nation. Additionally, as manufacturers struggle to meet expensive mandates, high prices will be passed onto the consumer. Given the current state of our economy, we can ill afford to overburden taxpayers for a program which provides minimal benefits and threatens our global competitiveness.

We should make sure we are not disadvantaging ourselves among our international competitors. As we seek to become more energy independent, this legislation will in fact result in an annual $120 billion reduction in our economy, while ensuring our competitors such as China, gain a distinct advantage over us in the worldwide marketplace. It will send more than a million of our manufacturing jobs to countries with less-stringent environmental standards resulting in a net increase of global CO2 emissions. Unless we require the same standards of our international competitors, it would certainly reduce U.S. jobs while increasing global CO2 emissions.

Rather than looking at ways to artificially control society through the creation of a false market, we should be tapping into the free market to reduce CO2. False markets simply redistribute wealth to preselected winners and losers, the winners here would be the select few who control carbon credits and the rest of us would be the losers. Such an outcome is the natural result of mandatory cap-and-trade rules, for if you control carbon, you control life.

Again, thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

Orrin G. Hatch

United States Senator

A Little Bit About Wireless Peripherals

2009-06-28T14:02:00.003-06:00

Just a note about wireless peripherals: I've been looking around the web researching some problems with my wireless keyboard and mouse and have noticed that many people complain about connection issues with these products.

Keep in mind that RF wireless peripherals, WiFi (wireless networks), and some wireless telephones use the same radio frequencies (in the 2.4 GHz range). Anything using the same frequency is going to create interference, and, therefore, have connection problems. The stronger signal (usually WiFi or phone) will win out, resulting in a loss of connectivity for the wireless peripherals.

I don't know that there is a foolproof solution, but it would help to make sure that the peripherals have direct line-of-site to their wireless receiver, and it might also help to place something between the wireless receiver and your WiFi antenna, to induce interference there. You could also try changing the channel that your WiFi router is using.

Also, get rid of your cheap 2.4GHz wireless phone, and get something better in the 5.8 GHz range. Yes, it's more expensive, but also better quality, better sound and no interference with your wireless network or peripherals. I know that from experience.

I've done all of the above and now have very few issues with wireless interference and I enjoy my wireless mouse and keyboard very much.

Global Warming Burns Me Up!

2009-06-27T21:54:00.002-06:00

The cap and tax bill in Congress right now is the biggest tax increase in history. One that will increase the prices of everything, from toys to houses. All of this in reaction to the climate change boogey man. It's like a kid setting fire to his closet to kill the monster that he thinks is going to get him in the middle of the night. This has nothing to do with protecting the environment, or helping people, it's about controlling people--less about electrical power, more about political power.

Ever wonder why energy companies are in favor of cap and trade? Because they stand to make a LOT of money from it!

We need to do something. It's in the Senate now. Call, write, fax, take a flight to D.C. and knock on his door, do something to let your senators know that this will be a disaster and can't be allowed to pass.

Health Care Reform

2009-06-27T10:58:00.002-06:00

For true health care reform to happen, we need to get back to a market-based solution: let doctors practice medicine, and let patients decide how healthy they want to be, get the insurance companies out of it. What Congress is working toward now is nothing more than socialism and government interference in individual freedom. Here's an article that explains what real health care reform should have:

Utah doctors weigh in on how to mend health care

In Memoriam

2009-06-25T22:58:00.007-06:00

I am saddened by the news today of the death of pop star Michael Jackson. Although he was dogged by controversy and was more than a little strange, he was possibly the most talented entertainer of the last half of the 20th century. He never got his comeback.

As I read over what I just wrote, I am still in shock. Michael Jackson is dead. I just can't wrap my head around it.

Why is it that so many so very talented people who make life in this gloomy world so much more bearable leave us so early? Although we can appreciate that Bob Hope and George Burns were some of the notable exceptions, there are so many more who we wish could have stayed longer: Judy Garland, John Belushi, John Candy, Karen Carpenter, George Gershwin, John Lennon, Elvis Presley, Heath Ledger, Andy Kaufman, Buddy Holly, Richie Valens, Jim Croce, Dan Fogleberg, and so many more. And Farrah Fawcett, who also died today, and who never got the recognition she deserved as an actress; she was always stuck with the burden of a sex symbol. It is especially tragic that so many leave behind young children as in Michael's case. What is it about the lives of famous people that they are cut short, or they self-destruct? I guess fame and fortune isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Michael, we will miss you, your amazing dancing, your energizing music, and your happy smile. May God bless you and your family. I hope that there is some way that you can keep dancing and keep making music forever. Gone Too Soon, indeed.

Remembering Heroes

2009-06-06T09:54:00.002-06:00

June 6, 1944. The Invasion of Normandy involved 160,000 troops, but amazingly, only about 10,000 were killed. (A very low percentage considering the brutality of the situation.) But all of these people should be remembered as the bravest of heroes. I salute them. God bless them all.

The Evils of Consumer Debt

2009-05-28T20:19:00.005-06:00

From an article on MSN Money:

Banks have declared war -- on you

Changes are coming fast to the credit card world, and you can expect your bank to raise rates, slash credit limits, add fees and cut rewards. Consumers, brace yourselves.

Continued here ...

It has always bothered me how much power banks have over consumers. I support free market capitalism, but banks just get almost megalomaniacal about it. So, if banks are going to be snippy, then so will I: I'll cancel my cards, pay it off ASAP (yes, I know, it would have been better to not use credit cards to begin with, but we've all got to have our stupid mistakes), and go to a credit union, and I encourage everyone else to do the same. After they lose all their customers and have no bailout, then we'll see who's boss.

Why I Am a Conservative

2009-05-22T22:03:00.000-06:00

I ran across this today:

"As important as are all other principles of the gospel, it was the freedom issue which determined whether you received a body. To have been on the wrong side of the freedom issue during the war in heaven meant eternal damnation. How then can Latter-day Saints expect to be on the wrong side in this life and escape the eternal consequences? The war in heaven is raging on earth today..." (Ezra Taft Benson. General Conference Talk - April 1965. Not Commanded in All Things.)

So, knowing that, how can any LDS person be anything other than conservative, if not libertarian?

I Hate Rap

2009-04-28T00:10:00.002-06:00

I've concluded that Rap music (and I use that term loosely) is an expressive form that consists of a simple beat to chanted, mediocre poetry that is a series of catch phrases designed to shock the listener, and with little unity or edifying content. It's main purpose is protest, disturbance and hedonism. There is nothing in it that inspires the listener toward personal improvement, fulfilling relationships, or the overall betterment of society. It praises and promotes violence, illicit sex, civil disobedience and rebellion. That's the way I see it.

Why I Read Fiction

2009-04-25T01:16:00.003-06:00

I've recently taken to reading Louis L'Amour novels (after at least 20 years of encouragement by my wife, who grew up on these books). I'm really impressed by the quality of the stories and writing. Of course, the Sackett series is a major part of L'Amour's work, so I've gotten The Sackett Companion, a book with lots of trivia and insights about the Sackets, the books and the writing process. Perhaps my favorite part of the book is on page 262:

It has often been said that we have but one life to live; that is nonsense. If one reads fiction he or she can live a thousand lives, in many parts of the world or in outer space. One can cross a desert, climb the Himalayas, or experience the agony of defeat, the triumph of victory, the pangs of starvation, or the choking thirst of the desert, all while safely at home.
The book has been man's greatest triumph, his most profound success. Seated in my library I live in a Time Machine. In an instant I can be transmitted to any era of history, any part of the world, even to outer space. Often I am asked in what period of history I would have preferred to live, and I wonder that they do not see, for I have lived in them all. I have listened to Buddha speak, I have marched with Alexander, sailed with the Vikings, or in their double canoes with the Polynesians. I have been at the courts of Queen Elizabeth and Louis the XIV; I have explored the West with Jedediah Smith and Jim Bridger; I have been a friend to Captain Nemo and have sailed with Captain Bligh on the Bounty. I have walked in the agora with Socrates and Plato, and listened to Jesus deliver the Sermon on the Mount.
Above all, and the most remarkable thing, I can do it all again, at any moment. The books are there. I have only to reach up on the shelves and take them down and live over again the moments I have loved. Surely, we live today in the greatest moment of history, for at no other time have books been so readily available, in the book stores, in the public libraries, and in the home.

If we are the sum of our life's experiences, then, the more we read, the more we become better, more interesting people. No one can possibly experience everything this world has to offer, but we can tap in to other's experiences through reading.

"Back on Uncle Sam's Plantation"

2009-04-03T22:11:00.004-06:00

Below is a link to an article written by a conservative black woman named Star Parker. She is so correct in what she writes in this article that I think everyone should read and learn from it. I might even have to put her book on my wish list.

A quote:

The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families. ...
I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth producing American capitalism.

I had a professor in college who insisted that America was an inherently racist country and that blacks were kept in poverty in the inner city ghettos because of it. I used to vehemently and angrily deny it, because I have had no part in such evil schemes. I now understand that it is true, but only because Progressive Liberal Socialist Democrats (like my professor) made and keep it that way. I was so offended at the notion because it is so foreign to my way of thinking.

America IS the land of opportunity. Socialism works when people don't. (But only temporarily.) Capitalism works as well as you do.

Here's the article: Back on Uncle Sam's Plantation.

Enjoy!

National Illness

2009-03-18T08:18:00.001-06:00

There was once a Parisian, whom we call Voltaire, that said, "A great many laws in a country, like many physicians, is a sign of malady."

If this is true (and I think it is), then we are seriously sick.

(Added March 25):

As a remedy to this national illness I recommend a short tome by Ezra Taft Benson, former Secretary of Agriculture under Eisenhower (1953-1961) called "The Proper Role of Government". Published in 1968, it does just what it says. Everyone would do well to read it and follow its principles, particularly those in Washington.

Here's Some Change For You

2009-03-17T09:58:00.003-06:00

I have recently been informed that the Obama Administration is taking steps to restrict Second Amendment right via some underhanded, backdoor regulation, including registration for military personnel who privately own firearms, and restrictions on the sale of military surplus brass for reloading.

Obama is the most dangerous thing to happen to this nation since the redcoats landed on our shores. And, frankly, other than staying in close communication with our legislators, or running for office ourselves, I'm not sure there's much we can do about it. I'm not even sure what's going to be happening with our country, but I get the sense that it won't last beyond Obama.

Or maybe we should start protesting, loudly! Let the revolution begin.

More Hypocrisy, More Taxes

2009-03-15T11:35:00.002-06:00

Now the Obama Administration is saying that they wouldn't mind a tax on benefits. In an article on MSNBC.com, it is written that he opposed such a tax when McCain suggested it, but is now promoting it. Pitiful...

Maybe Somebody Has A Clue

2009-03-08T00:54:00.002-07:00

An article on MSNBC expresses some concerns about Obama's approach to resolving the current economic situation, and the fact that his actions and policies seem to be making things worse, rather than better. For example:

More than 4 million jobs have been lost since the recession began in December 2007 — roughly half in the past three months.
Stocks have tumbled to levels not seen since 1997. They are down more than 50 percent from their 2007 highs and 20 percent since Obama's inauguration.

Do I sense some sobering of the fawning mass-media? Maybe somebody is finally realizing that the government can't spend our way out of this recession and that economic recovery is truly a grassroots activity that needs to start with regular people, particularly business owners.

The Demise of the United States?

2009-03-06T13:42:00.002-07:00

A Russian scholar is predicting that the United States will collapse by 2011, dividing into six new countries, with Alaska reverting back to Russia. This is nothing new. Russians have been anticipating the demise of the U.S. for decades, but what's significant now is that they've given it a date.

Personally, I think it's possible, given the present state of he economy and the bone-headed "solutions" that the nut-cases in power are proposing and implementing. However, it's highly unlikely since we are a more unified nation than they give us credit for, among other reasons. Russia, on the other hand, is closer to collapsing than we are, and this so-called "scholar" has been more wrong than right. Still, it would be interesting to have your thoughts on the subject.

Would They Please Catch a Clue?

2009-03-04T17:28:00.005-07:00

Now the Treasury Secretary says that tax increases will be necessary "to limit future budget deficits." These people are too stupid for words... THEN DON'T SPEND SO D@%# MUCH MONEY!

The economy would be just fine and would recover in just a few months if they would stop meddling and drastically CUT TAXES! And this guy calls himself an economist.... (He needs to ask Dartmouth and Johns Hopkins for refunds.)

Actually, it's not so much that they are stupid, but that they think WE are. They have an inflated perception of their own intelligence and ability to lead, and they see that of the populace as though through the wrong end of a telescope (try it sometime, it makes things look way smaller). This is the kind of progressive liberal elitist nonsense that got us into this mess to begin with.

I don't know what makes me more angry, the fact that they are destroying the country or that they are insulting our intelligence.

Wolves At the Door, Part 2

2009-03-01T23:27:00.001-07:00

It occurs to me, as I am reading a political science book, that there may be another as yet unrevealed dimension of our current national plight. Although this may be the fruits of my own imagination, I can see a very plausible scenario for all of this: If the banks refused at some point in the past to join, finance or promote some kind of cap-and-trade scheme in response to the global climate change “crisis”, I can see a scenario in which the government comes up with a plan to take over the banks and force participation in some such Al-Gore-esque plan to force them to do so.
So, another prediction: Banks will begin promoting green credits or some other kind of cap-and-trade participation within the next year or two.

Wow, That's Bold!

2009-03-01T22:34:00.003-07:00

I friend of mine reports in her blog, and it is confirmed in several other places, that Obama has transferred supervision of the census from the Commerce Department to the White House. While I don't expect any shenanigans... oh! Who am I kidding? Yes, I do, I expect the worst from the Socialist-in-Chief!

Anyway, this is a power grab of the worst kind. Read the above-linked articles and tell me if it doesn't give you chills. We definitely need to make a stink about this; start calling your Congress-Critters, now!

Let the revolution begin.

Yep, America is a Socialist Country

2009-02-27T13:35:00.003-07:00

They've finally admitted it. In an Esquire article reprinted on MSNBC the author reports that "Generation O" doesn't care if you call them socialists. To me, that's a sure sign that we really have become a socialist country. It's also a sign that our educational system has failed in teaching the value and importance of liberty and responsibility and what the Declaration of Independence and Constitution really mean. Basically, we're screwed.

The article is entitled "What's So Bad About Socialism, Anyway?", which may be a valid question. Actually, I am OK, with a certain amount of socialism, in the form of laws and regulation that help keep people honest and keep greed in check--since is fairly obvious that people can't seem to do that themselves, as the Founding Fathers intended. However, I am opposed to government ownership of the means of production and distribution. The reason is simple: governments don't manage businesses very well.

If we are to use our resources efficiently and with as little waste as possible, then businesses must be managed in such a way as to maximize those resources and minimize waste. The best way to do that is via self-interest, the profit motive. Humans act differently when the consequences of the their actions are apparent, be they positive (like profit), or negative (like loss). If the government controls the means of production and distribution, then the profit motive goes away and the motives are up for grabs. When the profit motive is gone, the most likely motive becomes power. Those in control may or may not have our best interests in mind, and most likely they will have the interests of their own power structure in mind.

Under socialism, poverty and class distinctions grow, and civil liberties shrink, and prosperity suffers. The people have less time, money and other resources to put toward improving the quality of life and the advancement of society, and civilization withers. Capitalism with democracy, on the other hand, is a proven means of achieving prosperity and enlightenment, thus contributing to the advance of civilization. Capitalism can prevent wars, cure diseases and make the world a better place. Socialism, in some for or other, is responsible for all of the wars of the 20th century.

If there is any thing that we can learn from history (which apparently, isn't being taught properly anymore) it's that freedom is worth dying for, and power corrupts. Now, we can sit back and watch history repeat itself.

Tax and Spend Hypocrisy, Part 2

2009-02-26T15:34:00.004-07:00

Now, MSNBC news is saying, in an article of Feb. 26, that this year's budget deficit will be the largest in history ($1.75 trillion), which is four times as much as last year's budget deficit from the previous administration ($455 billion, and a previous record), and "a percentage of the economy — just over 12 percent — not seen since World War II".

This is the "new era of responsibility"? And they were complaining about the Republicans' irresponsible spending. I'm getting really tired of the self-aggrandizing hypocrisy, and even more tired of the government-metastasizing* spending.

* As George Will said: Government exists to metastasize. What's really significant about that saying is that the word metastasize is typically used when referring to the spread of cancer in the body.

Thank You, Larry H. Miller

2009-02-24T10:44:00.002-07:00

Local businessman, philanthropist, and Utah Jazz owner Larry H. Miller recently died from complications of diabetes. He was not only a good businessman, but a good man. Since it was built, the large arena in Salt Lake City where the Jazz play has been named by the largest donor: first Delta, and now Energy Solutions. Recently, there has been a call for the arena to be renamed in Miller's honor. I agree with this proposal and recommend that everyone else who agrees also make their voice heard by contacting arena management and expressing that desire.

Border Patrol Hazards, Part 2

2009-02-17T20:45:00.003-07:00

In December 2007 I wrote a post here about the U.S. Border Patrol agents who were jailed for doing their jobs. Recently, and with very little publicity, the agents were released from prison, but have still not been pardoned, and a Congressman from Texas is pursuing an investigation of the matter. This is a start, but is long overdue.

In related news, Mexico's drug war has begun spilling over into the U.S. and actions at containment in Mexico by the Mexican Army have been met with public protests that closed border crossings. This is all insanity. While I am certainly in favor of anyone's right to make a living, selling drugs is just reprehensible. And certainly anyone has a right to protest, and to be stupid, but this situation is getting out of hand. The Mexican Army is right to be defending against and attempting to contain this drug war, and when it spills over onto U.S. soil, we have the right to join the war and defend lands, people and property, even if some drug smugglers get killed in the process.

The fact is that our borders are way too open, and we are way too lenient on drug smugglers and dealers, and Congress is doing nothing about it, and is even exacerbating the problem. We need to start making some noise about this, and make sure that we are all well-armed and ready to defend ourselves as necessary.

Tax and Spend Hypocrisy

2009-02-09T10:04:00.023-07:00

For the last several years, we've heard complaints about the cost of the war in Iraq and President Bush's overspending. Most of the complainers have been liberals or Democrats, but, mostly both. Now, less than one month into the new administration, President Obama (I still have a hard time with that...) and the Democrat-led Congress want us to support them in passing a so-called "economic stimulus" bill with a price tag approaching $1 trillion* and a financial system bailout that could be as much as $2.5 trillion** (that's $2,500,000,000,000!), both of dubious efficacy, and they are vilifying Republicans who are opposing them. At this rate, the Democrats will spend more in the first year of the Obama Administration, than the Republican Bush Administration did in eight years! When does it stop?

What's more, people need to realize that a president may propose a bill, or a budget, and the president signs the bills to make them into law, but it's Congress that constructs and passes the bills to begin with, and who has the authority over the national purse-strings. The fact is that both sides of the aisle spend more money than the nation has and they are just feeding the problem. If we are going to reign-in government spending, it has to be Congress that does it, but a president with some guts would help, too.

Oh, and by the way, thank your kids for this, since they're the ones who'll be paying for it for the rest of their lives.

On the bright side, though, the Republicans are playing this one smart. All but three of them are opposing the stimulus plan. This sets them up to point the accusing finger at the Democrats come election time. I just hope that they can keep being frugal, but I doubt it.

* To be fair, the stimulus plan is actually $838 billion***, but let's consider how much that really is:

That amount would by 3,352,000 nice $250,000 homes.
It would buy two school lunches for every elementary and secondary school student (55,000,000) in the country for every day their entire school career, from 1st grade to high school graduation (assuming they all graduate), and you would still have money left.
It could send 4 million students to Harvard, for all four years of their Bachelor's Degrees. I wonder what kind of education system would we have if we put even half of this money into it.

** To give you an idea of how much $2.5 trillion really is:

If my calculations are correct, 2.5 trillion miles is about how far light would travel in about six months, at 186,000 miles per second.
The distance from the earth to the sun is 93 million miles; 2.5 trillion miles is enough to go to the sun and back 134,408 times.
With $2.5 trillion, you could buy a billion nice new cars (at $25,000 each). To park them all, you'd need a parking lot the size of Massachusetts.
The amount of $2.5 trillion would be enough to buy $250,000 homes for 10o million families. So basically, you could by a decent home for every family in the United States with this amount of money. Maybe that's what they should do.

*** And now the price has been *slashed* to $789 billion!

Thanks to my bro-in-law for this:

What a profound and short little paragraph that says it all!!!
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of ANY nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
- Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 - 2005

Wolves at the Door

2009-02-06T10:49:00.008-07:00

It's very likely that somebody will call me crazy for what I'm going to write here, but I really believe it's true. So, crazy is as crazy does, I suppose.

I've been thinking lately about our current economic troubles, and it occurs to me, in hindsight, of course, that's it's all too perfect, too neat, tidy. It's as if this has all been planned and constructed to happen in a particular way, at a particular time. Bear with me here, and allow me to try and describe what I see in my mind's eye.

In the late 1990's, there was a push by government liberals to get lending institutions to increase mortgage lending to minorities and those of low income. In fact, there was an article in the NY Times to that effect, that I have referenced before. With looser lending rules, more people were able to buy homes, and more people were able to place themselves in tenuous and unwise financial situations.

Then, when gas prices approached $4 per gallon in the United States, the cost of living rose to unprecedented and unanticipated levels. Not only did fuel prices rise, but so did the prices of all of those items that require petroleum products for manufacture, production and transport. In short, when gas prices rise, the prices of everything else rise, too.

Therefore, those people who were in a dangerous position already, with a house they couldn't really afford and a mortgage hanging over their heads, were placed in the position of having to choose between paying the mortgage and buying food. So, since hungry bellies always win, they defaulted on their mortgages, bringing us to the housing and financial industry meltdowns.

Now, we are ripe for the government takeover of a number of major financial institutions, accompanied by draconian rules for for how these businesses should be run, included "fairness" in wages and other such Marxist* ideas, and the people who have been foreclosed on are screaming in agreement. In a short time, something will happen (most likely a terrorist attack) that will justify the government taking over other businesses and organizations, and then we are in the grips of fascism*.

This seems to be a concentrated effort to reduce the power and influence of the United States and its people, and to keep us on the edge of desperation. Why? To keep us subjugated, in line, and powerless. When we are always working to keep our families fed, clothed and housed, then we have very little resources to put into any kind of complaint or protest, to resist the encroachments on our freedom. When we are busy surviving, we are not able to protect our liberty. Also, a people on edge are also more likely to favor socialist* government programs that promise to keep them safe from the wolves just outside the door. Unfortunately, it seems that we have already allowed the wolves in, for "A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."

So, who is doing this, and how? I'm not sure, and I don't know how to find out, but our national leadership seems to be implicit the scheme. Here's a start:

In 1944 Norman Thomas, the head of the Socialist Party of America said:

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. . . . I no longer need to run as a presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform.

I mourn for our nation and our freedom.

* In my mind, at least for the purposes of my point in this post, the words "Marxist", socialist" and "fascist", and the concepts for which they stand, are synonymous and interchangeable.

Global Warming Revisited, Again

2009-02-05T11:32:00.002-07:00

I found what appears to be the most intelligent site on the web related to the global climate change issue. It is the site of an organization called ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project), and they take a very intelligent and even-handed approach to the issues. Visit and check it out: icecap.us.

The "End" of the War On Terror

2009-01-23T08:13:00.003-07:00

An analysis on msnbc.com by a Washington Post columnist indicates that Obama's recent executive orders mark the end of the War on Terror. While this may be so, it is a foolish thing to do, because the terrorists are not going to drop their war on America just because we've decided to hang up our weapons. I don't understand why people can't understand that there are a LOT of people out there who really want us dead, and if we let down our guard, we will be hit. Therefore, I predict a major terror attack on U.S. soil within the next 3 years.

Obama, the President of "Change"

2009-01-20T14:40:00.004-07:00

I’m so glad that the inauguration of the new president of the United States is over with. I was getting tired of hearing about this “historic” event. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am aware that Obama is our first African-American president, and that truly is a important milestone. I am also aware of how he worked his way up from a fractured home to lead the most powerful nation on earth.

HOWEVER . . .

Throughout his campaign, Obama has never given us a clear picture of what he intends to do and exactly how he intends to do it. Through his exceptionally eloquent public speaking, he has captured the hearts of most of the nation, but what about our heads? Given his record during his time in the Senate, and the fact that he came up through the Illinois political machine, I’m not expecting to enjoy the next four-to-eight years.

Obama’s record in the Senate has been consistently liberal (or progressive; however you want to label it), which is to say, consistently pro-big-government and anti-freedom. I’m not looking forward to more of that. As someone* said: “That government is best which governs least.” And Ronald Reagan: “Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.”

While it might just be a nasty rumor, I understand that the state of Illinois, especially the city of Chicago, has some of the most corrupt politics I the nation. How could an inexperienced man, with no family money and no powerful previous connections come up so quickly through the ranks? I’m not accusing Mr. Obama of anything, but it certainly looks suspicious.

Another gripe I have about this inauguration, and government functions in general, is the cost. ABCNews did the math and estimates that Obama’s inauguration will cost $170 million. I’m with Tom Delay on this one:

If Obama were "serious" about changing Washington, DeLay said, "He would announce to the world: 'We are in crisis, we are at war, people are losing jobs; we are not going to have this party. Instead, I'm going to get sworn in at the White House. I'm going to have a nice little chicken dinner, and we'll save $125 million.” (AOL News)

In this time of financial crisis and recession, how much good could be done with $170 million? To get an idea of how much that is, consider these:

If you took 170 million dollar bills and laid them end-to-end, it would stretch from Los Angeles, CA to Washington, DC, and back again, three times, with some left over! That’s six times across the continental United States!
At an average home price of $254,103 (as of June, 2008, which is a bit overpriced for right now) that $170 million would buy a average home here in Utah for 669 families. With an average family size of 4, probably a little higher than the national average, that would make a huge difference in the lives of 2,676 people.
With an average price of $85, $170 million would buy 2 million textbooks for use in our public schools, or 170,000 Apple MacBook computers (at $999 each).

That’s a lot of money, but not much “change”.

* (variously attributed to Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Napoleon, Henry David Thoreau, or Ralph Waldo Emerson, no one seems to know for sure, but it was quoted in Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" in 1849)

Tax Cuts, the Democrat Way

2009-01-05T19:41:00.002-07:00

When Bush proposed and got passed tax rebates and cuts people complained that it was too expensive, foolish and irresponsible. Now, Obama, even before his inauguration, is proposing more tax cuts and people are praising him for doing the right thing. Other than the dollar amount, which depends on how one does the math, the only difference is the party. Hypocrisy must be one of the planks in the Democrat Party platform.

Partisan politics really annoy me.

Cloning an Almost-Human?

2008-11-24T17:05:00.004-07:00

In a fascinating article on Slate, there is a report that scientists are almost ready to clone a woolly mammoth:

Last week in Nature, scientists reported major progress in sequencing the genome of woolly mammoths. They reconstructed it from two fossilized hair samples. One was 20,000 years old; the other was 65,000 years old. Now, according to Nicholas Wade of the New York Times, biologists are discussing "how to modify the DNA in an elephant's egg so that after each round of changes it would progressively resemble the DNA in a mammoth egg. The final-stage egg could then be brought to term in an elephant mother."

But that's not all:

The full genome of the Neanderthal, an ancient human species probably driven to extinction by the first modern humans that entered Europe some 45,000 years ago, is expected to be recovered shortly. If the mammoth can be resurrected, the same would be technically possible for Neanderthals.

That sort of brings the Geico commercials to life, doesn't it? But, this again brings us to the Jurassic Park question: It's not whether we could do this, but whether we should do it. Should we? As interesting as it would be, I think not.

My objections have very little to do with messing with the human procreation mechanism or human DNA, as the Catholic bishop states in the article, although that is an ethically risky proposition. The monsters that nature creates on her own through the horrible genetic defects that sometimes occur could scarcely be called human just by appearances. If we didn't know that they were born of human parents, we would have to do DNA tests to be sure. No, my objections have to do with the social ramifications.

While we could certainly learn a lot about Neanderthals, and probably humans, by creating new ones through cloning, what would that mean for them? What would that mean for us? Would this create a new social class? Would they be considered human or animal? How would we treat them? Would our treatment be ethical?

No, this brings up too many ethical quandaries that humanity is not ready to deal with, much less resolve. Better to just leave well enough alone and not open that can of worms.

Prop. 8 and the Rights of the People

2008-11-24T12:45:00.003-07:00

The gay marriage issue keeps resurfacing. It seems that one side sees it as a "civil rights" issue, and the other sees is as a "freedom of religion" issue. I think they are all confused.

According to the Cornell University Law School, "A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury." Further: "Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class." According to that definition, both sides of the argument could assert a violation of civil rights.

On the one hand, homosexuals say that they are being denied the security and legal benefits that legal marriage affords them. Certainly, such a legal situation could be obtained through a civil union, or some other such contract. Why do they insist that the definition of traditional marriage (between a man and a woman) be changed to include them? Why could they not be satisfied with a civil union? Could there be other reasons? Are they really out to destroy the traditional family unit, which has worked as the basis of successful societies for countless ages?

On the other hand, traditionalists assert that a change in the definition of marriage could endanger the very foundation of marriage and family. Perhaps so, but so could polygamy, which has been practiced in various times and cultures throughout the world and its history. (And, I see polygamy as the next great controversial religio-sexual civil right.) It all depends on how it is practiced. Any associations that involve mutual respect and dignity will breed same and create a society where respect and dignity are valued, but those that are based on lust and sex will only serve to feed the basest instincts of the human animal.

The real issue that traditionalists have with same-sex marriage is the assertion that any disagreement with them, even when based on religion, is a violation of civil rights. Many people have already been sued in courts of law for refusing products and services to same-sex couples because they believe their lifestyles to be immoral and objectionable. Likewise, before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, uncounted numbers of blacks were refused products and services based on skin color, sometimes on religious bases. Similarly, forcing one to support, tolerate or condone a lifestyle that they find immoral and objectionable is also patently unfair.

So, to me, the question comes down to whose rights take precedence: those of the religious or those of the homosexual. While it is not an easy decision to make from an objective standpoint, it becomes easier when one considers that the Bill of Rights expressly protects freedom of religion, but does not even approach freedom of sexual preference. Apparently, this was something that the Founding Fathers sought to protect, whereas sexual preference was not even a consideration. Why? Because even the most nonreligious of our Founders could see that homosexuality is against the proper functioning of nature and does not contribute to the strength of the humanity or to the general well-being of society, whereas, religious observance, including mutual respect and the dignity of the family, strengthens individuals, and society as whole.

While I certainly see a need for civil unions that include homosexual as well as heterosexual couples, (and perhaps even polygamous unions) , I also support the sanctity of marriage and its limitation to exclusively heterosexual unions.

How's Your Bank Account? Your Pantry?

2008-11-20T13:14:00.003-07:00

There is an interesting article, with a terrific little lesson in economics, on Human Events. The writer, Terry Easton, economics professor, predicts a global depression in 2010. I can't agree with him more. The election of liberal socialist Barack Obama will result in more government meddling in the markets, as well as higher taxes, and people and banks will be increasingly nervous about investing or spending money. This will decrease economic activity all over the world, resulting in a global recession, and then, as things get worse, depression.

And, watch, they will repeatedly blame the present Republican administration for the whole mess, and ignore all the anti-freemarket things what the liberal Democrats have done. They will declare the demise of capitalism, refusing to acknowledge that capitalism created the most powerful and prosperous country in the history of the world, and they ruined it.

The biggest problem with this is globalism. The way to revive a comatose economy is to pump more money into it from the outside. But, if the entire world is in a depression, then there's no where for an infusion of investment money to come from. Then, we just have to wait for people be willing to take chances. If we're lucky, then people will realize that capitalism works, and we'll have a return to some intelligent economic and political policies.

So, in the near term, things don't look so good. I suggest a year's supply of food and money (and ammo) on hand to get through it, and an unlimited supply of faith and patience.

The Hypocrisy of the "Tolerance" Movement

2008-11-17T20:46:00.005-07:00

(With apologies to Maurine Jensen Proctor and Meridian Magazine for the title.)
I don't care what anybody else does in the privacy of their own bedroom, and I really don't want to hear about it, but I also don't want anybody else telling me that I should tolerate or support whatever they want to do.

The unrest after the passage of California's Proposition 8 is a clear example of the hypocrisy of the those who say we should be tolerant of differences. Here are some examples of what they are doing:

http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/lineuponline/081117battle.html

http://www.ldsmag.com/familyleadernetwork/081114tolerance.html

A part of me wants to pray that these protesters are struck by lightning for even touching the fence around the temple grounds, more so for defacing and vandalizing it. But, The Lord doesn't work that way, and I must remind myself that He is allowing them to ripen in their iniquity so that their future punishment will be just and appropriate.

In the meantime, in addition to going about our lives and doing all the good that we can, I wonder what we can do about these protesting the freedoms that we so cherish in the United States of America.

However, it also brings to mind the words of Alexander Pope, from his Essay on Man:

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

Breast Cancer Deception Month

2008-11-11T21:20:00.003-07:00

Yes, it was in October, so I'm a little late, but in commemoration of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I would like to bring to light some facts:

According to the National Center for Health Statistics (Final Data for 2003, dated April 19, 2006) more women die from heart disease, stroke and lung cancer than from breast cancer. In fact, over eight times as many women die from heart disease than die from breast cancer (348,994 vs. 41,620). (Current data is available at the CDC's web site, and shows a similar margin.)

So, again, the question is: Why is there so much emphasis on breast cancer, when other things are much greater threats? Is there a Heart Disease Awareness Month? Are there marketing campaigns to find a cure for heart disease? Are they truly working to save lives, or just sell products? And, why just a Veteran's Day when so many died to protect freedom? Why are our priorities to screwed up?

We Need A New Candidate

2008-11-10T09:57:00.005-07:00

Already looking toward another presidential campaign, I've decided I want a conservative candidate cut from the same cloth as Ronald Reagan. His presidency was admirable and his policies successful. Perhaps his best statement was: "Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem." We need a candidate who will cut taxes, reduce the size, power, and influence of government, and lead our military with an iron hand and ample wisdom.

Although his administration was a time of increasing government debt, I believe that wise use of public funds and reduced taxes can allow us to reduce the size of government and the deficit while stimulating the economy. Also beneficial would be some action on real tax reform--moving to a true flat tax (no exemptions, deductions, credits, shelters or loopholes) or the Fairtax. And although his policies on immigration amnesty were unpleasant, and the "War on Drugs" has been of questionable success, the highlight of Reagan's career was the fall of communism, which was a victory for freedom and free markets.

I had the privilege of casting my first vote for Reagan's re-election in 1984, and although his second term wasn't as good as his first, he was an honest man who understood the role of government and what the founder fathers had in mind. I miss him.

The Passing of Michael Crichton

2008-11-06T09:26:00.005-07:00

It was announced today that Michael Crichton, famous author, director, producer and thinker died Tuesday of cancer at the age of 66. The world has lost one of its great minds. He blended an appropriate amount of thought, intelligence and humor into his works, and made profound points while keeping us well-entertained. I wish I could have met him, but I was glad to experience some of his works. I wish all the best for his family.

Gotta Give 'Em Credit

2008-11-05T10:26:00.005-07:00

As dissatisfied as I am with the election situation, I've got to admit that the major candidates have been very classy about the whole thing. While both of them addressed the other by name to highlight certain differences regarding the issues, they never stooped to calling names or dirty politics.

Then, after it was all over, President Bush called to congratulate Obama, and pledged his cooperation in the transition (which is better than what Clinton did). Then Obama called McCain to ask for help in leading the country, to which McCain agreed.

So, even after all is said and done, they seem to agree that cooperation is better than contention, and they actually seem to have the best interests of the nation at heart ("seem" to...). Maybe it won't be so bad after all.

P.S. And, besides, Obama promised his girls a puppy to take to the White House with them. If he likes dogs, I suppose he can't be entirely evil.

The End of the World As We Know It

2008-11-04T21:19:00.001-07:00

It has been a most depressing election day: first, I realize that there really are no decent candidates to choose from, even in the Constitution Party, and then Obama wins.

So, here are my predictions for the next four years:

terrorist attacks will rise, and happen again on American soil
the economy will not improve, but get even worse
taxes will go up
more restrictive laws will be passed
our standing in the world will not improve
more scandal in Washington, D.C.
we will have less freedom
less overall happiness as a nation
crime will rise

In short, socialism.

The people of this nation have proven that they care more about a pretty face, pleasant words,and entitlements than they do their own freedom. What idiotic fools.

And finally, now that a black man has been elected president, I don't want to hear anything more about this nation being racist. No reparations for slavery, no affirmative action, no more anything having to do with racism. If you don't like they way America is, then go back to Africa.

Signed,

An Angry White Man

My Carbon Footprint

2008-10-30T09:03:00.000-06:00

I found a little app on MSN that calculates your carbon footprint. Not that I care, but I wanted to find out so I knew what it was I didn't care about.

It's merely 7.45 (average is 7.5). Which means that my lifestyle emits just 7.45 tons of carbon a year to shield us from the sun and help plants grow. Now, I've got to figure out how to increase it. ;)

The Lesser of Two Evils

2008-10-22T12:05:00.001-06:00

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."

The election is about two weeks away and the polls and my sixth sense (as much as I hate to admit it) say that Obama will win. I really don't want that to happen, but I also feel that we get what we deserve when it comes to such things. If the true conservatives had been loud enough, then we wouldn't have McCain as the GOP candidate, and Obama would be embarrassed to show his face. Conservatives need to become more like liberals in the sense of our activism.

We seem to think we can participate in the political process in the old-fashioned way: by writing to our elected officials and newspaper editors, making the occasional donation to our favorite candidate or party, working hard, doing what's right and saying our prayers. But prayer only goes so far. "Faith without works is dead," and we need to get to work. The trouble is that the old way of doing things is no longer effective, we need to take it a few steps further. We need start making loud protests, having sit-ins and doing crazy publicity stunts for our causes. We need to make further use of our right to free speech.

I write this because I am just as guilty. There are so many other things in life: work, spouse, children, church, school, etc. But where would our families be if the political landscape were to become inhospitable? Will ultra-liberal policies suddenly outlaw our religious principles? Think in terms of gay rights, same-sex marriage, and the rights of the traditional family. And, what, exactly, is "hate speech"?.

I submit that political activism should be an essential part of our responsibilities as parents, spouses, church-goers and community leaders. If our political beliefs are based on our religious beliefs, does that not make them one and the same? Therefore, if we are active in our religious endeavors, should we not also be just as active in our political endeavors as well? Is not the "opposition" also very politically active?

We are counseled to vote for good and honest people to lead our governments. However, there seems to be a serious deficiency of good and honest people in the political arena. The reason we are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils is because there are not enough of the other kind to choose from. Therefore, we need more good and honest people to be truly active in the entire political process, including voting, caucuses, and running for office, and we need to be bold and vociferous about it, too.

So, why don't we do it, are we afraid? Are we under-informed? Are we timid? So what! Let's get busy, get educated, go out on a limb, and offend a liberal!

Save the Wildlife

2008-10-03T09:03:00.000-06:00

A few years ago, my kids found a nighthawk on the ground in a neighbor's yard, it seemed to have a broken wing. I called the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and they advised me to take the little hawk to Great Basin Wildlife Rescue, run by Patti Richards. She took the bird in, rehabilitated and released it.

Recently, I read an article that said that budget problems and property issues have required her to move the rehab center to the local DWR offices. They are really having a hard time making ends meet to help these injured and orphaned wild animals.

If you can spare a bit, please donate to Great Basin Wildlife Rescue. And if you own a business and/or are looking for an organization to sponsor, please contact Patti Richards and make an offer.

Their Own Stupid Fault

2008-09-30T12:19:00.001-06:00

In the wake of the failed bail-out of Wall Street, everyone has some kind of complaint, and here's mine: These financial companies did this to themselves and now they want help from the rest of us, while they let the individual homeowner go into bankruptcy. Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservatives alike need to keep a few things in mind:

First: A NYT article from Sept. 1999 entitled "Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending" The title and date tell you most of what you need to know, the other part is that this easing of credit was at the behest of the Clinton administration. No one can blame this mess solely on Bush.

Second: A July 2008 Washington Post article about how the former head of Fannie Mae,. Franklin D. Raines, faced fraud charges brought by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight but settled them. He didn't even actually pay the settlement; it was covered by insurance. Now he advises Barack Obama.

Finally: no more golden parachutes. If a company fails or a CEO doesn't lead a profitable company, then they should get nothing when they leave. If the company is doing well, then they certainly deserve a bonus.

Catch a clue, people.

Now we just need to wait for housing prices to get back down to something realistic.

Liberals and Environmentalists Become Killers

2008-04-27T11:52:00.000-06:00

While I'm sure they did not intend to, liberals and environmentalists have recently been placed in a very unpleasant position. Because of rising oil and grain prices, brought about largely as a result of government subsidies for ethanol, as well as environmental restrictions on oil prospecting and drilling, worldwide food prices have risen so much that famine is now a very real concern in many less-developed countries. As a result, numerous people will die in the next few months because some other people want to "save the planet".

This is clearly the result of skewed priorities and fouled-up ideologies. The earth is here for our prudent use and it is clear that compassionate capitalism is a viable and beneficial solution to many of the world's problems. Get a clue, people.

Review: War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning

2008-01-14T00:13:00.001-07:00

I just finished the short book War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning by Chris Hedges. A friend of mine offered me $1000 to read it.

At first I thought this book was just another liberal anti-war rant. It's not. It's a well-written, wise and thoughtful warning to those who would rush into war, promote war or support it; we should be very hesitant and very careful about taking upon us the burden of war. War is more evil than we think it is. It is has far more consequences than we realize. We cannot truly understand this until it is too late. Therefore, if we are to enter into armed conflict, we had better have some very good reasons for it, and we had best be grounded in something more--something greater, more eternal, more powerful--than our righteous patriotism.

As I read a good book, I mark interesting passages and then make a note of the relevant page number in the back of the book. I have noticed that in the back of this book, I have written almost every page number in the last third of it.

I will continue to ponder this book, and to consider it in the context of the wars in The Book of Mormon, in which Captain Moroni, who is prophet, patriot and general, leads a war for "our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children" (Alma 46) and yet still maintains his humanity, love and favorable standing with God. I would like to explore a bit about the circumstances under which war is justified, and the best ways to go about such a horrific thing.

Although my friend now owes me $1000, and I could certainly use it, I am in no hurry to collect it from him because it is now a connection for us. We now have another reason to seek one another out and to further discuss the intricacies and mysteries of humanity and the universe. It is true, as Hedges quotes from J. Glenn Gray, "Friends find themselves in each other and thereby gain greater self-knowledge and self-possession. They discover in their own breasts, as a consequence of their friendship, hitherto unknown potentialities for joy and understanding." (p. 116). Thanks, Peter.

Revisiting Global Warming

2008-01-02T19:41:00.000-07:00

As an addendum to my previous post on global warming, I would like to suggest some additional reading:

1) Oddly enough, Pat Sajak (yes, that one) seems to have brought up some really good questions about global warming. Read it at: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24090 . I encourage you to read that and really think about the questions and give the answers some serious research and thought.

More to come...

Survey on UFO's and Religion

2007-12-19T03:03:00.000-07:00

I am conducting an informal survey on UFO's and religion to help determine if there are any connections between religious/spiritual observance and experiences with UFO's and other such phenomenon. However, this is not a formal or scientific survey, only a preliminary information-gathering tool.

Please take the survey here:
http://www.polldaddy.com/s/5081D43BBE47370C/

Thank you, and please pass this link on to others. Once the survey closes (at 1000 responses), I'll compile the results and post them here.

It is my hypothesis that those who are very religious or spiritual have FEWER experiences with UFO's and other such phenomena. However, it is just a hunch, so I am seeking some kind of evidence one way or another.

And, stay tuned, I might create another survey to include other strange phenomena, like Bigfoot sightings, etc.

The Difficulty of Being a Border Patrol Agent

2007-12-17T23:08:00.000-07:00

A new article on MSNBC states that U.S. Border Patrol agents are being pelted with rocks, bottles and bricks in order to distract them while smugglers work. The agents respond with tear gas and other non-lethal means, but the Mexicans that live in the area near the border complain that they are caught in the middle.

If U.S. Border Patrol agents are being attacked, then that is an act of war, and the agents have a right and duty to respond. If the Mexicans in the area don't want to be involved, then they need to move away from the border, or they need to get involved, complain to their government to get illegal immigration and smuggling under control, or they need to take matters into their own hands. I am not advocating vigilantism (although, if that's the only way, it's a good last resort), but some grassroots activism, political activity, and some good old-fashioned neighborliness.

There was a time when neighbors helped to take care of each other and to prevent anything illegal from occurring in the neighborhood. But, now, people depend too much on the government to solve everything and don't take the initiative to help defend the law. The Mexicans in the border area have an opportunity here to help improve their country and neighborhoods, but they just complain and look for someone else to solve the problem. And that's what's wrong with Mexico.

There is corruption and lawlessness in Mexico because the people allow it. They don't stand up for what's good and right, they just let the government and the upper-class elites do what they want. Now is the time for every good Mexican to come to the aid of his country.

Now, I'm also hearing about the U.S. Congress cutting funding for the border fence. If nothing is done about the illegal immigration and smuggling situation along our southern border (particularly), then I can see a time when this situation will escalate in to full-scale war. I'm not threatening, just predicting.

Source:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22300821/

The UN is at it again. Ban Ban

2007-12-12T01:15:00.000-07:00

Now I am reading of the new UN U.N. Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, exhorting us to act on global warming, or face "oblivion." (Whatever that means.) He says:

"The situation is so desperately serious that any delay could push us past the tipping point, beyond which the ecological, financial and human costs would increase dramatically," Ban said in a speech to delegates. We are at a crossroad. One path leads to a comprehensive climate change agreement, the other to oblivion. The choice is clear."

Whatever. . . What about the "ecological, financial and human costs" of the Kyoto Protocol and those other cap-and-trade schemes that Al Gore and company (and I use that word on purpose) are promoting? They would set us back to the Stone Age.

My previous post of Friday, October 5, 2007 should be sufficient to answer his statement. Apparently the "oblivion" that he's so concerned about would be his bank account without the grundle-loads of money that the elite are set to make from their cap-and-trade schemes.

My request to my readers is this: Use your own mind, apply some critical thinking skills to this issue, seek out the information for yourself (from primary sources), apply a little logic, and make a your own decision. (This applies not only to global warming, but to most of the issues that face us today.)

On the other hand, if he means Oblivion, the game, then by all means, let's play! ;)

Sometimes, when the UN speaks, people laugh, but most of the time, they die.

Border Patrol Emasculated

2007-11-10T17:47:00.001-07:00

In August 2007 United States Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean were convicted to 11 and 12 years in prison for actions related to the pursuit of a suspect near the U.S-Mexico border. Since the laws and events surrounding this event are as clear as mud, I will not play the part of lawyer and attempt to dissect the case. (Although I do think that they should not have been prosecuted to the extent that they were.)

However, it seems to me that the problem is not so much immigration law, nor is it the actions of the enforcers. The REAL problem is the way the law is (or rather, is NOT) enforced, and with the restrictions placed on Border Patrol agents in doing their jobs.

For example:
"Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof said, Ramos and Compean had no business chasing someone in the first place. 'It is a violation of Border Patrol regulations to go after someone who is fleeing," she said. "The Border Patrol pursuit policy prohibits the pursuit of someone.'"

I will let Agent Ramos speak for himself, and me:
"How are we supposed to follow the Border Patrol strategy of apprehending terrorists or drug smugglers if we are not supposed to pursue fleeing people?" he continued. "Everybody who's breaking the law flees from us. What are we supposed to do? Do they want us to catch them or not?"

That's just the beginning. If we are really serious about protecting our borders, then we must allow our border patrol personnel to do their jobs and actually enforce the law. And, we need to get tough with it.

I can't go on, it makes me so angry. Just read over the source documents below and think about it.

Sources:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23228
http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4141562
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Compean_Ramos_factsheet1.pdf

One Cancer or Another, it's Still Death.

2007-10-30T13:22:00.001-06:00

I think about this every fall when the breast cancer awareness campaigns kick into gear: What about the people who die from other forms of cancer, especially prostate cancer?

First, some statistics from the Center for Disease Control:
In 2004 (the most recent year numbers are available),
- 186,772 women and 1,815 men were diagnosed with breast cancer
- 40,954 women and 362 men died from breast cancer
(http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/statistics/)

In 2003 (the most recent year for which statistics are currently available):
- 185,891 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer
- 29,554 men died from prostate cancer
(http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/prostate/statistics/)

The difference in the number of cases of breast cancer in women versus the number of cases of prostate cancer is .0047 percent. That's a difference of less than half a percent; the difference is statistically insignificant. Therefore, we can say that there are, essentially, the same number of cases of each kind of cancer per year.

So, given that information, why so much emphasis on breast cancer awareness? Why is there not an equal emphasis on prostate cancer awareness? My very smart wife says it's because breasts are more obvious and prettier than prostates, and breasts are sex objects and we are a sex-oriented (obsessed?) society.

Although she may be right, I think it's got more to do with the power of the feminist agenda. The media, corporations and organizations are so afraid of offending feminists that they ignore the suffering of other demographic groups. They have bought into the feminist agenda so much that the issue is no longer human suffering, it is feminine suffering, masculine suffering is callously ignored. Or, on the other hand, it is an acknowledgment that women are weak and need the help of the rest of society to deal with their health problems. If equality between the sexes is the goal, then they have failed. (On another hand, if the feminist agenda is about dominating men, then they are wrong and are just creating another repressed minority.)

Aside from that, not all breast cancer patients are women (yes, men can get breast cancer, too), but the emphasis is on women (notice all the pink stuff: ribbons, bags, packaging, etc.). To me, this is further evidence that it isn't so much about cancer as it is about feminism.

Now, to clarify: I don't mind feminism, I've been told that I am a feminist, and I am in favor of equal opportunities and rights for women. I believe that all people, regardless of gender, should be allowed to do what they want with their lives, whether it's the spouse-homemaker-parent option, or the career option. Although I also believe that the wife-homemaker-mother option is the best one for most women, and has the potential for a much more positive influence on the world, and that mixing career, family and home-making is a challenge that very few people are up to.

Here is a more recent article that reflects my point of view: "The politics behind the pink ribbon"

What's with the changes at NewsMax.com?

2007-10-29T14:36:00.001-06:00

Has anyone else noticed the changes at NewsMax.com? I don't necessarily mean the new web site or the new video feed and things like that, but the changes in content: It just doesn't seem as conservative as it used to. Yes, it is still much more conservative than any other mainstream news source, but it just doesn't seem to be as conservative as it used to be; they seem to have taken it more mainstream, more middle-of-road. Have they caved to market pressures, or worse, political pressures? Have they changed their position to a more moderate one?

What's more, I never saw any editorial notice or commentary about the changes or anything else. It just got changed, as if they expect the users to not notice and to continue as usual. Or as if they hoped to hide something from the users. Hmmm. . .

This concerns me because these conservative news sources help maintain a balance in the marketplace of ideas. To paraphrase a very popular radio talk show host: They are equal time. In order to make an intelligent decision regarding the issues, people need to see all sides of them and to get exposure various opinions and points of view. Sites like NewsMax and CNSNews help do that by providing a more conservative perspective than the mainstream news sources. If they start to migrate to the middle of the road, then what is the fate of the conservative view?

However, the one thing that really bothers me the most about any of these web sites is the profit motive. I'm not opposed to capitalism, in fact I'm very much in favor of it, but it seems to me that it might be to the publisher's advantage to go soft on advertisers and their ideologies, simply because they are the sources of the money. Similarly, government sponsored news sources, like NPR and the BBC, concern me for much the same reasons: reporters will be very wary about biting the hand that feeds them. (You may notice that, even though it's available, and very tempting, I have no advertising here.) Edit (11/5/2008): I've decided that a small, unobtrusive banner ad at the bottom of the page is OK, and wouldn't affect my "objectivity".

So, what I would like to see is an independent, non-profit, truly objective, news outlet. One that doesn't depend on advertising revenue for its survival; one that doesn't depend on government approprations and tax dollars for its existence. Sort of a Consumer Reports of the information market. However, the problem is how to fund such a news organization, especially since people aren't used to paying for their news.

I'm still thinking about the solution to this one; any ideas or suggestions would be appreciated.

What's wrong with us?

2007-10-26T15:09:00.001-06:00

In the Middle Ages, peasants and serfs usually paid a third of their income to their landlord, (who owned the land, and provided protection in the event of invasion), and that was considered servitude. But, now, people don't even blink at paying 40-70% in taxes. What's wrong with us, why do we allow this?

Nobel Prize for Deception

2007-10-16T13:34:00.000-06:00

Now Al Gore gets a Nobel Prize for his work in relation to global climate change. I guess the Nobel committee are idiots, too. Have they no objectivity, no scientific curiosity, no skepticism? The Nobel Prize has become like the UN: irrelevant and meaningless.

Of course Gore has no desire to run for the Presidency of the US; he can make much more money with a lot less work and stress with his global climate change work. I gotta give him credit, he may not be real honest, but he's not stupid.

Here's some more food for thought:
"Dr. William Gray, one of the world’s foremost meteorologists and a pioneer in the field of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a lecture hall filled with meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth. 'We’ll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was.'"
Source: Al Gore's Inconvenient Nobel Prize

Global Warming as Capitalism

2007-10-05T15:25:00.001-06:00

I just finished reading an interesting article on Human Events called The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade. While I haven't had the chance to check the background or primary sources, it does reveal some interesting issues. The basic gist of the article is that:

Global warming (and the carbon cap and trade plans that go with it) is a sham to make the rich richer and to impose draconian laws on the general public that would keep people under subjugation and cripple the economy.
Al Gore is the leader (at least in public; his investors and backers aren't revealed) and cheerleader of this plan.
The mainstream media has conspicuously ignored these issues and just plays along.

Here are a few interesting quotes from the article:

"Al Gore’s campaign against global warming is shifting into high gear. Reporters and commentators follow his every move and bombard the public with notice of his activities and opinions. But while the mainstream media promote his ideas about the state of planet Earth, they are mostly silent about the dramatic impact his economic proposals would have on America. And journalists routinely ignore evidence that he may personally benefit from his programs. Would the romance fizzle if Gore’s followers realized how much their man stands to gain?"
"In fact, the World Bank now operates a Carbon Finance Unit that conducts research on how to develop and trade carbon credits. The bank works with Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and Spain to set up carbon-credit funds in each country to purchase emission credits from firms for use in developing countries. In addition, it runs the Carbon Fund for Europe helping countries meet their Kyoto Protocol requirements. These funds are traded on the ECX (half of which is owned by CCX, itself a creature of Al Gore’s firm, Generation Investment Management). Can we connect the dots?"
"In 2006 Al Gore established his own global-warming non-profit group, the Alliance for Climate Protection, a 501(3)(c) charitable organization. The group favors more stringent environmental policy regulations on the private sector and especially wants cap-and-trade legislation so that companies will be forced to lower their greenhouse gas emissions and buy carbon credits."
"There are billions of dollars to be made in trading emissions credits. But first the federal government must force everyone to play the game."

Follow the money. These are the last days, and greed and deception are everywhere.

Read the article in its entirety, right now. I'll wait.

. . . waiting . . .

OK, now that you've read the whole article, what's going on here? Al Gore & Co. will be making a huge amount of money from this plan, and they just need to get enough people scared about it to buy in to it. So, these people who say that capitalism and its accompanying greed, consumption and materialism are ruining society and the earth are themselves indulging in capitalism.

(I don't mind greed or capitalism, per se, I think that capitalism and a certain amount of self-interest are an excellent vehicle to prosperity for all. What I do object to is capitalism/greed/self-interest unchecked my morals, (true) charity and self-restraint.)

Never mind the fact that the whole global warming thing is questionable to begin with, and the effectiveness of the carbon credit plan unproven, the media and the promoters just keep harping on how we'll destroy the planet if we don't do something. This is the wrong "something."

What we should be doing is exposing these guys for the deceptive schemers and crooks that they are. We should be demanding more research and REAL, objective, solid evidence from the global warming advocates! We should be taking back our government(s) from the socialists, communists, and megalomaniacal tyrants that currently occupy its offices. We should be demanding more research, development and promotion of alternative energy sources. We should be rejecting the Kyoto protocol and futile stabilization programs, and, in case the gloom and doom forecasts do come to pass, adopting some adaptations to higher temperatures (See "Focused Adaptation").

The global warming scare is an example of the "evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days".

So, now you may be wondering where I get my ideas about global warming. Well, for the intellectually honest and objective reader, may I suggest a few texts:

State of Fear by Michael Crichton. This book, although a fictional novel, is written by one of the greatest minds of our time, and is very well-documented. Even if you don't enjoy the story (which is, admittedly, lame), at least get it for the data, the charts, the footnotes, endnotes, and bibliography--very revealing.
A speech by Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming. A sample: "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." And: "Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough." Good stuff, baby!
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) by Christopher C. Horner. An entertaining examination of the claims and science behind the global warming dogma. Very eye-opening.
And another article by Horner: Cooking up Global Warming Again, very revealing and thought-provoking: "If you place your measuring equipment in the wrong place you could help start a global warming panic. " Hmmm... suspicious...
And, one more easy read, from the National Center for Policy Analysis: Get the "Global Warming Primer" a graphic explanation of a number of statistics and phenomena associated with the global warming argument. (If you can't get it there, e-mail me and I'll send you a copy.)

Furthermore, the honest and objective thinker will evaluate the arguments and consider all the possibilities. So let's just sit and think about it for a moment:

Are we, as puny humans, so powerful as to be able to destroy a planet that has taken care of itself, through disaster after disaster, for so many thousands (perhaps millions) of years?
Are we really so knowledgeable as to be able to predict the weather in a hundred years, when we still have trouble predicting the weather next week? The weather is a chaotic system, and, as such, defies prediction.
Do we really have enough data to truly understand what is happening with the earth?
Is there no God who is in control of the universe and the elements?

One day we will know whether or not we are right about global warming, and whether we are too late or not is irrelevant, if it's going to happen, then it's going to happen; there is very little we can do about it. But, with the evidence under reasonable doubt, do we really need to ruin our economies and line the pockets of the elite based on their suppositions and "consensus science"?

Disclaimer: The writer of this blog is not associated with Human Events, Regnery Publishing, the National Center for Policy Analysis, Michael Crichton, Amazon.com, nor any other person or organization mentioned here, except as noted. (That goes for all of these posts, not just this one.)

Watch for Motorcycles!

2007-09-30T00:37:00.000-06:00

A few weeks ago I was riding the SilverWing home from the boring job (not the one at UVSC, but the one that pays the bills) and had a near-death experience. It was after midnight, and the stop light turned green. I twisted the throttle and got about halfway through the intersection when some broad, talking on her cell phone, ran the red light and zipped through the intersection in front of me. I yanked on the brakes and quickly slowed down enough to allow her to go through without smearing the SilverWing and me on the asphalt.

After I made it through the intersection, I turned around and followed her (I know, it's crazy, but it's a reasonably safe thing to do in Orem). Within a few miles, she pulled into a driveway and began to get her stuff out of her car. I parked, got off the bike and pounded her face! No, just kidding! I got out my Palm LifeDrive and navigated to a collage of my four children. I walked up to her, and said:

"I want to show you something."

I held out the LifeDrive, displaying the picture of my children, and said, "These are my four children. Now, back there just now when you were talking on your cell phone..."

"I know, I missed that light."

"Yes, and if there had been one second difference for either of us, my kids could have been without their father."

"I know, I'm sorry."

"I recommend you get off the cell phone and watch for motorcyclists!"

"OK"

"Thank you, good night."

Then I walked away, got on my bike and rode off in to the night. I hope she started crying. I hope she was afraid. I hope she was angry. I hope she had some kind of emotional response, because I certainly did!

Then, just tonight, on the way home, again, someone pulled out in front of me and I had to lay on the horn and swerve to miss them. Again, someone wasn't paying attention.

I ride my "scooter" nearly every day, at least half an hour (about 12 miles per day), and every time I see at least one person do something stupid or illegal while driving and talking on a cell phone. I really just want to take the phone away and spike the stinkin' thing on the pavement! People just don't understand how quickly and easily they could affect so many lives with a single, simple, stupid decision.

The lessons:

GET OFF THE PHONE AND DRIVE!
Pay attention to your surroundings.
Watch for motorcycles!
Life is precious, don't be stupid.

In the beginning...

2007-09-29T21:43:00.000-06:00

A few years ago, when the whole "blog thing" emerged, I scoffed at it and wondered why in the world people would want to blab their stuff all over a web page--essentially spewing brain vomit on the internet, and why they couldn't just do it with a personal web site. Well, now here I am with my own.

So, what's the diff? What's changed? Nothing. It's still brain vomit, but it's MY brain vomit! ;) It's better than a web page because it's easier to create and update, and it's easy for other people to find, so they can partake of my brain vomit (I know, eeewww! The metaphor has lost its attraction, scrap it!)

What's the point of a blog? Some people are natural writers. Some people have a need to comment on life, the universe and everything. Everyone has a need to be heard. A blog is the easiest and most painless way to publish your "stuff" (see the above worn-out metaphor), and to express oneself to the world without having to get an editor/publisher/bookseller's approval.

So, here is where I'll go when I have something to say, something to gripe about, something to take a stand about, when I have cause to pause and speak my mind. Long live the blog!

Notice: the opinions expressed here are my exercise of my First Amendment rights and, as such, are protected under the Constitution of the United States of America.