Friday, January 30, 2009
Sometimes Texas impresses me with their individuality and pride of law. There is a gay couple that was married in Massachusetts back a few years ago and surprise, they are wanting to get a divorce. However they have since moved to Texas where they do not recognize gay marriage and are denying them the right to get a divorce from the state. Of course there is a rule of law that says states the need to recognize contracts made in other states. So Texas may end up needing to work this out somehow. However, that doesn't mean that each state has the same provisions or remedy's under law. In the case of gay marriage, what are the repercussions in Texas under Texas law? There aren't any.
Disbursements and grievances in divorce is based on the role of each partner. If both are men, who takes the role of the female in Texas law? See the problems here Steve and Gary? What prompted them to move to Texas of all places anyway? Could you find a more Anti-Gay state to live in? For me, I say go to the girl selling her virginity on the internet who wants to be a marriage and family counselor. See if she can't shed some light on ways to save this union.
What a world we live in.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
To add insult to injury it has been revealed that your tax dollars will be given directly to illegal aliens. That's right even illegal's will be getting a peace of the money you worked to earn, people who don't even pay taxes will benefit from this government hand out. Don't believe me? Read it here. $500 for each individual and $1000 for every couple. If we cut through the bull S#$% here we would see that this is Obama and democrats buying votes for the future.
If you love freedom, if you want the power to progress in life with the risk of failure that comes with it then we have to take a stand. Something we can do right now is call every person we can in Washington in the Senator. We have to make our voice heard. To aid this in happening here is the phone numbers for the Senators from Arizona, James can put Utah's up later. Call these people non-stop, they have to know they will be held accountable to us the voters for their actions.
John McCain PHX 602-952-2410
John Kyle PHX 602-840-1891
Now that the car companies have received their bailout money, it is time to bite the hand that feeds them. These car companies are now suing the government over their push to increase fuel efficiency standards. There are two problems here that I see:
1) The government owns these companies... how can they sue themselves in effect? Are tax payers supposed to give their money to help the car companies turn around and sue the tax payers. Seriously, you can't beg for the government's involvement in your business and then turn around and tell them that you don't want them in your business. Sounds the like the bratty teenager living with their parents, eating their food, begging the parents for the car keys and gas money then tells them not to set a curfew and to stay out of their life. Not exactly how things work in the big boy world.
2) How good is this for the public image of these companies? Do these companies WANT to have inefficient cars? Are they seeking ways to stay mediocre? Really? The public wants to not spend a 1000 dollars on fuel. Even if the government wasn't pushing to make you do it, shouldn't the market demand be enough?
So, nice work congress for giving away a bunch of money to the car companies. This is your chance to "parent" your new babies.
Just when you thought it was too hard to sue a business or individual for discrimination Pres. Barack Obama signed into office the Equal Pay Bill that makes it easier to sue for discrimination.
So in this time of economic hardship where the government is trying to give money away like crazy just to keep the doors open, in order to maintain his hero status Pres. Obama is now going to make it harder for companies to stay afloat with lawsuits galore from every feminist they employ. As far as I am concerned, if I were a corporation I would be hard pressed to hire a woman out of the eminent threat that she might one day feel under paid and sue me. Why not, it is easier to sue someone into settlement than it is to work for the money right?
Last I checked if I own a business I should be able to pay people whatever I want to pay them. If they don't like it, then quit. There is no need to be litigious. This bill seems to operate on the assumption that businesses have some responsibility to take care of their workers financial problems. If the pay isn't what you want, quit and find another job. If you are worth the pay then you will earn it. If not, then go back to school develop new skills, be competitive. No employee is a victim of substandard pay because they choose to be there and they chose to take the job. Not to say that some business don't abuse their employee's and that harassment of other kinds doesn't exist, but equal pay is a different issue entirely.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Jim Boehner who has an unfortunate name, however appropriate for this current debate in Congress had this to say to Pelosi: "You know, I'm concerned about the size of the package. And I'm concerned about some of the spending that's in there, how you can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives. How does that stimulate the economy?"
I'm concerned as well; not so much about the size of the package, but with the sheer idiocy of the those running the country.
I am a cable subscriber so this switch to digital TV is not really much of an issue for me. I am wondering how many people this switch to digital television is really effecting to any detriment. I have seen endless commercials talking about this switch from every TV station out there and I still am sitting here wondering, how many lives is this crippling? How big of a priority should this be in the lives of Americans?
The government has already offered coupons that basically make it so that the cost of a converter box is around 20 dollars - net - for the least expensive converter box. I understand that there might be some senior citizens using their Ol' faithful TV set with rabbit ears and that they might be on a fixed income that might want to make this switch. Perhaps 20 dollars may seem like a lot to some people. But may I remind everyone struggling with this change that TV is not necessary or essential to the sustaining of life.
Why bring this up? Because our congress has decided to spend its precious time and resources resources debating the merits of delaying the switch for a period. President Barack Obama and some of the companies involved have given their okay with the switch till some date in June. So I ask again? Who is this effecting really? What is the purpose for the delay? People have had over a year to muster up the extra 20 bucks for the converter box. If they have not done so already, then perhaps TV is not their biggest concern right now. So thank you to the congress and the executive branch of the government for spending our time in a recession debating whether or not we should postpone an insignificant switch to digital television. Way to show priorities Speaker Pelosi!
Monday, January 26, 2009
Take the chip off your shoulder already will you? However, I started to wonder after watching this piece, with an African American, black, or or colored president (choose your own label) is there now a need for such organizations as the NAACP? Colored people are as "advanced" as they can be in this country right? Leader of the greatest country in the world, President Barack Obama, has shown that there is no ceiling to the aspirations of any race in this country right?
Now what NAACP? What is left for "your cause?" Are we able to conclude that the mission of your cause has been completed? Oh, and I still don't understand how you can end racism and still call yourselves colored people? If race is to not have any effect, you need to stop seeing people as a different race. Wouldn't the National Association for Racial Equality be more fitting?
Friday, January 23, 2009
So, since I'm apparently a whiny, Obama hating, negative mongering conservative, let me dig a little more at the audacity of idiocy. Or no wait, we can't question the "one" now because that's all of a sudden un-American. Just like being Patriotic today means "paying more taxes".
So Obama announced as one of his first Executive orders to close Guantanamo Bay.
Concurrently I stumbled upon this article: http://www.military.com/news/article/released-detainee-now-an-al-qaida-leader.html
"Released Detainee Joins Al-Qaida"
Now granted, I don't agree with the way everything has been handled regarding Guantanamo Bay, but a couple things to keep in consideration, our enemy is unconventional and may require an unconventional approach.
I disagree with torture. It is wrong. So.... define torture? Is waterboarding torture? I don't know, I've never been waterboarded. But I have experienced highly stressful situations imposed by military trainers to simulate combat environments. Stress can have a negative impact on the body for sure, and one of the tactics in question at Guantanamo Bay was the playing of stress inducing music. Torture? I personally don't think so. We are dealing with an enemy that is fanatical, suicidal, and extreme to the point of cutting the heads off of Americans with a dull knife. So.... putting an extremist under a stressfull, controlled environment such as waterboarding in order to extract information that could prevent another 9-11? I know where I stand........
Last week, I labeled members of the Mormon church who supported California's Proposition 8 as "un-American." I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination. But everyone has a right to vote their conscience – nothing could be more American. To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are "un-American" creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement. No one should use "un- American" lightly or in haste. I did. I should not have. Sincerely, Tom Hanks.
He's not a smart man Jenny. However, in the spirit of forgiveness, as compelled as this re-statement and apology is given, I accept.
I lived in California around the time that Gov. Gray Davis was recalled from his position as Governor opening the door to the now current Govenator Arnold. Gray Davis was actually the first governor of California to be recalled and second in the history of our country. This divorce of a public official tends to be very possible but an option that is rarely pursued. Why is that?
Should we try to divorce with our elected officials more often? Would a greater frequency of this "out" be something that would keep politicians more on their toes; knowing they can be fired quicker than they can just "not be re-elected"? Or are we as American Citizens supposed to be satisfied with our majority selection till the appointed time to release him or her from their duties?
Discuss amongst yourselves.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
I'm not going to share my opinion on this one. Rep. Jose Serrano D - NY proposed the repeal of the 22nd ammendment to the House Judiciary Committee on January 6, 2009. For those of you unfamiliar with the 22nd ammendment it limits the number of terms a president can serve to two. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj111-5
What did he do to deserve this? Today he said concerning the tax evading Treasury Secretary nomination Timothy Geithners nomination "I intend to vote positively for this nominee," Yea that's right Hatch doesn't seem to have a problem with a guy who willfully neglected to pay $34,000 in taxes running the IRS. I am sure Hatch would definitely have a problem with you and I not paying out taxes. I am sure the dogs of war would be chasing us down the street in no time if I owed that amount. Heck the State has owed me back taxes for three years and they still wont pay up no matter what I do but he second I don't pay mine they garnish my wages. But in his eagerness to appease his new master Obama Hatch parsed words and made excuses for law breaking saying "There's room to criticize, certainly. What happened shouldn't have happened, but I believe that he made honest mistakes and I believe that this human being is the right person for this country at this time."
This action puts Hatch on the list of Republicans that no longer represent the people. All you Mormons in Utah need to vote this douche out next chance you get and stop making excuses like "well he is Mormon too so he must be for us." News flash, he is for his own power and nothing else. Don't worry the standard applies to us here in Arizona as well, as soon as we can that snake in the grass McCain will be out on his ear.
Part of the irony came (as this article states) when hearing that Pres. Obama's inauguration speech was censored by the Chinese government during the parts where Obama talked about communism and fighting communist nations. In fact at one point the state TV of China cut away until he stopped talking about it.
For a youtube clip of the cutaway watch below:
For the full inauguration speech view below:
"STATEMENTS MADE BY THE LATE DR. ADRIAN ROGERS OF BELLEVUE BAPTIST CHURCH, MEMPHIS , TENNESSEE :
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"
Amen and Amen. The gospel is amazing in that we are able to promote the good of the whole but not in a way that is at the loss of any individual. With temporal government, that ideal just does not seem possible. Hence the above statement offering the most noble alternative to a consecrated existence.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
So far I am liking President Obama way more than candidate Obama. It kind of upsets and confuses me that he is doing some really good things at the beginning of his presidency that he never said he would do during the campaign trail, at least not specifically. Most candidates say that they will end corruption and curb spending, blah, blah, blah. However, it looks like he is actually doing it.
Read this article to read all the juicy details including some changes to the Freedom of Information act that makes more of the governments documents available to the public. You can decide if you think that is a good thing. Here is a summary of the spending and corruption stuff:
White House executives including the chief of staff, national security adviser, and Press Secretary are being limited in their pay to $100,000 a year. Obama's rationale here, "Families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington." I agree! Nice work Mr. President.
Then there are the anti-corruption measures to block the influence of lobby's in his administration. The article reads, "Obama's new lobbying rules will not only ban aides from trying to influence the administration when they leave his staff. Those already hired will be banned from working on matters they have previously lobbied on, or to approach agencies that they once targeted.
The rules also ban lobbyists from giving gifts of any size to any member of his administration. It wasn't immediately clear whether the ban would include the traditional "previous relationships" clause, allowing gifts from friends or associates with which an employee comes in with strong ties.The new rules also require that anyone who leaves his administration is not allowed to try to influence former friends and colleagues for at least two years."
So far, so good. I am sure he will screw something up at some point, but for now, I like it.
Yesterday bore the same thing out. Democrats are supposed to be for the environment and green correctness. However as this story points out there where more privet jets coming and going out of Washington for this inauguration then for Bush's, as a matter of fact a few hundred more. As an aside I wonder if Gore was in one of them? So from the party of "immediate action against global warming" we have people that are so important that the carbon they produce is some how more important then the carbon you produce. I am sure they bought offsets to make it all go away and I am sure it does magically make it all better, just like sinners of old buying forgiveness from the catholic church found absolution. I think the Democrats next move is to set up Al in a big building, dress him in red silk and have him hold court inviting carbon sinners in to plead their case for reconciliation. But beyond the green double standard their is the other assumption that democrats are funded by the little guy and care for him more then big business. But who other then big business and the rich can afford to charter a privet jet for the week? Clearly the power brokers have given a larger backing to the democrat then the Republican he replaced if privet jets where any marker.
Also the old wind back offering the prayer at the end asking his god that "white will embrace right." All I can say is F-you old man. Imagine if a white guy got up and prayed that "the black man will embrace employment." The same assumptions and generalizations used to assume that all white people are racist and need to open up go into that assumption that all black men are unemployed. Everyone had a good laugh though because he was poking fun at white. Those white guys just set themselves up for it will all their hating and Klan memberships.
Way back in the George W. Bush presidency there was an agreement signed with the prime minister of Iraq to pull US troops by 2011. It seems as is with our new President they are willing to have us pull out much sooner. According to this article the country of Iraq has given us permission to pull out early and not take flack for it when their country falls to the hands of terrorists or the "next dictator". I say FINE! We could use the money in our country right now and I think the troops deserve a break. Plus that will be one less thing for the liberals to whine about.
However, I know I have not been to the country, I am not privy to the intelligence information that our leaders have had access to, so I don't know if this is really a great idea, but on the surface it seems like letting them run their own country and having one less thing rely on our government is a good thing.
One interesting note to ponder is, "The 2011 date Pres. Bush was pushing for to keep us in Iraq, was that longer than it needed to be?" Since George W. has left office, there seemed to be no time wasted in making sure that agreement was expedited or bumped up, and it came from the Iraq end. If they want us gone, fine! No hard feelings. We did a good thing for their country and now they can learn to govern themselves.
Riddled with sarcasm, this segment some how is able to capture, at least to some degree, my shared feelings of disdain for what this whole bailout has come to be. While the clip is censored, I would have to give this clip a pg-13 rating but I still find some value in the overall feeling of shared discontent so I decided to post it. Enjoy.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Well, boys and girls. We can all rejoice, because the long awaited time of the arrival of the "one" has come. Granted he's not the "one" that I am still waiting for, but he is the "one" for some apparently. Case in point, "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI" and for those of you that won't click on the link, it's a pleasant reminder that the days of not having to pay for gas or your mortgage have arrived.
A friend was listening to the radio when the lyrics to this somewhat older song started jumping out at him. He went home and looked it up on google, and sure enough the lyrics fit perfectly to describe our new leader:
Look into my eyes, what do you see? Cult of personality. I know your anger, I know your dreams. I've been everything you want to be. I'm the cult of personality. Like Mussolini and Kennedy, I'm the cult of personality, Cult of personality, Cult of personality. Neon lights, a Nobel prize. The mirror speaks, the reflection lies. You don't have to follow me, Only you can set me free. I sell the things you need to be, I'm the smiling face on your t.v., I'm the cult of personality. I exploit you, still you love me. I tell you one and one makes three. I'm the cult of personality. Like Joseph Stalin and Ghandi, I'm the cult of personality, Cult of personality, Cult of personality. Neon lights, a Nobel prize. A leader speaks, that leader dies. You don't have to follow me, Only you can set you free. You gave me fortune, You gave me fame, You gave me power in your gods name. I'm every person you need to be, I'm the cult of personality. Look into my eyes, what do you see? Cult of personality. I know your anger, I know your dreams, I've been everything you want to be. I'm the cult of personality. Like Mussolini and Kennedy, I'm the cult of personality, Cult of personality, Cult of personality. -Living Colour, Cult of personality-
Nag me if you want, but I liked or was surprised by some of President Obama's inaugural address. I liked that Pres. Obama was willing to blame those that were greedy for this economic crisis and that we as a nation have made some bad decisions to get us here. I believe many commentators used the phrase, "he issued a call to responsibility." This speech was not used as a moment to blow a bunch of wind up our "special parts" about how the economy is just fine or that somehow this is all George W. Bush's fault. Sure there was some of that which is to be expected. I also noticed that President Obama acknowledged that we are fighting a war against a large network of terrorists that can attack our nation. He could have said, that we are fighting a false war, or something that sounds more liberal; but he didn't. I wonder if his short time before taking office introduced to him what is really needed to run this country. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, I believe Barack Obama has a long trail of pro-socialism speech, and a long track record of talking out of his butt for me to have faith in the words which he uttered. Apart from what much of America believes, Pres. Obama's farts still stink.
I appreciate the truths that he shared in his speech and there was some. I like that in a world where many have sought to eliminate the role of God in the forming and governing of our nation, he still placed his hand on a bible (Abraham Lincoln's inauguration bible for those who didn't know) and had a christian minister give the prayers. While the benediction was given to humor and liberal smack talk, I appreciate that a prayer was still given. I appreciate that there has been reverence and respect for the previous president. This should not be a time of bickering and discontent for the past as much as it can be a bridge to the future. It showed a very welcome level of class from our new president. A class that many in the inaugural crowd were void of.
Pres. Obama campaigned for hope. I choose to have hope. But I choose to have hope in a Heavenly Father who is truly just and truly preserves the cause of liberty. A God who knows war, both from the pre-existence and here on earth.
This is the time for Barack Obama to put aside the garbage his spewed during the campaign and become President of a democracy, not king of Obamaland. I hope he can.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Pres. Monson has asked that Pres. Uchtdorf and Elder Nelson attend the inauguration of Pres. Elect Barack Obama. Seems like an interesting assignment. Pres. Monson then added, "We send our best wishes to President-elect Obama and pray for the blessings of a loving Father in Heaven to be upon him and his administration." Perhaps we should consider a similar paradigm in our prayers for this country.
Friday, January 16, 2009
For the latest from Hollywood getting involved in politics and demonstrating what it truly means to not be tolerant, we don't have to retrieve the latest quote from Lindsey Lohan's blog, or hear the redundant garbage from Bill Maher. From a less likely source, we find that Tom Hanks feels that Mormon's are Un-American because of their support of Prop. 8. It should be noted that Mr. Hanks is executive producer of the HBO series "Big Love", a series centering on a fictional polygamist family (or families for that matter) that live in Salt Lake City, UT as part of an LDS break off religion.
This classification of Mormon's arose during an interview with Fox News when Hanks was asked about the whole Prop. 8 situation. My favorite part of the above linked article is, "When informed of the "Forrest Gump" star's comments, Kim Farah, a spokesperson for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, told (the reporter), "Expressing an opinion in a free and democratic society is as American as it gets."
I love how the church is able to respond in ways that can make those who oppose it sound so convicted without having to come out and say they are wrong or stupid. For me, I was disappointed to hear this from Tom Hanks. I like most of what he has done professionally, and I wonder if I will be able to not diminish his work from this obviously short-sided comment.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Israel made what could be a very big boo-boo in this recent skirmish against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. A recent attack on a UN humanitarian center destroyed thousands of pounds of food and humanitarian supplies intended for Palestinian refugees. This is a big mistake for two reasons as I see it:
1) The current conflict was to be against Hamas, an organization or party that is separate from a country or sovereign nation like Palestine. Whether they were following the rules of war to begin with could be called into question, but to destroy humanitarian aid from the UN going to refugee's is a bit of a low blow. I would be more willing to consider the argument that this was collateral damage if it was simply a random food storage. But given the specific use for the goods, I doubt it was a "grave mistake" as the Israeli Prime Minister states.
2) It was the UN! For those tetering on the fence of whether there was any validity to this conflict to begin with, you may have swayed their vote against Israel based on this attack alone. Perhaps when going into battle you would like to make your attacks a little more strategic. Give your fighters some places to be careful not to trash. So even if they claim it was a mistake, the mistake was as much the act as it was not preparing your attackers and those that lead them.
Considering some of the statements by the Israeli's at the start of this conflict (this was considered to be a "to the death" battle), then there is no reason to think this is was completely intentional.
I knew that gaining an education was expensive but to one girl apparently it cost her the most valuable thing she owned; her virginity. There is a student who needed to find a way to pay for her schooling. Some go for grants, loans, scholarships, she decided to auction her virginity off to the highest bidder. This transaction is to take place at the Bunny Ranch in Nevada where prostitution is legal. Latest number was that she was going to get 3.7 million dollars. I thought we were in a slow time economically, but it appears as if some people are pretty slow in other area's as well. If I find out that bid came from an AIG exec's bailout bonus I will be upset.
Two other points of interest, the girl is going to school for marriage and family therapy. Great start. Second, it appears as if she has a sister who paid for her schooling through prostitution through the same facility and gave her sister the suggestion of the auction in the first place. The first sister probably got a good bit less than 3.7 million, and I wonder if that therapy training will go to immediate use with her sister's, almost certain to develop, inferiority complex. I bet their parents are so proud. Perhaps a good path to avoiding such temptation is to employ a good savings plan. That and teaching righteous principles when they are young. Of course, there is no absolute surety that you won't parent the most profitable virgin on the planet, but the chances would be diminished significantly.
Glenn Beck had an interview that you can read or hear at this link. It is quite revealing.
Watch the CNN video of the story here.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
But for many things a rudimentary knowledge of logic isn't even necessary, simply paying attention to past actions and figuring the future results based on these experiences should be enough to figure most things out. Even cave men at some point figured out that gravity existed, they couldn't explain it but they knew that if they fell off a cliff they died. As a result of their combined experience cave men everywhere avoided cliffs and everyone lived longer life's.
This simple survival technique seems to be absent in modern man however. Take for example two current political discussions.
#1 The case of one Bernard Madoff. Here you have a guy who operated a Ponzi scheme. For those of you who don't know this little scheme was dreamed up to get people to pay into an "investment" and then pay them their dividends from the money you take from some one else. Eventually as in Madoff's case the money runs out and if your the sap stuck at the end of the scheme your screwed. Clearly this is a bad idea and everyone is now up in arms asking "how could the government allow this to happen" and my favorite "this shows that we need for more regulation in the free market." First of all the government already operates the worlds largest Ponzi scheme known as "Social Security" It in every way is a Ponzi scheme because it takes my "savings" and gives it to some one else on the guarantee that there will be some for me when I get old. Just so your clear on this one, Ponzi scheme run by a individual, bad. Ponzi scheme run by the government, good.
Peoples other reaction of "this is why we need more regulation in the free market" is equally as silly. The same people who say this will also tell you that they are tired of this "free market" system here in America. But wouldn't saying "more regulation" indicate that we already have regulation? And if we already have regulation by the government wouldn't this thereby make it something other then a "free market" system? It would and we don't have a free system, we have a mixed market system watched over by an incompetent government. How about instead of crying for more regulation we actually try the whole free market thing? I mean lets face it, we all know that everything government touches turns to garbage so why not have the original hands off ideas our founders wanted put into place?
#2 The silly argument is that to get out of our current economic down turn we need to "spend more money." So let me get this one right, we got here because people over stretched their credit and we had a fallout with sub prime home owners going into default on their loans, basically spending money they didn't have. So to fix this national debit we have created we will create more debt? If I ran my house like this creditors would come and take away everything I "own." The result will be the same for the country. By taking money out of the individuals hands and allowing the government to spend it it will lengthen the down turn if not create a depression. If they don't raise taxes but just print more money they devalue the currency and make our national debt even larger.
Again though they will get away with it all. Not only because people do not think logically but because the new season of American Idol is on and the nation can begin talking about that as apposed to what the politicians are doing in Washington.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
GTMO (or Gitmo) is short for Guantanomo Bay, the US controlled detention facility in Cuba that has been a well know place for alleged human rights violations enacted upon the suspected or convicted terrorist detainee's staying there. Pres. Elect Barack Obama has made it a point in his campaign and since being elected to distance himself from the Bush administration through the closing of GTMO. So far, I have to say I have not been able to make up my mind on this issue yet.
Those opposed to the facility cite a few reasons for closing its doors. Mainly, human rights violations in the form of torture for information, as well as the fact that many of these detainee's have been held for years without much in the way of due process of law. No trials, no convictions, yet they are being held as prisoners.
Those in favor of keeping the operation open cite the reasons that we need a place like this if not for anything else but a deterrent to committing further crimes against our nation. Closing GTMO would place our national security at risk. This same group tend to find value in the ability to interrogate through various methods as a way to accomplish the goals of national security and military operations.
In standing back and thinking as Latter-Day Saints, we believe that such forms of torture and slavery without some kind of legal conviction is wrong. We also believe in honoring and sustaining the inspired constitution that state there shall be no cruel and unusual punishment as being one of the inalienable rights of man, not just citizens. On the other hand, we have seen, as in the cases of Captain Moroni of the Book of Mormon, where those that didn't believe in the cause of liberty, more specifically the cause of free government which many of today's terrorists are opposed, were put to death. Would closing its door be one more way where liberal democrats are seeking to abolish punishment for one's acts?
I pose the question, is such a facility more bad than good? Or is it the other way around? Can we as citizens of this country be okay with preaching liberty to the captives, and have such a facility? Is that hypocrisy or is this justice?
You can watch a Hannity Show take at this link. Just make it through the first story about one minute and 14 seconds in, then you will see the Obama Guantanamo Bay stuff.
Monday, January 12, 2009
I love it when Gov. Rod Blagojevich gets impeached and then seems to think that this was all because, and I quote, "The causes of the impeachment are because I've done things to fight for families," said Blagojevich. I think this man should be committed if he thinks ANYONE will believe that pile of lies. Is he completely oblivious to the fact that he abused the public's trust for a good bit of time?
The article then goes on to say, "Blagojevich dismissed the impeachment as inevitable from a House that has resisted his efforts to help real people instead of "special interests and lobbyists."" Um, you weren't you trying to sell a senate seat Mr. Governor? How much more special interest can you get?
I had no idea how far gone this man was. Sure one could consider his comments a knee jerk reaction to being almost unanimously voted out of office. But I still wonder how such behavior can be demonstrated by an elected official. Did the crazy just now start? I doubt it. That means that people voted this man in to begin with. For anyone interested, here is the official document declaring his impeachment.
Friday, January 9, 2009
With this in mind I came across this little story on another blog about Utah state Legislature talking about how the mere fact that alcohol is served at restaurants will tempt the poor children of Utah to drink more. Beyond just being a silly argument philosophically as a Mormon I have to fight this one. Other then just making us look crazy and naive it goes against our very basic beliefs of agency.
At the core the question is "does the restaurants belong to the patrons or the owner?" I motion that the restaurant belongs to the owner and as such he has control over his property. Customers have a choice on which restaurant to go to and as such if they think their little Molly Mormon and Peter Priesthood children will be turned into raving alcoholics at the mere sight of a couple shots of vodka they can go right on down the local Mormon friendly establishment without giving the unholy establishment their money. Thanks to this little think called "supply and demand" These unholy establishments will go under for lack of patronage in Utah.
However this logic is way outside the realm of possibility to your average "Republican/Mormon" who is convinced they need to force their will on everyone else. And yes it is FORCED morality, anything the government has to make a law for then becomes something they have to force. People, from what I have experienced don't like to be forced and when they are forced to accept some one else's morality they don't think to themselves "I love that my Mormon neighbors are forcing me to do what their religion tells them. I think I will join their church just save myself and them the trouble of forcing me to do that as well."
Get a freaking clue Utah.
Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road?
SARAH PALIN: Before it got to the other side, I shot the
chicken, cleaned and dressed it, and had chicken burgers for
BARACK OBAMA: The chicken crossed the road because it was
time for a change! The chicken wanted change!
JOHN MC CAIN: My friends, that chicken crossed the road
because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and
dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the
HILLARY CLINTON: When I was First Lady, I personally helped
that little chicken to cross the road. This experience makes
me uniquely qualified to ensure right from Day One that
every chicken in this country gets the chance it deserves to
cross the road. But then, this really isn't about me.
GEORGE W. BUSH: We don't really care why the chicken crossed
the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side
of the road or not. The chicken is either against us or for
us. There is no middle ground here.
DICK CHENEY: Where's my gun?
COLIN POWELL: Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly
see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road.
BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with that chicken.
What is your definition of chicken?
AL GORE: I invented the chicken.
JOHN KERRY: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the
road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross,
and I was misled about the chicken's intentions. I am not
for it now and will remain against it.
AL SHARPTON: Why are all the chickens white? We need some
DR. PHIL: The problem we have here is that this chicken
doesn't realize that he must first deal with the problem on
this side of the road before it goes after the problem on
the other side of the road. What we need to do is help him
realize how stupid he's acting by not taking on his current
problems before adding new problems.
OPRAH: Well, I understand that the chicken is having
problems, which is why he wants to cross this road so bad.
So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and
take falls, which is a part of life, I'm going to give this
chicken a car so that he can just drive across the road and
not live his life like the rest of the chickens.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: We have reason to believe there is a
chicken, but we have not yet been allowed access to the
other side of the road.
NANCY GRACE: That chicken crossed the road because he's
guilty! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.
PAT BUCHANAN: To steal the job of a decent, hardworking
MARTHA STEWART: No one called me to warn me which way that
chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmer's
Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain
level. No little bird gave me any insider information.
DR SEUSS: Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it
with a toad? Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it
crossed I've not been told.
ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die in the rain, alone.
GRANDPA: In my day we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the
road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and
that was good enough.
BARBARA WALTERS: Isn't that interesting? In a few moments,
we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first
time, the heart-warming story of how it experienced a
serious case of molting and went on to accomplish its
lifelong dream of crossing the road.
ARISTOTLE: It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.
JOHN LENNON: Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing
roads together, in peace.
BILL GATES: I have just released eChicken 2008, which will
not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important
documents, and balance your checkbook. Internet Explorer is
an integral part of eChicken 2008. This new platform is much
more stable and will never crash or need to be rebooted.
ALBERT EINSTEIN: Did the chicken really cross the road, or
did the road move beneath the chicken?
COLONEL SANDERS: Did I miss one?
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Down in our beloved New Orleans, the Catholic church has decided to close its doors on a couple of churches for one reason or another. Could be damage, could be a smaller population in New Orleans and there is less of a need. In any case, upon the decision of the church to close the doors to Our Lady of Good Counsel cathedral, the locals were not too happy. In fact, before the doors officially locked up some of the parishioners decided to make like Greenpeace and do a literal sit in. They sat inside the chapel and refused to leave in hopes that the church would decide not to close its doors.
In the end the Catholic diocese called the cops in to take the people out. Of course the church gave the parishioners the chance to leave peacefully, however they chose not to exercise that option as the linked article states (there is a crappy little video of the news story on the page if you care to watch).
Tough call by the Catholic Church for sure. Kind of lose-lose situation for them. They have to do what they have to do, but in the end they had another PR problem on their hands. I wondered why I have never heard anything like this with any other churches. For a church that used to function on complete dominance and autonomy as the Catholic Church is known for doing, these parishioners seemed to be acting in quite a defiant manner. No one was arrested, in fact the people that were asked to leave were peacefully taken back to their homes by the police instead of making the matter get really ugly.
I found this great deal for those wanting to keep the word of wisdom in these times of cold and economic famine. You can thank me later after you have some good goat taco's or goat gumbo.... come on, you know you want some. Only $1.99 a pound!? Wait a second - I did the math and an average goat is 150 lbs. That means you are into this goat around 300 bucks! Well maybe not such a great deal after all. That is unless you are a goat connoisseur. The USDA says its cool to eat goat. Mutton anyone? Don't forget to pass the Grey Poupon.
And in other goat news, there is a new drug on the market that just got approval from the FDA. It uses goat milk to make an anti-blood clotting drug. Lets hear it for the goat!
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
A study of the gospel from back to the Old Testament to now shows that the Lord frequently deals in lesser laws as a way of preparing for things to come; for a higher living. The ten commandments and the Law of Moses were given prior to the Law of Consecration and the Law of the Gospel. These laws are currently in place to help us as a people be prepared for an eventual celestial law (we hope).
So where do we stand as a people? Are we taking the constitution and other laws of this country and progressing towards higher laws, and higher ideals? Or are we regressing? Obviously there is a bit of personal definition that goes into what is a higher law or best policy, but there should be some constants regardless of subjectivity. These constants could be principles like, "are we preserving personal liberty, and allowing for agency including the right to fail?" This doesn't mean the right to do whatever you want with no consequence.
As many have been debating lately with a troubled world economy and with new wars popping up all the time, I hear few people talking about what is the best policy. I hear what a political party should stand for. "This is how the republicans view it", or "this is how the democrats see it." How do American's see it-isn't that the question we should hear most? As I see it, some problems are handled best using traditional democrat policy, and some are solved using traditional Republican policy. Sometimes the answers don't lie with either one. From my perspective it seems like there is greater allegiance to political parties than there is to the United States and perhaps that is at the core of what concerns me.
Do we live in a country where the best policies are still possible? Will there be opposition to the best way, or higher laws, in approaching public policy simply because it may have not come from a party you agree with? How often have we seen opposition to something that makes perfect sense simply because a republican came up with it, or vice versa? Has God set up this country to be content with mediocrity or has he endowed this land with a tremendous potential for good? Are lesser laws the only laws can pass anymore due to the 'nature of the beast'? Perhaps only time can adequately answer these questions.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
So, (1st wrong) from crooked Illinois governors, to poor choice of appointee's in a (2nd wrong) Secretary of Commerce and (3rd wrong) CIA director, the Obama collateral damage continues.
(4th wrong) Roland Burris, the appointee to take Obama's Senate seat as per the crooked Illinois governor, was told by his own party that they would not seat him in the Senate if he were to try and do so. So to appear as if he is not wanting to cause problems for anyone he has chosen to not accept the nomination. One could make the argument that he is gracefully accepting the fact that he would not have succeeded anyway. Kind of seems like the kid who didn't get picked to play in the neighborhood football game so he decides to make the announcement that he didn't want to play anyway.
However, I do wish to give credit where credit is due. I applaud the Dem's for pushing off the appearance of evil on this one. We don't know if Roland Burris was the guy that was the highest bidder for the seat, and the dem's are saying (essentially) that they don't want to taint their efforts in the Senate by anything that has the appearance of being attached to Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, or evil. This is especially poignant because this was a person of their own party. While I don't feel that all these events together give cause for rejoicing, I appreciate the Dem's desire to put a tourniquet on the possible mortal wounds that we as a country are facing. Perhaps we can stay positive and view this as a silver lining. I am not a psycic as M. Galt claims to be, but I chose to follow the path of hope that carries with it the promise of a better day.
I, M.Galt here by make a prediction, let's call it a psychic prediction. The only thing is I'm not a psychic just person who has learned to think critically. I predict that one year from now when the economy is even worse then it currently is that Obama will say that the economy was beyond repair because of the reckless capitalist/Laissez-faire policies of the Republicans and Bush. Of course Bush has been anything but Laissez-faire about anything but by that time it wont matter it will just serve as a means for the government to capture more control over the economy.
What makes me make this prediction you ask? This story here where Obama does nothing more then hedge his campaign rhetoric about stemming the oceans tide and changing the world. He describes the economy as "bad and getting worse" no kidding. This guy is quick. But like every other failed politician he makes the same predicable mistake and says we need to "act and act now" Which being translated means "I am going to pull more money out of you the tax payers pockets, give it to people who helped me get here and their companies and watch the situation get worse."
The ends of such "action" are always predictable so my prediction really shouldn't be that surprising except to Obama sycophants who espier to be do-nothing non-profit workers. That is a force to be reckoned with though and I am sure their numbers are only growing.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Quickly becoming the theme of the Obama transition is this idea that political favors are up for the highest bidder or contributor. Now we have Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico has decided to drop his bid for becoming Commerce Secretary in Obama's cabinet. Why you ask? Because Gov. Richardson is under a grand jury investigation being accused of awarding a state contract to his political donors; a very illegal and highly traceable type action. This of course comes in light of another Governor attached to Pres. Elect Obama who is also being tried on charges that he was selling Pres. elect Obama's vacated senate seat.
Neither of these cases appear to be actions by Obama himself from what we can tell, but such a re-occurring theme causes me to wonder if Obama is doing his home work. Is it just a matter of time before we find out that the soon to be Secretary of State was involved in a some kind of real estate scandal or the mysterious death of someone who didn't play by her rules... oh wait that already happened. What change were we talking about having again? Is this the Clinton's part 2? So far my view of this incoming president is that he is as good at doing his homework as the president we are supposed to be "changing" from. It looks like Bush has the Iraq war and Obama will have his cabinet. Perhaps it is not possible for a president to make a correct move anymore. Who knows? Should we start to accept such imperfections as "part of the job" and not be so picky? Or are we not diligent enough in keeping tabs on our elected officials? Is there merit in lowering of the accountability bar?
From what I can see, if one more case comes up where one of Obama's "choice" cabinet is found guilty of money being exchanged for some kind of political favor I will have no choice to but to find him guilty by association. Either way, great start for Team Obama.
Update: Now Obama has picked a former Clinton white house chief of staff Leon Panetta as head of the CIA. Mr. Panetta has no direct Intelligence experience at all. So not only is this not "change" our President elect is showing another case where we should question his decision making as far as appointee's. Just thought you might like to know.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Friday, January 2, 2009
When it comes to politics both those on the left and the right make assumptions about their party and those of their opposition. By far two of the most popularly accepted doctrines about the Republicans and the Democrats is that Republicans want to limit government and are war mongers while Democrats are for larger government and peace around the world. I would venture to say that in reality we make these assumptions based not on actual fact or real research but on the word of others be it the media, friends, family or Hollywood.
An easy assumption that can quickly be put down is that the Republicans are the ones who support endless war and are constantly itching for a fight. In the 20th century however every major conflict the United States entered was entered with a Democrat in the presidency WWI, Woodrow Wilson, WWII, Franklin Roosevelt, Korea, Harry Truman, Vietnam, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. The only actual "war" a Republican entered was the first Golf War under Bush 1. Sure Regan had the police actions in Panama and Granada but these hardly constituted wars. So what then of the assumption that wars are caused by the Republicans? Historically this simply is not true.
Like wise we are told that Republicans are advocates for low taxes and the free market. However it Was Richard Nixon that did away with the last vestiges of the Gold Standard in this country and it is Gorge W. Bush who has grown the size of government more the any of his predecessors. Not to mention Bush is the President we can look back on as the one who began the nationalization of banks, auto companies and from the looks of things the news paper industry.
For this and many other reasons is why party orthodoxy seems to be nothing more then a slick way to get us the people to keep our eyes on one ball while the real game ball is being moved without our ever realizing it's in play. The assumption that one party is all good and the other all bad is simply silly, they are both bad, and both infinitely corruptible. If we do not put aside our assumptions and look at the facts of who politicians acutely are then we will lose the America we know.