BOO!

IS THERE ANYTHING SCARIER THAN THESE CLOWNS RUNNING THE COUNTRY? HAPPY HALLOWEEN!!!!

What is the reason for the poll numbers?

An often quoted phrase is that "the numbers don't lie". Rather than perpetuate a generality such as this one, I would revise this phrase by saying, "numbers tell a story that bears aspects of truth". Meaning when the presidential poll numbers dropped with George W. Bush, was that because he was doing a bad job or what that because the media influenced people to believe that way thereby effecting the poll numbers? Probably a little bit of both in this case. Regardless, there is a reason for the numbers. Both factors influenced the results. Did those numbers lie? No; but they do need to be taken in the perspective of the time-what are those numbers really saying?

George W. Bush experienced some of the highest presidential ratings of any president as well as the lowest. So in other words, some poll numbers really give a sense of the prevailing feeling of the nation towards their president and towards their own assessment of the country at the time. Feelings, impressions maybe, but not necessarily facts.

So what does it mean when the headlines of a newspaper from the UK states, "Barack Obama sees worst poll rating drop in 50 years"? Does this mean that a growing number of American's are dissatisfied with his performance? Or does it mean that, like George W. Bush, the media has turned on Barack? Perhaps it is a combination of both.

What does the story tell in this case? Simply put, these numbers mean that in the last fifty years, no president has so quickly lost the confidence of the people. Since a majority of media outlets seem to still be supporting the presidents actions, perhaps the media was not as much to blame for these numbers as we might have thought?

For the record, 50 years ago, Dwight D. Eisenhower was president. However, the comparison seems to be misleading because Eisenhower became president in 1953 - 56 years ago and was already a re-elected president at this same point in presidential tenure post election time. In any case, Obama started out with a 78 percent approval rating after the election and is now down to 50.  Those are the numbers, but what is the story.

In business we would call this a downward trend. Certainly not the indicators of a good performance, and certainly lower than George W. Bush was at this same time in his presidency. With Obama taking away executive pay using the rationale that their poor performance caused this recession and that they do not deserve financial reward for such performance, should we make the pay away of the president relative to the poll numbers of the time? After all, why should he get pay if he is not doing a good job managing this country? What if the presidents pay was on a sliding scale based on poll numbers? Just a thought... Right now the President earns a $400,000 annual salary, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 non-taxable travel account and $19,000 for entertainment. What if he took a 50 percent pay cut for the 50 percent of the people who don't approve of his job? Don't dish it if you can't take it Mr. President.


What do the poll numbers say for the future? Things can change for sure, but the direction is not looking positive. If in fact all the problems of this presidency are from George W. Bush, why is it that Obama's numbers are going down? Obama's numbers are for his performance, not Bush's. Are the people unjustly blaming him for something out of his responsibility? Perhaps it has been long enough into his tenure now that Obama should stand on his own two feet and take responsibility for the country he is running. Maybe the numbers are showing that you can only blame George W. Bush for so long before people see through the scapegoat.

WTF is going on with LDS profanity these days?

Texting language with its various shortcuts and abreviated conversation in the form of acronyms have become quite common place. Texting langugae includes annoying phrases like LOL (laugh out loud). The other day I noticed one of the young men in my ward whom I am facebook friends using these phrases on his facebook updates for the world to see (including his young men's president).

WTF is short for What The F&%k, OMG is Oh My (insert deity reference here), LMAO is short for Laugh My A$$ Off, and there are others. According to the church website on profanity, I interpret the use of these to be swearing or engaging in profane language. The definition reads, "Profanity is disrespect or contempt for sacred things. It includes casual or irreverent use of the name of any member of the Godhead. It also includes any type of unclean or vulgar speech or behavior."


Is simply implying the use of this language as bad as using the real deal? Or is the use of these types of acronym words the caffeine of the LDS profanity world? Meaning, are people going to rationalize this as being "swearing light" and therefore is okay, just like caffeine is considered by some to not be against the word of wisdom even though it isn't good for the body?

Drug Education Classes

I know I just wrote about the topic of teaching sex ed in schools, but this is something that I feel is very relevant and is a principle that members of the church should hold no compromise.

Proponents of teaching sex ed in schools use the idea that teens are having sex anyway, we might as well teach safe sex in a way to help curtail teenage pregnancy and the occurrences of sexually transmitted diseases.  To demonstrate how morally weak and ridiculous this argument is, I want to use this example: Let's have Drug Ed classes and apply that same mentality and see how it works.

Taking drugs and having sex are both highly immoral activities and are clearly against spiritual and moral conduct as well as secular law and standards. If public schools were to offer a drug education class would it be appropriate to teach children and youth how to properly sterilize drug needles? Should we teach safe drug use? What if the teacher showed the proper way to administer IV drugs so as to minimize risk of infection? This would be ludicrous!?

So why is sex education any different? Why is it okay to teach safe sex as if that is somehow a different concept or principle? Children are taking drugs too, we might as well teach them how to do drugs safely using this methodology. Teaching proper needle sterilization is not only similar in a phallic metaphor to condom use, it is principally congruent.

We wouldn't want our children to attend "a how to take illegal drugs" class, so why support a "how to have sex" class?

Stop with the sissy man stuff.

I found this article the other day backing up thoughts I’ve had for a few years now about modern men being weak in comparison to their ancestors. Anthropologist Peter McAllister goes through and sites how the industrial revolution took away the need for men to be fast, physical and strong. I’m going to climb out on a limb here and say LDS men are weaker today then they have ever been in the past as well.

For the last few years have you noticed how many fully capable Mormon manboys live at home even when they are fully capable of making it on their own? Either they don’t go on a mission, stay at home so they can buy a big truck. Or they go on a mission, come home, live with mom and dad while they “save money” to do something……like buy a new jet ski. And don’t even get me started on young men and their inability to ask a girl out on a date before making sure through weeks of text messages insuring that they will receive the answer they want.

Between non stop life at home, group dates to avoid rejection, prioritizing trucks over education and on and on I fear for the future of men in the church. I’m not sure what it is that’s putting this fear in my heart but how can we expect these gutless youth to load up the hand cart and walk back east when they cant even face a girl to ask her face to face on a date? How are they going to live the law of consecration when they lack the stones to move into their own apartment?

Reminder

Living most of the week in Commie-fornia I was reminded today how much Obama sucks. No matter what you Javelin-esque koolaid drinking mentally disturbed liberals spew from your ignorant mouths it just doesn't change the FACT that Obama.....indeed sucks. This shall serve as a reminder in case any of you had forgotten how terrible a president he is. Not only are we trillions of dollars deeper in debt as a nation, not only is the economy not improving in fact it continues to worsen, not only are we weaker defensively as a nation, not only is crime on the rise, and tax increases on the horizon, and welfare recipients increasing daily, and fear throughout the nation flourishing, and we are still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the size of government is increasing exponentially, and he has appointed czars with zero oversight and free reign to do whatever they want, but the list goes on and on. Buckle your belts boys and girls because it's not looking to get better anytime soon. In fact the remedy resides within capitalist principles and Obama is anything but, so strap in 'cuz the wild ride is just beginning. Prepare for the same crap that Carter put us through, gas prices out of control, inflation through the roof, interest rates at 17%, Iranian hostage crises, etc. etc. It is the natural cycle for liberals to do everything they can to run the country into the ground as fast as they can before people pull their heads out of their you know whats, and put someone in office like Ronald Reagan who then attempts to undue the damage done from his predecessor. Hopefully this go around it won't be undoable.

It’s ok to lie if you get what you want right?

Any one with an ounce of critical thinking knows by this time that climate change and global warming is simply a cover story for more government control and a new trade from their friends on Wall Street to get rich off. However there are some of the government educated, brain washed youth out there who hold on to the notion that polar bears are drowning and ice is melting.

However yesterday we got just another show of how desperate the left is to hoist Cap and Trade on the public. Showing their pragmatic “ends justify the means” mentality “advocates” of increased climate taxes created a fake Chamber of Commerce press conference where they pretended to redefine the Chamber’s position on global warming. The lie was interrupted when mid way through espousing how clean coal doesn’t
Exist the actual Chamber of Commerce’s representative walked in claiming the meeting was a fake. Only after words did they say “yeah this was a joke” but the only funny thing about it was how unfunny the actor playing the Chamber rep was. When caught he had the look of a dear in the head lights, the only thing that would have added to the laugh factor is if the little wormy suck got punched in his mouth.

There are two disturbing factors to this #1 Why is it that no one in the media finds it scary that those advocating climate change have to lie to get people to do what they want. #2 How stupid is the main stream media? They fell hook line and sinker for an out right fake and actually began running with the story as actual news. If they don’t do their research how can we trust anything they say?

For as much “don’t fall for what the man is selling” rhetoric you hear from those on the left as they try to win converts to their cause when will people wake up and realize that the left is actually the man? Does no one hear the “control” part in Government controls? Who do you lefties think they will be controlling? For those of you still out of the loop you’re being used.

Parents Raise Children, Not Schools.

In Utah there is a debate brewing about a new sex education program being proposed for public schools.  This proposal gives parents the choice between a curriculum that teaches abstinence, and one that teaches birth control, condoms, and other parts of safe sex. This subject is not new to controversy. However, the controversy tends to be on what to teach not whether or not to teach it at all.

While there is merit to both sides of the argument, and I believe that giving the parents the option of which program to choose is better than the current system, for me, it still misses the key point. How about option C: Don't teach it at all.

Parents now days are starting to slip into a mindset that it is the schools job to raise their inconvenient little tax breaks. If the schools can teach them about sex, then perhaps that saves the parent the awkward conversation - right? Since I don't believe that sex education should be an awkward conversation to begin with, I disagree with the school teaching it entirely. Sex is not a topic that should be unclear to parents and therefore it should not be unclear to the children. After all it was sex that brought those kids into the world to begin with. Sex has a time and place in life and society. If healthy sexuality is taught to children (by parents) then perhaps some of the mysticism and draw that this "taboo" topic is given might result in a more balanced society.

At the heart of the discussion is the principle that parents are to raise their children, not schools. Schools teach about topics of civic responsibility. English, history, math, and others that help to build a more productive and educated society - not necessarily a more moral society. It is my thinking that classes on citizenship should be taught. Meaning, seniors can be taught how you prepare basic taxes, basic laws of the land, what it means to be a responsible and voting citizen. Instead we are teaching children how to put on condoms and the best way to "get some" and not take responsibility for their actions.  Not being that far off from my high school days, I remember that people learned about sex well before they entered a sex ed class. And even if an individual hadn't learned about sex up until that point, why push sex on someone who has not shown any interest by way of a mandatory program?

If a child has sex, that action is between their partner and the respective parents. This is not a matter for civilized society to enter into and should be left the responsibility of the parents. The more responsibility schools take away from parenting the less parents will learn responsible parenting. With each passing generation, the example set is one of responsibility avoidance. To what end?

National Deficit shocker!!!

According to the latest report, the US national deficient has hit a record high. Anyone surprised? I doubt it. The 1.42 trillion dollar deficit is three times where the country was just one year ago. And what does Barack Obama have to say about it? 'Yeah we really need to do something about that....'

How about not doing something or in other words scale back, operate within your means as we the people have to do!?

American People:   So, Mr. Obama, by 'doing something' does that mean spend more of what you already know we don't have any of?

Barack Obama: Yes! That and raise taxes-breaking yet another campaign promise.

When will the world wake up? Obama has faults people! For example. The left leaning media blasted George W. Bush for the war in Iraq. Now that he is gone and Obama has escalated the war in the region and the situation is worse, where is the left leaning media? Things are worse under Obama yet the same critics of Bush remain silent. They are doing the same thing therefore they should earn the same criticism. Instead Obama's increase in military efforts in that region was rewarded with what - The Nobel Peace Prize!???

Now when our country is experiencing record deficits, what is being discussed? Not Obama's faults in making the problem worse, because we shouldn't speak evil of the Lord's anointed president. Now Obama is "selling" the necessity to spend more money on a national health care system. Is the country high? Are the people of this world so love struck with Obama that they can't see the writing on the wall? From my view of this, the recent report on the deficit without a change in course by the Obama administration goes to show that Obama cares very little about the stability of this country, individual welfare, or the ability of the country to shoulder the burden of his programs. Obama is fulfilling campaign promises to the very lobby's that he said would have no place in the White House. Could the bad ideas continue at a faster pace?

Up, up, and away.

I don’t know what the work situation is for the rest of you but as for M.Galt here mine is filled with a never ending repeat of “the Office.” Day in and day out I check into my cube and listen to the banter between employees fly. Typically its pretty mundane stuff, American Ideal and so on. This morning however everyone has been buzzing non-stop about “balloon boy” this stupid kid from Colorado that unfortunately didn’t put himself in a balloon and fly away. This summer when Michael Jackson died I must have had 20 people in the space of an hour walk by and say “did you hear MJ died?” not only did I hear but I immediately filed it away in my brain under “Crap I don’t care about and never want to hear again.” It’s a long title for a file I know but with as complicated as my filing system is I have to make it very specific.

Why is it that people can talk non stop about these unimportant and trivial matters but completely ignore the changes being fought over in our government? Topics like health care, the war in Afghanistan, and so on go completely un-talked about in polite conversation, why? Is it what I suspect that people just don’t care and are happy to keep living in blissful ignorance? Or is that people are just too polite to bring up controversial topics because they don’t want to offend anyone? Or maybe I’m just too hypersensitive to things and need to check out with a little Dancing with the Stars every now and again.

While I’ve noticed this avoidance in our actual lives in the virtual world on Face Book and blogs people have no problem venting their frustrations in open and often hostile ways. Have we become a society of people who are afraid of actual face to face confrontation and debate? I had to laugh the other month when everyone on the left played outrage over a congressman yelling “you lie” at the anointed one. Have any of these people actually seen real debate, not the watered down garbage that passes for debate during presidential elections but I mean the good stuff like in the British Parliament? I for one am all in for open debate and discussion both in person and online but it seems that finding those willing to engage is an impossibility. Until I do find some one though did you guys see that boy in the balloon? That family is crazy.

The "world" responds to Elder Oaks talk at BYU-Idaho

Rather than spend time writing a post myself, I think that we will give props to another blog that did an adequate job providing both sides of the story as well as some commentary on the same. It comes from the blog A Soft Answer. The post in entitled:

Keith Olbermann declares Elder Oaks one of the worst people in the world

 

Let's face it, when Kieth Olberman has a problem with you... well it just doesn't matter much does it. 

Defining Failure

In the documentary Picturing Joseph, one of the commentators made a statement regarding Joseph Smith that has started an interesting conversation.  The commentator stated that part of the reason for the opposition to Joseph Smith in his day came because Joseph Smith never failed at anything he ever did. This lack of failure caused fear in the hearts of those who already did not agree with him either politically or religiously. This commentator is a well respected author of the 800+ page book, Murder of the Mormon Prophet among other titles. He was a professor of Constitutional Law at BYU and helped manage the special collections library on campus. He spent over 50 years writing and researching Murder of the Mormon Prophet. Far beyond what most people would spend on the subject. He certainly is not someone I would consider to make such a statement without considerable research or argument to support his claim.

Of course the crux of this statement lies in the definition of term failure. For me this definition goes beyond what self help books describe when they say that failure is not getting up when you fall. Failure is more than simply not trying anymore. Appurtenant to any definition of failure is ownership of the results of any given course of action. In defense of his statement, this commentator clarified (outside of the documentary) that those things which others consider failures in Joseph's life are really due to the actions and faults of another. That Joseph himself did not fail, but that others failed him, or rather that the actions of others were the cause of goals not being met.

Why discuss this subject? Because there are many challenges that face our society and in our government. With respect to Afghanistan, there is a report that if more troops are not sent to the region, that America will experience failure in that battle front. Is this failure  the lack of accomplishment in mission objectives, or could it be in the loss of life? Or Both? Is death failure? Did Obama really fail with the Olympic committee? Is it considered a failure when homosexual marriage is legalized? Is failure simply the lack of success (if so then we would need to also define success)? Additionally, should we as a country consider failure as an option?

The definition of failure changes the way we approach our actions. Because the adversary works through fear, in this case fear of failure, we are often compromised in our actions and weakened in our determination to do that which is right. Bush used fear of failure with respect to the war on terror to influence the American public into pursuing a course agreeable to his desires. Obama has used fear of economic failure to pass a stimulus package in less time than he promised he would give America to read over any bill. Obama has been allowed to break all sorts of campaign promises in the pursuit or justification to avoid failure. Now the same is being used to scare people into thinking that death, or as they define it, failure to live, is something that will be the result if we fail to overhaul the health care system. Again we are being pushed through a major overhaul bill without transparency because it needs to hurry and pass. Even though in its current form, the bill won't even go into effect till 2013. So what is the hurry?!

Fear of failure is constantly used to motivate and influence people. Perhaps a more correct definition of failure might dispel the power of fear in our lives - help us think more clearly about issues - to disarm this political and social tool - and to ultimately not focus so much on failure. So now I ask, what is failure?

Let's overhaul the mattress industry

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 70 million American's suffer from sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation results in lower productivity, a higher risk of obesity, and an increased risk of heart disease. Some studies have also shown that a lack of sleep increases the risk of diabetes and that driving while sleep deprived is as dangerous as driving intoxicated when it comes to response time and judgment. I would like to add people might be less cranky and possibly fewer cases of spousal and child abuse, road rage, and an increase in rational thought (but i am no doctor - just guessing) Without much refute many would consider lack of sleep to be a significant and medically relevant problem in this country.

In contrast, 43 million American's are without health insurance. Not without medical care, as emergency rooms are not currently allowed to turn away anyone needing medical care. This is the number of people without insurance- it is worth making note of the difference. Proponents of national health insurance also suggest that medical insurance, when made universally available will help in preventive care thus decreasing the need for significant procedures and therefore medical costs.

I say, if we as American's get better sleep, we will be in better health and also in a lesser need of costly medical procedures too, let alone experience a higher quality of life in the mean time. With approx. 27 million more people suffering from sleep deprivation than those without medical insurance, wouldn't it make sense that, if Obama's medical plan is really for preventive care, that getting everyone a better mattress would be less expensive and help more people than overhauling the ENTIRE health care industry? One time fee, not a reoccurring burden to the tax payers and the deficit. I say sleep number's for everyone on the tax payer dime! Who's with me!?

Thoughts on Afghanistan

Afghanistan is an area of the world that I know very little about.  Which also means that I know tragically little about the war that we are currently fighting in that country against "terrorists" and "enemies to our country." I am not ignorant enough to realize that there are many in this world that choose to control and obtain power over the minds and lives of others through fear.  If this is the definition of terrorist, at least with respect to those whom we are fighting in Afghanistan, then our efforts seem to be worthy of our support.

A new discussion has risen in the news and in the usual political talk arenas in response to a report from the general in charge of the mission calling for an increase in troops to the region or we as a nation will experience failure in this war. Two questions seem to surface from this issue: 1) How do we best accomplish our goal (of course this would require a clear understanding of our goal is in the region) and 2) Is this war worth fighting, or in other words, is the goal worth the cost to obtain?

If someone can tell me simply what our goal is in the region that would help me out. Yet there seems to be a great deal of ambiguity with our efforts in Afghanistan. With Iraq, we knew what we were doing-getting Saddam.  Weapons of mass destruction was the reason or justification for the war, but ultimately it was to get Saddam out. Some have claimed that this was a war over oil, but in reality, there is oil in lots of places in the world even in our own country- so that seems incomplete to me. The oil might have been the cherry on top, but Saddam was the real reason. With afghanistan, what are we doing?

There are many things in life that are judged to be worthy battles even if it appears that there is no end to the work. Fighting evil is better than allowing evil to flourish. If in fact our goal is to provide or secure liberty, then this high ideal is worth pursuing.  If our presence in the area is the cause of the problem, if our actions in the region are resulting in the loss of life and liberty with no justifiable cause to warrant  the loss, then failure has already been achieved regardless of how many more troops should be sent.

Socialism, the gold plated turd.

At no other time in my short 31 years of life have I heard so much accusing of people being socialist, let alone have so many people be okay with and defend being called such. Something is unsettling about how so many have come in defense of what seems to be a bad idea of government. Understanding that socialism today is packaged quite nicely, I still don' buy what is being sold. With capitalism being a stark opposite to socialism, I decided place these two forms of society and government next to each other to see which was a good idea, and which was gold plated turd.


The root difference between these two systems still comes back to power. The power of voice and the power to choose. We already know from a study of the gospel that agency, or the power to chose, is the highest ideal. For even love is not possible without agency. We also understand that God himself was willing to lose 1/3 of the hosts of heaven as a result of agency. And if the worth of souls is great in the sight of God, the pre-existence experience demonstrates that the value of agency itself surpassed the value of those souls who dismissed agency's importance. So it would then seem in line with gospel experience and principles to support a system that upholds and defends this power of choice as well.

With capitalism each individual is empowered to accomplish, to produce, to "become" at their own ability and choice. With socialism that power is taken from the people so that the government can "do it for them". Even upon first glance socialism presents an existence but not a life.

In demonstration of support to the power of choice, capitalism embraces choice and opportunity for limitless progress. Businesses listen to the needs of the consumer or they go out of business. As the consumer speaks, the capitalist listens. It would seem that a government by the people and for the people should be dominantly capitalist and embrace the principles of upholding the power of voice. Anyone who disagrees with this capitalistic principle must find no value in the voice of the people or be in opposition to listening to that voice.

This is why those who endorse socialism do so, perhaps ignorantly, of the real principle behind socialism. Socialists don't value the voice of the people. Socialists are afraid of the voice of the people and the power that voice holds. To socialists, there is no trust of individuals to take care of themselves or to do much of anything for themselves hence the desire to take over control of many aspects of life and living. Why try and regulate something if you can already trust the people to do it on their own? Why try and regulate people into driving certain types of cars, or for using certain light bulbs if the people already want those things? In capitalism, if the people want something, they go out and get it. If they don't, such is not forced upon them anyway. To Capitalism, the voice of the people is paramount. With socialism that voice is stripped away and replaced by one way of doing things, the governments way. Why? Because a socialist government thinks they know better. The socialist voice has more value than the voice of the individual.With socialism, the voice of the people becomes irrelevant and ineffective.

I am not sure how the argument has turned into making capitalists to look like the selfish possession hungry individuals. Both forms of society focus on possession of goods. In fact socialism deals more directly with and is centered around the distribution of goods and wealth (not simply money, but wealth-notice the emphasis in terminology). Socialism's sole pursuits are centered around possessions and wealth, not about freedom and choice. The difference between the two systems is who gets what possessions and how they get them. Socialism sacrifices freedom for the sake of possessions. Capitalism lets the people decide what they want and to exercise their voice through choice. Socialism controls and regulates this voice.

With socialism, possessions, including earned wages, are taken away in the form of taxes and given to someone else and the government. With capitalism the way for people to get money is for the sale of a good or service to take place; to be productive under their own free will and choice. In this respect, capitalism is a win-win for those who participate. The person obtains the good or service and the other person earns their wage as a result; both win. With socialism there is no choice to participate and produce; it is a lose-win. Someone has to loose out on what they have earned for someone else's gain. Now I ask again, which form is more about possessions?  Those that seek ways for mutual benefit, or those who take from one to give to the other?

For this reason, no matter what cute packing or slick sales pitch is given to support socialism, I find that underneath this nice golden attractive packaging lies a very undesirable present that just plain stinks.

True Capitlists should be Environmentalists too

After watching General Conference this past weekend, among the many thoughts that have remained, few pertained to topics of this blog. One was Bishop Burton's reminder that we should be more civil with those whom we disagree with (which many on this blog are guilty of - including myself at times), and D. Todd Christofferson's talk which will probably go down as the most poignant apostolic endorsement for libertarianism that I can recall.

It was from Elder Christofferson's talk that a concept struck me about how capitalism and a more clear understanding of the gospel leads individuals to shy away from government rules and regulations mandating certain aspects of morality and life conduct. In fact, the need that government has to over-regulate individual conduct is a sign of an uncivil society. One quote struck me specifically, "self-discipline has eroded, and societies are left to try to maintain order and civility by compulsion. The lack of internal control by individuals breeds external control by governments."

In application, as moral discipline shrinks, self control dwindles and rampant immorality is allowed to prevail or even endorsed, external control from government is the result. Meaning in part that government regulation is the result of sin not righteousness. A backhanded application of this is that those who endorse government control show an acceptance of moral decay and rampant immorality. This same concept was further clarified with respect to the economic downturn as being "brought on by multiple causes, but one of the major causes was widespread dishonest and unethical conduct, particularly in the U.S. housing and financial markets." Reactions to such behavior have focused on enacting more and stronger regulation; this approach leads to diminished freedom for everyone." Those that find the faults of the few to be justification for diminishing the freedoms of many embrace concepts similar to what Satan proposed in the pre-existence which at one point we all rejected to come here to Earth. This was a choice to embrace freedoms and agency.

So how then does all this relate to the title of this posting? Something struck me during his talk that showed how some true principles can be turned radical or hyper principled and therefore distract from the truths that those ideals possess. For me, this is the case with the "environmental left." True environmentalism should be a defense of our environment, or preservation for our beautiful earth and its natural course and beauty. The environmental cause today has turned into over regulation of our lives using the environment as its platform scapegoat. Calling something green somehow means it is safe for the environment and that I am now a bad person if I don't participate in "their" version of environmentalism. TRUE environmentalism should be for us to work in harmony with, to preserve, and be honorable stewards of the earth, and not be used as a regulatory platform. Nature is something that we as a race have yet to understand. How presumptuous for humans to think that we know better how to take care of nature, than nature itself does?

This perversion of environmentalism is an obvious manipulation when you consider the new government mandated use and production of "energy conserving bulbs" that are little toxic gas bombs if they are broken inside a room or building. The government teaches that these bulbs are good for the environment, yet the EPA has a 4 page pamphlet on how to dispose of these toxic bulbs where, without following these rules properly, simply throwing used bulbs away can release harmful chemicals to be released into the air possibly killing someone nearby.

It would seem to me, that true capitalists who believe and follow the idea that life and the economy have a natural course and should be left to itself, the same should be true for the environment. The more we have tried to regulate individuals into caring for the environment the more it seems we have simply shifted the problems if not caused a greater issue to begin with. The environment is best left to the environment. If human involvement has brought on this "great destruction", how is further human involvement supposed to solve it? Said in a different way, how is more of a bad thing supposed to turn it a good thing?

If a capitalist is not a true environmentalist under this definition, then that person is like the hypocrites that the savior spoke against in the New Testament. Having one set of principles that support their own desires, while pushing aside those same ideals when it doesn't suit their needs.

Take that SUCKA!

Finally someone told the "one" NO! Apparently, it can be done! Wow this is great, really makes my day. The IOC said no to Obama's plug for Chicago to host the olympics in 2016. Rio will be the place. HA HA! Don't cry Barack. I think I heard Michelle say, "For the first time, I'm disappointed in my husband." So how's it feel to get shafted!? Apparently, you ain't bad enough, mutha.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33141209/ns/politics-white_house

Medical Issues as Excuses

After spending two years in a service mission for LDS family services and seeing a variety of mental health issues, the power of addiction, and the wide variety of temptations and challenges that this life has to "offer", I have chosen to never under estimate the power and ability of the adversary to control and ensnare our lives. In addition to these issues I have seen many physical issues have power over the abilities and capabilities of those suffering from a variety of physical issues. In most cases, these issues are very real whether "in their heads" or in actual physical manifestations.

In both cases these individuals feel some sort of diminished capacity that results in requests on the resources of others in society. In a government and societal paradigm, welfare programs with financial assistance are offered to those who are disabled or are mentally handicapped. Rather than debate the merits or demerits of a welfare system, I would like to pose this question: "To what degree can medical issues be used as excuses to draw on the resources of society?"

New medical conditions seem to surface daily. Some seem to stretch conventional concepts of acceptable medical issues into the realm of excuse for certain behavior or to explain away a lack of productivity. I was once told that there is a condition called Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED) . This is apparently a diagnosable condition where an individual exhibits disproportional anger to the situation at hand and is often seen in cases of road rage. This condition is categorized along side compulsive gambling and Kleptomania (or the compulsion to steal). Many are found not culpable for a crime because of certain medical conditions which some consider to be opening the door for a series of excuses. "Sorry your honor, I am not guilty of punching this guys lights out because I have IED." Because some define IED with the word "uncontrollable" this implies that the persons agency has been compromised and is therefore outside of the realm of legal justice.

Who is really disabled, who is really incapable of being productive to then become a drain? We hear stories all the time of people who have overcome their life challenges with great success. There is even a paraplegic speakers bureau that books multiple paraplegic motivational speakers. If a paraplegic can still be productive why can't someone learn to control their IED even if it is under greater efforts? So at what point do medical issues provide an excuse?