Sunday, August 29, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
Considering the fact that this man lived in Hawaii and yet spent an average of 9 hours playing one video game says that there must be something clinically wrong with this individual. That is the sort of behavior someone in North Dakota or, middle of Montana would exhibit. I guess some individuals will do anything to avoid the responsibility of their actions. I am curious what sort of "loss" this individual will be able to claim.
Let's assume this individual wins the case, what does this imply?
Thursday, August 19, 2010
At least now the country has the ability to pursue a greater existence. Wether they will achieve it is up to their own. I wonder when missionaries will be allowed to go to Iraq as a result of the new leadership and direction of the nation? It will be quite an announcement to hear the First Presidency to announce missions to that country in such need. An opportunity that may not otherwise be a possibility were Saddam still to be in power.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Many who oppose capitalism do so under the mentality that economic failure, greed and other undesirable short comings that are the result of human foible are unavoidable. Why embrace a plan that allows for failures, for sorrow, for weaknesses and frauds to be their modus operandi? While capitalism does allow for these negatives, without the opportunity to fail, man is limited in his success. This is true with capitalism as it is with God's Plan for this life, as well as in nature.
Boyd K. Packer spoke at a BYU devotional in a talk called, "The Fountain of Life." In this talk he spoke to the nature of man vs. the nature and accountability of animal life. In making this distinction we can learn a precept that places man above the animals. Elder Packer stated,
"Men and women have unique responsibility in begetting life. We are intelligent beings and we are accountable for our actions, even for our thoughts (see Alma 12:14 ). Creatures in the animal kingdom are drawn together in season by the compelling instinct to mate. Animals cannot be accountable for the standards of morality by which mankind is judged. They are ruled by the physical laws of nature. Animals by and large are promiscuous in responding to their mating instincts. Nevertheless, their mating rituals follow set patterns and have rigid limitations. For instance, animals do not pair up with their own gender to satisfy their mating instincts. Nor are these mating instincts expressed in the molestation of their own offspring.
"Children of God can willfully surrender to their carnal nature and, seemingly without remorse, defy the laws of morality and degrade themselves even below the beasts."
In this passage I read the principle that man is greater than the beasts because we have been given the opportunity to fail, animals have not. Animals are so regulated that they are not accountable, but man is allowed to become susceptible to failure, and for this reason man is also allowed to rise above this life and become as our maker - knowledgable, powerful, and in control of our own destiny. For the same reasons that God's plan for his children to be morally agents unto themselves, so are the reasons that capitalism should also be embraced. The path to perfection is paved with imperfections. To assume that a largely regulated system where man is simply acted upon is a low appraisal of mankind and places man equal to the animals who man was given dominion over. To take away failure is to take away the reason to do right. Without failure there is no reason to succeed. For those that wish to watch the entire fireside (which was not directly about capitalism) you can watch below.
Monday, August 16, 2010
According to this article, WikiLeaks is planning on releasing some further documents. At some points it seems like there should be an end to what type of information is released. If not legally, morally. The reports that were released seem to include information that anti-war people are salivating over such as unreported civilian deaths, and other items of information that relate to war crimes accusations against the Bush administration. I am curious how they are able to get this information. Regardless of what is being done in Afghanistan, a serious information leak is needing some attention in the national security and intelligence divisions of the government.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
The basis of the law is a tort called "alienation of affection." Without having a legal definition of what that entails, one could assume quite a few influences that can be held responsible for alienation of affection in a marriage. In my case, I could sue my children.
Of course the principle here being that there are repercussions for a woman who at one point in history was unable, without their husband, to provide for their families. Stealing away ones means of providing was more detrimental that it seems to be day - financially speaking. In this sense there was quantifiable damages that could be the satisfaction of a legal infraction. Has the damages of the alienation of affection tort changed in society enough that the basis for such a law is no longer needed? Or would having a more strict enforcement of this law help to prevent cases of adultery and the devastating effects that divorce and infidelity have on society as a whole?
Saturday, August 14, 2010
A friend of mine, a very inactive member of the Mormon Church, re-posted this note on her facebook account. My response was, "Do gays really care what God thinks?" The article might be funny enough to chuckle, but it certainly is not informative. The fact that this author felt that the presented argument is informative demonstrates the illogical standards that liberals use to form an "argument".
While I consider the argument to be ridiculous, I tend to think that this misinterpretation and incomplete understanding of the bible is what leads many to distrust christianity in general. This assessment should make more sense after reading the following article from Nancy Mallette:
In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, written by a US man, and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan.
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia PS (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian)
Friday, August 13, 2010
This is not a slam on democrats, this is a commentary on high ranking political figures becoming general authorities. After all, Ezra Taft Benson became president and prophet of the Church after serving as Secretary of Agriculture (a fact most of the world is not aware of), and then there is Senator Reed Smoot who served as Apostle of the church while in office, and Apostle Dallin H. Oaks who was a supreme court justice in Utah prior to his high callings.
For some reason, and not in a good way, Harry Reid has distinguished himself as an individual ripe for apostasy rather than further service in the Lord's Kingdom. I don't see it happening, but what if....?
Harry Ried's son, Rory, is loosing by a wide margin in the race for governor of Nevada. Who is Rory Reid loosing to? Brian Sandoval, a hispanic, and a republican. Hmmm...
I am not sure who has had more stupid gaffe's Harry Reid or Vice-President Biden. It would be interesting if someone kept score. In the meantime, here is the video of Reid sticking the proverbial foot in his mouth.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Michelle Obama's recent $375,000 trip to Spain certainly shows that the Obama's are not just out of touch with the trials of the American public as they so claim, but that they TRULY believe that spending is the way to make things better. Sometimes I wonder if Obama really had a plan beyond spend lots of money because ultimately that is what he has done - same with Michelle. Can anyone in their right mind see that the country is in trillions of dollars in debt, we are experiencing one of the highest unemployment rates in our nations history, people loosing their homes constantly, and the natural and appropriate action is for Michelle Obama to take a $375,000 trip using AirForce 2 as her private jet and the secret service as her personal body guards is a wise idea? Could they be taking a bigger crap on the American people right now? Seriously?
Funny how Obama was so quick to slam big corporations for taking bonuses during the period of economic difficulties, yet on the other hand, the economy still sucks over half way into what I hope to be a one term presidency, and here is Michelle Obama giving herself a nice little bonus - for what?Has she made the world a better place? Last I checked most American's can't afford their houses let alone a European vacation. I am not against people taking vacation IF they spend their own money on doing so. But to commandeer tax payer dollars and a tax payer funded plane to go on an extremely lavish vacation I have a BIG problem with. So far Obamanomics has been a failure, a disgrace, and something I hope will not leave permanent damage from a temporary president.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Is it appropriate for a member of the church to be a member of any political party?
Many leaders in the church have political party affiliations even though they are relatively quiet about which one. Much of what happens in the church rises above the secular and political and uses doctrine and inspiration to formulate appropriate action. I know that just because someone is a member of a party that doesn't mean that they have to follow or agree with all of the party's stance's.
Perhaps one could also ask, would the system be better without any parties? If we were in a no-party-system would that be a good thing?
Thursday, August 5, 2010
So many questions seem to arise. First, if he had previous DUI's why was he not deported then? Was it that they were not allowed to ask his alien status in the course of his investigation? Second, why would you release a person that has had multiple DUI's and is being deported out on his own recognizance? He has no concern for the laws and order of society as demonstrated by multiple violations, so why trust such an individual to be on his own? Third, 'virtual amnesty' that the Obama administration has implemented seems to be doing harm to American's - specifically this nun.
Isn't Obama's oath to protect and defend this nation against all enemies foreign and domestic? Obama's violations to his oath of office demonstrate that he is becoming more and more a domestic enemy to welfare of the nation. Defend American's first, not illegal criminals. To add to this, one of our nation's most notable law enforcement leaders, Sheriff Joe, has a 1,000,000 dollar price tag on his head by a mexican drug cartel. Consider for a moment why Sheriff Joe is such a threat to a drug lord, and then consider why the illegal immigration enforcement in this country has become a clear and present danger to the national security of this nation and its citizens.
It would seem now that the recent court ruling to strip the Arizona law of its efficacy on the grounds that the federal government is in charge of immigration enforcement is a double-edged sword. While the government has stopped to some degree the arizona law, they now have a federal judge stating clearly that enforcement is the federal government's job. From what I see, that means that the federal government may have stayed the hand of the law for a time, but there will come a time where they will have to answer for this responsibility. If you don't want Arizona and other states to do the job of the federal government, then the federal government needs to do their legally. At some point the government's lack of action, their sins of omission, will have to be accepted and atoned for.
If there was some family for this nun, I would bring a civil law suit against the federal government for failure to enforce their immigration laws, for releasing the individual who should not have left their custody. I don't think that case would be won, but the message needs to be sent. The federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to enforce the laws they enact with respect to illegal immigration.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Alright, so the picture is a flow chart explaining the new healthcare system as passed by the Dumocrats of America. The first link is the PDF file of the chart so you can zoom in and see it close up in all its' glory. The second link is Congressman Kevin Brady 8th District of Texas - website explaining the flow chart they created. Enjoy.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Einstein then states: "I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion."
So how is Einstein wrong? His view of man is stuck, perhaps as it is or has been presented to him through life experience, in a perception that man has a dual nature in conflict with itself. "Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society."
In this statement Einstein concludes that our individual self and our societal self are in conflict in such a way that creates an emotional gaza strip. As Viktor Frankl taught, in order for society to achieve its highest potential, we must view it beyond what it is now. Considering the environment that Einstein was experiencing, I understand his views even though I disagree with him. The self interests of man often overlap with what is best for society. Einstein falsely accepts the idea that, "The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil."
I suppose each has a different definition of evil. To me, evil is compulsion, lack of choice, and the the fruits of our labors are not our own. In an eternal gospel sense, we are saved or punished for our own sins and not for the sins or actions of another. This potentiality made possible of course by our Savior Jesus Christ. So as Einstein concludes that an individual pursuing their self interest instantly means that such an interest is in opposition to others in society is a false concept. In fact, a capitalist society seeks to create exactly what society wants, and desires, not simply what the government wants us to have. We are all individuals with a variety of desires and interests. I consider it a false, if not impossible ideal to think that one government is able to satisfy the needs and desires of a large and varied population.
So for now, I will say that I don't feel that Einstein is stupid, or is not smart in his field of expertise, but even he admits, "It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas." Admittedly, I am probably guilty of the same feelings, only with different conclusions.
The irony of this whole issue is that a few months back when Utah filed for eminent domain with Federal Government to seize the lands back from the BLM, those that opposed Utah's actions said that suing the federal government was not a solution and a waste of resources. Now, the federal government is using the same tactic to dismiss Arizona's efforts but it is okay if they do it. They are the federal government, everything they do is justified. I suppose the video statement (below) by Richard Nixon still plagues the minds of our national leaders.
Monday, August 2, 2010
May I first say that it is good to see that the blog is still going strong; it has been a while since I have even stopped by to lurk and read, let alone post.
Yes, I have momentarily crawled from obscurity, soon to return to my dark rock. But I was compelled to do so. I had an experience this weekend that I simply had to share with some friends, and to get their take(s).
So, I was at the local grocery store, bored out of my skull as a public-school trained teenager attempted to do basic math because the customer had handed her a different amount of cash than what she typed into her cash register.
Am I alone in this, or do you ever find yourself perusing the merchandise being purchased by those in front of you in the line?
Well, the thirty-something in front of me had the following on the conveyor belt:
- a bottle of eye drops
- a clear shower curtain liner
- two bottles of sports drink
- two Hershey bars (the BIG ones)
- four glue-strip-style mouse traps
- a box of condoms
No joke: the clerk was bright red.
And I think the man in front of me caught on to the clerk's mental vibe, because after a minute or so, he also turned bright red.
Do not get me wrong--this man had and has every right to purchase whatever legal items he wishes in whatever combination he desires. But we who observe his purchasing also have the right to giggle and point.
For all I know these could be innocent purchases, the dregs of a shopping-list, all that remains from a day-long trek from store to store. It was entertainment, nonetheless.
Which you have to admit, in a long checkout line, can be pretty hard to come by.