Which one is it?

Iam genuinely perprlexed about something. That something is what folks expect of the US when it comes to Egypt. Here is why I am confused:

1. Some people are complaining that we are not helping the Muslim Brotherhood to topple the Mubarek government that has been in power for 30 years. We are accused of supporting a dictator, instead of lending aid to a movement to build a more democratic government there. We are accused of valuing stability over progress. America needs to lend a hand to establishing democracy and nothing is being done here.

2. Other people complain that we try to be the policeman of the world. They say one of America's sins has been supporting movements in other nations that create instability there. Who are we to meddle in other nation's affairs? It is not our job to force democracy upon the people of the world, like we did in Iraq.

Loud voices in both of these camps can be found domestically, internationally, and interestingly, even in Egypt right now. These are polar opposite views of what our relationship should be with Egypt, and neither can be met except at the expense of the other.

Here is another question. Does anyone really know what all the sides in this protest are really about? Do you know if this rioting there is a movement for more democratic rule and a stronger republic there, or is it a movement for Sharia law and theocratic rule by those with unrelenting hate for the West?

One thing I have observed in the MSM that strikes me as very hypocritical: they seem to have more sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood than for the Tea Party. Their narrative of the Tea party has been one of violent opportunists and religious fanatacism, while the narrative of the Muslim Brotherhood has been one of glorious struggle for human rights. I have seen precious little, though some, on who the Muslim Brotherhood really are. (and who they really are is an enemy of the West)

Your thoughts please.

Interesting point....

I saw this picture this morning of a protester in Egypt and a couple of thoughts came to mind. First of all, with this post lets not be petty in pointing out the misspelling/correction of hypocrisy.

I think this protester has a very valid point. We have become synonymous with hypocrites as a nation. Why? Because we have elected political officials and allowed people to represent us who behave hypocritically throughout the world. I don't want this to turn into an Obama-bash because the hypocrisy goes further than just his tenure in office. We're supposed to be a beacon of democracy and freedom to the world, and we have allowed Washington to do whatever it wants as long as us at home can continue watching American idol and spend money at the mall.

From our handling of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and interacting with them as long as it was politically expedient because we were sticking it to the Soviets - to then abandoning them once the Russians pulled out - in turn creating a vacuum of power thus allowing the Taliban to take charge. To this latest turn of events in Egypt where Washington is not condoning the protest in Egypt to oust a leader who is not behaving democratically and that the people want out. Granted there is a lot going on in the protest that is de-legitimizing it such as looting museums and destroying mummies....but the point of the protest is valid in that the people have had enough of their president staying in office for 30 years. We as a nation should be supporting democracy and freedom throughout the world not whether or not it's politically expedient but because it's right.

Case in Point - Hillary just released this statement - "We're not advocating any specific outcome."

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/141095-clinton-on-egypt-were-not-advocating-any-specific-outcome

A little comparison...

Reagan: Fostered national pride in the military.
Obama: Fostered gay pride in the military.

Reagan: We begin bombing in five minutes.
Obama: We begin golfing in five minutes.

Reagan: Made big government a bad word.
Obama: Made big government a bad dream.

Reagan: A shining city on a hill.
Obama: A home mortgage under water.

Reagan: Just say no.
Obama: Yes we can!

Reagan: Stood up to the Soviets.
Obama: Bowed to the Saudis.

Reagan: “Tear down this wall.”
Obama: Tearing down this country.

Reagan: “Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.”
Obama: Concentrated power has always been the objective.

Reagan: Put labor unions in their place.
Obama: Put labor unions in charge.

Reagan: National health care is socialism.
Obama: National health care is socialism.

Reagan: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”
Obama: We are that generation.

Reagan: Morning in America.
Obama: Mourning for America.

Reagan: “Man is not free unless government is limited.”
Obama: Man is not limited unless government is free.

Reagan: “Government programs, once launched, never disappear.”
Obama: That’s the plan.

Reagan: “The best minds are not in government.”
Obama: The best mind is in the Oval Office.

Reagan: “I did not take the oath I have just taken with the intention of presiding over the dissolution of the world’s strongest economy.”
Obama: It’s all Bush’s fault.

Reagan: Our adversaries “counted on America to be passive. They counted wrong.”
Obama: Who else can I apologize to?

Reagan: “Trust, but verify.”
Obama: Let’s do whatever Putin wants.

Reagan: “We have a rendezvous with destiny.”
Obama: I have a rendezvous with destiny.

Reagan: Abortion is murder.
Obama: Abortion is paid for.

Reagan: Thou shalt not speak ill of any Republican.
Obama: Thou shalt not speak to any Republican.

Reagan: Appointed the wise Justice Scalia
Obama: Appointed a wise Latina

Reagan: A citizen-politician
Obama: A citizen (?) politician

Reagan: Proposed a missile defense
Obama: Disposed of missile defense

Reagan: “Go ahead, make my day.”
Obama: Go ahead, tax and spend.

Reagan: The nine most terrifying words in the English language are:
Obama: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

Reagan: “Let’s not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources.”
Obama: Why not?

Reagan: Middle class values
Obama: Middle class tax hikes

Reagan: “Information is the oxygen of the modern age.”
Obama: Invented the internet kill switch.

Reagan: Supported the death penalty
Obama: Supports the death panels

Reagan: “I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead.”
Obama: Let me get back to you on that one

Tagging the toilets

In a recent trip to San Francisco, I stayed at the Hotel of the event I was there to attend, the historic Fairmont Hotel.

This beautiful hotel has some amazing architecture and craftsmanship throughout. During a mid-morning break I took a moment to visit the bathroom. As men do, we walk up to the urinal and stare at the wall, or even the plumbing on top of the urinal. This time I noticed that there "tagging," or gang writing, scratched into the chrome of the toilet plumbing. Tagging being the practice of gang members marking their territory or advertising their presence.

On one level I was upset that there seemed to be no place nice enough to not have gang tagging somewhere - except maybe the temple bathrooms.

Then I wondered, "why would you want to 'claim' a toilet as your gang property? Why would you want your gang to be the 'toilet gang'?"

Seriously?!

Foreclosure: The REAL state of the Union.

New numbers have been released that foreclosures are on the rise in major metropolitan area's. What? I thought we were in a period of economic recovery? It would seem that the words of Obama Christ are not showing the truth in reality.

Ultimately, there is plenty of evidence on the ground level of this country that government cannot and is not being a savior for the economy. It never has, and never will be able to do it, nor should it. People cannot overspend on homes, and expect for the government to save them. The same goes for corporations and state governments who have mismanaged their resources and made bad financial decisions that lead them to where they are. It is a bad idea to dump all the problems onto the federal government because all we are left with is a garbage dump of a government.

Government spending is out of control to the point that our nation is on the brink of foreclosure itself. That is the real state of the Union. Our government has gone past the point where they can say, "we need to stop spending." Stop spending is not an option? How is not spending when we have no money, not an option?! The government is past the point of being able to service its debts, and its people are following that lead.

Right now people are loosing their homes. Some are loosing their homes because they were greedy. So, lesson learned. Some are loosing their homes because they have lost their jobs. What doesn't make sense to me is we have people loosing their jobs on one hand, yet I see job openings all over the place. Name one state or county that doesn't have a job board filled with job opportunities.... go ahead I'm waiting.

There are jobs. There are opportunities for entrepreneurship. Perhaps the real crisis in this country is not lack of employment, it is lack of humility. So what if times are tough - be tougher! If you are loosing your home, guess what, is working in fast food worse than being homeless? Is delivering pizza to make ends meet worse than eating in a soup kitchen? There are jobs, perhaps we should be willing to work the fields (instead of the illegals) to provide for our families.

Perhaps our country isn't being humbled enough, hence this second wave of foreclosures. Perhaps people should be homeless if that becomes the means for them to appreciate what they had when they had when they had it. Opportunity is still all around us - but foreclosure is still happening. Perhaps we should stop looking to mommy and daddy government to save us, and grow up as a people.

Anti-violence speaker gets arrested for assault

The irony's of this article are far too funny to avoid mention on the blog. This classy anti-gang violence messenger from the group "We Stop Killings" did not do himself or any others a favor by beating a 40 year old woman in her car outside a Burlington Coat Factory. Since we are not a news organization we don't have to say "allegedly," I'm pretty sure this happened.

For those of you interested in seeing his promotional video, enjoy the following. From what I see there should be more message and less pictures. But I suppose this just goes to show that there might not be much real substance to what would otherwise be a good cause.

Blogging on the Sabbath

I have participated on other blogs which means I at least subscribe to the comments of the posts I comment on. Most of the blogs I comment on are "mormon" related. With that being said, this last Sunday, I noticed a tremendous amount of emails coming in announcing comments that were being made on Sunday. In the past on this blog I have also made comments on sunday, even made posts on Sunday.

It wasn't until this last Sunday that I asked myself the question, "Is blogging, or commenting on a blog, an appropriate Sabbath day activity?" I realize that in some ways this could venture into one of those things where we should not be "commanded in all things." I still feel as if the question is a valid in that many of these conversations can get agitated and outside of the spirit of the Sabbath. Should Sunday also be a day of rest from blogging?

The US welfare system - the easy bake oven of charity

At a very valid and healthy discussion over at the Millennial Star Blog, we were approaching the subject of the responsibilities of poor people. In the course of the discussion we slid over briefly to the subject of health care were many good points made, one being that the misuse of medical insurance is its own worst enemy. That insurance should be used to insure against big things, not pay for everything little thing (it adds up quickly). The analogy that was used was that we don't pay for gas with our auto insurance, why should we pay for routine things with medical insurance?

Well said in my opinion. However, this was given in light of the idea of the role of welfare with respect to the responsibility of each individual and the responsibilities of government. I still have not seen a good argument relating to the necessity for government to be the source of so many welfare program through the taxation of its citizens? Why is government welfare the first line of defense for so many? And why do so many push for government to be the solution.

I came up with a metaphor that I hope describes the role of the welfare system of the United States. Government welfare is like cooking in an easy bake oven. Sure the job might eventually get done, but you might die of hunger in the meantime. For those of you that don't know what an easy bake oven is, it was a toy baking product used primarily by children as an introduction to baking that used the heat from an incandescent light bulb to cook brownie batter. It took hours to cook a small little square of brownie batter than would otherwise take 20 minutes in a conventional oven.

This metaphor speaks to inefficiency, to poor use of resources, and to the time it takes for government to operate. If we care about the poor and the needy then we should also want to see the system that can provide real help when needed is as efficient as possible - government has so far shown to be incapable of providing such a service or at an acceptable level of efficiency. Hence, the easy bake oven analogy:

Star's waiting to get married

I have heard a few stories lately of hollywood celebrities who have decided to wait until gay marriage is legal to get married themselves. The latest is Full House star Jodie Sweetin who was proposed to this last week by her long time boyfriend and "baby dady" to their child. They have not set a date because they are waiting for gay marriage first - no matter how long it takes. This supposedly passive aggressive form of protest is not one I would see being all that effective. Why? Because, who cares if a celebrity gets married or not. It isn't necessarily hurting society as a whole for this to happen.

Generally protests are designed to disrupt economic activities or political movement in order to encourage change through disruption or economic injury. But this? Think of the gay wedding planners who won't be getting paid to put on her wedding? They are the one's getting hurt, not society.

I do find this to be a very odd form of protest. I am not sure there is much value in doing so. Nevertheless, to each his own in sharing their voice.

Kennedy Speech 50 Years Later

I found it interesting that today we celebrate 50 years since Kenendy's powerful inauguration speech. I don't wish to direct commentary on this but all you all to watch the video and reflect.

 


I wonder if Kennedy were around today if he would be a democrat, a republican, maybe even a tea partier? The rhetoric is interesting nonetheless.

Tofurky

However satirical, I think it's disturbingly plausible.....


"Winston, come into the dining room, it's time to eat," Julia yelled to her husband.

"In a minute, honey, it's a tie score," he answered. Actually Winston wasn't very interested in the traditional holiday football game between Detroit and Washington . Ever since the government passed the Civility in Sports Statute of 2017, outlawing tackle football for its "unseemly violence" and the "bad example it sets for the rest of the world," Winston was far less of a football fan than he used to be. Two-hand touch wasn't nearly as exciting.


Yet it wasn't the game that Winston was uninterested in. It was more the thought of eating another TofuTurkey. Even though it was the best type of VeggieMeat available after the government revised the American Anti-Obesity Act of 2018, adding fowl to the list of federally-forbidden foods, (which already included potatoes, cranberry sauce and mince-meat pie), it wasn't anything like real turkey. And ever since the government officially changed the name of "Thanksgiving Day" to "A National Day of Atonement" in 2020 to officially acknowledge the Pilgrims' historically brutal treatment of Native Americans, the holiday had lost a lot of its luster.


Eating in the dining room was also a bit daunting. The unearthly gleam of government-mandated fluorescent light bulbs made the TofuTurkey look even weirder than it actually was, and the room was always cold. Ever since Congress passed the Power Conservation Act of 2016, mandating all thermostats-which were monitored and controlled by the electric company-be kept at 68 degrees, every room on the north side of the house was barely tolerable throughout the entire winter.


Still, it was good getting together with family. Or at least most of the family. Winston missed his mother, who passed on in October, when she had used up her legal allotment of life-saving medical treatment. He had had many heated conversations with the Regional Health Consortium, spawned when the private insurance market finally went bankrupt, and everyone was forced into the government health care program. And though he demanded she be kept on her treatment, it was a futile effort. "The RHC's resources are limited," explained the government bureaucrat Winston spoke with on the phone. "Your mother received all the benefits to which she was entitled. I'm sorry for your loss."


Ed couldn't make it either. He had forgotten to plug in his electric car last night, the only kind available after the Anti-Fossil Fuel Bill of 2021 outlawed the use of the combustion engines-for everyone but government officials. The fifty mile round trip was about ten miles too far, and Ed didn't want to spend a frosty night on the road somewhere between here and there.


Thankfully, Winston's brother, John, and his wife were flying in. Winston made sure that the dining room chairs had extra cushions for the occasion. No one complained more than John about the pain of sitting down so soon after the government-mandated cavity searches at airports, which severely aggravated his hemorrhoids. Ever since a terrorist successfully smuggled a cavity bomb onto a jetliner, the TSA told Americans the added "inconvenience" was an "absolute necessity" in order to stay "one step ahead of the terrorists." Winston's own body had grown accustomed to such probing ever since the government expanded their scope to just about anywhere a crowd gathered, via Anti-Profiling Act of 2022. That law made it a crime to single out any group or individual for "unequal scrutiny," even when probable cause was involved. Thus, cavity searches at malls, train stations, bus depots, etc., etc., had become almost routine. Almost..


The Supreme Court is reviewing the statute, but most Americans expect a Court composed of six progressives and three conservatives to leave the law intact. "A living Constitution is extremely flexible," said the Court's eldest member, Elena Kagan . " Europe has had laws like this one for years.. We should learn from their example," she added.


Winston's thoughts turned to his own children. He got along fairly well with his 12-year-old daughter, Brittany, mostly because she ignored him. Winston had long ago surrendered to the idea that she could text anyone at any time, even during Atonement Dinner. Their only real confrontation had occurred when he limited her to 50,000 texts a month, explaining that was all he could afford. She whined for a week, but got over it.


His 16-year-old son, Jason, was another matter altogether. Perhaps it was the constant bombarding he got in public school that global warming , the bird flu , terrorism or any of a number of other calamities were "just around the corner," but Jason had developed a kind of nihilistic attitude that ranged between simmering surliness and outright hostility. It didn't help that Jason had reported his father to the police for smoking a cigarette in the house, an act made criminal by the Smoking Control Statute of 2018, which outlawed smoking anywhere within 500 feet of another human being. Winston paid the $5000 fine, which might have been considered excessive before the American dollar became virtually worthless as a result of QE13. The latest round of quantitative easing the federal government initiated was, once again, to "spur economic growth." This time they promised to push unemployment below its years-long rate of 18%, but Winston was not particularly hopeful.


Yet the family had a lot for which to be thankful, Winston thought, before remembering it was a Day of Atonement . At least he had his memories. He felt a twinge of sadness when he realized his children would never know what life was like in the Good Old Days, long before government promises to make life "fair for everyone" realized their full potential. Winston, like so many of his fellow Americans, never realized how much things could change when they didn't happen all at once, but little by little, so people could get used to them.
He wondered what might have happened if the public had stood up while there was still time, maybe back around 2010, when all the real nonsense began. "Maybe we wouldn't be where we are today if we'd just said 'enough is enough' when we had the chance," he thought.

Christ - the new swear word?

As I was watching the Golden Globes this last weekend, I was surprised by something that happened repeatedly throughout the broadcast. When the word Christ was used, it was censored as if it were a swear word. This most notably happened during Robert De Niro's acceptance speech. It also happened right from the start of the show with the opening monologue from Ricky Gervais (who was quite brutal if I might add - funny, but brutal.)

The first time I saw it I thought, oh, this must be just an audio glitch. Every time "Christ" was uttered, it was censored. Now, one might make the argument that it was done out of respect..... please. Hollywood does not respect Christ. Plus, if this were out of respect, then the final joke of the evening would have to have been censored as well. "Thank you God for making me an atheist."

Am I surprised by this? Not really, yet at the same time I am, because I never thought that the organization and the people who constantly champion freedom of expression and battle against censorship seem to have no problem with censoring anything that might condemn their capitalizing on immorality. The Golden Globes are awards from the Hollywood Foreign Press - a media outlet censoring? Does that not seem crazy? I know that isn't NBC doing it either because they say that all the time on other NBC shows.

Not sure how many people even noticed it, but a few did anyway.

Freedom is Refreshing

Freedom.

It is like 7-Up for the soul.

Yeah... its lemon-lime (cannot say lymon, because that is Sprite, after all) effervesence that makes your nose tickle when you take that first drink? That is the feeling of freedom.

I am talking about all kinds of freedom.

The freedom to stand up on a soapbox in a park and proudly proclaim your beliefs without worrying about being arrested (so long as you are not inciting violence).

The freedom to carry your Beretta where- and whenever (nearly) you want to do so.
(Aside: For the record, that is "Beretta" not "Baretta": it is difficult to carry a private investigator wherever you go, let alone his cockatoo 'Fred.').

The freedom to vote for whomever you wish without fear of reprisal or intimidation.

The freedom to read, or write, the books you want without oppression or censorship.

The freedom to be able to worship how, where, and when you desire.

Except in the so-called Bloggernacle, apparently.

Unfortunately, it is an all-too-common practice among supposedly observant Latter-day Saint blog-hosts/-moderators to moderate, censor, and yes, even stifle debate. That is to say, debate against the ideas they believe and support. They willingly moderate and hold posts, preparing and scripting their responses. And then, when they feel they are losing or have lost the argument, shut down the comments altogether. Who knows why they do it: fear? hatred? shame? I do not claim to know. All I know is that, when faced with a little opposition, they inevitably suddenly up and walk away home, taking their baseball with them, bragging to everybody how they won the game.... Of course, it was their ball, and when they leave, how can you argue with them that they won the game?

That is one reason I am proud to be a member of this blog. The Spirit of The Law, regardless of how vitriolic some of us moderators become, it is in defense of our beliefs, beliefs that are under common and vile attacks elsewhere in the supposedly observant and routinely hypocritical LDS Bloggernacle. A place where the Brethren of the Church have urged members to bear our testimonies of the Living Christ and of the truthfulness of His Gospel, and the Restoration of the Gospel in the Latter-days. A place where, all too often, those testimonies are belittled and challenged by those who think that those Brethren--Brethren they supposedly sustain, by the way--are out-dated in their thinking, that they "just don't understand," or even worse, bigots and/or deranged.

Yes, this is the state of a large portion of the "Bloggernacle." It is a hostile place out there. Heck, sometimes it is a hostile place here, too. None of us is perfect, after all.

But for those of you who disagree with the moderators of this site, remember this: at least here, you -- a dissenter -- you get a hearing. I am not sure that I can remember an instance of any of the moderators shutting down argument or locking up a thread. Here, we understand Agency; we may not agree with your choice, or your perspective, or your comments, but you are free to make your argument.

For this, I say 'thank you' to my fellow moderators. I can feel my nose tickling.

And that is Freedom.

Look what the hosers up north are up to!

I have not posted for a few months now, but will jump back into the fray. So I saw that yesterday the Canadian equivalent tothe FCC decided to ban this song from the airwaves unless it is reworded, because it has the word "Faggot". Please nobody ever tell me again that Canada is a more enlightened nation than ours.



Apparently some radio stations are already planning protests, with Money for Nothing marathons planned - click on the title of this post to see a link to this story.

I could understand someone not playing the video for the brief racy pictures of the hot chick more than for I can for use of the word "faggot". Either way I am not into "banning". I think whatever is percieved as bad speech should be countered with more speech. I get "public decency" clauses, as I dont want pornographic billboards for my kids to see, but this is ridiculous.

What else? Should the video be banned because it shows someone smoking? How about because it shows a heavy set guy (and we dont want to make our kids think that being heavy is OK)? What about all those appliances (it supports consumerism!)?.

Is this worth a national board banning an old song, when current songs are WAAAY worse?

Come work at the State Department!

So I was researching the State Department today to find out about what career opporunities are available, and I stumbled upon this video - "I advocate for America."
Michelle and Mary, U.S. Diplomats, Public Diplomacy Career Track, Political Career Track
"Mary let her career development officer know that I was going to be starting A-100, which is the orientation class, immediately prior to me joining the service. And they assigned us to serve together in Jerusalem. And in fact, even before it became policy to work to try to keep us together the way they keep together married opposite sex couples the department has been very good to us in terms of working to keep us together and having us serve together."

This is an official video promoting the State Department's advocacy of homosexual couples wanting to serve together - http://careers.state.gov/learn/who-we-are/employee-experiences?movname=jayne Apparently the video has a masked direct link so I can't upload it on here, but I just wanted to get this blog's take on the promotional nature from within a government department of homosexuality in the workplace. It's another aspect of the "Great gay debate" and this aspect to me comes off as....well unprofessional. Why? Because sexual orientation is not something to be discussed in a professional work environment.

Elvis said it best

In the popular song "A Little Less Conversation" Elvis gave some prophetic words he probably didn't see applying to today's congress of the United States. The opening lines go as follows:

A little less conversation, a little more action please

All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me

A little more bite and a little less bark

A little less fight and a little more spark

Close your mouth and open up your heart and baby satisfy me

Okay, so I wouldn't refer to the congress as my "baby" but the idea isn't too far off. I would love to be in love with our government. In order for this to happen, I would like to think that a little less talking and a little more doing would make for a more efficient government. In some ways this message applies to us as citizens as well. Perhaps for every nasty word given against a politician we must balance that with some act in service of our communities or our nation.

For those unfamiliar with the song, you can watch the original version in one of Elvis's movies here.

Political Baloney Detector

I have become exposed to another blog that is worth reading if you should feel so included. The Gently Hew Stone Blog presents some well thought out issues facing society. In a recent blog written in response to the tragic shooting in Arizona, was introduced this idea of political baloney and how we can sift through what is truth and what is fiction when it comes to party politics. Unfortunately, most political baloney detectors I know of have fried from over use in the recent years....

I hope you all stop by and give the article a read. It is well done and is valuable for our discussions on this blog as well.

If being gay isn't a choice, how do we explain bi-sexuals?

First question:

The debate will probably continue to go on and on as to whether or not someone is born gay, or born with same sex attraction. Even though the latest sciences have not been able to give a solid biological defense, I suppose people will still assume individuals will argue towards something that is outside of their own control as a method of separating themselves and demanding more from society.

I do believe that individuals are given different challenges in life including same sex attraction. But I do believe that it is something that people can chose to overcome... should they chose to. General Authorities have spoken to this issue stating that homosexuality is something exclusive to this life. It did not exist in the pre-mortal life and it won't in the life to come. In other words, homosexuality is not something that is part of your spiritual DNA regardless of how this challenge manifests itself physically here in mortality.

The gay community is somewhat divided over doing "gay science." Some seek for a biological defense to show that they are born this way and therefore should not be discriminated against for their preference. On the other side, some in the gay community look at the genetic science behind homosexuality and are afraid that if a genetic cause for homosexuality is found, that scientists will then provide a "cure" for this genetic discovery (should there ever be one). I say, (attn: gay community) if there is truly nothing wrong with being gay, as is so often interjected in conversation and argument, then there is also nothing wrong with being straight - right? And if there is nothing wrong with being straight, then why fight a "cure?" While one may not have a choice as to their sexuality from birth (using their argument, not mine), why not give someone the choice to be straight if that is biologically manipulatable?

Second question:

Following the same idea that gays often use, that being gay is not a choice but how you are born, how then do gays explain bi-sexuality? I mean this seriously. I have not heard an excuse, explanation, anything from the gay community to explain how someone is bi-sexual, or in other words, how someone can have a choice of who they like; man or woman? Are people born bi-sexual according to the gay community?

Bring it!

I'm getting really sick and tired of the harrassment of people sharing their opinions about Barack Hussein Obama. R Lee Ermey issued an apology after his comments about B.H.O. which basically consisted of - Obama is trying to implement socialism in America which is destroying it. I understand Gunney feeling the need to apologize only in the consideration that the event was not the correct venue for sharing such opinions - it was a toys for tots fundraiser. Other than that his comments do not necessitate an apology - it's an opinion. Why isn't Matt Damon harrassed to the point of public apology for all of his asenine comments? Or any other celebretard for that matter.... And then there's UFC Fighter Jacob Volkman who said he'd like to fight Obama in the ring, and recieves a visit from the Secret Service!?! How much money was wasted flying the Secret Service to Minnesota, per diem, putting 'em up in a hotel, so they could question Volkman about comments he did not deny making?! Come on, this is ridiculous. We're precipitating into a pre-WWII Germany, with Gestapo and SS (not the secret service) harrassing citizens for disparaging comments about the nation's leader.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news;_ylt=AkPS94eW5I.6m1uc2HBwXPFzfNdF?slug=mmaweekly-b0eb628c4e352ae5a67151dca2a17281

What or who opposes Mormonism?

I came across this quote from Neal A. Maxwell that I felt was relevant and worth sharing. We live in a time where more and more people are empowered through the accessibility of blogs and other media, to attack the church and the work that we are truly about. It is their right and of course I defend their right to do so. However, that does not make this quote any less applicable.

Here goes:

“If the Church were not true, our enemies would be bored rather than threatened, and acquiescent rather than anxious. Hell is moved only when things move heavenward.”

Mexican, the new N-word?

For years now, the "N"-word has been a taboo part of vernacular.... that is unless you are an African American....

Then the other day I was eating lunch with a friend and I was talking about my brother-in-law - who is Mexican. Not just Mexican decent, but a Mexican citizen. In the course of the conversation I realized that when it came time to speak of his nationality we whispered the word "Mexican" almost as if it was an insult to speak of him that way.

I stopped myself and wondered, what is wrong with me? Following that conversation I noticed that I was not the only one that was talking that way. Is that a Utah thing? An American thing? Anyone?

I don't mean anything derogatory in my use of the word, which is why I laugh about it now. In your various parts of the world, is the term Mexican a descriptive, as it should be, of nationality and heritage, or is it used with caution so as to not offend anyone?