Thursday, June 23, 2011
speechless....
[Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Small Business Committee on Wednesday that the Obama administration believes taxes on small business must increase so the administration does not have to “shrink the overall size of government programs.”]
As quoted from - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/geithner-taxes-small-business-must-rise
Friday, June 17, 2011
Playboy Club TV show not on Mormon Operated KSL NBC affiliate
The upcoming TV show Playboy Club that frankly should have probably found a better home on HBO or Showtime due to the potential for inappropriate content ended up with NBC. Traditionally, most affiliates take on these national shows because they get much more advertising attention and because the mothership tends to all but force each local affiliate to do so. Not so in the case of the Salt Lake City NBC affiliate KSL.
KSL has deceided that they have the right and the ability to pass on the Playboy Club show on the grounds the show, "Promotes a brand that we just cannot support," said Mark Willes, president and chief executive officer of Deseret Media Companies (DMC)." Funny, later in the article Mark states, "I'm fairly liberal and I believe the marketplace decides, most of the time, but this is a no-brainer for me. We cannot in good conscience air a brand we don't believe in. There's a lot of creative, clever, fun entertainment out there. Let's look for that," I didn't think liberals let the market place decide anything. In any case, kudos to KSL for making a bold and appropriate decision.
In other related playboy news, Hefner is buying out the rest of the public shares of Playboy stock and taking the company private. Why is this significant? It isn't really. I just found it interesting that the Deseret News, also a part of DMC is running both stories while not claiming to promote the playboy brand. Why not, not talk about Playboy if you don't want to promote them? Just a thought guys.
KSL has deceided that they have the right and the ability to pass on the Playboy Club show on the grounds the show, "Promotes a brand that we just cannot support," said Mark Willes, president and chief executive officer of Deseret Media Companies (DMC)." Funny, later in the article Mark states, "I'm fairly liberal and I believe the marketplace decides, most of the time, but this is a no-brainer for me. We cannot in good conscience air a brand we don't believe in. There's a lot of creative, clever, fun entertainment out there. Let's look for that," I didn't think liberals let the market place decide anything. In any case, kudos to KSL for making a bold and appropriate decision.
In other related playboy news, Hefner is buying out the rest of the public shares of Playboy stock and taking the company private. Why is this significant? It isn't really. I just found it interesting that the Deseret News, also a part of DMC is running both stories while not claiming to promote the playboy brand. Why not, not talk about Playboy if you don't want to promote them? Just a thought guys.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Attacking a nation without it being war
One of the biggest and least talked about ironies of the Obama presidency is the fact that Obama has now put America into more wars than did George W. Bush. To send troops to a nation in an attempt to take down their leader is an act of war as far as I see it. George W. Bush sent troops to take down Saddam Hussein, that was an act of war for which he was required to get congressional approval. Now that Obama is nearing the 90 days of his power he is doing what every notable evil movie villain does, they seek for a way to operate outside of their authority as a way of gaining more power till it becomes too late and no one can unseat him.
Libya has been under attack by NATO forces with the United States originally at the helm of that force. The goal, at least on the surface, is to unseat Moammar Gadhafi as the dictator head of Libya. The problem with this logic is that Obama is still using US forces in an act of war. Just because we are not leading that fight technically anymore does not mean we are not fighting it. The rationale used by the White House is that, "We're not engaged in any of the activities that typically over the years in war powers analysis is considered to constitute hostilities," one official said. "We're not engaged in sustained fighting."
What is hostilities? What is sustained fighting? Our troops are not playing penuckle with Libya. Over 90 days this is considered sustained fighting. Even by their own logic they are wrong!?! At this point, all I have to say is, Obama is about to lose a very significant lawsuit by even members of his own party. Is this act in support of Libya the beginning of the end for the Obama presidency?
For someone who campaigned heavily against the Iraq war and the lack of evidence or reason to go to war in that area, Obama is about as backwards as a president can be in attacking Libya. It reminds me of the scripture in Job 27:8, "For what is the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul?" Notice the irony of the word "HOPE" an Obama campaign trigger word.
Libya has been under attack by NATO forces with the United States originally at the helm of that force. The goal, at least on the surface, is to unseat Moammar Gadhafi as the dictator head of Libya. The problem with this logic is that Obama is still using US forces in an act of war. Just because we are not leading that fight technically anymore does not mean we are not fighting it. The rationale used by the White House is that, "We're not engaged in any of the activities that typically over the years in war powers analysis is considered to constitute hostilities," one official said. "We're not engaged in sustained fighting."
What is hostilities? What is sustained fighting? Our troops are not playing penuckle with Libya. Over 90 days this is considered sustained fighting. Even by their own logic they are wrong!?! At this point, all I have to say is, Obama is about to lose a very significant lawsuit by even members of his own party. Is this act in support of Libya the beginning of the end for the Obama presidency?
For someone who campaigned heavily against the Iraq war and the lack of evidence or reason to go to war in that area, Obama is about as backwards as a president can be in attacking Libya. It reminds me of the scripture in Job 27:8, "For what is the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul?" Notice the irony of the word "HOPE" an Obama campaign trigger word.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
The Book of Mormon Musical - Washington Post Article
A Latter-day Saint view of Book of Mormon musical - by Michael Otterson
Reviews of “The Book of Mormon” musical have been all over the entertainment media in the past few weeks. According to the reviews, the play sketches the journey of two Mormon missionaries from their sheltered life in Salt Lake City to Uganda, where their training and life experience proves wholly inadequate to the realities of a continent plagued by poverty, AIDS, genital mutilation and other horrors. While extolling the musical for its originality, most reviewers also make reference to the play’s over-the-top blasphemous and offensive language.
Dealing with parody and satire is always a tricky thing for churches. We can easily appear thin-skinned or defensive, and churches sometimes are. A few members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who have seen this musical and blogged about it seem to have gone out of their way to show how they can take it. That’s their choice. There’s always room for different perspectives, and we can all decide what to do with our free time.
But I’m not buying what I’m reading in the reviews. Specifically, I’m not willing to spend $200 for a ticket to be sold the idea that religion moves along oblivious to real-world problems in a kind of blissful naiveté.
Somewhere I read that the show’s creators spent seven years writing and producing “The Book of Mormon” musical. As I reflected on all that time spent parodying this particular target, I also wondered what was really going on with Mormons in Africa during those same seven years.
So I checked.
•The World Health Organization estimates that 884 million people worldwide don’t have access to clean water. This is a huge problem in Africa, not only because of water-borne diseases but because kids who spend hours each day walking to and from the nearest well to fill old gasoline cans with water cannot attend school. According to church records, in the past seven years, more than four million Africans in 17 countries have gained access to clean drinking water through Mormon humanitarian efforts to sink or rehabilitate boreholes.
•More than 34,000 physically handicapped African kids now have wheelchairs through the same Mormon-sponsored humanitarian program. To see a legless child whose knuckles have become calloused through walking on his hands lifted into a wheelchair may be the best way to fully understand the liberation this brings.
•Millions of children, meanwhile, have now been vaccinated against killer diseases like measles as the church has sponsored or assisted with projects in 22 African countries.
•More than 126,000 Africans have had their sight restored or improved through Mormon partnership with African eye care professionals in providing training, equipment and supplies.
•Another 52,000 Africans have been trained to help newborns who otherwise would never take a first breath. Training in neonatal resuscitation has also been a big project for Mormons in Africa.
•Then, of course, there is the tragedy of AIDS. A couple of weeks ago I attended a dinner where the Utah AIDS Foundation honored James O. Mason, former United States Assistant Secretary of Health. When he was working for the Center for Disease Control in 1984, a project to research the epidemiology and treatment of AIDS was established at the Hospital Mama Yempo in Kinshasha, Zaire. After visiting the hospital and examining the children and adults with AIDS, Mason described the death rate and the associated infections from AIDS as “horrific.” Mason, a Mormon, knows quite a bit about AIDS and a great deal about Africa.
•None of this includes responses to multiple disasters, like the flooding in @#!*% , where the Church provided clothing, quits and hygiene items to 20,000 people in six inundated regions of the country.
Of course, parody isn’t reality, and it’s the very distortion that makes it appealing and often funny. The danger is not when people laugh but when they take it seriously – if they leave a theater believing that Mormons really do live in some kind of a surreal world of self-deception and illusion.
A couple of weeks ago a review about the musical appeared at the New York Times from a Jewish writer who simply listed himself as Levi. “As someone of Jewish faith,” he began, “I take personal offense at this show….I cannot believe that New York, MY New York, where I was born and raised, would ever do such a thing. Shame on you, New York Times, shame on Broadway, and shame on all of us who stand idly by and do nothing while the faith of others is mocked. Religious and cultural Jews need not support such bigotry.”
Levi’s point was echoed by some reviewers, but by surprisingly few. So why hasn’t there been a huge outcry from Mormons?
In my opinion, three reasons. The first is that in the great scheme of things, what Broadway does with “The Book of Mormon” musical is irrelevant to most of us. In the great sweep of history, parodies and TV dramas are blips on the radar screen that come and go. Popular culture will be whatever it will be.
The second reason is related. Jesus’s apostle Paul put it rather well when he said that Christians seek out the positive and virtuous things in life. His New Testament phraseology was adapted in the early years of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in this formal Article of Faith:
“We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men…If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.”
Finally, if we Mormons really do follow Jesus Christ in our lives and look to him as an example, then it’s hard for us to ignore the injunction to turn the other cheek. There were times, to be sure, when Jesus roundly criticized others, but it was almost always for hardened hypocrisy. He dismissed the criticism he received personally and told his followers: “Do good to them who despitefully use you and persecute you.”
It takes strength of character to do this, but it’s the Christian mandate. Sure, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pushes back when the record needs correcting or when legal rights need defending, but the world of popular entertainment is more likely to be met with a collective shrug than by placard-waving Mormon protesters.
Meanwhile, what of those thousands of remarkable and selfless Mormon missionaries who opted to pay their own expenses during the past seven years to serve in Africa while their peers were focused on careers or getting on with life? They have returned home, bringing with them a connection with the African people that will last a lifetime. Many will keep up their Swahili language or their Igbo dialect. They will keep in their bedrooms the flags of the nations where they served. They will look up every time they hear Africa mentioned on the evening news. Their associations with the people whose lives they touched will become lifetime friendships. And in a hundred ways they will become unofficial ambassadors for the nations they served
Reviews of “The Book of Mormon” musical have been all over the entertainment media in the past few weeks. According to the reviews, the play sketches the journey of two Mormon missionaries from their sheltered life in Salt Lake City to Uganda, where their training and life experience proves wholly inadequate to the realities of a continent plagued by poverty, AIDS, genital mutilation and other horrors. While extolling the musical for its originality, most reviewers also make reference to the play’s over-the-top blasphemous and offensive language.
Dealing with parody and satire is always a tricky thing for churches. We can easily appear thin-skinned or defensive, and churches sometimes are. A few members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who have seen this musical and blogged about it seem to have gone out of their way to show how they can take it. That’s their choice. There’s always room for different perspectives, and we can all decide what to do with our free time.
But I’m not buying what I’m reading in the reviews. Specifically, I’m not willing to spend $200 for a ticket to be sold the idea that religion moves along oblivious to real-world problems in a kind of blissful naiveté.
Somewhere I read that the show’s creators spent seven years writing and producing “The Book of Mormon” musical. As I reflected on all that time spent parodying this particular target, I also wondered what was really going on with Mormons in Africa during those same seven years.
So I checked.
•The World Health Organization estimates that 884 million people worldwide don’t have access to clean water. This is a huge problem in Africa, not only because of water-borne diseases but because kids who spend hours each day walking to and from the nearest well to fill old gasoline cans with water cannot attend school. According to church records, in the past seven years, more than four million Africans in 17 countries have gained access to clean drinking water through Mormon humanitarian efforts to sink or rehabilitate boreholes.
•More than 34,000 physically handicapped African kids now have wheelchairs through the same Mormon-sponsored humanitarian program. To see a legless child whose knuckles have become calloused through walking on his hands lifted into a wheelchair may be the best way to fully understand the liberation this brings.
•Millions of children, meanwhile, have now been vaccinated against killer diseases like measles as the church has sponsored or assisted with projects in 22 African countries.
•More than 126,000 Africans have had their sight restored or improved through Mormon partnership with African eye care professionals in providing training, equipment and supplies.
•Another 52,000 Africans have been trained to help newborns who otherwise would never take a first breath. Training in neonatal resuscitation has also been a big project for Mormons in Africa.
•Then, of course, there is the tragedy of AIDS. A couple of weeks ago I attended a dinner where the Utah AIDS Foundation honored James O. Mason, former United States Assistant Secretary of Health. When he was working for the Center for Disease Control in 1984, a project to research the epidemiology and treatment of AIDS was established at the Hospital Mama Yempo in Kinshasha, Zaire. After visiting the hospital and examining the children and adults with AIDS, Mason described the death rate and the associated infections from AIDS as “horrific.” Mason, a Mormon, knows quite a bit about AIDS and a great deal about Africa.
•None of this includes responses to multiple disasters, like the flooding in @#!*% , where the Church provided clothing, quits and hygiene items to 20,000 people in six inundated regions of the country.
Of course, parody isn’t reality, and it’s the very distortion that makes it appealing and often funny. The danger is not when people laugh but when they take it seriously – if they leave a theater believing that Mormons really do live in some kind of a surreal world of self-deception and illusion.
A couple of weeks ago a review about the musical appeared at the New York Times from a Jewish writer who simply listed himself as Levi. “As someone of Jewish faith,” he began, “I take personal offense at this show….I cannot believe that New York, MY New York, where I was born and raised, would ever do such a thing. Shame on you, New York Times, shame on Broadway, and shame on all of us who stand idly by and do nothing while the faith of others is mocked. Religious and cultural Jews need not support such bigotry.”
Levi’s point was echoed by some reviewers, but by surprisingly few. So why hasn’t there been a huge outcry from Mormons?
In my opinion, three reasons. The first is that in the great scheme of things, what Broadway does with “The Book of Mormon” musical is irrelevant to most of us. In the great sweep of history, parodies and TV dramas are blips on the radar screen that come and go. Popular culture will be whatever it will be.
The second reason is related. Jesus’s apostle Paul put it rather well when he said that Christians seek out the positive and virtuous things in life. His New Testament phraseology was adapted in the early years of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in this formal Article of Faith:
“We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men…If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.”
Finally, if we Mormons really do follow Jesus Christ in our lives and look to him as an example, then it’s hard for us to ignore the injunction to turn the other cheek. There were times, to be sure, when Jesus roundly criticized others, but it was almost always for hardened hypocrisy. He dismissed the criticism he received personally and told his followers: “Do good to them who despitefully use you and persecute you.”
It takes strength of character to do this, but it’s the Christian mandate. Sure, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pushes back when the record needs correcting or when legal rights need defending, but the world of popular entertainment is more likely to be met with a collective shrug than by placard-waving Mormon protesters.
Meanwhile, what of those thousands of remarkable and selfless Mormon missionaries who opted to pay their own expenses during the past seven years to serve in Africa while their peers were focused on careers or getting on with life? They have returned home, bringing with them a connection with the African people that will last a lifetime. Many will keep up their Swahili language or their Igbo dialect. They will keep in their bedrooms the flags of the nations where they served. They will look up every time they hear Africa mentioned on the evening news. Their associations with the people whose lives they touched will become lifetime friendships. And in a hundred ways they will become unofficial ambassadors for the nations they served
Monday, June 6, 2011
Weiner shows his wiener.
Politicians never seem to amaze now days with the depth of their lewd acts. This is not a republican vs. democrat kind of thing, but it is a politician, men in power kind of thing. With Rep. Weiner and his twitter photo fiasco, it would seem that insult added to injury, added to deception in marital encounters, and so on. All for what? To send a picture of his "special parts" to other women online. Wow, that does sound worth it.
After admitting to his actions and his lies we now know that Rep. Weiner is pervert, a liar, a cheat, and not endowed (that has a double meaning to LDS members of the church). But he is not alone. In fact, a recent article that was written in Time Magazine referring to Arnold Schwarzenegger, his doucheness Jon Edwards, and other politicians who behave badly. The article is a little like shooting fish in a barrel, but is worth a read if you have the time.
We all have our moments of weakness. That is to be expected. However, there is an unavoidable concentration of men in public office exemplifying the weakest moral character. It would seem that the fulfillment of 2 Timothy 3:2-6 is coming to pass in perhaps a way not previously considered. Read the following passages in consideration of Rep. Weiner, and others.
"2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts.
After admitting to his actions and his lies we now know that Rep. Weiner is pervert, a liar, a cheat, and not endowed (that has a double meaning to LDS members of the church). But he is not alone. In fact, a recent article that was written in Time Magazine referring to Arnold Schwarzenegger, his doucheness Jon Edwards, and other politicians who behave badly. The article is a little like shooting fish in a barrel, but is worth a read if you have the time.
We all have our moments of weakness. That is to be expected. However, there is an unavoidable concentration of men in public office exemplifying the weakest moral character. It would seem that the fulfillment of 2 Timothy 3:2-6 is coming to pass in perhaps a way not previously considered. Read the following passages in consideration of Rep. Weiner, and others.
"2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts.
Unbalance of power
The founding fathers established a system of government with checks and balances so that no one aspect of the government had unrestrained power. Legislative, judicial and executive, all have veto power over the other. That has since changed quite a bit.
Which aspect or branch has grown? Which, if any, have diminished? If you were to rank the most powerful of all three, which would it be and how did it come to be that way?
The more I think about it, the collusion between the executive and legislative branch has blurred the lines in their roles. Congress brigs bills that the president wants to see, not the people. The president vetos or approves whatever they please. The judicial branch is stocked with the activists that fit the needs of the president. If I were to find a great offense to the constitution as it relates to the way government operates today is the imbalance of these three branches. The idea that a president has risen to a kingly position dishonors the lives of those who fought in war against Great Britain and it's king. In sweeping fashion we are seeing a society similar to the Children of Egypt, or the Nephites who, perhaps unknowingly or unwittingly, have put a king in place when it was not to be so. A king who makes principles of godliness an offense and the ideals of a sinful life "accepted."
Which aspect or branch has grown? Which, if any, have diminished? If you were to rank the most powerful of all three, which would it be and how did it come to be that way?
The more I think about it, the collusion between the executive and legislative branch has blurred the lines in their roles. Congress brigs bills that the president wants to see, not the people. The president vetos or approves whatever they please. The judicial branch is stocked with the activists that fit the needs of the president. If I were to find a great offense to the constitution as it relates to the way government operates today is the imbalance of these three branches. The idea that a president has risen to a kingly position dishonors the lives of those who fought in war against Great Britain and it's king. In sweeping fashion we are seeing a society similar to the Children of Egypt, or the Nephites who, perhaps unknowingly or unwittingly, have put a king in place when it was not to be so. A king who makes principles of godliness an offense and the ideals of a sinful life "accepted."
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
The world of learning
After 10 years or so an break from formal education I finished my bachelors degree. As a self employed individual, a degree in the paper sense does me little. My clients NEVER ask me if I have a degree. They are more interested in what I do, the price I give and how fast the work can be done, than the degree, etc. So why did I spend thousands getting a degree.
One would like to assume that the education is the real goal. For me that was part of the goal. In that I accomplished learning a great deal in a formal education sense. But the paper diploma meant to me that regardless of why I say I know, an outside institution accredits that I do know what I say I know. In that regard the institution has certified that I have learned to a certain level.
With that being said, the degree means more to a self employed individual than originally considered. Just because people don't ask about my degree doesn't mean that it can't be part of sales pitch. I am worth working with because of the value I bring due in part to my unique blend of education and experience.
Financial benefits aside, the other reason I pursued my degree was because the Prophets and Apostles have stated that our education is of great value. In some language, continual education is a commandment. Obedience to Commandments come with blessings.
I can say that education, even in a broken or disjointed system, is of great value. It is convenient to harp on public education or other aspects of the formal education process, but even such mediocrity can be an education of it's own. It is through our mistakes here in mortality that we often learn the most poignant lessons. In fact, one could argue that because the plan of salvation is to not simply be perfected, but to be perfected through mediocrity, mistake, and to rise above these challenges, each individual can rejoice in the inferiority of their surroundings as much as they can their successes as those things which are now inferior, are just future successes as we persevere in the pursuit of excellence.
Education is a noble pursuit in it's variety of forms. Getting a degree still has value if you are willing to see it for what it can mean or imply in the sense of accomplishment and achievement. Ultimately wether formal or "real world," education holds an exalting value in this world and in the world to come and is therefore a nil e pursuit in all it's forms.
One would like to assume that the education is the real goal. For me that was part of the goal. In that I accomplished learning a great deal in a formal education sense. But the paper diploma meant to me that regardless of why I say I know, an outside institution accredits that I do know what I say I know. In that regard the institution has certified that I have learned to a certain level.
With that being said, the degree means more to a self employed individual than originally considered. Just because people don't ask about my degree doesn't mean that it can't be part of sales pitch. I am worth working with because of the value I bring due in part to my unique blend of education and experience.
Financial benefits aside, the other reason I pursued my degree was because the Prophets and Apostles have stated that our education is of great value. In some language, continual education is a commandment. Obedience to Commandments come with blessings.
I can say that education, even in a broken or disjointed system, is of great value. It is convenient to harp on public education or other aspects of the formal education process, but even such mediocrity can be an education of it's own. It is through our mistakes here in mortality that we often learn the most poignant lessons. In fact, one could argue that because the plan of salvation is to not simply be perfected, but to be perfected through mediocrity, mistake, and to rise above these challenges, each individual can rejoice in the inferiority of their surroundings as much as they can their successes as those things which are now inferior, are just future successes as we persevere in the pursuit of excellence.
Education is a noble pursuit in it's variety of forms. Getting a degree still has value if you are willing to see it for what it can mean or imply in the sense of accomplishment and achievement. Ultimately wether formal or "real world," education holds an exalting value in this world and in the world to come and is therefore a nil e pursuit in all it's forms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)