No Kid For You! - No parents for fat kids

One of the great challenges of governance is how far the government is to mingle in the lives of its citizens. According to one Harvard professor, he believes that if a parent allows their children to get too fat, too obese, that is grounds for the government to take away the kids. The assumption is that obesity constitutes a similar risk or condition to abuse.

I originally heard about this story from ABC news with an accompanying video piece. The story is controversial because the principle is correct in that having obese children is a bad thing for the child. In some ways I would agree that obesity, when it is not medically uncontrollable due to a glandular issue etc., is a serious health problem and is bad parenting. However, I also believe that the government is walking a very dangerous line in taking kids away when perhaps there is more to the story than a cold government can regulate. Parenting is a sacred responsibility. The church does not take children away because the parents don't teach the gospel in the home. In a spiritual parallel they are very similar. Obesity is not a permanent condition and can be remedied.

No dough until there is a "no debt" plan

Some businesses are taking a very powerful and notable stand with respect to the actions of the federal government. Starbucks is leading the way in saying, "We will withhold campaign contributions until a long term debt solution is reached." Wow, bravo.

Apparently hundreds of other companies and individuals are behind this effort. Perhaps we should be too.

Cool new Custom Scripture Service

We don't normally do much in the way of product endorsements, but I think this new service is a really cool option for people looking to get scriptures in colors no one else has. So if you are looking for custom colored LDS editions of the standard works, check out www.customldsscriptures.com.

They even have a cool pink color for the ladies!

What video games can do to people....(uncensored)

A friend of mine on Facebook sent me over this youtube video and I couldn't help but feel sorry for this guy. I don't know who he is, but it is clear to me that he is the product, let's just say prototype, of what we can expect with such a video and computer heavy culture. In a lisp riddled rant against some changes that were made to a video game, Diablo III by Blizzard Entertainment, this particular video blogger expressed his displeasure accusing the video game company of what can only be described as a violation to his civil liberties -- emotional turmoil ensues. Not since Martin Luther King Jr. has someone spoken with such passion (okay that is an overstatement).

I warn you, there is some foul language, but it won't take long, and a few clicks fast forward to get the picture. I don't feel that this man is mentally challenged, at least not to any current medical standards that I know of. However, it does seem that there is enough reason to think this guy will be able to open a new chapter in medical science history -- Video Game Attention Disorder or VGAD. (No small irony that it starts with the initials VGA.)

Here is the video, and feel free to comment on ways that the gospel might help someone like this.

Now Watch Elder Bednar's CES fireside. Tell me he isn't inspired.

When will the Fed get it?

The stock market has been quite the roller coaster the last few weeks. Debt ceiling issues, poor unemployment issues, now the announcement for FREE MONEY TILL 2013!! Now I am not sure how long people feel that we can just keep interest rates at a zero percent and expect our country, our economy to survive. These rates have been so low for the last few years yet nothing is getting better. Things are getting worse. At some point people will realize what the prophets have been teaching for years. Debt is financial prison.

I think of sin as an act or thought contrary to the laws of God. Sure, we can repent of those sins, but it took a Savior to make that possible. Our country, for years now, has fought against (unsuccessfully I might add) against the laws of the economy with respect to debt. We have many "financial sins" that we the people are paying the penalty for, but who is to be our savior? Obama would like to be in that position, but he has shown repeatedly that to be impossible. Congress? Right, they are the ones that got us into this mess.

Can we the people be the saviors of our own country? Who or what can be our savior?

In order for us to receive repentance for our sins, there are certain steps that we must do in order for that repentance to be granted. One of those things is to stop doing the thing that is wrong. The FED needs to stop doing what they are doing wrong. Part of that is free money. The more free money that is put into the system the less the money we have is worth anything. At some point there needs to be a balance so that the system is not abused without reckon, but not so much that every individual is without the reasonable ability to survive. Free money is not that way. It is a Salvation for all mentality that the adversary proposed in the preexistence and is a principle of false hope.

Pelosi? Gutsy? Give me a break

In checking the news today I saw the title of an article claiming that Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's actions with respect to debt ceiling legislation were "gutsy." Seeing most politicians as spineless unprincipled public leaches, I was interested how one could call a particular action as being gutsy.

After reading only the first three paragraphs I realized quite quickly that this particular writer is about as qualified to judge "gutsy" as she is to split the atom. The author tries to point out that Pelosi was not a fan of the legislation because she feels that the "working man" will bear the biggest burden for this debt resolution. Aside from the fact that the government caused the problem therefore the government should bear the burden (yet the democrats don't want spending cuts but tax increases - who pays taxes - oh yeah, the working man), the author quotes a democratic operative as saying, "“She’ll deliver as many Democratic votes as she needs to, and not one more.” Does that sound principled? Does that sound gutsy to help pass something she doesn't believe in? Where are the guts? Pelosi herself even voted for the Bill she didn't agree with - give me a break.

Later the author of this article writes, "Still, her job as leader of the president’s party is to “salute and get in line and that’s what she’s done,” says Matt Bennett with Third Way, a centrist Democratic group." Again, making the conclusion that she abandoned her principles - how is this gutsy? How is this a "stand?"What is her stand? That she is a spineless and unprincipled?

Pelosi herself is quoted in summation of just how her actions demonstrate anything but gutsy, "I’m not happy with it, but I’m proud of some of the accomplishments contained in it. And that’s why I am voting for it." Translation: I disagree with the legislation but I am voting for it anyway because "everyone else is doing it."

If Pelosi read her bible she might have read a prophecy speaking in part to people just like her. Luke 21:26 - "Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth."