The Root of Money

Painting #2

2011-07-04T19:11:00.001-07:00

I'm adequately satisfied with this. People are difficult to proportion. Dang them.

The Proof

2011-05-13T18:50:00.003-07:00

Fedayking kept grilling me late one night this week. He kept saying, "Why? Why? Why?" and demanding proof. How do you prove the proper role of government? Why do we have rights? Where do they come from? Why is force evil? What are the extents of our agency? How do you know that? Basically the topics from the first six chapters of our book. Thanks to him I wrote this nice summary of that first section of the book to tie everything together. Hope you enjoy. If it's without context, that's because it comes at the end of six chapters:

Here’s how everything so far is linked together. These concepts can be viewed in a pyramid-shaped hierarchy, with the upper levels dependent on, and existing because of, the foundation laid underneath:

Proper Government

Individual Rights

Force Destroys Freedom

Agency and Stewardship

Proper Life and Happiness

We have started with the foundational truth that you are alive. You exist in order to live in happiness to the fullest extent possible. Your life and happiness are the standard to be used to judge reality, your decisions, your goals and values, and your interactions with others, as good or bad.
Because you are alive it means you have a body. Unless prevented by some disability, you also have the agency to control that body. You have the responsibility to engage it in the use of productive, life-and-happiness-serving values. What you create with your mind and body in this endeavor are also considered your property - yours to do with as you see fit.
Because your life and happiness require it, you must be left free to act on your own judgement. Life is the standard. Thus any force initiated against you is evil since it prevents you from using your agency to pursue your fullest joy in the ways you rationally decide.
Because force destroys your freedom and agency, man’s life requires the recognition of certain moral principles to guide his actions among other men. Such principles are called individual rights. Force isn’t evil because it violates rights; rights exist because force is evil.
Because man must use moral principles in order to rationally guide his actions and protect his life and agency, he may join with other men to delegate the defense of those rights to a government. Thus we demonstrate the proof that the only proper role of a government is the objective and equal protection of individual rights. Anything more than this is tyranny; anything less is anarchy.

A Simple Formula

2011-04-04T19:57:00.006-07:00

Thanks to Sayyadina in her proof-reading for helping me come up with this. Here's a short sample from my book, the chapter on Values and Ethics:

"A simple and important formula to remember can be stated thus:

Values are the life- and/or happiness-serving objects or experiences that we seek to gain and/or keep.

Virtues are the attributes and skills we need to obtain those values.

Principles are the laws that demonstrate that a particular virtue is the cause and a particular value is the effect.

For example, if I decide that a healthy and trusting relationship with family and friends is a value I desire to have, then I must discover what principles govern such a desire. One of these principles tells me that the virtues of integrity and honesty are among the core requirements to healthy and happy relationships.

The same formula can be applied to weight loss. A healthy body is the value you desire, principles of good diet and physical activity dictate to you the virtues you must cultivate, such as the discipline and knowledge for proper exercise and nutritional and caloric intake."

I'll add a spiritual example that won't be in the book, but so you can see that it can be applied to all things:

Righteousness is not the value we seek. Eternal Life and Happiness is the value. Righteousness and obedience are the virtues we must cultivate. We know this because God explains the principles that govern such things.

Direction from here?

2010-12-20T20:43:00.008-07:00

I have done alot of reading this year. Principally in preparation for my book. I covered a vast amount of material for a few reasons:

1) I wanted to present what I thought and have what my college professor called my "gang" to back up what I said. I say such and such, and so do all these other people. I thought this particularly important as a new author to establish credibility.

2) I wanted to search out what was already written on the subject, and if it had already been written well and correctly, I wouldn't have to!

3) I wanted to prove what I knew by examining the arguments against it and see if I could withstand them.

4) I wanted help clarifying or presenting certain difficult ideas.

P.S. (Also, my brain might be trying to recover from years and years of a fiction-only diet.)

Here's the current works cited list, most of which I have read completely, a few merely browsed for particular items of interest:

Adler, Mortimer J. Six Great Ideas. Collier: New York, 1981.
Allison, A., Maxfield, M., Cook, K., Skousen, W., The Real Thomas Jefferson. Washington, D.C., National Center for Constitutional Studies, 1987.
Beck, Glenn. An Inconvenient Book. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009.
Beiser, Frederick (ed). The Cambridge Companion to Hegel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Bell, H.C.F., Woodrow Wilson and the People. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Doran, and Company, Inc., 1945.
Bensen, Ezra, Taft. The Constitution: A Heavenly Banner. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2008.Biddle, Craig (ed.). The Objective Standard. periodical.....
Croly, Herbert. The Promise of American Life. LaVergne, Tennessee: Book Jungle, 2010.
Cooper, Jr., John Milton. Woodrow Wilson. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009.
D'Annunzio, Steve. The Prosperity Paradigm. Hewlitt, NY: White Light Press, 2006.
Ekirch, Jr., Arthur. The Decline of American Liberalism. Oakland: The Independent Institute, 2009.
Ericson, Jon, and James Murphy, with Raymond Bud Zeuschner. The Debater’s Guide. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1987.
Friedman, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 2002.
Greider, William. The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy. Simon & Schuster: New York, 2003.
Gunderson, Garrett, and Stephen Palmer. Killing Sacred Cows. Provo, UT: Decade Media, 2007.
Harriman, David (ed). Journals of Ayn Rand. New York: Penguin, 1999.
Hazlitt, Henry. Economics in One Lesson. New York: Three Rivers Press, 1979.
Hofstadter, Richard (ed). The Progressive Movement. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall, 1963.
Hume, David. A Treastise of Human Nature. England: Penguin, 1985.
Kant, Immanuel, and Mary J. Gregor (ed). Practical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Koerber, Rick. Curtis, Israel (prod). (2008, May 19 - June 26). “Lecture Series on the Principles of Prosperity.” FreeCapitalist Radio. Recorded at American Founders University. Podcast retrieved from iTunes.
Koerber, Rick. "The FreeCapitalist Project." In The FreeCapitalist Project Primer, Provo, UT: FreeCapitalist Project, 2007, pp. 5-16.
Krohn, Jonathan. Defining Conservatism. New York: Vanguard Press, 2010.
McCullough, David. John Adams. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2001.
Menand, Louis (ed), Pragmatism: A Reader. New York: Vintage Books, 1997.
Peikoff, Leonard. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. New York: Penguin, 1993.
Perkins, John. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. New York: Penguin Group, 2004.
Peterson, Merrill (ed). The Political Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Annapolis Junction, Maryland: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, 1993.
Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged.
Rand, Ayn. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. New York: Signet, 1967.
Rand, Ayn. For the New Intellectual.
Rand, Ayn, Peter Schwartz, (ed). Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution. Penguin: New York, 1999.
Rand, Ayn. Philosophy:Who Needs It? New York: Signet, 1984.
Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness. New York: Signet, 1964.
Rand, Ayn. The Voice of Reason. Penguin: New York, 1990.
Randall, Willard. Jefferson: A Life. New York: HarperPerennial, 1994.
Safire, William (ed). Lend Me Your Ears: Great Speeches in History. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1992.
Sather, Trevor (ed). Pros and Cons: A Debater’s Handbook. London: Routledge, 2000.
Schweikart, Larry., Allen, Michael. A Patriot’s History of the United States: From Columbus’s Great Discovery to the War on Terror. New York: Penguin, 2004.
Skousen, W. Cleon. The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle that Changed the World. Washinton, D.C.: National Center for Constitutional Studies, 2006.
Skousen, W. Cleon. The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Constitutional Studies, 1985.
Skousen, W. Cleon. The Naked Communist. Salt Lake City: Ensign Publishing Company, 1960.
Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations. New York: Bantam, 2003.
Westbrook, Robert. John Dewey and American Democracy. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1991.

After the last few books this month, I'm coming to realize something: that with the exception of a recent clarification on the role of individual rights and immigration, I'm not learning any ideas I don't already know. I'm learning facts, both modern and historical, to support them and sometimes an interesting way to present them differently, but overall I'm not finding any more books with ideas I haven't thought of.
This leads me to a decision. Is it time to slow down the research portion and buckle down on writing? Or is it worth it, as a new writer, to seek out an ever larger array of support materials for my work, at the risk they will bog down the narrative? Also at risk is my time, because I find most books priggish, inane, rambling, self-contradictory, vague, and otherwise useless.

I even paint sometimes....

2010-07-26T14:49:00.002-07:00

I was tired of watching my easel collect dust for a year, so today I knocked out this painting in 4 hours. I'm fairly pleased overall, this being my fourth oil painting in 10 years.

(Attempted) Fraud Prevention, Part 2

2010-06-05T17:43:00.003-07:00

No, we couldn't stop that old man from buying money orders every day or so, even after the Postal Inspectors told him he was being defrauded. It didn't stop him from sending money to a different person. "This is different than that other one." He would say.

While we couldn't force him to stop funding criminals, it didn't stop me from trying every which way to wake him up when he came in.

"They talked you into more money, huh? Shouldn't you just empty your bank account all in one shot and send it and get it over with? That's the only way they'll stop."

"What are you up to now $9000?"

"We checked out the guy you're sending money to, he's a middle man who sends it on to someone in Jamaica. We can't arrest him for mailing money orders. But, you have a friend in Jamaica who's living big on your donations."

"You know, I really don't appreciate being a part of rewarding and funding criminals. I really wish you would give that to your children or family or a charity or just keep it."

"The lady up the street from you just sent her last $30,000 to this EXACT SAME ADDRESS. Now she has nothing and her husband is in a mental institution. (true)"

I actually said all these things.

He would say, "I hope this is the last one."

I always responded, "Sir, it won't be. I'll see you in here tomorrow for another one. Hope has nothing to do with it. They will keep taking your money until you stop."

Today he came in for a $400 money order. I gave him the usual riffing. And afterwards this:

Man: "I came for a money order."

Me: "That's a money order right there."

Man: "No, a big one."

Me: "Okay, how much?"

Man: "No, to me!"

Me: "They want you to send a money order to yourself?"

Man: "No, it's from them to me!"

I stare. This was new.

Me: "We don't have anything for you here."

Man: "What?! They said you would have my money!"

Me: "They will never send you any money. Never. Ever. As we've told you for months, YOU ARE BEING DEFRAUDED. THEY ARE FLEECING YOU FOR EVERYTHING YOU'VE GOT. You will never get any money from them. It's. A. Scam."

It's just him and me talking while a line is forming and listening, including a private investigator directly behind the man in line whose eyes are starting to pop out of his head. (I often tried to say these things loudly both to educate customers and shame the man into stopping.

He looked actually distraught this time. I felt encouraged. Something was making him pay attention! Even if it was only he was no longer "expecting" money in the future, but right then.

Man: "What am I supposed to do then?"

Me, loudly: "Cash that money order you just bought, keep your money, and NEVER SEND THEM ANY MORE!"

Man: "I'm not sure what to believe..."

Me, incredulously, "Sir, do you remember when we brought you in and our Postal Inspectors told you you were being lied to and defrauded?! Believe them!"

He looks at the money order, confused, "I'm going to have to call them and ask them what they're doing...."

My mouth works silently.

He looks up, "I can send this later, right?"

I failed, "Yes, you can send it later."

He left, though without immediately mailing it as is usual.

Yikes. He won't stop. It's a twisted mental addiction now. Easier to hope for money and that you were right, than face the fact you were stupid, deceived, and lost your money permanently.

Why I Write. or Where the Heck Have I Been?

2010-05-24T19:54:00.004-07:00

Sorry I haven't posted much recently. I'm using much of my creative mentat juices to co-write a book. So someday, hopefully sooner than later, I will be seeking volunteers and guinea pigs for proof reading and feedback. nearly 60 pages down already. oh and by the way, it's non-fiction. So novel-only lovers may not want to apply (even though I was one of those 10 years ago).

Wish us luck!

Getting very excited for this one...

2010-04-04T18:43:00.002-07:00

Red Dead Redemption....sweet western, sweet horses, sweet characters, awesome game...

Fraud Prevention Specialist

2010-03-13T08:24:00.002-07:00

That's my new self-assigned title at work.

Customer: I'm sending these jewels (gold, electronics, etc. pick your item) to Nigeria. But I need a tracking number so I can get paid.

Me: (Sigh) You don't have the cash in hand that paid for these?

Customer: No, Paypal sent an email saying I need proof I mailed it before they release the funds.

Me: You're being scammed. Call Paypal, they will tell you that this is a scam.

***

Old lady: I need to send this cashier's check for $4500 to Texas with a non-duty stamp.

Me: I've never heard of that. What's the check for?

Lady: So I can get my money.

Me: I'm sorry...you're sending money to get money? What money?

Lady: I was told I won a contest.

Me: What contest? How?

Lady: I don't know. In New York. I'm sending this to the head of a bank so he can release the funds.

Me: His personal address near the border of Mexico? Ma'am this is a scam. You're not getting any money. They're going to cash this and run. Please don't send it. Keep your money. (If they hadn't told her to use a "duty-free" stamp which doesn't exist and leads me to believe they are foreign scammers, it probably would've worked and she'd've mailed it without asking.)

***

Old man: I need a money order for $150.

Me: That's your 3rd one today and about your 20th over the last few weeks. What are you buying?

Man *defensively*: Nothing yet. I'm anticipating.

Me: Anticipating? Sir, this is a scam. You're not going to get anything.

Man: Yes I am. It's my money. Give me a money order or I'll go somewhere else.

(Later that week, I get the Postmaster to call him in and ask what's going on. They call the postal inspectors who verify that the man in Missouri he's sending them to is legit. However, he is also a middle man scammed into collecting the money orders, laundering them, and sending cash on up the pyramid. Probably to Jamaica eventually. The old man still doesn't want to believe us. Another old man in Layton was promised that he won a boat. After he sent his money he got a boat. In the mail. It was 6 inches long.)

Let's go over some rules, shall we?
If you're sent a money order for over the normail retail value of an item you're selling, it's a scam.
If you're sent a money order for your "trouble" and asked to cash it and return a few hundred to the sender, it's a scam.
If you win a contest you didn't enter, it's a scam.
If you have to send the item before you get paid, it's a scam.
If it's to Africa, it's most likely a scam.
If you're promised somthing (car, boat, money) in exchange for continuing payments for taxes, processing fees, any other fee, it's a scam.
If you are getting a value and can't identify the value you exchanged reasonably for it, it's a scam.
Younger people seem to fall victim more to selling item-type frauds. Old people are just preyed on for their cash and hope for something for nothing. Not surprising, most have been trained since the Great Depression that they're owed something for nothing.

Please don't....

2009-12-13T09:32:00.003-07:00

Please don't tell me to remember the TRUE meaning of Christmas.

First of all, it is utterly absurd to think that a calendar date of the year has any special INTRINSIC meaning in and of itself.
The date of Dec. 25 itself is utterly pagan, set near the winter solstice. The trappings and traditions are pagan : Yule Tide, Christmas Trees, Bells, etc. I especially despise hearing in church a list of christmas symbols and what they mean to Christians, ignoring their origins. okay, that's nice. how about some doctrine in Church? Tell me about his birth, his atonement, his death, his resurrection.
If you would like to be more specific in your language (and thus, your thoughts) then you may tell me to remember the TRADITIONAL meaning of Christmas.

My sister-in-law expressed a similar sentiment when we protested everyone telling her to remember Christ this time of year. WHY?! she cried, SHOULDN'T I REMEMBER HIM ALL YEAR?
THis is especially true of Latter-day Saints who know via scripture that Christ's birth was indeed in April.

Yes, Christmas can have meaning. It can have any meaning you want. Family. Gifts. Charity. An occasion to celebrate and remember and ponder the miracle of Christ's birth and mission. But it is not a heavenly mandated holiday. It is a Federal one.

But, please, remember the MEANING is dependant on the context of the question, "Meaning, to whom?" Instrinsically, there is none, but what I choose to give it for myself.

America's Voters

2009-10-08T19:46:00.002-07:00

Granted these students are from Berkeley, and I will have more to say about that later, but this killed me. Literally, I'm texting this from my grave as I roll over. I shouldn't be too harsh, though. Everything important I've learned about history was after college.

More Work Quotes

2009-09-12T17:58:00.003-07:00

Customer, on a Saturday afternoon: Are you open on Saturdays?
Me: Excuse me?
Customer: Are you guys open on Saturdays?

I look around the open-for-business lobby and squint, suspecting a trick.
Me: Yes.

***

Customer: Do you still sell 2-cent stamps?
Me: Yes.
Customer: How much are they?
Me, pausing: How much are 2-cent stamps?
Customer: Yeah.
Me, another short pause: 2 cents.

***

Customer: I want to send this the fastest cheapest way.
Me: You realize that those are usually mutually exclusive?

***

Customer, noting our sign that says to wait for the next available clerk, looks up and says: Are you available?

Me, not being able to resist: Well, I'm married, but I'd be happy to help you.

***

Me: Would you like a tracking number or insurance for loss or damage on that?
Customer: No, it's fine.
Caleb prints the postage and adheres it.
Customer: Maybe I should get a tracking number.
Caleb *sighs inwardly*

***

Postal Carrier: Do you know how to work the DVD player in the back?
Me: Yeah.
Carrier: Do I have to push in the tray for it to play?
Me, slowly: Yeah....
Carrier: On a tape it just saves your spot and you can rewind and fastforward. Do DVD's do that?
Me: Well, most DVD's have a chapter menu you can go instantly to any spot with as well as FF and RW. Some players also remember where you were on the disc and resume from that position.
Carrier: uh-huh.
Yes, he delivers your mail.

***

You may know about Forever Stamps. They were introduced a few years ago. They say forever on them and are always worth and sold at whatever the current first-class stamp price is. A simple name, right? Easy to remember? No. Here is our list of what these stamps have been called when requested by customers. Usually they pause in asking, thinking of what they are called. We, knowing full well what they are going to ask for, wait anyway, looking forward to hearing the strange name that they will inevitably come up with:
In Perpetuity Stamps (this from a professor at WSU)
Everlasting stamps
Eternal stamps
anytime stamps
freedom stamps
perpetual stamps
liberty stamps (close, they have the Liberty Bell on them)
never-expiring stamps (you gotta watch those expiration dates)
forever young stamps (so close!)
any price stamps (no just the one price)
forever and ever stamps
adjusting stamps (actually fairly accurate)
All stamps (?)
whatever stamps (this one is creative)
timeless stamps (how romantic)
never-go-bad stamps

The War in Heaven Continues on Earth

2009-08-29T20:12:00.001-07:00

As discussed by prophets, Apostles, and members of the Seventy:

There Is a Special Hell reserved for:

2009-08-21T06:57:00.002-07:00

To those who have seen "Serenity," you know that that special hell is, in part, reserved for those who talk in the movie theater. At work, I have discovered it includes more:

People who ask me to tape up their box. Watch me do it. Then make me reopen it because they forgot to put something in it.

People who send their letter or package, pay for it, then on the way out the door work up enough courage to ask questions about what they just did. (i.e. will I get notification back on that? Is that insured? Will you mark that as fragile?)

People who come in, look around at the empty lobby and say, "Well, this is a first!" "What happened to all the people!" This wouldn't be so bad if it didn't happen every hour, and everyone said the EXACT same thing! I am sometimes hard pressed to respond with civility and pretend that it is, indeed, a shock, and not the obvious result of an economic depression. How many years into the 30's did it take for people to not be surprised that a bad economy meant no one was buying anything?

People who lie to me, saying they are sending a book and want the media rate, when I can hear a box full of golf balls.

People who try to bypass the line because they "just have to buy a stamp."

People who fill out the addresses on a padded envelope only to discover that it's not big enough to send their book, and have to get a larger one.

People who insist on borrowing my tape gun instead of letting me do it, proceed to cut themselves deeply and bleed all over my counter and their package.

Annoying, 60-ish, ex-military (I think) woman with short hair and no makeup: "why are you looking so old an tired today?"
Caleb: "Excuse me?"
Woman: "Right here around your eyes, really baggy and wrinkly."
She obviously hasn't looked in the mirror recently.
Caleb: "That's kind of rude."
Woman: "Well you know me."
Caleb: "Yes, I do."

****

In other news, I have been called as Ward Organist. Now, if only I'd ever played an organ....
Apparently, the bishopric was unperturbed when I pointed out that at least a dozen members played better than I, and that if those members were unable or unwilling to dust off their talents, and the bishopric was okay scraping the bottom of the barrel, then I would be happy to attempt a new talent, and that after hearing me, they were free to release me anytime after the Spirit is dissonantly driven out of the meetings.....we'll see I guess.
Who decided it was a smart idea to play notes with your feet! Idiots.

****

In other news, I got an email from a girl I baptized on my mission. She was a worker in a camera and watch shop, and since she was single we didn't really want to teach her. But we gave her a BofM and astoundingly she read it and prayed about it and was baptized. She stopped attending church a few years later like most I baptized. She moved in with a guy and had a baby a few years ago. Last summer she started going back to church, and her boyfriend started taking the discussions. They got married and are going through the temple next month to be sealed. They both have callings in the church. Vindication that your mission was not a failure is a good thing. WOOT!

Timpanogos, the Beautiful Beast

2009-07-26T20:54:00.010-07:00

On Monday, July 20, I took a member of the bishopric and 4 varsity scouts up Timpanogos. We left at 5am, and I was proud that they all woke up okay, though some went without breakfast. We started hiking at 6:30 on the Timpanooke Trail. I was excited as I realized this would be the first hike where I had taken our good new digital camera. In other words, it'd been a while.

We went along okay. Two of the scouts went up ahead and took a wrong turn at Scout Falls, trying to cross it and climb around it. We didn't know it and kept hiking, thinking they were ahead. No, they were now 30 minutes behind us and much muddier. Lesson #1: Stay with your trail guide. No this wasn't learned, even after this. Remember the infamous false trail after the peak? Yes, 2 went on ahead and took it, having to climb down the rocks.

You know how scouts like to throw rocks? And they're always told not to? And it always seems silly to them? Well, just below the meadow, on that first snowfield, some rock throwing commenced. And a particularly inept thrower shot a fist-sized rock into the back of the head of the scout standing next to him. A bloody 13mm gash resulted. As we try to assess the damage and stop the bleeding the thrower, feeling bad, says:

"Don't worry, we know first aid."

Somewhat annoyed at the utter stupidity that caused the injury under my supervision, I respond:

"Okay, but do you know first-aid prevention?"

They boy takes some ibuprofen and shakes it off with an ice pack to his head. He decides to continue on for now as opposed to returning down the trail.

On the way to the saddle, he gets a little dizzy. Not knowing whether it was a head injury, altitude sickness, dehydration or what, we decide to split up and send him back just in case. However, he soon changes his mind after some electrolytes and a short rest. He makes it to the peak and all the way down just fine. What a stud. I wouldn't have done that. On the saddle I downed 4 ibuprofen as a preventative measure for the foot fatigue I know always comes on the way down. I surprise myself by making it all the way to the peak just fine, (despite panting more than anyone and stopping for my burning thighs and lungs).

Above: "Stupidity Incarnate"

Surprisingly, a couple of the boys admit to severe fear of heights and from the saddle to the glacier go through so nervous and scary times. They are very scared of the glacier despite how often I tell them that it's not as steep as it looks and you actually walk most of it. I head down it first when we arrived, showing perfect technique of foot control and not using my hands. Despite a few hard sprays of snow into my burning eyes, and pushing a rock in front of me with my feet for 30 yards, I go quite a ways down and stand up to wait. Two decided not to wait for me to stop or to use my well-scouted path. No, they whip out an emergency thermal blanket and try to ride it together. After 50 ft. they spin out and roll apart, soon trying to stand and decsend on foot only 1/5 of the distance I went.

While others faired somewhat better in distance, control was an issue with lots of snow-burned hands still stinging an hour later. They marveled at my pants already being dry halfway down to the lake. "I said not to wear jeans." By this time, I had given out a few granola bars, a bottle of water to replace one left on the peak, a candy bar, 8 ibuprofen, and now a dry pair of socks to the boy who didn't read the packing list I handed out.

Fatigue set in on the boys and bishopric leader on the way down, as it always does. My feet held up surprisingly well, I was astounded. Almost didn't hurt at all. Whether it was the pain meds or the new hiking boots that weren't actually steel-toed work boots or a combination of the two I don't know. It wasn't nearly as bad as the last few times were. It was actually quite fun.

Nathan Fillion on Halo: ODST

2009-07-15T22:29:00.002-07:00

An exclusive look at 'Halo 3 ODST'

Click link to see cool interview with gameplay footage as well.
"Any self-respecting nerd knows who Nathan Fillion is."

Some Work Humor

2009-07-07T18:06:00.002-07:00

So, I'm working at 3 am this week to cover for 2 people on vacation. This means that I don't work on the windows with my usual coworkers. One such, dreading the prospect of another long day without my wit and wisdom to lean on says in a sad voice today:

Caleb, Caleb, wherefore art thou leaving?
Deny thy start-time and refuse thy schedule.
What's in a start-time?
A start-time at any other hour would pay as sweet...

Me: Uh, no. It's actually time and a half for me this way.

Coworker: Oh. *sniff*

******

Customer: I'd like to return this package to the sender.

Caleb: Okay.

Customer: I'd like to use a Smart Label so I don't have to pay for postage.

Caleb: Okay. .... Where is the label?

Customer: Oh, I need one? They might have sent me one, it might be at home, I don't know where it is. Can't I just send it?

Caleb: Sure, just address this label here and we can send it back.

3 minutes later...

Customer: Here you go. Now, do I have to pay for that?

Caleb, squinting: Yes, if you don't have a postage paid return label or Smart Label.

Customer: Well I want to use a Smart Label.

Caleb: Well, you...you have to have one to use one. Just writing the address on a piece of paper doesn't make it a Smart Label. So, I can send it if you want to pay for it, or you can look at home or call the company about a return label.

****

Lady (of course it was), anyone can SAY they want a Smart Label. It takes a special kind of person to actually HAVE a Smart Label.
As you can imagine, we changed the descriptor on those labels after that.

I was double-cast in "Beauty and the Beast" as...

2009-06-28T19:07:00.001-07:00

Gaston.

See here for full info and a full cast list.

It's Me or the Mountain...

2009-06-23T19:02:00.003-07:00

That's what I said the day before hiking it with a couple of the varsity and a member of the bishopric.

It was the Mountain.

Out of 8 boys, 4 said they'd go, 2 went.

I pulled whatever tendon/muscle it is where your leg meets your hip that pulls your quad early on in the hike. Also, we were deterred by taking a false and much steeper trail. And then finally deterred by alot of snow on the backside of the peak. So, the highest we got was the saddle, approximately 15 miles.

We have Timpanogos planned in July. I may nap in the meadow waiting for them if it kicks my butt as bad as this did. Slot canyons = good, all downhill. Mountains = bad, monsters of pain. I could cancel the hike, but I have some payback to dispense for High Adventure. I think I'll let the mountain dish it out. The getting up early part will be mine, though.

Mystery, It's No Longer A

2009-06-18T06:18:00.008-07:00

This is the trail. The reason you can't see it is because it slants away from you at a 60 degree angle for 1700 ft.

We few, we happy few.

Rock silhouette.

The Real Cliffs of Insanity.

I wish I were that cool....

Thanks to Stoffers for the expertise and to JT for the permits and facillitation.

The Best Upcoming Games

2009-06-09T18:56:00.005-07:00

Project Natal
Even if you're not into hardcore gaming, this will blow you away. Games and other activities all done without a controller! See it to believe it.

Assassin's Creed 2
This is a beautifully rendered trailer. The gameplay won't be like that, but if it's anything like the first one, the gameplay graphics are also stunning. The first was set in Jerusalem during the Crusades. This one, in Venice during the Renaissance. Sweet!

Halo: Reach
A "prequel" to the original Halo, supposedly chronicling the fall of the planet Reach.

Uncharted 2: Among Thieves
I don't know much about this one. It looks like the summer blockbuster that instead of watching you get to play.

Halo 3: ODST
Orbital Drop Shock Troopers
Who's the first voice actor you hear in this? Nathan Fillion (Firefly, Castle, Dr. Horrible)

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
Looking forward to this.

BioShock 2
Praised for its very smart story line.
BioShock 1 "was particularly well-reviewed in the mainstream press, which praised its "morality-based" storyline, immersive environment and Ayn Rand/George Orwell-inspired dystopian back-story." Complete with a mad dictator of an underwater dystopia named Andrew Ryan (Ayn Rand) and your friend, Atlas. Pretty creepy reading messages on the wall in blood like "Aesthetics are a moral imperative" and old propaganda-ish films with narrations saying "Is a man entitled to the bread of his labor? No, says the man in Washington, it belongs to the poor. No, says the man of the Church, it belongs to God. No, says the man in Moscow, it belongs to everybody."

Thief 4
Written as Thi4f. In early production. Very excited for this one. LOVED Thief 3.

"Do you know what that sound is, Highness? That's a paradigm shifting without a clutch."

2009-06-08T08:35:00.002-07:00

A picture and a story I forgot to mention. Above is another cool juniper tree inside the Fiery Furnace. Behind it is a surprise. No, it's not Surprise Arch, I didn't take a picture of that one. It's....can you guess the name?

Kissing Turtle Arch. Chels thought it was cute.

The first night at camp, a man pulls up in a camp site about 100 yrds away and proceeds to sit down on a camp chair next to his vehicle and blast obnoxious heavy metal music until about 1 am. This rude and inconsiderate behavior was obviously a sore spot for many in our group, although some boys claimed to like it. The next day, one of our leaders speaks to the camp host about enforcing the quiet hours posted for the campground. The host is old Vietnam War salt with a forked white beard, a dog, a cigarette, and a can of beer.

Apparently, the camp host had already attempted that. He'd approached the man and tapped his shoulder to get his attention. The sitting man had reached quickly for a 9 mm handgun under his chair and had it pointed at the camp host before he even turned around. He was an Iraq War veteran. Three of his squad members had died, blown up or something. He was obviously having a hard time. He and the host talked for a while.

I didn't care so much about the music after that. He left that next day.

High (or Low) Adventure

2009-06-05T18:41:00.019-07:00

I'm back and all the attendees are alive. So, success, I guess. It went off pretty well, considering all the things that could have gone wrong. And I think we stayed pretty close to the budget.

Monday morning started with my car battery dead. If I were superstitious I'd say it was a sign. But I'm not so I say it was a dead battery. After buying a new one and leaving an hour later than planned, we camped at Ken's Lake Campground 6 miles south of Moab. Most of the sites were exposed and bone dry, however, our camping angels reserved us two sites with trees right by the small creek that feeds Ken's Lake. Follow the creek up for about 15 minutes and you find Faux Falls.

As a caption, I couldn't decide between, "They looked real to me" and "Those are obviously faux."

The next day we hiked in the La Sal Mountains. Starting at Oowah Lake and climbed steeply through pine and aspen groves until reaching Clark Lake.

Two of the scouts never made it past the first mile, claiming hurt feet (in horrible shoes) and tiredness (aka laziness). They had a very boring 6 hour wait at Oowak Lake. This place would be gorgeous in the fall. Any takers for a one-nighter?

We head on up past Clark Lake following the stream, and reaching the gorgeous and peaceful Moonlight Meadows.

We passed the meadows into Geyser Pass, near the tree line and with lots of snow banks still around. This topped the loop and we headed down a dirt road through the trees on the other side of the 7-8 mile loop. At 10700 ft. the aspens had barely started budding leaves.

We took a wrong turn on Boren Mesa (now dubbed Boring Mesa) and only my GPS with a downloaded map helped us find the right trail after the one we were on faded and disappeared. I then hiked back a mile up to the mesa to mark the correct turn for those I thought were following, only to arrive at the trailhead to find them already there ahead of me. They had backtracked and returned down the assending trail. Sigh. A view of red rock country from 8000 ft. At the bottom left corner, at the end of the canyon you can see Ken's Lake.

The hike was great. Now, the young men.

Most have the habit of contradicting everything anyone says for the sole purpose of establishing their independence, not matter how stupid it makes them sound. Examples:

Caleb: We're going to be at 10000 ft. so you'll want sunscreen and possibly a long-sleeved shirt or jacket in case it gets really cold.

Boy: Why? (With a tone implying I'm saying the stupidest things he's ever heard.)

Caleb: Have you ever been to 10000 ft?

Boy: Yeah.

Caleb: And how was the weather?

Boy: Cold and windy.

Caleb stares blankly, wondering why he has to continue. I tried to adopt the attitude of the other adults to just let the kids learn the hard way. Which worked to an extent. It only took til the third day of hiking for the boys to believe me that we would be gone until dinner time and that they should pack a lunch. Really. I gave away half my food and water the first two days to boys who were too smart to listen to me.

Biking:

For months, the boys knew we were biking. One boy adamantly said over and over that he did not want to bike and that he would rather hike. I can understand that, so I planned a list of alternate hikes for he and his father. Even the day before the trip, with offers of loaned bicycles, he refused. What happens? I loan my helmet to one boy who didn't bring one after repeated reminders. I loaned my gloves to one didn't have any. And I loaned my bike to the boy who wanted to hike. I wasn't really put out, since biking kicks my butt. I just rolled my eyes. However, what is the scout motto? Be prepared. We changed it on this trip to Be Unprepared. Repeated reminders and explanations of long rides in the desert did little to help the boys be prepared. A few brought repair kits. NOT ONE brought a tire pump. Really?!

I was impressed with two of them however. They biked the entire Slickrock Trail which has an Advanced difficulty rating for both technicality and physicality. It's also 12 miles long. And they did it after doing the practice loop (two miles) with the others.

After Slickrock, I took them up Onion creek a litte ways, and after 45 minutes of bike repairs, let them go down the road back towards the Colorado River. It's a neat little canyon with a "Narrows" section and a Stinking Spring (hence the name, Onion, I assume). They loved that. All downhill, the road crosses the small stream about 20 times making for a nice cool ride.

We followed them down in the vehicles, literally "picking up the pieces" to quote Bob.

The last day, we split into two groups and headed to Arches. Saw a few arches on the Devil's Garden Trail, turning around halfway for the same masters of whining that wimped on the first hike. One of which had the audacity to complain of being bored that second evening. I only observed to him that doing nothing could indeed be boring, and he should probably make it a "high" adventure, not "low." Here's a baby kangaroo mouse.
Landscape Arch.

We rested for an hour or so in the air conditioned visitors' center and then headed to the Fiery Furnace guided tour. Upon arriving at the trailhead, the three scouts with me asked if I had water. What?! "You guys spent an hour at the visitor center and didn't fill up on water? What do you expect me to do about it? Deal with it."

Complaints were a constant thing. One adult finally observing to me that he didn't remember being so whiny as a scout. I agreed.

Complaints: We had margarine, not butter. Pancakes, not waffles. Carrots and apples included in the hike food. No milk with pancakes. No firewood. No music. Brown mustard instead of yellow. The fact that onions existed on the table for hamburgers. No smores.

Chelsea made her yummy bean, corn, and rice salad for us to eat on tortillas the second night. I expected a few to not want it. I didn't expect only 3 of the 8 scouts eating it. The rest preferred leftover hamburgers, grilled themselves after a long hike.

8 am. "I don't need sunscreen, I don't burn." 10 am. "My neck is burned but I don't need sunscreen my arms never burn." 12pm. "My arms aren't burning they're tanning." 2pm "My arms burned. I don't need sunscreen, I have aloe vera at camp." He finally put on a little on the fourth day at 4pm on an overcast day in the shady Fiery Furnace. Progress, I guess.

Caleb's humor to deal with the mind-numbing complaints: "That's fine, I'll put you on the shopping committee next year." "Who's camelback in the dirt by my tent? Yours? Oh, good I thought it might be something important. I think I only stepped on it a few times in the night." "Why? Because you'll die. So? Well, I guess you're right. If you hate your life, go ahead and put yourself out of our misery." "You're hungry? Why don't you eat the sandwich you packed this morning? You didn't pack one? Huh." "You're out of water? Where's your gallon? You only brought 2 liters? There's a stream down there."

Navajo Arch.

Partition Arch.

Me in Fiery Furnace.

Cool trees in the Fiery Furnace.

Our bishop has mentioned many times that many boys are coming home from missions early, not for worthiness reasons, but because it's too hard. They've never done anything hard in their lives. I kept that in mind in trying to plan this, but had to tame it a bit for leader health and youth weight. Overall, I hope many of the boys learned some much needed experience. I know I did.

Best Voice for Brigadoon

2009-05-30T20:21:00.001-07:00

"Canyonlands", or "What The $@!! Was I Thinking?!"

2009-05-05T17:01:00.013-07:00

Flowers in the Desert.

Happy at the start. This poor soul had no idea what was coming.

The troop. I enjoyed using the Needles map I had on my GPS to track our progress.

Chesler Park. A flat-ish grassland in the Needles.

The Joint Trail is a little slot canyon named, I assume, for the small "joints" branching off every 100 feet from the main canyon. These appeared to have been caused by splitting, not erosion.

My stone hammock.

After a climb that made me want to leave behind my backpack and my will to live we came upon Druid Arch. So named, I imagine, from the Stone Henge-esque silhouette it has.

I think this is the most dramatic arch I've ever encountered.

While the arch was spectacular, and I'm sure the rest of the hike back was pretty as well is the fading sunlight, I didn't care.

This happy fellow is the primary reason I didn't feel like taking any more pictures. That and being out of water. Since when is 2 liters not enough!? I'm used to hikes with more water and shade. Stupid sun.

The Most Recent Communist Propaganda

2009-04-26T07:23:00.002-07:00

Yes, we did not defeat Communism in the late 1980's. My history books were wrong.

Some highlighted quotes from the following statement released this week by the Heads of State and Government of Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Venezuela:

-Capitalism is leading humanity and the planet to extinction.

-Capitalism has caused the environmental crisis, by submitting the necessary conditions for life in the planet, to the predominance of market and profit. (In other words, efficiency, allowing a massive population boom in the last century.)

-The global economic crisis, climate change, the food crisis and the energy crisis are the result of the decay of capitalism, which threatens to end life and the planet. (This is surpisingly correct. As capitalism (aka freedom) decays and collapses, so does the quality of life on the planet.)

-The real need is to establish a new world economic order that includes the full transformation of the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, entities that have contributed to this global economic crisis with their neoliberal policies. (Wow.)

-Brain drain is a way of plundering skilled human resources exercised by rich countries. (Brain drain has always been a problem for socialist countries. The scientists, doctors, etc. flee the country for somewhere they can earn profits for their services. Socialists apparently think these people are stolen from them, not leaving of their own free will.)

-Basic education, health, water, energy and telecommunications services should be declared human rights and cannot be subject to private deal or marketed by the World Trade Organization. These services are and should be essentially public utilities of universal access. (This is an absurd and frightening premise, already espoused by much of our own country.)

Full Text Below:

"We, the Heads of State and Government of Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Venezuela, member countries of ALBA, consider that the Draft Declaration of the 5th Summit of the Americas is insufficient and unacceptable for the following reasons:
- The Declaration does not provide answers to the Global Economic Crisis, even though this crisis constitutes the greatest challenge faced by humanity in the last decades and is the most serious threat of the current times to the welfare of our peoples.
- The Declaration unfairly excludes Cuba, without mentioning the consensus in the region condemning the blockade and isolation to which the people and the government of Cuba have incessantly been exposed in a criminal manner.
For this reason, we, the member countries of ALBA believe that there is no consensus for the adoption of this draft declaration because of the reasons above stated, and accordingly, we propose to hold a thorough debate on the following topics:
1. Capitalism is leading humanity and the planet to extinction. What we are experiencing is a global economic crisis of a systemic and structural nature, not another cyclic crisis. Those who think that with a taxpayer money injection and some regulatory measures this crisis will end are wrong. The financial system is in crisis because it trades bonds with six times the real value of the assets and services produced and rendered in the world, this is not a “system regulation failure”, but a integrating part of the capitalist system that speculates with all assets and values with a view to obtain the maximum profit possible. Until now, the economic crisis has generated over 100 million additional hungry persons and has slashed over 50 million jobs, and these figures show an upward trend.
2. Capitalism has caused the environmental crisis, by submitting the necessary conditions for life in the planet, to the predominance of market and profit. Each year we consume one third more of what the planet is able to regenerate. With this squandering binge of the capitalist system, we are going to need two planets Earth by the year 2030.
3. The global economic crisis, climate change, the food crisis and the energy crisis are the result of the decay of capitalism, which threatens to end life and the planet. To avert this outcome, it is necessary to develop and model an alternative to the capitalist system. A system based on:
- solidarity and complementarity, not competition;- a system in harmony with our mother earth and not plundering of human resources;- a system of cultural diversity and not cultural destruction and imposition of cultural values and lifestyles alien to the realities of our countries;- a system of peace based on social justice and not on imperialist policies and wars;- in summary, a system that recovers the human condition of our societies and peoples and does not reduce them to mere consumers or merchandise.
4. As a concrete expression of the new reality of the continent, we, Caribbean and Latin American countries, have commenced to build our own institutionalization, an institutionalization that is based on a common history dating back to our independence revolution and constitutes a concrete tool for deepening the social, economic and cultural transformation processes that will consolidate our full sovereignty.
ALBA-TCP, Petrocaribe or UNASUR, mentioning merely the most recently created, are solidarity-based mechanisms of unity created in the midst of such transformations with the obvious intention of boosting the efforts of our peoples to attain their own freedom. To face the serious effects of the global economic crisis, we, the ALBA-TCP countries, have adopted innovative and transforming measures that seek real alternatives to the inadequate international economic order, not to boost their failed institutions. Thus, we have implemented a Regional Clearance Unitary System, the SUCRE, which includes a Common Unit of Account, a Clearance Chamber and a Single Reserve System. Similarly, we have encouraged the constitution of grand-national companies to satisfy the essential needs of our peoples and establish fair and complementary trade mechanisms that leave behind the absurd logic of unbridled competition.
5. We question the G20 for having tripled the resources of the International Monetary Fund when the real need is to establish a new world economic order that includes the full transformation of the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, entities that have contributed to this global economic crisis with their neoliberal policies.
6. The solutions to the global economic crisis and the definition of a new international financial scheme should be adopted with the participation of the 192 countries that will meet in the United Nations Conference on the International Financial Crisis to be held on June 1-3 to propose the creation of a new international economic order.
7. As for climate change, developed countries are in an environmental debt to the world because they are responsible for 70% of historical carbon emissions into the atmosphere since 1750. Developed countries should pay off their debt to humankind and the planet; they should provide significant resources to a fund so that developing countries can embark upon a growth model which does not repeat the serious impacts of the capitalist industrialization.
8. Solutions to the energy, food and climate change crises should be comprehensive and interdependent. We cannot solve a problem by creating new ones in fundamental areas for life. For instance, the widespread use of agricultural fuels has an adverse effect on food prices and the use of essential resources, such as water, land and forests.
9. We condemn the discrimination against migrants in any of its forms. Migration is a human right, not a crime. Therefore, we request the United States government an urgent reform of its migration policies in order to stop deportations and massive raids and allow for reunion of families. We further demand the removal of the wall that separates and divides us, instead of uniting us.
In this regard, we petition for the abrogation of the Law of Cuban Adjustment and removal of the discriminatory, selective Dry Feet, Wet Feet policy that has claimed human losses. Bankers who stole the money and resources from our countries are the true responsible, not migrant workers. Human rights should come first, particularly human rights of the underprivileged, downtrodden sectors in our society, that is, migrants without identity papers. Free movement of people and human rights for everybody, regardless of their migration status, are a must for integration. Brain drain is a way of plundering skilled human resources exercised by rich countries.
10. Basic education, health, water, energy and telecommunications services should be declared human rights and cannot be subject to private deal or marketed by the World Trade Organization. These services are and should be essentially public utilities of universal access.
11. We wish a world where all, big and small, countries have the same rights and where there is no empire. We advocate non-intervention. There is the need to strengthen, as the only legitimate means for discussion and assessment of bilateral and multilateral agendas in the hemisphere, the foundations for mutual respect between states and governments, based on the principle of non-interference of a state in the internal affairs of another state, and inviolability of sovereignty and self-determination of the peoples.
We request the new Government of the United States, the arrival of which has given rise to some expectations in the hemisphere and the world, to finish the longstanding and dire tradition of interventionism and aggression that has characterized the actions of the US governments throughout history, and particularly intensified during the Administration of President George W. Bush. By the same token, we request the new Government of the United States to abandon interventionist practices, such as cover-up operations, parallel diplomacy, media wars aimed at disturbing states and governments, and funding of destabilizing groups. Building on a world where varied economic, political, social and cultural approaches are acknowledged and respected is of the essence.
12. With regard to the U.S. blockade against Cuba and the exclusion of the latter from the Summit of the Americas, we, the member states of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our America, reassert the Declaration adopted by all Latin American and Caribbean countries last December 16, 2008, on the need to end the economic, trade and financial blockade imposed by the Government of the United States of America on Cuba, including the implementation of the so-called Helms-Burton Act. The declaration sets forth in its fundamental paragraphs the following:
“CONSIDERING the resolutions approved by the United Nations General Assembly on the need to finish the economic, trade and financial blockade imposed by the United States on Cuba, and the statements on such blockade, which have been approved in numerous international meetings.
“WE AFFIRM that the application of unilateral, coercive measures affecting the wellbeing of peoples and hindering integration processes is unacceptable when defending free exchange and the transparent practice of international trade.
“WE STRONGLY REPEL the enforcement of laws and measures contrary to International Law, such as the Helms-Burton Act, and we urge the Government of the United States of America to finish such enforcement.
“WE REQUEST the Government of the United States of America to comply with the provisions set forth in 17 successive resolutions approved by the United Nations General Assembly and put an end to the economic, trade and financial blockade on Cuba.”
Additionally, we consider that the attempts at imposing the isolation of Cuba have failed, as nowadays Cuba forms an integral part of the Latin American and Caribbean region; it is a member of the Rio Group and other hemispheric organizations and mechanisms, which develops a policy of cooperation, in solidarity with the countries in the hemisphere; which promotes full integration of Latin American and Caribbean peoples. Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to justify its exclusion from the mechanism of the Summit of the Americas.
13. Developed countries have spent at least USD 8 billion to rescue a collapsing financial structure. They are the same that fail to allocate the small sums of money to attain the Millennium Goals or 0.7% of the GDP for the Official Development Assistance. Never before the hypocrisy of the wording of rich countries had been so apparent. Cooperation should be established without conditions and fit in the agendas of recipient countries by making arrangements easier; providing access to the resources, and prioritizing social inclusion issues.
14. The legitimate struggle against drug trafficking and organized crime, and any other form of the so-called “new threats” must not be used as an excuse to undertake actions of interference and intervention against our countries.
15. We are firmly convinced that the change, where everybody repose hope, can come only from organization, mobilization and unity of our peoples.
As the Liberator wisely said:
Unity of our peoples is not a mere illusion of men, but an inexorable decree of destiny. — Simón Bolívar"

This Made Me Laugh Today

2009-03-29T15:58:00.002-07:00

In the car:

Liam: Mom, did you bring your purse?

Chels: Yes, Liam.

Caleb: Liam, did you bring your happy attitude and your sunny disposition?

Liam: Ummm. In my underpants.

Create

2009-02-25T17:53:00.000-07:00

For ma hunny.

My Letter to Time Magazine

2009-02-07T22:22:00.003-07:00

After reading the article in Time entitled, "What Would Lincoln Do?", I fumed out this letter, published here, since there is no way it will be published in Time:

This article was so full of contradictions bordering on doublespeak that I considered the author to be either deceived or disingenuous. The theme that Lincoln supported government intervention in the markets is in no way supported by any facts in the article. Nearly every direct quote from Lincoln contradicts that idea. Lincoln’s statement that in the free capitalistic society of the his day a man labored for wages for “himself,” saved surplus for “himself,” then labored on “his own account,” etc., in no way advocates government swooping to the rescue.

His arguments for government spending on public works (i.e. roads and bridges) are greatly distorted to appear that he must also support the modern opinion that government should confiscate private property either through taxation or inflation, the spend it on a titanic pork bill that will send the country in economic oblivion.

There is a small caveat near the end in saying that Lincoln would only support Obama’s bill so far as it protected “economic freedom for individuals.” Okay. Does the author then point out that such a stimulus plan is robbing the American people of economic liberty by placing the government at the helm, confiscating my dollars to feed pet projects, and burdening my children with atronomical debt? No.

The author quotes Lincoln, “I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich.” How is inflating away my savings going to help me get rich? Lincoln believed in the “equal chance” to get rich. How is it an equal chance if the government decides who to give the chance to, and at the expense of everyone else? Lincoln supported my right to keep the “bread…which [my] own hand earns.” So stop plundering it from me to give it to someone else!

It seems to me that the “key” Lincoln discovered to unlock the prison of poverty was the same that the Founders discovered: personal freedom, and the desire for self-improvement. Obama’s socialistic plan only destroys that key.

Free Thinking Sheep

2009-01-23T08:42:00.002-07:00

Several customers, obviously caught up in the mania of Obama merchandising and "historic" commemorative junk, have come up to me at the Post Office asking:
"Do you have any Obama stamps?"

What?!

I , of course, took great relish in responding with a simple statement of fact:
"Not until he's dead."

I mean, do these people see stamps with anyone still alive on them? I don't see any Clinton or Bush stamps floating around. I suppose the same people are already asking banks for coins or bills with that historic visage minted forever on them, making trips to Mt. Rushmore only to be disappointed that there's not a fifth head on it, and touring D.C. looking for an Obama Monument with the empty words "Yes, We Can" carved over his empty tomb.

An Apology

2009-01-03T22:19:00.003-07:00

Is God a Capitalist? Is Capitalism man-made like any other socio-economic system? Is consecration different from capitalism? How? These and many other questions are answered in this post of a conversation on facebook: God is a Capitalist: Answering Ruble Fisher. Please, bookmark this page and read the entire thing. It may take more than one sitting.

Here's a taster paragraph:

"Ruble Writes 3: God’s economic system is Consecration.

Rick Writes: Yes, but you do not define Consecration and at the same time have ignored my statement that, “Someone using the term consecration is not necessarily doing so in a way that accurately conforms with or communicates God’s law.”

Also, I argue that Consecration requires a group of men first committed to the fundamental principles of Capitalism, i.e, eschewing the initiation of force. You ignore my argument and simply say you “disagree.” But, why?

How could you ever consecrate something if a) you did not have it in your possession and b) it was not yours (by private property right) to give in the first place. “How can we give if there is nothing there? Food for the hungry cannot come from empty shelves. Money to assist the needy cannot come from an empty purse. Support and understanding cannot come from the emotionally starved. Teaching cannot come from the unlearned. And most important of all, spiritual guidance cannot come from the spiritually weak.”(Marion G. Romney, First Presidency Message October 1984)"

Please read!

"Flight 93 Families Seek Land Seizure"

2008-12-28T16:22:00.003-07:00

In a story on AOL.com, "The Families of Flight 93 sent a letter earlier this month asking President George W. Bush to empower the Secretary of the Interior to take the land in dispute from a homeowner who had been in negotiations with the National Parks Service."
"The group says ground must be broken early next year in time for a memorial to be build for the 10th anniversary of the crash in 2011."

Apparently, negotiations with private land owners is taking longer than had been hoped. Those greedy landowners, don't they see that you need their land more than they do? Well, as the petty tyrants always do, they resort to force. The following quote is really telling of the mindset. Saying "whatever it takes" is only admirable if it only includes all possible moral actions. If your ends justify your means, however, so that it is unimportant how your goal is accomplished, you are a tyrant; and the tyranny of your need is all-important and means anything is moral as long as your need is met:

Patrick White, vice-president of the families organization said, "I think the rest of the family members and I feel there is no point at which we will stop. Whatever it takes. As long as it takes. Whoever it takes. To do anything less would be doing a disservice to those that we love."

No, Mr. White. Your loved ones died trying to defend their freedom and preserve their lives. It is your using the point of the gun buried under the paperwork on a bureaucrat's desk to violate the rights of others that is a disservice to those that you love, and a mockery of why they died.

Q: "How Do You Know You Exist?" A: "Who Wants To Know?"

2008-12-24T09:07:00.008-07:00

For my own benefit, to better learn what I'm studying, I'll need to teach it. So here goes.

Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man's relationship to existence. It is the only science that can answer the questions: Where am I? How do I know it? What should I do?

Metaphysics: the basic branch of philosophy which studies existence as such. Are you in a Universe ruled by natural laws, firm, stable, knowable? Or are you in an incomprehensible chaos of inexplicable miracles, an unpredictable, unknowable flux? Are the things around you real or an illusion? Do they exist independent of the observer or are they created by the observer? Are they what they are- or can they be changed by a mere act of your consciousness such as a wish? Are achievement and enjoyment possible to man on earth or is he doomed to failure and disaster. No matter what conclusions you reach, you will be confronted by the necessity of another corollary question answered by:

Epistemology: the theory of knowledge, which studies man's means of cognition. That question is "How do I know it?" Does man acquire knowledge through reason? Through revelation? Is reason competent to perceive reality or does man possess some other cognitive faculty which is superior to reason?

One of the best things I did in college was when an English professor had us do an exercise. We were to write down what we knew of existence and how we knew it. He was asking us to define our metaphysical views and support them with our epistemology. It was difficult and clumsily done. But, oh, how it made everyone in the class confront themselves, existence, what they believed and any contradictions in their worldview.

These two branches are the theoretical foundation of philosophy. The third branch is:

Ethics: which may be regarded as its philosophy's technology, its applied science. Ethics defines a code of values to guide a man's choices and actions- the choices and actions that determine the course of his life. Ethics does not apply to everything that exists, only to man, but it applies to every aspect of man's life: his character, his actions, his values, his relationship to all of existence. What is good or evil for man and why? Should man's primary concern be a quest for joy or an escape from suffering? Should man hold self-fulfillment or self-destruction as the goal of his life? Should man place the interests of others above his own values? Should man seek happiness or self-sacrifice? The answers given by ethics determine how man should treat other men and this determines the fourth branch of philosophy:

Politics: which defines the principles of a proper social system. Political philosophy will not tell you how much rationed gas you should be given and on which day of the week - it will tell you whether the government has the right to impose rationing on anything. The fifth and last branch of philosophy is:

Esthetics: the study of art, which is based on metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Art deals with the needs - the refueling - of man's consciousness.

Now that I've got all that straight in my head you may be thinking, "I never think in abstract terms, I prefer the concrete, real life stuff. What do I need philosophy for?" A: In order to deal with particular, real-life problems, in order to live on earth.

Allow me to quote Ayn Rand:

Have you ever thought or said the following? "Don't be so sure - nobody can be certain of anything." You got that notion from David Hume and many others even though you might never have heard of him. Or: "This may be good in theory but it doesn't work in practice." You got that from Plato. Or: "That was a rotten thing to do, but it's only human and nobody's perfect in this world." You got that from Augustine. Or: "It may be true for you, but it's not true for me." (I heard this alot on my mission.) You got it from William James. Or: "I couldn't help it! Nobody can help anything he does!" You got it from Hegel. Or: "I can't prove it but I feel it's true." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's evil because it's selfish." You got it from Kant. "Act first, think afterward." (Like today's politicians in regard to the economy). That's from John Dewey. "It may have been true yesterday, but it's not true today." From Hegel. Or: "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." They got it from a very little mind, Emerson. "But can't one compromise and borrow different ideas from different philosophies according to the expediency of the moment?" You got it from Richard Nixon - who got it from William James. (Who passed it on to George Bush, who said this month in a CNN interview, "I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.")

The Essentials, which you cannot take on faith and must discover to know, are:

Metaphysics: The Law of Identity, objective reality, reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
"I AM THAT I AM."

Epistemology: Reason, (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."

Ethics: Rational Self-Interest. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
"Men are that they might have joy."

Politics: Individual rights, i.e. capitalism. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
"And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given. Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh..."

Esthetics: Metaphysical values. Romanticism is the conceptual school of art. It deals, not with the random trivia of the day, but with the timeless, fundamental, universal problems and values of human existence. It does not record or photograph; it creates and projects. It is concerned—in the words of Aristotle—not with things as they are, but with things as they might be and ought to be. Rand articulates the goal of her own fiction writing as “the projection of an ideal man, as an end in itself."
"For how great is his goodness, and how great is his beauty!"

This helped me. I hope it was interesting. I'm only a third of the way through the book!

Merry Christmas!

What is the Root of Money?

2008-12-12T07:58:00.003-07:00

So, after nearly two years of having this blog I want to know something. A quiz if you will. Which, if failed, means I haven't been articulate enough. Can anyone tell me in a few words, WHAT IS THE ROOT OF MONEY? The winner may get a prize. Likely chocolate. There are two answers I can think of that I will accept. One has three words. The other has two words. Both are acceptable, although the two-word answer is more technically correct. That doesn't mean I will close my mind to other correct answers I haven't thought of.

13 out of 25

2008-12-04T08:23:00.002-07:00

That was my score last night at the Ogden Gun Club. I had never touched a shotgun in my life and hadn't even shot ANY gun since I was like 13 at scout camp. So, after awkwardly being shown how to load the shell in the pump-action shotgun, I proceeded to shoot over half of the clay pidgeons. There were 14 men and boys in the group. The two highest had military training and gun collections. They got 16. Everyone else got under 10, usually 6 - 8. That put the newbie in third place his first try. When asked how I was so good right off, I could only guess, "I've shot a lot of video game shotguns."

"Twilight" Movie Review

2008-11-27T09:23:00.003-07:00

**** 4 stars (out of 5): This film was surprisingly better than I expected from the previews. The on-location filming did alot for the overall tone (especially since I love overcast weather.) The casting was also surprisingly good. No character seemed out of place (except Edwards gelled hair which almost become a supporting character by itself.) The acting was impressive. There was subtlety everywhere so that if you weren't watching the right place, you were missing the many unspoken dialogues (especially with Edward reading minds....). Bella had a fascinating way of always having a subtext of dialogue and motivation completely separate from what she was actually saying. Making the viewer see that she's thinking, and quickly, about many other things at once while speaking. I almost missed the actual mundane dialogue from watching her inner dialogue. What lost the fifth star (I use the 5 stars from Netflix) was (a) the hokey special FX: The low budget film wasn't sure of its success and the effects are campy, jerky, and cheesy. And (b): the occasional corny I'm-a-scary-inhuman-vampirey-thing poses. Give me a break.
And (c): (though this doesn't count since it's not part of the movie, but part of the live audience) the simpering, nervous laughs from teenage girls in the audience. They all liked to think they were Bella (the loner), but they were all there in quivering herds, giggling like Bella's ditsy friends.
Prognosis: A worthwhile film. Especially if the income on it helps "vamp" up the next one's FX, without making the plot and acting cheesy and Lucas/Spielberg-like.

Is Obama a Marxist?

2008-11-07T07:56:00.001-07:00

If you haven't seen this yet, you should. Where have all the reporters gone? Long time passing.... Found one! We need more like her.

So Why Are Most Christians Socialists?

2008-10-25T17:31:00.002-07:00

That is the follow-up question to the statement: God is a Capitalist. Here is the shortest explanation I found today on a blog on Facebook.

"Because they do not understand, nor do they seek to understand, the nature of freedom and liberty as revealed through the Majesty of God's law. They believe that salvation and exaltation offered by the Lord are "free" meaning coming without work or consequence and therefore all temporal blessings should also come likewise. They ignore the teachings of the Master when he explains the Law related to temporal stewardship and they believe the propaganda of Marx's godless descendants that Capitalism means exploitation, while in reality it means NO initiation of FORCE (either of the mind or body). God call's the concept agency, his disciples sometimes call it free will, but the devil calls it dangerous, and the dupes call it idealistic or naive. It all boils down to freedom. Those who believe they can be free while compelling others (in mind or body) can sing all the hymns of Zion but it does not make up for their misguided notions. God, my friend, is the author of all good things, and he has made man FREE, in his own image and likeness." -Rick

Autumn Fun

2008-10-23T07:23:00.005-07:00

The wife framed this one in our kitchen for autumn.

This is my impression of impressionism.

Oooohh. Sparkly.

Yes! The kids who won't sit still for their photographer parents!

The Philosophy of Capitalism

2008-10-17T07:46:00.002-07:00

Here are the basic premises of the philosophy of liberty, or capitalism (which is the only social system founded on the philosophy of man's freedom). In 8 minutes, this will explain the moral and philosophical foundation of our country, and our existence.

Book Review: John Adams, by David McCullough

2008-10-12T09:06:00.003-07:00

This book was very informative. I learned alot about events leading up to the Revolution. For example, I had no idea that John Adams was the defense attorney (and very unpopularly at that) for the British Soldiers charged with the shootings in the Boston Massacre. It showed his belief in the rule of law, rather than the passionate "justice" of mob resentment. (The men were aquitted.) I learned alot about War, and Adam's diplomatic endeavors in Europe at the time. The book takes alot of excerpts from letters written by him and his wife, Abigail. The book also goes extensively into his days as Vice-President, President, and afterwards as a farmer. It's was an interesting perspective on the relationship and sometimes rivalry between him and Jefferson. How, in 1776, they were good friends, agreeing on principle. As they both took public office, differences of opinion on how to apply those principles, led to some bitter times. Most interesting, is the reconciliation and long pen-pal relationship they maintained after both had left office, as they once again discussed and agreed upon basic principles. They both died on July 4, 1826, exactly 50 years after the Declaration of Independence.

The mini-series actually does a better job of portraying Adam's passion for "eternal principles."

The book is mainly character driven. It discusses in depth the CHARACTER of John Adams. While interesting, this isn't as important to me as his IDEAS. For this reason, I prefer The Real Thomas Jefferson, as a masterful and inspiring work. It is more dedicated to discussing Jefferson's IDEAS in a biographical setting, rather than this book's elaboration of Adam's BIOGRAPHY, with his IDEAS as a sidenote.

I look forward to reading HIS EXCELLENCY, GEORGE WASHINGTON, next.

The American form of Government

2008-10-05T10:51:00.002-07:00

Pre-show quiz: Which form of government does America espouse?:
A) Oligarchy
B) Republican democracy
C) Democratic Republic
D) Constitutional Republic
E) Pure Democracy
F) Monarchy
G) Pure Republic

Watch the following:

An explanation of governments, and why America was not founded as a democracy.

Bailout Marks Karl Marx's Comeback....

2008-10-01T16:41:00.002-07:00

An excellent analysis of current events. Much better than some of the so-called conservatives on the news and radio pleading with us to support the "largest government grab of private capital in world history."

"In his Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, Karl Marx proposed 10 measures to be implemented after the proletariat takes power, with the aim of centralizing all instruments of production in the hands of the state. Proposal Number Five was to bring about the “centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.”....... Read the article here.

Thomas Jefferson said:
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of our currency, first by INFLATION, then by DEFLATION, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around (the banks) will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”

Spot On

2008-09-27T06:30:00.004-07:00

Five Years Ago: Ron Paul before the House Financial Services Committee said the following, not because he can magically tell the future, but because he knows that principles govern. More to follow later:

"I want to repeal the express authority given to the U.S. government to purchase GSE debts. GSE's are the only financial institution besides the U.S. Treasury given explicit statutory authority to monetize their debts with the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSE's a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors. The connection between these government sponsored enterprises and the government helps isolate their management from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the recent reports of mismanagement at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. After all, if Fannie and Freddie were not underwritten by the federal government, investors would demand assurance that Fannie and Freddie follow accepted management and accounting practices. Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespead mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market."

Many are using current economic state to proclaim the failure of capitalism. It can't be the failure of something that we haven't had in 150 years. What you're seeing is a) the failure of bad ideas, which must be allowed to happen. To have freedom to succeed you must have freedom to fail, and b) what you're seeing is actually the failure of fascism.

Definitions
GSE: government sponsored enterprise

Fascism: ...Their policies manifested as a radical extension of government control over the economy without wholesale expropriation of the means of production. Fascist governments nationalized some key industries, managed their currencies and made some massive state investments. They also introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of economic planning measures. Other than nationalization of certain industries, private property was allowed, but property rights and private initiative were contingent upon service to the state. Fascism is the State in bed with Business.

God Bless Beauracracy, I Mean America

2008-09-09T07:10:00.003-07:00

Rogue Utah Agency Arrests Stay-at-home Mom

Imagine you’re Annie Bradley, a married stay-at-home mother of eight. Two weeks before your 43rd birthday, its 9:00 pm and you’re sitting down with your husband and two house guests discussing a very difficult topic—the sale of your home. Uncharacteristically, your seventeen year-old daughter interrupts the discussion with a stunned look on her face, informing you that police and federal agents are surrounding your house. An armed Sheriff’s deputy has followed closely behind her and now stands before you asking, “Are you Anna L. Bradley?”.....

Bryn and Karli, August 14

2008-08-14T21:57:00.005-07:00

Many Are Called

2008-08-10T15:47:00.003-07:00

I am officially the new Venture Advisor in our ward. (Formerly known as the Explorer Leader?)
Any and all advice on the subect is welcome. From activities to (especially) a High Adventure Trip. There's only 3-4 Priests that would be involved. Thanks all!

Dr. Horrible (2nd endorsement)

2008-07-30T20:00:00.003-07:00

Everyone must take 40 minutes to watch this. You will thank me. Funniest, wittiest, most creative thing you've seen in many, many years. We watched it on iTunes. Thanks to Sephian for the link.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/28343/dr-horribles-sing-along-blog

Jackson, Afton

2008-07-27T19:27:00.006-07:00

We went to Jackson Hole on Thursday to answer the call of clients demanding our services. Below are some of the results. On the way back, I dropped my wife and kids off in Afton for a family reunion, went to work on Friday and Saturday, and then went back up to join them and pick them up. I also saw The Dark Knight! Holy awesome movie, Batman! And the Junction is my favorite place to see movies. It really spoils you with reserved seats and sound that isn't tinny and WAY too loud like other theaters. Highly recommend both the movie and the theater.

Why I Didn't Make The Olympics, and Spike's Angel Impression

2008-07-19T19:44:00.001-07:00

Current News and Issues

2008-07-15T07:09:00.003-07:00

I found these interesting and thought-provoking.

Who Is To Blame for $4/Gallon Gasoline?

Nationalization For The People!

The Moral Confusion of Wal-Mart Haters

Corruption, Failure, Incompetence Uncovered by Audit of Utah Government Agency

The Text of the Actual Audit Here

Waterfall Canyon, July 2008

2008-07-13T17:28:00.003-07:00

Lemur, surpisingly, made it all the way to the top. Standing in that waterfall, by the way, is beautiful. Like a pure stream of positive energy filling you with joy and life. No kidding.

Argument, Monty Python

2008-07-11T07:28:00.001-07:00

Ha!

2008-07-10T08:18:00.003-07:00

'Warcraft' Sequel Lets Gamers Play A Character Playing 'Warcraft'

Historic â��Blockbusterâ�� Store Offers Glimpse Of How Movies Were Rented In The Past

Phourthy Photos

2008-07-06T08:59:00.002-07:00

The War of Ideas

2008-07-03T21:08:00.006-07:00

We are in a war. We are in the final fight. It is our place in the cause of liberty to fight the final fight.
Ezra Taft Benson: "To all who have discerning eyes, it is apparent that the republican form of government established by our noble forefathers cannot long endure once fundamental principles are abandoned. Momentum is gathering for another conflict; a repetition of the crisis of two hundred years ago."(Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 623-24)

He’s speaking of the crisis of the American Revolution. That crisis was not primarily a crisis of the material world. Though we remember the muskets and the uniforms of the Revolutionary War soldiers and the English who came here in the name of the King, and though we remember the sounds of the drums and fifes of the re-enactments when we celebrate the spirit of 1776, that war did not start as a war of cannons and guns. That war started as a war of ideas. As a war between those who would be free men and women, and those who were afraid.

Patrick Henry’s speech a year before the Declaration, (read the full text here), was a speech to those who were afraid. "For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery....If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight!....millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations....Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

It was a speech to those who knew they were right but knew that standing up for their convictions also meant risking the shedding of blood. That war was well under way in 1775. The pilgrims wouldn’t have been here if the war hadn’t already begun. The Founding Fathers wouldn’t have had the crisis that united them in principle if the war hadn’t begun. It was a crisis so severe, that representation from all the colonies, such as Benjamin Franklin and John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, without any permission from the established government, decided to united together on a few basic principles. Notice after the Declaration and the Constitution, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson spent years arguing with each other over politics, they ended life best of friends, because once out of the political arena, they returned to their common belief in the basic principles that we could call the American Way of Life.

As Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist #31, "In disquisitions of every kind there are certain primary truths or first principles upon which all subsequent reasonings must depend. These contain an internal evidence, which antecedent to all reflection or combination commands the assent of the mind . . . and [are] so obvious in themselves, and so agreeable to the natural and unsophisticated dictates of common sense, that they challenge the assent of a sound and unbiased mind, with a degree of force and conviction almost equally irresistible."

Those principles that they found, that Jefferson and Madison called the "ancient principles" were the cause of the war. The war was not caused because of money. There was no more or less money in existence after the war. The war was not because of religion. There were not more or less religions the day the shooting stopped (although, Joseph came pretty soon thereafter and added a fundamentally good one).

But, the point is, that war was a war first and foremost of ideas, and there were only a few men and women engaged in the critical elements of that war. There were less than a hundred at the convention making decisions that now affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people on the earth. Yet, we sometimes think when the war comes this time, if it comes, certainly I’ll know, because everybody’s going to be up in arms. The truth of the matter is that everybody wasn’t up in arms when the Founders met and passed that Declaration. There were some who were up in arms. But they knew that the writing was on the wall, that men would either choose to be free or they would live under the yolk of a tyrant. That was the cause of the war. The choice between freedom, liberty, peace, and compulsion and death. That was the war in the world of ideas. It takes even a generation before the was of ideas translates into a shooting war.

The Undersecretary of State of this country, 70 years ago, said though we were still fighting a war of ideas, the day would soon come when, crossing that threshold, only the shedding of blood would bring back the liberties we has already lost.
"I say to you that the price of liberty is and always has been blood, human blood, and if our liberties are lost, we shall never regain them except at the price of blood. They must not be lost."
That was J. Reuben Clark. We have not gone closer to the cause of freedom as a culture or as a government. We have gone further away in a generation, and, in my opinion, the blood that will bring back those liberties is even closer at hand. He says, "The collision of ideas is worldwide. The issue is the same which precipitated the great pre-mortal conflict. Will men be free to determine their own course of action? Or must they be coerced" (Conference Report, Spring 1944).

As Ayn Rand said:
The world crisis of today is a moral crisis—and nothing less
than a moral revolution can resolve it; a moral revolution to
sanction and complete the political achievement of the American
Revolution. Evasions, equivocations and guilty apologies will
not work any longer. . . .("For the New Intellectual" 1963)

Deep within the souls of men stirs one eternal question. How each of us answers this question determines everything. It is THE question of life. "Will I choose to be free?" Since the beginning the battle for the eternal cause of liberty has been waged between those who answer in the affirmative, and those who do not.

Happy Independence Day!

Guess Who...

2008-07-01T18:22:00.002-07:00

By the way, if you like this, it's available for rent on Netflix....

The Divinely Inspired Consitution

2008-06-29T11:28:00.003-07:00

Last year, I gave a short expanation of the principles enshrined in the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. This year, who better to teach us about the Constitution than Dallin H. Oaks, in his 1992 Ensign talk? Please ponder this sometime before Independence Day:

Not long after I began to teach law, an older professor asked me a challenging question about Latter-day Saints’ belief in the United States Constitution. Earlier in his career he had taught at the University of Utah College of Law. There he met many Latter-day Saint law students. “They all seemed to believe that the Constitution was divinely inspired,” he said, “but none of them could ever tell me what this meant or how it affected their interpretation of the Constitution.” I took that challenge personally, and I have pondered it for many years.
I hope I will not be thought immodest if I claim a special interest in the Constitution. As a lawyer and law professor for more than twenty years, I have studied the United States Constitution. As legal counsel, I helped draft the bill of rights for the Illinois constitutional convention of 1970. And for three and one-half years as a justice of the Utah Supreme Court I had the sworn duty to uphold and interpret the constitutions of the state of Utah and the United States. My conclusions draw upon those experiences and upon a lifetime of studying the scriptures and the teachings of the living prophets. My opinions on this subject are personal and do not represent a statement in behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Creation and Ratification
The United States Constitution was the first written constitution in the world. It has served Americans well, enhancing freedom and prosperity during the changed conditions of more than two hundred years. Frequently copied, it has become the United States’ most important export. After two centuries, every nation in the world except six have adopted written constitutions, and the U.S. Constitution was a model for all of them. No wonder modern revelation says that God established the U.S. Constitution and that it “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles.” (D&C 101:77.)
George Washington was perhaps the first to use the word miracle in describing the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. In a 1788 letter to Lafayette, he said:
“It appears to me, then, little short of a miracle, that the delegates from so many different states (which states you know are also different from each other in their manners, circumstances, and prejudices) should unite in forming a system of national Government, so little liable to well-founded objections.”
It was a miracle. Consider the setting.
The thirteen colonies and three and one-half million Americans who had won independence from the British crown a few years earlier were badly divided on many fundamental issues. Some thought the colonies should reaffiliate with the British crown. Among the majority who favored continued independence, the most divisive issue was whether the United States should have a strong central government to replace the weak “league of friendship” established by the Articles of Confederation. Under the Confederation of 1781, there was no executive or judicial authority, and the national Congress had no power to tax or to regulate commerce. The thirteen states retained all their sovereignty, and the national government could do nothing without their approval. The Articles of Confederation could not be amended without the unanimous approval of all the states, and every effort to strengthen this loose confederation had failed.
Congress could not even protect itself. In July 1783, an armed mob of former Revolutionary War soldiers seeking back wages threatened to take Congress hostage at its meeting in Philadelphia. When Pennsylvania declined to provide militia to protect them, the congressmen fled. Thereafter Congress was a laughingstock, wandering from city to city.
Unless America could adopt a central government with sufficient authority to function as a nation, the thirteen states would remain a group of insignificant, feuding little nations united by nothing more than geography and forever vulnerable to the impositions of aggressive foreign powers. No wonder the first purpose stated in the preamble of the new United States Constitution was “to form a more perfect union.”
The Constitution had its origin in a resolution by which the relatively powerless Congress called delegates to a convention to discuss amendments to the Articles of Confederation. This convention was promoted by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, two farsighted young statesmen still in their thirties, who favored a strong national government. They persuaded a reluctant George Washington to attend and then used his influence in a letter-writing campaign to encourage participation by all the states. The convention was held in Philadelphia, whose population of a little over 40,000 made it the largest city in the thirteen states.
As the delegates assembled, there were ominous signs of disunity. It was not until eleven days after the scheduled beginning of the convention that enough states were represented to form a quorum. New Hampshire’s delegation arrived more than two months late because the state had not provided them travel money. No delegates ever came from Rhode Island.
Economically and politically, the country was alarmingly weak. The states were in a paralyzing depression. Everyone was in debt. The national treasury was empty. Inflation was rampant. The various currencies were nearly worthless. The trade deficit was staggering. Rebelling against their inclusion in New York State, prominent citizens of Vermont had already entered into negotiations to rejoin the British crown. In the western territory, Kentucky leaders were speaking openly about turning from the union and forming alliances with the Old World.
Instead of reacting timidly because of disunity and weakness, the delegates boldly ignored the terms of their invitation to amend the Articles of Confederation and instead set out to write an entirely new constitution. They were conscious of their place in history. For millennia the world’s people had been ruled by kings or tyrants. Now a group of colonies had won independence from a king and their representatives had the unique opportunity of establishing a constitutional government Abraham Lincoln would later describe as “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
The delegates faced staggering obstacles. The leaders in the thirteen states were deeply divided on the extent to which the states would cede any power to a national government. If there was to be a strong central government, there were seemingly irresolvable differences on how to allocate the ingredients of national power between large and small states. As to the nature of the national executive, some wanted to copy the British parliamentary system. At least one delegate even favored the adoption of a monarchy. Divisions over slavery could well have prevented any agreement on other issues. There were 600,000 black slaves in the thirteen states, and slavery was essential in the view of some delegates and repulsive to many others.
Deeming secrecy essential to the success of their venture, the delegates spent over three months in secret sessions, faithfully observing their agreement that no one would speak outside the meeting room on the progress of their work. They were fearful that if their debates were reported to the people before the entire document was ready for submission, the opposition would unite to kill the effort before it was born. This type of proceeding would obviously be impossible today. There is irony in the fact that a constitution which protects the people’s “right to know” was written under a set of ground rules that its present beneficiaries would not tolerate.
It took the delegates seven weeks of debate to resolve the question of how the large and small states would be represented in the national congress. The Great Compromise provided a senate with equal representation for each state, and a lower house in which representation was apportioned according to the whole population of free persons in the state, plus three-fifths of the slaves. The vote on this pivotal issue was five states in favor and four against; other states did not vote, either because no delegates were present or because their delegation was divided. Upon that fragile base, the delegates went forward to consider other issues, including the nature of the executive and judicial branches, and whether the document should include a bill of rights.
It is remarkable that the delegates were able to put aside their narrow sectional loyalties to agree on a strong central government. Timely events were persuasive of the need: the delegates’ memories of the national humiliation when Congress was chased out of Philadelphia by a mob, the recent challenge of Shay’s rebellion against Massachusetts farm foreclosures, and the frightening prospect that northern and western areas would be drawn back into the orbit of European power.
The success of the convention was attributable in large part to the remarkable intelligence, wisdom, and unselfishness of the delegates. As James Madison wrote in the preface to his notes on the Constitutional Convention:
“There never was an assembly of men, charged with a great and arduous trust, who were more pure in their motives, or more exclusively or anxiously devoted to the object committed to them.” Truly, the U.S. Constitution was established “by the hands of wise men whom [the Lord] raised up unto this very purpose.” (D&C 101:80.)
The drafting of the Constitution was only the beginning. By its terms it would not go into effect until ratified by conventions in nine states. But if the nation was to be united and strong, the new Constitution had to be ratified by the key states of Virginia and New York, where the opposition was particularly strong. The extent of opposition coming out of the convention is suggested by the fact that of seventy-four appointed delegates, only fifty-five participated in the convention, and only thirty-nine of these signed the completed document.
It was nine months before nine states had ratified, and the last of the key states was not included until a month later, when the New York convention ratified by a vote of thirty to twenty-seven. To the “miracle of Philadelphia” one must therefore add “the miracle of ratification.”
Ratification probably could not have been secured without a commitment to add a written bill of rights. The first ten amendments, which included the Bill of Rights, were ratified a little over three years after the Constitution itself.
That the Constitution was ratified is largely attributable to the fact that the principal leaders in the states were willing to vote for a document that failed to embody every one of their preferences. For example, influential Thomas Jefferson, who was in Paris negotiating a treaty and therefore did not serve as a delegate, felt strongly that a bill of rights should have been included in the original Constitution. But Jefferson still supported the Constitution because he felt it was the best available. Benjamin Franklin stated that view in these words:
“When you assemble a number of men to have the advantage over their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does. … The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good.”
In other words, one should not expect perfection—one certainly should not expect all of his personal preferences—in a document that must represent a consensus. One should not sulk over a representative body’s failure to attain perfection. Americans are well advised to support the best that can be obtained in the circumstances that prevail. That is sound advice not only for the drafting of a constitution but also for the adoption and administration of laws under it.
Inspiration
It was a miracle that the Constitution could be drafted and ratified. But what is there in the text of the Constitution that is divinely inspired?
Reverence for the United States Constitution is so great that sometimes individuals speak as if its every word and phrase had the same standing as scripture. Personally, I have never considered it necessary to defend every line of the Constitution as scriptural. For example, I find nothing scriptural in the compromise on slavery or the minimum age or years of citizenship for congressmen, senators, or the president. President J. Reuben Clark, who referred to the Constitution as “part of my religion,” also said that it was not part of his belief or the doctrine of the Church that the Constitution was a “fully grown document.” “On the contrary,” he said, “We believe it must grow and develop to meet the changing needs of an advancing world.” 7
That was also the attitude of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He faulted the Constitution for not being “broad enough to cover the whole ground.” In an obvious reference to the national government’s lack of power to intervene when the state of Missouri used its militia to expel the Latter-day Saints from their lands, Joseph Smith said,
“Its sentiments are good, but it provides no means of enforcing them. … Under its provision, a man or a people who are able to protect themselves can get along well enough; but those who have the misfortune to be weak or unpopular are left to the merciless rage of popular fury.” This omission of national power to protect citizens against state action to deprive them of constitutional rights was remedied in the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted just after the Civil War.
I see divine inspiration in what President J. Reuben Clark called the “great fundamentals” of the Constitution. In his many talks on the Constitution, he always praised three fundamentals: (a) the separation of powers into three independent branches of government in a federal system; (b) the essential freedoms of speech, press, and religion embodied in the Bill of Rights; and (c) the equality of all men before the law. I concur in these three, but I add two more. On my list there are five great fundamentals.
1. Separation of powers. The idea of separation of powers was at least a century old. The English Parliament achieved an initial separation of legislative and executive authority when they wrested certain powers from the king in the revolution of 1688. The concept of separation of powers became well established in the American colonies. State constitutions adopted during the Revolution distinguished between the executive, legislative, and judicial functions. Thus, a document commenting on the proposed Massachusetts Constitution of 1778, speaks familiarly of the principle “that the legislative, judicial, and executive powers are to be lodged in different hands, that each branch is to be independent, and further, to be so balanced, and be able to exert such checks upon the others, as will preserve it from dependence on, or a union with them.”
Thus, we see that the inspiration on the idea of separation of powers came long before the U.S. Constitutional Convention. The inspiration in the convention was in its original and remarkably successful adaptation of the idea of separation of powers to the practical needs of a national government. The delegates found just the right combination to assure the integrity of each branch, appropriately checked and balanced with the others. As President Clark said:
“It is this union of independence and dependence of these branches—legislative, executive and judicial—and of the governmental functions possessed by each of them, that constitutes the marvelous genius of this unrivalled document. … As I see it, it was here that the divine inspiration came. It was truly a miracle.”
2. A written bill of rights. This second great fundamental came by amendment, but I think Americans all look upon the Bill of Rights as part of the inspired work of the Founding Fathers. The idea of a bill of rights was not new. Once again, the inspiration was in the brilliant, practical implementation of preexisting principles. Almost six hundred years earlier, King John had subscribed the Magna Charta, which contained a written guarantee of some rights for certain of his subjects. The English Parliament had guaranteed individual rights against royal power in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Even more recently, some of the charters used in the establishment of the American colonies had written guarantees of liberties and privileges, with which the delegates were familiar.
I have always felt that the United States Constitution’s closest approach to scriptural stature is in the phrasing of our Bill of Rights. Without the free exercise of religion, America could not have served as the host nation for the restoration of the gospel, which began just three decades after the Bill of Rights was ratified. I also see scriptural stature in the concept and wording of the freedoms of speech and press, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, the requirements that there must be probable cause for an arrest and that accused persons must have a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, and the guarantee that a person will not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. President Ezra Taft Benson has said, “Reason, necessity, tradition, and religious conviction all lead me to accept the divine origin of these rights.”
The Declaration of Independence had posited these truths to be “self-evident,” that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights,” and that governments are instituted “to secure these Rights.” This inspired Constitution was established to provide a practical guarantee of these God-given rights (see D&C 101:77), and the language implementing that godly objective is scriptural to me.
3. Division of powers. Another inspired fundamental of the U.S. Constitution is its federal system, which divides government powers between the nation and the various states. Unlike the inspired adaptations mentioned earlier, this division of sovereignty was unprecedented in theory or practice. In a day when it is fashionable to assume that the government has the power and means to right every wrong, we should remember that the U.S. Constitution limits the national government to the exercise of powers expressly granted to it. The Tenth Amendment provides:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.”
This principle of limited national powers, with all residuary powers reserved to the people or to the state and local governments, which are most responsive to the people, is one of the great fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution.
The particular powers that are reserved to the states are part of the inspiration. For example, the power to make laws on personal relationships is reserved to the states. Thus, laws of marriage and family rights and duties are state laws. This would have been changed by the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (E.R.A.). When the First Presidency opposed the E.R.A., they cited the way it would have changed various legal rules having to do with the family, a result they characterized as “a moral rather than a legal issue.” I would add my belief that the most fundamental legal and political objection to the proposed E.R.A. was that it would effect a significant reallocation of law-making power from the states to the federal government.
4. Popular sovereignty. Perhaps the most important of the great fundamentals of the inspired Constitution is the principle of popular sovereignty: The people are the source of government power. Along with many religious people, Latter-day Saints affirm that God gave the power to the people, and the people consented to a constitution that delegated certain powers to the government. Sovereignty is not inherent in a state or nation just because it has the power that comes from force of arms. Sovereignty does not come from the divine right of a king, who grants his subjects such power as he pleases or is forced to concede, as in Magna Charta. The sovereign power is in the people. I believe this is one of the great meanings in the revelation which tells us that God established the Constitution of the United States,
“That every man may act … according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
“Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
“And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land.” (D&C 101:78–80.)
In other words, the most desirable condition for the effective exercise of God-given moral agency is a condition of maximum freedom and responsibility. In this condition men are accountable for their own sins and cannot blame their political conditions on their bondage to a king or a tyrant. This condition is achieved when the people are sovereign, as they are under the Constitution God established in the United States. From this it follows that the most important words in the United States Constitution are the words in the preamble: “We, the people of the United States … do ordain and establish this Constitution.”
President Ezra Taft Benson expressed the fundamental principle of popular sovereignty when he said, “We [the people] are superior to government and should remain master over it, not the other way around.” The Book of Mormon explains that principle in these words:
“An unrighteous king doth pervert the ways of all righteousness. …
“Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws. …
“Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.” (Mosiah 29:23–26.)
Popular sovereignty necessarily implies popular responsibility. Instead of blaming their troubles on a king or other sovereign, all citizens must share the burdens and responsibilities of governing. As the Book of Mormon teaches, “The burden should come upon all the people, that every man might bear his part.” (Mosiah 29:34.)
President Clark’s third great fundamental was the equality of all men before the law. I believe that to be a corollary of popular sovereignty. When power comes from the people, there is no legitimacy in legal castes or classes or in failing to provide all citizens the equal protection of the laws.
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not originate the idea of popular sovereignty, since they lived in a century when many philosophers had argued that political power originated in a social contract. But the United States Constitution provided the first implementation of this principle. After two centuries in which Americans may have taken popular sovereignty for granted, it is helpful to be reminded of the difficulties in that pioneering effort.
To begin with, a direct democracy was impractical for a country of four million people and about a half million square miles. As a result, the delegates had to design the structure of a constitutional, representative democracy, what they called “a Republican Form of Government.”
The delegates also had to resolve whether a constitution adopted by popular sovereignty could be amended, and if so, how.
Finally, the delegates had to decide how minority rights could be protected when the government was, by definition, controlled by the majority of the sovereign people.
A government based on popular sovereignty must be responsive to the people, but it must also be stable or it cannot govern. A constitution must therefore give government the power to withstand the cries of a majority of the people in the short run, though it must obviously be subject to their direction in the long run.
Without some government stability against an outraged majority, government could not protect minority rights. As President Clark declared:
“The Constitution was framed in order to protect minorities. That is the purpose of written constitutions. In order that the minorities might be protected in the matter of amendments under our Constitution, the Lord required that the amendments should be made only through the operation of very large majorities—two-thirds for action in the Senate, and three-fourths as among the states. This is the inspired, prescribed order.”
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention achieved the required balance between popular sovereignty and stability through a power of amendment that was ultimately available but deliberately slow. Only in this way could the government have the certainty of stability, the protection of minority rights, and the potential of change, all at the same time.
To summarize, I see divine inspiration in these four great fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution:
• the separation of powers in the three branches of government;
• the Bill of Rights;
• the division of powers between the states and the federal government; and
• the application of popular sovereignty.
5. The rule of law and not of men. Further, there is divine inspiration in the fundamental underlying premise of this whole constitutional order. All the blessings enjoyed under the United States Constitution are dependent upon the rule of law. That is why President J. Reuben Clark said, “Our allegiance run[s] to the Constitution and to the principles which it embodies, and not to individuals.” The rule of law is the basis of liberty.
As the Lord declared in modern revelation, constitutional laws are justifiable before him, “and the law also maketh you free.” (D&C 98:5–8.) The self-control by which citizens subject themselves to law strengthens the freedom of all citizens and honors the divinely inspired Constitution.
Citizen Responsibilities
U.S. citizens have an inspired Constitution, and therefore, what? Does the belief that the U.S. Constitution is divinely inspired affect citizens’ behavior toward law and government? It should and it does.
U.S. citizens should follow the First Presidency’s counsel to study the Constitution. 17 They should be familiar with its great fundamentals: the separation of powers, the individual guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the structure of federalism, the sovereignty of the people, and the principles of the rule of the law. They should oppose any infringement of these inspired fundamentals.
They should be law-abiding citizens, supportive of national, state, and local governments. The twelfth Article of Faith declares:
“We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”
The Church’s official declaration of belief states:
“We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them. …
“We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside.” (D&C 134:1, 5.)
Those who enjoy the blessings of liberty under a divinely inspired constitution should promote morality, and they should practice what the Founding Fathers called “civic virtue.” In his address on the U.S. Constitution, President Ezra Taft Benson quoted this important observation by John Adams, the second president of the United States:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Similarly, James Madison, who is known as the “Father of the Constitution,” stated his assumption that there had to be “sufficient virtue among men for self-government.” He argued in the Federalist Papers that “republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.”
It is part of our civic duty to be moral in our conduct toward all people. There is no place in responsible citizenship for dishonesty or deceit or for willful law breaking of any kind. We believe with the author of Proverbs that “righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” (Prov. 14:34.) The personal righteousness of citizens will strengthen a nation more than the force of its arms.
Citizens should also be practitioners of civic virtue in their conduct toward government. They should be ever willing to fulfill the duties of citizenship. This includes compulsory duties like military service and the numerous voluntary actions they must take if they are to preserve the principle of limited government through citizen self-reliance. For example, since U.S. citizens value the right of trial by jury, they must be willing to serve on juries, even those involving unsavory subject matter. Citizens who favor morality cannot leave the enforcement of moral laws to jurors who oppose them.
The single word that best describes a fulfillment of the duties of civic virtue is patriotism. Citizens should be patriotic. My favorite prescription for patriotism is that of Adlai Stevenson:
“What do we mean by patriotism in the context of our times? … A patriotism that puts country ahead of self; a patriotism which is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.”
I close with a poetic prayer. It is familiar to everyone in the United States, because U.S. citizens sing it in one of their loveliest hymns. It expresses gratitude to God for liberty, and it voices a prayer that he will continue to bless them with the holy light of freedom:
Our fathers’ God, to thee, Author of liberty, To thee we sing; Long may our land be bright With freedom’s holy light. Protect us by thy might, Great God, our King!

The Scenery of Lake Powell, 2008

2008-06-23T06:31:00.008-07:00

The People of Lake Powell

2008-06-22T11:44:00.016-07:00

Coming soon.....The Scenery of Lake Powell....

My Sunday Talk, 06/08/08

2008-06-08T11:31:00.002-07:00

"Building a Relationship with Christ through Obedience"

The 1st thing I asked myself was “why through obedience”? What about obedience makes it conducive to a better relationship with Christ?
The answer to this question concerning our relationship with Christ, is the same answer for any other blessing. It’s the answer to the question, “How do I gain (insert blessing of your choice) blessing?” How do we achieve blessings? Is it through random luck? Is it because God likes some of us better than others on some days? How do I gain a relationship with Christ?

D&C 130:20-21 “20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated.” (In other words, the receipt of blessings follows laws, or principles, not whims or chance.) “21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.” We do not obtain any blessing for any other reason. Sometimes we refer to the gift of the resurrection as a free gift from Christ. That’s not entirely true. There was a law to uphold to obtain that blessing. That law was to choose God’s plan of happiness and uphold agency in our pre-mortal life. We all made that choice and the consequence is that we will now receive the gift of the resurrection.

I like what the Bible Dictionary says about the purpose of prayer. “Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other. The object of prayer is not to change the will of God, but to secure for ourselves and for others blessings that God is already willing to grant, but that are made conditional on our asking for them. Blessings require some work or effort on our part before we can obtain them. Prayer is a form of work, and is an appointed means for obtaining the highest of all blessings.”

Did you catch that? The purpose of prayer is two-fold. 1st, it is one of the predicated principles that we must obey to come into communication with the Lord. 2nd, It’s purpose is not to persuade the Father to come around to our view of things. To make Him change is mind and finally relent to grant us what we ask. It’s purpose is when, after we have fulfilled all other laws predicating the obtaining of a blessing, it is often the final condition of that blessing, the mere act of our humbly asking for them. Over 100x in the scriptures, the Lord says, “Ask, and ye shall receive.” In many cases, asking is all that is left for us to do to meet the requirements for what we seek.

Something else the Lord has said over 100x? In the beginning of the Bof M: “And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper.” That’s another way of saying, “Obey eternal laws, or principles, eternal truths that govern the universe, and you will receive the blessings that correspond with those laws. The Lord says it another way, Matt. 5:45 “For he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” To me that means I can’t change the laws of the universe. It rains and shines on everyone according to laws set from before the foundation of the world. God won’t change that, even if I hope really hard. He says it another way, D&C 82:10, “I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.” The Lord is bound to obey the eternal laws of the Universe. He can’t whimsically choose who to bless and who not to. The BofM says that if God ever ceased to obey these eternal principles, He would cease to be God. Even when He says, “I will forgive whom I will forgive,” it doesn’t mean He plays favorites and if He’s mad at you He won’t choose to forgive you. No, he has set forth the laws governing the obtaining of forgiveness, and all those who obey them, receive that blessing. He cannot deny it to them and He cannot give it to anyone else. This is the main reason we can have perfect faith in Him. We know that God always keeps His word. What He says, always comes to pass. And so our faith means that, as we live by principle, we can have a surety of what the end result will look like, if not necessarily what will happen on the journey, or what the particulars of the journey will look like.
Faith isn’t hoping really hard. I’m riding my bike down a hill and head into turn, suddenly surprised by a stretch of gravel that causes my bike to slip out from under me. And my thought as I go down, “I wish gravity didn’t exist.” Seriously. Even if I pray really hard before I hit the ground that gravity would temporarily stop working, it’s not going to happen. That just because I’m just, or think I am, God should keep the rain from falling on me. Faith is the knowledge that principles govern, and by aligning our actions with them, we can know for certain what the end will be.
“God can defy gravity if it suits his purpose,” you say, “He can do anything.” Well, that’s true in the right context. The truth that “With, God, all things are possible,” is very different from “God can do anything.” God himself, could not save us from our sins. It’s true. He had to send Jesus Christ to accomplish that. But, that’s another discussion. God does not break natural laws. Again, from the Bible Dictionary, this time under the entry for “Miracles”: Miracles should not be regarded as deviations from the ordinary course of nature so much as manifestations of divine or spiritual power. Some lower law was in each case superseded by the action of a higher.
In other words, Christ uses His perfect knowledge of natural laws to work His miracles. Mankind, can work apparent wonders as we continue to learn higher laws. When our space shuttles take off and break into space, the law of gravity did not cease to work on the rockets. Gravity didn’t shut off. It was superceded by the temporarily and localized application of the higher laws of thrust and lift, among others. We should work to understand God’s laws, then, when we pray, our prayers will not be in vain because we will not be asking Him to break them.
Now, what happens when we think we’re obeying the commandments and we’re still consistently miserable? That pain in our life is a gift. It’s a sign from the universe that some part of my life is not in harmony with God’s laws (which are also natural laws), and that maybe I don’t understand some of them as well as I think I do.

As Ayn Rand said,“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises (your assumptions). You will find that one of them is wrong.”

If “men are that they might have joy,” and I consider myself a righteous person, but I’m still miserable on a consistent basis, one of my assumptions is wrong. “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall prosper in the land.” It never says, “Keep my commandments, live a miserable life one day you’ll be happy.” The idea that “I wouldn’t be so miserable if I weren’t so righteous,” is not a correct answer. We are not on this earth to suffer and hope that one day Jesus will make it all better. We are here to increase our stewardships, learning to be co-creators of our existence with the Lord.
So, if I’m not prospering, if I’m not consistently happy or receiving the blessings I desire, if I don’t have a close relationship with Christ, then one of two things is true:
1) Either, God is a liar, and does not govern, or,
2) I’m not obeying His commandments.

Now there could be many reasons why someone would not obey eternal laws. I’d say that for the most part, for honest people, it’s because they do not know them. They may be able to say them, but to know them would require thinking about them, pondering them, and studying them. Or they can know them and willfully disobey them with painful consequences.

Now, there are two reasons why someone would not know God’s commandments. Either they are ignorant of them. Or they believe they are following them and are deceived. There are two kinds of force. One is physical force. You’re tied up or thrown in jail or have a gun pointed at you. This is a very obvious one. However in these cases you still have your agency to choose, even if it’s only your thoughts and your reactions. There is, in my opinion, a worse kind of force. Not physical force, but mental force, or deception. This is the only thing that can truly destroy your agency. There is a reason that Lucifer is called the Deceiver, the Father of Lies. If I present to you two choices and say one is good and the other is bad. You choose the good one. But what if I had lied and that’s really the bad one and the other is good. Or they’re both bad. It becomes impossible for you to exercise agency in that matter because you are deceived as to the facts of reality. Satan is working his plan to take away our agency, I believe, principally by attempting to deceive us. He calls good evil and evil good. If he can deceive us into thinking we are living the principles of God, when we are not, then we maybe end up blaming God for the consequences, or lose faith that God keeps His word.

D&C 132:5 “For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.”

D&C 88:22 For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.

What we are here for is to learn to live the kind of life that Christ and the Father do. Obedience is not subservience. It is not a mindless submission to let someone else make our decisions for us. In God’s commandments, He is telling us how He lives. He is telling us what makes Him God. As we choose to obey them, we are choosing liberty, not captivity. We are choosing to bring our lives into alignment with the governing principles of the universe. It is then that we can walk on water and move mountains. We won’t mystically or magically become like Him. We will choose to be like Him as we grow in knowledge. It is this process that will bring us into a closer relationship with Christ and the Father. We will know Him for we will be like Him.

Beus Canyon May 22, 2008

2008-05-23T07:46:00.009-07:00

Looks like it'll be covered in ferns and bluebells in about 2 weeks.

Pant, pant, pant........

2008-05-16T08:00:00.004-07:00

The physical reaction, of course, to finding out the creator of Firefly, Angel, and Buffy has a new series coming in January 2009 on Fox. It's called Dollhouse. In Dollhouse, Eliza Dushku (Faith from Buffy and Angel) plays a young woman named Echo, a member of a group of people known as "Actives" or "Dolls" who have had their personalities wiped clean so they can be imprinted with any number of new personas, including memory, muscle memory, skills, and language, for different assignments. They're then hired out for particular jobs, crimes, fantasies, and occasional good deeds. In between tasks, they are mind-wiped into a child-like state and live in a futuristic dormitory/laboratory, a hidden facility nicknamed "The Dollhouse". The story follows Echo, who begins, in her mind-wiped state, to become self-aware.[13][2]

Beyond Dushku's character, the show will also revolve around the people who run the mysterious "Dollhouse" and two other "Dolls", Victor and Sierra, a man and woman who are friendly with Echo. Although the Actives are ostensibly volunteers, the operation is highly illegal and under constant threat from Paul Smith, a determined federal agent who has heard a rumor about the dolls on one end and an insane rogue Active on the other.

I just hope Fox doesn't screw it up like they did with Firefly.

The Joy of Work Part II

2008-05-09T06:58:00.002-07:00

We had a problem in accounting for some money after a clerk transferred out of the office. My boss, the station manager called the USPS help line for some guidance on how to resolve the issue.

He is greeted initially be an automated voice.

"Thank you for calling the USPS help line. Would you like to hear the USPS privacy policy statement?"

"No!"

"Ok. Please, state the reason for your call."

"Screw up!"

"I think you said, 'Accounting Services.' Is that correct?"

"Yes."

The Joy of Work

2008-05-07T21:25:00.005-07:00

Not sure how accurate this color thing is.....

What's Your True Color?

My Result: Black

Your color is black. The color of night. Serene and mysterious, black conjures up images of elegant evening gowns, dashing tuxedos, and gleaming limousines. Traditionally a symbol of success, black also represents power and an uncompromising demand for perfection. Not surprisingly, you tend to set challenging goals for yourself and do whatever it takes to achieve them — your strength of character is second to none. This unfaltering determination, along with your natural elegance, impresses people. But keep in mind that your personality might be intimidating to some. Try to temper your demanding side with a little softness — trust us, it won't kill you. Overall, though, black is the color of professionalism and achievement, which means it's clearly the color for you.

What are you?
http://web.tickle.com/jumpto?test=colorogt&c=50652

Everyone remembers the girl at work who thought Hamlet was the "one with the round table," right? Well, the gems just keep coming and getting better.

I notice a Priority box near her station with a "zero meter" strip on it. A postage sticker that says that postage for $0.00 is attached. "Betty," I say. We'll call her that. "What's this and where is the rest of the postage?"

"Oh, it's okay," she says confidantly. "The postage is on the inside."

???!!!???

Turns out a customer had attached some stamps to a small bag thinking it was a Flat Rate, which it wasn't. Upon informing the customer that this wasn't enough postage, my astute coworker, rather then adding the appropriate amount of postage to mail it, simply put the bag inside the intended flat rate box, sealed it and attached the zero meter indicating that no further postage was necessary.

I still don't think she gets why that was not good. All she knows is that we laugh at her for it.

****

I'm walking along and notice a large box in the outgoing mail that is a little different. How is it different? It's the box for a tank of PROPANE. Highly explosive! Dangerous! Flammable! It reads all over the box. In other words, unmailable.

"Oh, sorry. I didn't notice," says Betty, who usually blames things on an inner ear problem or the fact that her contacts aren't in.

****

Tired of working up front with demanding customers all day, she approaches my coworker, Alan, who's in charge of dispatching the mail onto the trucks, and says innocently, "I'm tired. I need a break. Do you want to come up front for a while and I'll do your job?"

****

I mention that I'm excited the the Playhouse might be doing Beauty and the Beast next fall. "Oh, that's good. You're perfect for that part." I'm not sure whether she meant Beast or Gaston....either way....

****

"Betty, do you have any more of the new 42-cent journalist stamps?"

"Those were 42 cents? I've been selling them for 41 cents."

****

The final one is from a customer.
She steps up to my window and looks around. "I'd like to make a withdrawal."

I pause. "Do you mean like from your Bulk Mailing account? I don't think I can do that...."

"No, from my account. Here's my card."

Not wanting to throw her stupidity too blatantly in her face, I respond as if unsure, "Ummmm....I think you have to go to your bank to do that."

She looks around again. More confused. "Where am I?"

"The Post Office"

"Oh, well I'm not from here I just visiting from Arizona and am a little lost."

Considering she had an account at America First Credit Union......well, I guess the second part was true. I guess the packaging supplies, and rows of PO Boxes in the entryway, and the line of people with packages, and the USPS logo everywhere did little to tip her off.

Milestone 2?

2008-04-26T06:08:00.001-07:00

As I was leaving yesterday, Lemur says in a cooing voice, "Who's the handsomest Daddy in the world?"

The Burglar Does Not Ask Me To Sanction His Act

2008-04-13T19:17:00.011-07:00

Courtroom drama brings a natural setting for instant tension in a scene. This is one of my favorites. On the first reading it may seem exaggerated or over the top. It is not. It is occurring all around us. In front of our eyes. Just one example: Oil Company Execs hauled in again to testify before a "democratic and informal" Senate hearing on just why their companies are making so much profit. Look up what they had to say. There are, of course, many differences between the example in the novel and the Oil Execs. Not the least of which is that oil is a government monopoly. Think you can make gasoline and sell it for less? Ever tried to go out and start your own oil company? You can't. It's not a free market. You must have government permission, endorsement, which come along with, of course, subsidies and tax breaks. The Senate doesn't actually care about how much we are paying for gas. If they did, they'd suspend the huge tax chunk they charge for every gallon. No, it's just a show to demostrate to the voters that they are trying to look out for the "little guy." Besides, no one is forcing us to buy gas. After considering the alternatives, we daily choose to pay up to $3/gallon. Gasoline costs "too much" at the point where we decide not to buy it. $4? $6 $10/gallon? Anyway...

A small part of Hank Rearden's trial from Atlas Shrugged:

______

According to the procedure established by directives, cases of this kind were not tried by a jury, but by a panel of three judges appointed by the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources; the procedure, the directives had stated, was to be informal and democratic. The judge's bench had been removed from the old Philadelphia courtroom for this occasion, and replaced by a table on a wooden platform; it gave the room an atmosphere suggesting the kind of meeting where a presiding body puts something over on a mentally retarded membership.

One of the judges, acting as prosecutor, had read the charges. "You may now offer whatever plea you wish to make in your own defense," he announced.

Facing the platform, his voice inflectionless and peculiarly clear, Hank Rearden answered: "I have no defense."

"Do you-" The judge stumbled; he had not expected it to be that easy. "Do you throw yourself upon the mercy of this court?"

"I do not recognize this court's right to try me."

"What?"

"I do not recognize this court's right to try me."

"But, Mr. Rearden, this is the legally appointed court to try this particular category of crime."

"I do not recognize my action as a crime."

"But you have admitted that you have broken our regulations controlling the sale of your Metal."
"I do not recognize your right to control the sale of my Metal."

"Is it necessary for me to point out that your recognition was not required?"

"No, I am fully aware of it and I am acting accordingly."

He noted the stillness of the room. By the rules of the complicated pretense which all those people played for one another's benefit, they should have considered his stand as incomprehensible folly; there should have been rustles of astonishment and derision; there were none; they sat still; they understood.

"Do you mean that you are refusing to obey the law?" asked the judge.

"No. I am complying with the law - to the letter. Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent. Very well, you may now dispose of me without my participation in the matter. I will not play the part of defending myself, where no defense is possible, and I will not simulate the illusion of dealing with a tribunal of justice."

"But, Mr. Rearden, the law provides specifically that you are to be given an opportunity to present your side of the case and to defend yourself."

"A prisoner brought to trial can defend himself only if there is an objective principle of justice recognized by his judges, a principle upholding his rights, which they may not violate and which he can invoke. The law, by which you are trying me, holds that there are no principles, that I have no rights and that you may do with me whatever you please. Very well, Do it."

"Mr. Rearden, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle - the principle of the public good."

"Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to be their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act."

"Are we to understand," asked the judge, " that you hold your own interests above the interests of the public?"

"I hold that such a question can never arise except in a society of cannibals."

"What ... do you mean?"

"I hold that there is no clash of interests among men who do not demand the unearned and do not practice human sacrifices."

"Are we to understand that if the public deems it necessary to curtail your profits, you do not recognise its right to do so?"

"Why, yes, I do. The public may curtail my profits any time it wishes - by refusing to buy my product."

"We are speaking of ... other methods."

"Any other method of curtailing profits is the method of looters - and I recognise it as such."

"Mr. Rearden, this is hardly the way to defend yourself."

"I said that I would not defend myself."

"But this is unheard of! Do you realise the gravity of the charge against you?"

"I do not care to consider it."

"Do you realise the possible consequences of your stand?"

"Fully."

"It is the opinion of this court that the facts presented by the prosecution seem to warrant no leniency. The penalty which this court has the power to impose on you is extremely severe."

"Go ahead."

"I beg your pardon?"

"Impose it."

“But we are giving you a chance to defend yourself – and it is you who are rejecting it.”

“I will not help you to pretend that I have a chance. I will not help you preserve an appearance of righteousness where rights are not recognized. I will not help you preserve an appearance of rationality by entering a debate in which a gun is the final argument. I will not help you to pretend that you are administering justice.”

“But the law compels you to volunteer a defense!”

There was laughter at the back of the courtroom.

“That is the flaw in your theory, gentlemen,” said Rearden gravely, “and I will not help you out of it. If you choose to deal with men by means of compulsion, do so. But you will discover that you need the voluntary co-operation of your victims, in many more ways than you can see at present. And your victims should discover that it is their own volition – which you cannot force – that makes you possible. I choose to be consistent and I will obey you in the manner you demand. Whatever you wish me to do; I will do it at the point of the gun. If you sentence me to jail, you will have to send armed men to carry me there – I will not volunteer to move. If you fine me, you will have to seize my property to collect the fine – I will not volunteer to pay it. If you believe that you have the right to force me – use your guns openly. I will not help you to disguise the nature of your action.”

......

This was the real sentence imposed upon him, he thought - to discover what idea, what simple idea available to the simplest man, had made mankind accept the doctrines that led it to self-destruction.

______

BAM! Read it today!

Every Soul Is Free

2008-04-05T20:10:00.004-07:00

Surprisingly, the most striking part of the Priesthood Session was the closing hymn, which for some reason I never recall hearing before:

Know this, that ev'ry soul is free

To choose his life and what he'll be;

For this eternal truth is giv'n:

That God will force no man to heav'n.

He'll call, persuade, direct aright,

And bless with wisdom, love, and light,

In nameless ways be good and kind,

But never force the human mind.

Freedom and reason make us men;

Take these away, what are we then?

Mere animals, and just as well

The beasts may think of heav'n or hell.

May we no more our pow'rs abuse,

But ways of truth and goodness choose;

Our God is pleased when we improve

His grace and seek his perfect love.

-Anonymous

It made me think of these quotes by Ayn Rand that support these ideas:

"[Reason] is a faculty that man has to exercise by choice. Thinking is not an automatic function. In any hour and issue of his life, man is free to think or to evade that effort."

"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins."

Can't Stop The Signal, Mal

2008-04-02T23:32:00.001-07:00

Female coworker: Men are confusing, they're always sending mixed signals.

Muad'Dib: Men only send one signal, you just have mixed receivers.

Candy Sales Go Underground Amidst Junk Food Ban

2008-03-31T07:18:00.002-07:00

VICTORVILLE, CA 26 March 2008 Many times people create policy meaning to do good. They really do not wish to become tyrants or otherwise exercise unrighteous dominion. They simply know what is best for everyone involved. Because health the ability to live a quality life is such an important issue, this has its place many times in food related activities. Such was the case with the “French fry ban” in New York City in 2006–2007. City officials recognized the damaging nature of deep fried foods and attempted to ban such items in city restaurants, thinking that citizens would conform. After all, it’s for their own good and they should know such fattening foods are not healthy. But, perhaps it will be remembered what an outcry resulted from this ban. Such is also the case with the ban on candy and other junk food in California government schools. Further, most bans do not eradicate the undesirable behavior; they only send it underground. This Victorville report of local schools is a perfect case in point.

Key Points:

In 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation attempting to combat childhood obesity.
In an effort to comply, Victorville schools have removed all candy from vending machines and replaced it with “healthier items” such as baked chips, granola bars, and juices.
Some students reportedly fill their backpacks full of candy bars and Twinkies and even energy drinks, bringing to school a veritable convenience store on their backs to sell to fellow students. This has become quite the black market economy for many of the students, some earning upwards of $40 a day.
Local school principals and teachers report seeing just as much junk food as before.
The students, if caught selling the candy, are punished with detention and confiscation.
The solution, according to officials reported in the news article, is for parents to put lunch money on special lunch account cards that can only be redeemed at the school cafeteria, and that way the parents will know their children are getting a healthy meal at school instead of spending lunch money on candy and junk.
A quick check of physical education scores and a good look at the children reveals that the ban is not working, reported one principal.

Conclusion:
Though it may be smart for individuals not to eat so much candy, pop and junk food, a ban in the schools does not solve the problem. Children can still obtain such items elsewhere and bring them into the halls for sale and personal consumption. Furthermore, this is a microcosm of a greater problem in society where perception determines the action of individuals. Parents seem to have abdicated teaching their children correct principles, perhaps even contributing to the problem of unhealthy eating in their own homes. So, when collective authority exercises dominion in improper places the behavior simply goes underground and the desired results do not manifest. Simply put, the government cannot control eating behavior; it cannot force people to eat more healthy. It is not within the confines of its proper role to do such and should therefore distance itself from such coercive tactics. Rather, it may use its bully pulpit to educate its citizens and help them to gain a better perspective about nutrition, but this is best done without the aid of a gun.

Upon first glance of this article it appeared that the topic would be the favorite behavior of government schools to ban any semblance of capitalist behavior within their walls. However, the article concentrated more on the effects of the ban and subsequent underground behavior on their health and freedom than on the kids actually selling the items to one another.

The instigators of this ban on junk food mean well. They sincerely want the upcoming generation to be healthy and strong. They do not recognize that the techniques they are using are tyrannical and improper. They wish to be obeyed because they know better and it is for the children’s good. They simply do not recognize that they are using force because they do not understand the full ramifications of their own behavior. In this case, if they would learn correct principles themselves, they could then use those principles to guide their children and students in the proper way to behave regarding nutrition. And it could be done without compulsory means.

Action Steps:
Review “The Proper Role of Government” by Ezra Taft Benson
Since perspective determines action, review proper nutrition principles in a family council meeting with your children. Teach them correct principles and help them to govern themselves.
Visit your children’s schools and see if there is a similar ban which has caused underground activity. Discuss with school officials better, more effective ways of accomplishing the desired behavior.

About the Author
Jason Vaughn is a former school teacher, he loves freedom and knowledge. Jason lives in Utah County with his wife Melanie of 16 years, and five children.

Reference(s):
Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Source: Victorville Daily Press, “Students turn Profit from Candy Sales.”
Author: Rachel Byrd

A Capitalist's Creed

2008-03-27T16:46:00.003-07:00

"We who love our lives, and freely acknowledge that God governs in the affairs of men, stand forth and individually pledge: I choose to be a producer. I choose to live a principle-centered life. I choose to think and act in this world. I choose to be self-reliant and reject idleness. When in conflict, I choose to value truth over material gain. In a world addicted to scarcity, force, and deception, I dissent. I choose liberty and life because I am a capitalist." - Les McGuire (1970-2006)

Wanted

2008-03-23T06:44:00.004-07:00

Thanks, Fedaykin. This hasn't been rated, yet, but even if it ends up not being so good, I'm still excited that it IS James McAvoy, who has top billing over Angelina Jolie and Morgan Freeman. Yes! It's been fun to follow his career taking off the past five years.

What else has he been in?

Macbeth

Atonement

The Last King of Scotland

Becoming Jane

Band of Brothers

The Chronicles of Narnia

Starter for 10

Children of Dune

News Source

2008-03-18T07:57:00.002-07:00

I highly recommend that everyone bookmark this link.

Check it weekly, or even daily for help reading between the lines of today's news stories so you can be prepared.

This week's articles include:

"Supreme Court to decide on a citizen's 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. First case to be heard by court since 1939."

"Gold at record high. Government secretly confiscating your savings." (This, of course, means confiscation through inflation. A topic I'll discuss another day.)

"The Economic Crisis of 2008: Bank Collapse Avoided?"

"Credible Worries: The Fed May be causing the next Great Depression."

"Parents ordered: Vaccinate Kids, or Go To Jail."

"Should Congress Make Talk Radio Fair?"

More on Money and A Book Review....Sort Of

2008-03-11T19:25:00.008-07:00

Time for some more money talk. Try this one on.

The greater the sum of money you think is required to accomplish the task, the less likely it is that money (i.e. cash, currency) is the best resource to accomplish the task. The corrolary to that is poor people misunderstand rich people, and rich people misunderstand wealthy people. Because, they believe that money has some sort of value in and of itself, so the more you have of it, the better of you are. Arguably, that would be as dumb as saying to a carpenter, the more hammers he has the better off he is. That doesn't make any sense. If you have twenty hammers, are you a better carpenter? If you have $20,000 are you a better person? Being a capitalist is not about having capital. Being a capitalist is about living a life free from force and deception, or in other words, recognizing the value of human capital and being willing to learn how to enter into exchanges with people, because people are assets.

"I don't understand, because Webster's dictionary says capitalism is the private control and use of funds, and property, and capital."

Well, we've been trained and educated by people who have been socialized in John Dewey's educational system, and Horace Mann's educational system, and the school system itself actually teaches this paradigm of scarcity. Even some classical economists teach something that enslaves so many: that economics is the distribution and management of scarce resources. Now, you can make that argument WITH qualification and make it true. But to say that economics is based on that idea is based on a philosophy of scarcity, that there's only so much value in the world, only so much opportunity, only so much good, and you'd better get yours cause your life's about over.

This is versus the truth that there's an abundance of value, of opportunity. That you have within you the seeds of the ability to create all the economic value in the world.

Economics, to a capitalist, is the study of human action. The study of how people live with each other. Not the study of how people live by themselves. And capitalism is the only moral theory that has proven itself worthy of a free society, and it has two fundamental axioms: 1) it's never appropriate to initiate the use of force, 2) it's never appropriate to initiate deception. We all struggle with it. You're mad at someone and want to hit them, or you think you can get ahead with a little white lie.

I finished reading "Economics in One Lesson," by Henry Hazlitt. The "one lesson" referred to can be summed up thus: The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act of policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

I won't go into details of what the book says here, but it is very readable and enlightening. Highly recommended. Some of the chapter titles may peak your interest though.
Public Works Mean Taxes.
Taxes Discourage Production.
The Curse of Machinery.
Spread-the-work Schemes.
The Fetish of Full Employment.
Who's "Protected" by Tariffs?
Saving the X Industry.
Government Price-Fixing.
What Rent Control Does.
Minimum Wage Laws.
Do Unions Really Raise Wages?
The Function of Profits.
The Mirage of Inflation.

The Law of Consecration, Cont'd....

2008-03-02T16:11:00.004-07:00

The following is an extremely helpful and thought-provoking explanation of some facets of the gospel, mainly the Law of Consecration. It is a transcript of a radio show responding to some criticisms in an email from Disgruntled Mormon. It may take about 20 minutes to read. Longer to ponder. I found it great food for thought, and it helped further resolve many contradictions I'd gained in my mind through life. Some Elders in Church today commented how they'd love for the Savior to come and institute the Law of Consecration so they wouldn't have to work all day at their jobs, and could focus on really important things like living the Gospel and reading the Scriptures. I didn't bother disrupting the class with any response, but it made me want to post this to feel better.

September 12, 2007

"I can pick on the Christian community, because I like to pick on people I love, in a way to rattle their cage and help them turn their brain on, so we can start to scrutinize and think...
The problem with Christians, generally speaking, is they’ve been trained, taught, and educated to be mystics, and from the days of Thomas Jefferson there’s been a break in those two worlds, between the rational world and the mystical world where the question underlying our assumptions is 'Can you be a rational, thinking objectivist and believe and have hope and faith? Or does that require that you be deranged, irrational, self-loathing?'

Ideas have consequences. And we can change our ideas, you can do something about it.

Our Disgruntled Mormon said, "I personally am very objective."

Really? If you’re so objective, why are you telling me?

"And I want to learn here. And that is my purpose. My purpose is not to contend or argue, but learn your side of things, thank you."

Ok, your purpose is not to contend or argue, but you identify yourself as disgruntled. And no one has forced you to listen to the radio show, so...you’re not contending against what you’re disgruntled with? See, here’s another problem. Mormons think that the word ‘contention’ is evil. Right, cause there’s no possible way to contend rationally, and because contention is of the devil. But of course it depends on what you mean by the word ‘contention.’ Paul says to contend for your faith vigilantly and faithfully. But that’s of the devil, so does the devil want us to contend vigilantly and faithfully? Hmmmm...contradiction. Blank-out.

Now, we haven’t done this before, we haven’t really taken on our Mormon friends, because we try to make sure our Christian friends don’t think they’re going to get stigmatized for listening to Capitalists, first of all. And then, Mormon Capitalists, I mean, goodness gracious. Can you be both? So remember the subtitle to my book, "God is a Capitalist, So Why Are Most Christians Socialists?" You’ll find out here in just a second....

"Thanks for your time."

You’re welcome.

"Questions. Number 1. You’re first principle says God is the Author of Prosperity."

Right.

"While I agree to an extent.."

Oh my goodness, that is why most Christians are socialists, right there.

"While I agree to an extent, I feel you forget our own scripture says that you can be rich if you use your money to do good."

Pause! I know of no scripture that says you can be rich if you use your money to do good. I think he’s talking about a scripture in the B of M, specifically by the prophet Jacob, that says, seek first the kingdom of God, and after seeking first the kingdom of God, if you put the kingdom first, you’ll be blessed with riches, and when you’re blessed with those it’s because you’ll seek to do good with them by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, liberating the captive. I think that’s what he’s alluding to, but let’s not be assumptive and just take him at his word.

He says, "Or in other words, you will seek riches in order to do good with them."

Well, the problem is the way he’s rearranged this in his brain is that somehow....it’s okay to seek riches. But, the scripture says, you seek first the kingdom of God. If you’re seeking the kingdom of God to get riches, what’s really first in your mind? Riches! You’re a deceiver. "Yeah, I want to get to the kingdom of God first so I can get all the gold." Well, what’s first?

He says, "I don’t see that with this. You really point to individual wealth and prosperity, but the underlying principle of the Gospel is helping your fellow man."

Ok, I’m not sure when you went to Karl Marx’s school of Theology. But, I don’t know where that is ever articulated in any doctrine, Christian generally, or Mormon specifically. I do know that there’s an urban legend out there that says that to get into heaven you have to beat yourself with a whip, and loathe yourself, and give yourself over to evil do-gooders. But, that’s not the doctrine I believe in.

Why is it the default position of many Christians that the purpose of their religion has nothing to do with themselves? They remember half of the statement, that to find your life, you have to lose it. So they walk around saying, "Lose your life, lose your life, lose your life!" Wait a minute. Why? What’s the point? Right, love your neighbor as..........yourself! If you hate yourself, if you loathe yourself, I don’t want you as my neighbor. Don’t love me like that.

See Joseph Smith had an interesting revelation here. This idea that individuals could have a relationship with God, and it wasn’t this collective mass that had to go through a special appointed contact to commune with the Almighty. But that individual man, was on the earth for a reason and God knows us by name. By the way, he wasn’t the first to say that. He was just the first in a long time to articulate that in an effective, powerful way.

But, it's weird, right. It’s a false starter. He doesn’t quote any scripture. He doesn’t quote any general authority, he just takes his brain which has been poisoned with what I would call shallow thinking. Because these words could be made true in a lot of contexts.

He says, "The underlying principle of the gospel is helping your fellow man."

Why? What’s the purpose of serving your fellow man? What is the goal of every latter-day saint? Jesus says, "Be ye perfect, even as your Father in Heaven which is perfect." Why? What’s the goal? What’s the reward?
Doesn’t Jesus say, "All that the Father hath?" That if you’ll do this, if you’ll come follow me, you’ll get all that the Father hath? Isn’t the reward implying that the reason you’re living the gospel is not for someone else, but for you? You want to know why a lot of Mormons and Christians in general are sad and living lives of quiet desperation? Cause they haven’t figured out that God loves them. Not just their neighbor. It’s not just everybody else who gets to be happy. There are so many people who are making themselves miserable to prove that their virtuous. Why? So they can get into heaven, but they don’t want to admit that that’s why they’re doing it. It’s so weird. I don’t get it.

"Man is that he might have.....joy." Not, "Man is so that others might have joy." "Man is that he might serve." Well, he serves why? Because by engaging yourself in "selfless service" - and that term "selfless" has been corrupted by the socialists - what it means is in the moment, you delay gratification, because the reward of developing character and virtue, is by its own fulfillment....good. And so I think his premise is flawed. If you remember the scripture in Abraham 3, where the Lord says, "We will go down and make a space, whereupon these may dwell." Why? So they may prove themselves. To see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them.

I’m not here to earn your way to heaven. I’m here for me. Now, the secret is Exchange Creates Wealth. And for me to develop and advance I’ve got to learn to create value in the world around me. That’s true. But, you can’t separate it out or you become a self-loather. Cake is good somebody else’s stomach, never good in your own. Happiness is good in someone else’s heart, never good in your own. And the way you prove how virtuous you are is your own depravity (depriving yourself). And the doctrine of depravity, is a leftover relic of the Dark Ages. That leads to abuse, repression, insanity, frustration. In mild forms it’s a Mormon who sends me an email and says he’s disgruntled.

So anyway, I think your premise is flawed, Mr. Disgruntled.

He says, "Principle 2: Faith begins with self interest."

Right.

"Aren’t we as a church working toward the Law of Consecration?"

Why is it the default position of people to stop reading scriptures after they graduate from seminary? So you haven’t thought critically about this question, you throw out this bomb and you think you’re making an argument. There’s 2 problems. Number 1, last time I went to the temple, the covenant was still active. Meaning, I’m not working towards it, I’m trying to live it today. "I meant, aren’t we working towards the United Order?" Well why didn’t you say that? Ok, we’re not living the United Order.

Last I checked, the law of consecration didn’t get turned off. It’s like, "Aren’t we working towards the law of gravity?" What? As a church, no, we are not working toward the law of consecration. As a church, as we learn to faithfully keep our covenants, the goal is to measure our conduct by that standard.

Are we willing to give everything we have for the building up of the Kingdom of God? And who gets to be a heirs in that Kingdom?

2nd problem. He doesn’t understand what the law of consecration is. I mean, not even at a rudimentary level. You’ll see that, watch this.

"That means all in common. No rich, no poor. 4th Nephi."

He doesn’t even have enough courtesy to give us the full quote of the scripture. It’s just an allusion. But here’s the point. No where in the scriptures does it say "All thing in common, meaning all my toys are yours." That’s a brain-off rendering of a scripture from a Marxist perspective, and you’ve never questioned your own assumption. Because no prophet of this dispensation has argued that the law of consecration and having no poor among them means you get to come over and eat out of my cupboard. "I can’t wait till we all live in the celestial kingdom then I get to take Rick’s speedboat out to the lake whenever I want."

I have read many general authorities say that the law of consecration is the exact opposite of communism.

See, they are secretly idlers. And they can’t wait for Jesus to come so they can stop working. Who do you think produces the surplus that you covet so much by yearning for this consecration which in your world means thievery. Robin Hood is not in the Celestial Kingdom, my friend. There is no such thing as robbing from Peter to pay Paul in the Celestial Kingdom.
Do you see his assumption? His assumption is that all things in common means that everything that I have is yours. That is false doctrine, that is again the doctrine of the dark ages, it’s communism. As a matter of fact, the prophets have said if you believe that, you are so far outside of the Church you should be excommunicated. Now that’s not Rick, I’ll quote it to you. I won’t even paraphrase it.

But let me make it clear what it does mean. What "all things in common" means is what Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence when he says, "All men are endowed by their Creator" commonly so! Meaning God is no respecter of persons, "with certain unalienable rights." So when we say that we have all things in common, it means that you have no privilege I don’t have. There’s no government that says, I like you better so you get special privileges. It is not an equal distribution of property. It is not. There is no scripture that says it. As a matter of fact the scriptures say the opposite. Let me give you a few examples.

First of all, I’m going to quote from President J. Reuben Clark, in 1942 October General conference:
"The Church did not own all the property, and the life under the United Order was not a communal life. As the Prophet Joseph, himself, said, ‘The United Order is an individualistic system, not a communal system."

Now, let me quote to you from Messages of the First Presidency, April 6, 1942:
"Communism and all other similar -isms, bear no relationship whatever to the United Order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises to the Gospel plan. The United Order leaves every man free to choose his own religion as his conscience directs. Communism destroys man’s God-given free agency. The United Order glorifies it. Latter-day Saints cannot be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies."

Now, if that’s not good enough for you Mr. Disgruntled, let me just give you one more. I’d just really like you to consider this one. This is Ezra Taft Benson. Now, I know there’s true prophets and Ezra Taft Benson’s going to be hard for you to swallow. Because, people who write like you are going to try and rationalize away what he says.

President Benson is so clear on this common deception, that I hope every Latter-day Saint listener will take a moment and ponder this statement, which is clearly articulated. It never says, when Jesus comes we get to have a common toy box. It never says that. As a matter of fact it says the "idler shall not eat the bread of the laborer." Meaning if you didn’t earn your keep, you don’t get it, under the Law of Consecration.

Everyone who’s ever been even remotely associated with the Mormon church and heard the doctrine of the Law of Consecration knows that when the United Order is lived and the Law of Consecration is administered through the United Order every faithful member is invited to consecrate all their property to the bishop. And then their brain turns off, their covetousness sets in, and they resign themselves that at some point in the future they’re going to have to overcome their greed and selfishness, but not today. What they don’t do is hear the rest of the story.

Here’s the rest of the story. Ezra Taft Benson, "A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zion," April 12 1977:
"The bishop then deeds back to the consecrator, by legal instrument, the amount of personal property required by the individual for the support of himself and his family. As the Lord declares, (Now notice this is much different than socialism.) ‘According to his circumstances, and his wants, and needs.’
A lot of wanna-be socialists just cross out the word ‘wants’ right there and say, ‘Well it just really means needs.’ Yeah, I know, the Lord’s redundant and doesn’t know the English language.

According to Ezra Taft Benson,
"This becomes the private, personal property of the individual to develop as he sees fit. It is his stewardship."

See, if I have a property after going through this process, which is testing....by the way, do you know what the test it? The test of consecration is to see if you’re a capitalist. Principle #3: Agency Implies Stewardship. Are you a moocher and a looter or are you willing to be a steward? And you get back everything required for your calling. Everything that you want. And a minimum of what you say you need. Socialists say, "From each according to his ability, and to each according to his needs," and the government gets to decide what you need. In the Law of consecration when practiced through the United Order, the person consecrating has deeded back to them all the property they want and need and require for their stewardship. This is Principles 1, 2, and 3. But, people don’t hear it because they think this is communism. Contrary to what the Brethren have taught that Communism bears no resemblance to this principle.

So, the problem with this guy is that his assumption is a socialistic assumption. "All in common" according to principle under the law. We all go through the same process. We’re all treated by the authority the same. God says it this way, "I send the rain to fall on the just and the unjust." I don’t change the law of the universe. Consecration for you doesn’t mean something different than it does for me. People don’t want to think that.

Mr. Disgruntled: "I don’t understand why you promote caring for yourself so much."

Yes, I know you don’t.

"When those who lead the Church correctly..."

As opposed to those who lead it incorrectly?

"...and the Savior himself didn’t look out for himself at all."

Whoa! Wait a minute, what do you mean? What is the mission of the Savior? He didn’t care about himself, he didn’t care about his hopes, his dreams? "Right, Rick, because he gave his will to the Father’s." Right. As a brain-off, self-loathing slave? Or because he knew in the end, His desire, in the end, was to pass that test? For example, why did Jesus get baptized? "To fulfill all righteousness." Oh, but the Savior didn’t want to be righteous, He didn’t care anything about Himself. That’s a contradiction! "Well, that’s not what we mean, Rick." You know, you’re not sure what you mean, you’re holding in your mind a contradiction. No one keeps the commandments out of selflessness. It’s impossible.

Why do you keep the commandments? If the answer is anything other than "because it’s good for me" you’re not keeping the commandments. Think about it.

"He was probably the happiest man to ever live on earth."

Right. Wait a minute. You see the contradiction? If he didn’t care anything about Himself, what was he doing being so happy? Isn’t that a sin? Oh, I see, so you have to care about yourself enough to be happy.

Ezra Taft Benson: "It has been erroneously concluded by some that the United Order is both communal and communistic in theory and practice because the revelation speaks of equality. Equality under the United Order is not economic and social leveling as advocated by some today. Is the United Order a communal system? Emphatically not. It never has been and never will be. It is intensely individualistic. Does the United Order eliminate private ownership of property? No. The fundamental principle of this system is the private ownership of property." He’s quoting J. Reuben Clark, Jr. Conference Report, October, 1957.

"Well, I never heard that before." Right have ever seriously thought about it before or did you just pretend that Karl Marx was going to take over the Church after Jesus came back.

Hey here’s one more for you, also from Benson: "Communism introduced into the world a substitute for true religion. It is a counterfeit of the gospel plan. The false prophets of communism predict a utopian society. This, they claim, will only be brought about as capitalism and free enterprise are overthrown, private property abolished, the family as a social unit eliminated, all classes abolished, all governments overthrown, and the communal ownership of property in a classless, stateless, society established."

The equality talked about in Zion (in Moses 7) is because the people were of one heart and one mind and dwelt in righteousness. And the reason there was no poor among them, was because they were governed by principle. Not because they exploited each other and idlers got to eat their share of my common goods. This is why so many of the early Church followers failed to implement the United Order, because they keep trying to make it communalistic. They do not live based on principles. John Taylor said in "The Gospel Kingdom," that "the people had not yet learned the principles of the celestial kingdom." Which include individual salvation and exaltation.

And I know we’re being a little harsh in our tone. We’re speaking about this person’s ideas. And the reason I’m violent towards the ideas is the ideas are evil. They are wicked.

To a capitalist, we teach that there are two absolute, fundamental requirements: no physical force, and no deception.

"Now the principles you teach, teach a person to be self-reliant, which I too agree with."

But, to an extent, right? You want to limit truth to the sphere which is consistent with your contradiction.

"You can work to your own good as far as it doesn’t take you away from gospel principles."

There is not a single gospel principle, I challenge you to find it, that says it’s ever good to abandon your Self, in the fullest sense of that term. The only qualification I can think of in that language is, you abandon your short-term whim, for the long- term principled path. But, it’s still for YOU! I’m not righteous for your sake.

"I wonder how your followers will do when the Law of Consecration goes into effect and the Church asks for all their property."

A: the Church will never ask for all their property! The person who wants to live the Law of Consecration approaches the Church. Because, it’s their property. Just like the Church never asks you to get a temple recommend. The Church recommends you do it. But, you can be a member of the Church your whole life and never HAVE to get one.

B: What I think is, what are you going to do when you find out you can’t live it? You know what the other requirement is, besides being willing to consecrate? You’ve got to be able to generate a surplus. Which another word for 'surplus' is 'profit.' Because, Principle 9, Profit is the Tool of Validation. If you’ve been a moocher and a looter and an idler, secretly hiding out in mortality, waiting for Jesus to fix it all, and you get your stewardship and you can’t make a profit, you will be like the man in the parable of the talents who hides his talent in the earth, does not produce an increase, gives it back to the Lord and says, ‘I know you reap where you sow not, I just didn’t want to lose it.’ And He will call you wicked and slothful and you’ll wonder why you’re living among the terrestrial beings who are still trying to figure out how my toy box is everybody’s toy box.

"You cannot consecrate," to quote Marion G. Romney in 1988, "that which is not yours to give."

If you do not know how to produce a surplus, if you do not know how to be profitable, you will ultimately not even be a candidate for the Law of Consecration.

I’m not claiming to have a perfect understanding. I’m simply comparing it to a basic formula that makes rational sense. I believe in a Gospel that’s rational and a God that’s intelligent. I do not believe in a mystical, magical way to consecrate and win.

"Will they be able to part with their stuff?"

Wait a minute. A capitalist has no emotional attachment to material goods. Section 104 of D&C says, "All things are mine. Otherwise, ye are not my stewards." So, we argues that capitalism implies stewardship. Even the physical elements that make up your body are not yours, you’re just a steward over them. And if you give them back to God and haven’t improved upon them, and you give Him this socialist diatribe, the reward will not be, "Well done."

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not the whim of a mystic. It the rational plan of an intelligent God in an intelligent Universe. "

Southern Comfort (Non-Alcoholic)

2008-03-01T12:51:00.010-07:00

We celebrated our 6th anniversary by spending 4 nights in our timeshare in St. George. The weather was great, 65-70 F. We visited a snowbird Grandmother, Snow Canyon, and Amanda Hansen and her new baby. We got a "Red light violation" ticket for turning left on a yellow arrow?! We swam, soaked, and played. Took a few pics to remember. Stay tuned for Sayyadina's more femininely detailed account...

The condo had three bedrooms, four tv's, grill, personal hot tub on the deck, jetted tub, and furnished kitchen.
A little stroll up "Jenny's Canyon."

Ahhhh....the warmness and lack of snow. St. George is indeed "saintly" this time of year.

River Bottom in a Backpack. Much happier down in the dirt.

A little steamy Ender's Game at dawn, anyone?

Chris Cannon on the Radio

2008-03-01T08:57:00.001-07:00

Congressman Chris Cannon: "You have just articulated the only hope for real freedom in america - local people taking responsibility for local government..."

Coming soon: Our Trip to St. George....

Enry Iggins

2008-02-23T12:00:00.003-07:00

Yes. While I always thought I detested older musicals, it turns out that this one is actually quite funny. So, I will be playing the part of Henry Higgins at Terrace Plaza Playhouse.

The show runs April 18 - June 6, Mondays, Fridays, and Saturdays at 7:30pm.

Ticket Info

Stand Up For Freedom, Part 1

2008-02-22T08:49:00.003-07:00

Speech by Ezra Taft Benson, 1968. I love this speech. The rest to come at a later date.

"I speak to you as a fellow citizen of our United States of America, deeply concerned about the welfare of our beloved country. I am not here to entertain you. I will talk to you frankly and honestly. The message I bring is not a happy one, but it is the truth, and time is always on the side of truth. I realize that the bearer of bad news is always unpopular. As a people we love sweetness and light. Emerson said that, "Every mind must make a choice between truth and repose." Those who will learn nothing from history are condemned to repeat it. This we are doing in the Americas today. George Washington stated that, "The truth will ultimately prevail where there are pains taken to bring it to light." To bring the truth to light is our challenge, this day, and every day. "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Returning recently from two years abroad has caused to reflect on recent trends and present conditions in our beloved country. I am shocked and saddened, at what I find. I am sad to say that all is not well in so-called prosperous, wealthy, and proud America. We have moved a long way, and are now moving further and more rapidly, down the soul-destroying road of socialism. The evidence is clear, shockingly clear, for all to see. With our national prestige at or near an embarrassing all-time low, we continue to weaken our domestic economy by unsound fiscal, economic, and foreign aid policies, which corrupt our national currency. Ever increasing centralization of power in the Federal Government in Washington, D.C., is reducing our local and state governments to virtual Federal Field Offices, while weakening individual initiative, enterprise, and character. With the crass, unconstitutional usurpation of power by the executive branch of the federal government, anti-spiritual decisions of the Supreme Court, all apparently approved by a weakly, submissive, rubber-stamp Congress, the days ahead are ominously frightening.

Surely it behooves patriotic citizens to meet together to discuss current conditions in our beloved nation. It is imperative that American citizens become alerted and informed regarding the threat to our welfare, happiness, and freedom. No American is worthy of citizenship in this great land who refuses to take an active interest in these important matters. All we hold dear as a great Christian nation is at stake. We Americans have strayed far from sound principles, morally, constitutionally, and historically. It has been getting us into a quagmire of trouble all over the world and especially here at home.

I believe the American people know what they want. It would appear that the people want their civil rights safeguarded, but not a destruction of states’ rights. The farmers want opportunity for reasonable income security, but not agricultural dictatorship security. Parents want better schools for their children, but not a federal subsidy leading to control of the teachings and textbooks as well as the ideologies of the children. People want sound, pay-as-you-go spending with a balanced budget, not reckless spending and tax cuts with an unbalanced budget. If there is a need for urban renewal, people want it under local direction, not under the red tape of Washington bureaus armed with confiscatory powers over property. In other words, there are some legitimate functions and services which the federal government can and should provide, but those who want the federal power to exceed the power delegated to it by the Constitution, will be resisted both by Democrats and Republicans. This is what is happening in some limited areas today. May the trend increase.

History has demonstrated that conservative opposition to national leaders was not hate, but an attempt to do them a favor. Let me give you some examples. Was it hate when General Albert C Whitemeyer pleaded with General Marshall and President Truman to reverse their policy before they lost China? Was it hate when Whitaker Chambers tried to warn Pres. Roosevelt in 1939 that Alger Hiss had been giving the Soviet Union more espionage data than any other member of the Washington spy network? Was it hate when I went to the Secretary of State under President Eisenhower and pleaded with him not to support the communist Fidel Castro? Was it hate when I urged the President to go to the aid of the brave freedom fighters in Hungary? Is it hate when military leaders advise that an all-out effort could end the Vietnam struggle almost overnight? This list could be extended at length, but they would all illustrate the same point. History will show that many terrible mistakes occurred because this type of advice was not heeded. This kind of resistance to a national leader is rooted in love and respect, not hate. Regardless of which political party is in power, you don’t want to see your President lose China. You don’t want to see your President lose Cuba. Everyone of these events which destroyed freedom for hundreds of millions of our allies could have been prevented.
What causes one to wonder is why these warnings were not carefully considered, and acted upon. Why is it that men in high places of government, regardless of party, have been deceived. I am convinced that a major part of the cause can be justly laid at the door of the socialist-communist conspiracy, which is led by masters of deceit, who deceive the very elect.

J. Edgar Hoover put it well when he said, "I would have no fears, if more Americans possessed the zeal, the fervor, the persistence, and the industry to learn about this menace of Red Fascism. I do fear for the liberals and progressives who have been duped into joining with the Communists."

I believe one of the most serious mistakes a President could make would be to weaken the Constitution. From the time I was a small boy, I was taught that the American Constitution is an inspired document. I was also taught that the day will come that the Constitution will be endangered, and hang, as it were, by a single thread. I was taught that we should study the Constitution, preserve it’s principles, and defend it against any who would destroy it. To the best of my ability, I have always tried to do this. I expect to continue my efforts to help protect and safeguard our inspired Constitution.

Some two years ago, however, a critic from Washington D.C., claimed that a person who serves in a church capacity should not comment on such matters. He charged that the separation of Church and State required that church officials restrict their attention to the affairs of the church. I, of course, also believe that the institutions of church and state should be separated. But, I also do not agree that spiritual leaders cannot comment on basic issues which involve the very foundation of American liberty. (Applause) In fact, if this were true, we would have to throw out a good portion of the Bible. Speaking out against immoral and unjust actions of political leaders has been the burden of prophets and disciples of God from time immemorial. It was for this very reason that many of them were persecuted. Nevertheless, it was their God-given task, as watchmen on the towers, to speak up. It is certainly no different today.

To Moses, God said, "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land, unto all the inhabitants thereof." Why? Because, God knows full well that the gospel, His plan for the blessing of His children can prosper only in an atmosphere of freedom. To modern men, God has said, "The Constitution should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh." Is the Constitution being maintained, or is it in jeopardy? Senator Fullbright of AR, says the American Constitution is nothing more than a product of the 18th Century agrarian society. It is now obsolete, he claims. Senator Clark of PA says the separation of powers with its checks and balances must be curtailed because they keep the President from making quick and decisive decisions. Gus Hall, head of the Communist Party USA, agrees with these two Senators. (Laughter and applause) Yes, Gus Hall agrees and demands that their should be a new Federal Charter eliminating States’ rights. America’s national sovereignty should be abandoned according to Walt Rustow, Chairman of the Senate of the State Dept. Policy Planning Board. He has boldly demanded, "An end of nationhood as it has been historically defined."

Now these are some of the same men who see great virtue in a socialized, collectivized society. They want vast powers concentrated in Washington. Samuel Adams of the Founding Fathers, said this was the very thing constitutional government was designed to prevent. Arthur Schlessinger, Jr., is another powerful influence in Washington and a former Presidential advisor. He not only advocates for socialism in the U.S. but believes that we could eventually form a permanent alliance with Communism. This would be achieved by having America move to the left while the Communists move to the right. We would then meet at the vital center of the socialist left. The American Constitution of course would automatically be discarded. [He and others] are also opposed to the liberation of the captive nations, even if these nations do it by themselves. These men do not look upon Communism as an enemy. They look upon Communist leaders as over-zealous allies who will mellow. Therefore they believe in containing Communism, but otherwise supporting it, not thwarting it. They further recommend that wherever Communist or Socialist regimes are collapsing, we should prop them up, feed them, trade with them, grant them loans on long term credits.

From reading the daily paper, you will know that the ideas of these men have, unfortunately, already been adopted by Washington as the official policy of the U.S. Now, I would say that in a great, free country like ours, if these men advocate these suicidal, and often treasonable doctrines, shouldn’t every patriotic American be free to speak out against them? (Applause)
At this particular moment in history, the U.S. Constitution is definitely threatened, and every citizen should know about it. The warning of this hour should resound through the corridors of every American institution, schools, churches, the halls of Congress, press, radio, and T.V. And so far as I am concerned... (Applause)...and I am sure so far as you are concerned, it will resound, with God’s help. (Applause)

Our Republic and its Constitution are being destroyed, while the enemies of freedom are being aided. How? In at least ten ways."

To be continued...

Pleasure and Pain

2008-02-17T13:02:00.003-07:00

Today in church, the instructor mentioned how in his philosophy class he'd taken several years ago, alot of time and effort was put forth by the instructor to disprove the existence of God based on the classic question, "Why would a benevolent, all-powerful God allow bad things to happen to good people?" This is, of course, also one of the major questions I was confronted with as an English major. Granted, I knew the answer, but what I didn't know was that the question itself was faulty.

The asker of the question has some assumptions they don't bother to question, the greatest of which is the assumption that the "things" happening are "bad."

The asker never questions the nature of pain. Is pain good or bad? Granted, pain is uncomfortable. It's supposed to be, and not just physical pain. Any part of our lives where we feel uncomfortable resistance or pain is a sign. And each time we ignore or don't learn from the uncomfortable lesson life gives us, the lesson will only repeat itself, stronger each time, until we have learned it.

If I wanted to have a healthy body, for instance, and worked under the assumption with which this question is asked, I would not run. I would not lift weights. I would not stretch. I would not do anything to cause me "unnecessary" pain, discomfort, or resistance. In other words, it would be impossible to grow. Muscles grow larger and stronger as they rebuild after being beat up and torn down during exercise.

The asker is under the assumption that the best thing for us all is to experience no pain or heartache or loss or despair. The asker has socialism (a.k.a. Satan's plan) infecting their ideas. They see only that everyone should be "forced" by a benevolent dictator into living "happy" lives. Freedom and agency never enter into the picture. They want security at the price of freedom.

Pain is a blessing. Discomfort in any area of my life is a signal that somehow, my actions are violating principle. Physical entropy, financial struggles, lazy thoughts, social or family troubles, even the pain of war are all signs that we or someone around us is not living according to God's law (which is also nature's law).

Why doesn't God take my pain away? Because the pain was a gift so I can look down and see my hand in the fire. So that I can have the freedom to remove it whenever I want.

"Brave" by Idina Menzel

2008-02-16T18:21:00.003-07:00

You may recognize her from the movie "Enchanted" and the musical "Wicked." Wildbound is always looking for cool new songs, so here you go! This is from her new album that was released in January called "I Stand" that you may want to check out.

There's a Scandal Brewing in Utah...

2008-02-14T22:15:00.002-07:00

This scandal involves what Ronald Reagan warned about in 1964:

“It is time we realized that socialism can come without overt seizure of property or nationalization of private business. It matters little that you hold the title to your property or business if government can dictate policy and procedure and holds life and death power over your business. The machinery of this power already exists. Lowell Mason, former anti-trust law enforcer for the Federal Trade Commission, has written "American business is being harassed, bled and even blackjacked under a preposterous crazy quilt system of laws." There are so many that the government literally can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute.”
(Reagan, Ronald, A Time for Choosing, Speech given October 27, 1964)

While you may not have heard much, if anything, about this yet, I advise you pay close attention. It may not appear to affect you personally, but it will have far reaching affects of the freedom of Utah citizens in years to come.

Please read the blog post here:

POST

Everyone Go Vote Today!

2008-02-05T08:07:00.000-07:00

I enjoyed playing around with glassbooth.org that Cowboy Bob sent me. A word of caution however: I would check more that just which candidate matches you most percentage-wise. Also, consider which issues matter most to you.

If I may dredge up water thats already passed under the bridge: In clicking on "education" on the candidates, all of them support a voucher system except Huckabee, Clinton, and Obama. Have a look. There's all kinds of documented info on them all. If I disagree with that, but it's low on my list of priorities in a candidate, then I might still vote for that person, but at least I won't be in the dark about their views and past positions.

The Anti-Capitalist Mentality

2008-02-02T08:58:00.000-07:00

This is a short essay I read this morning. It's partially a commentary on today's politicking and partially a book review. I liked it. I recommend taking a couple minutes to think about it.

The Anti-Capitalist Mentality

by Bernard Chapin

Conservatives know psychologizing. Well, we might not actually "know" it in the academic sense, but we certainly recognize it in practice due to our foes psychologizing as an auto-response to whatever arguments we make. Sadly, in the present politically correct era, merely questioning the necessity of affirmative action or the effectiveness of public housing can cause an otherwise high-functioning person to be accused of racism by those who purportedly possess liberal sensibilities.
The same is true when one illuminates the counter-intuitiveness inherent to government taking over the healthcare business. Identifying the waste, coercion, and deleterious impact upon public health that nationalization would bring will be of no avail due to our opposition knowing our psyches better than we do. To them questioning the efficacy of federal interventions evidences an unmistakable need to oppress others along with a desire to trample upon the backs of the poor (those same benighted citizens who, it must be pointed out, receive "free" healthcare from the government under the status quo).
Psychologizing is rarely initiated by those on the right, however. Conservatives generally hold politics to be an objective, rather than subjective, endeavor so they are reluctant to descend into the muck of personalization as a means to advance their cause. This is highly admirable but ultimately a pity as, without counter-attacks, irrationality seems to thrive and multiply within the confines of our sound-bite culture.
Occasionally though, the empire strikes back, or emperor, in the case of Ludwig von Mises. Over fifty years ago, the famous economist whose career "showed that government intervention is always destructive," penned The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality. This short book marked his official venture into psychology. We should be grateful today for its insight. His deconstruction of those opposed to free markets indicates that he had a far better understanding of humanity than do the majority of psychologists.
What impresses most about The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality is just how prescient a work it is. The failures of socialism were evident in the 1950s but not as glaring as they are in 2008. Yet this truth does not prevent our politicians from continuing to push for more and more government expansion. The concomitant disruption and diminution of the private sector is discounted entirely. The experiences of Soviet Russia, the Warsaw Pact countries, and the vivid and ongoing failures of communist starvation zones like Cuba and North Korea are pooh-poohed by those desirous of further empowering the Leviathan. In light of what America has become, von Mises’ elucidation of the enemies of capitalism is more pertinent than ever.
Alienation regarding capitalism remains popular among politicians all over the political spectrum. Recall Mr. Bush’s cacophonous assumption "that when somebody hurts, government has got to move" and his ardent belief that fiscal expansion in some way correlates with "compassion." Such stances are reflective of the view that the people cannot be trusted to fend for themselves. This condescension was highlighted by von Mises who summed up the presupposition with, "…the masses are too stupid and ignorant to know what would serve best their ‘true’ needs and interests and badly need a guardian, the government, lest they hurt themselves." How reminiscent these words are of those who forever express bewilderment should minorities decline to "vote for their interests" – which they inevitably define as supporting and enhancing statism.
Elitists of all stripes disdain capitalism for its leading to the success of people whom our ambrosia-drinkers deem unworthy. Von Mises saw this as being particularly reflective of western intellectuals such as university professors who sneer at rich alumni along with those who propel themselves into affluence by plebian, and non-esoteric, means. The achievements of those they dismiss as their inferiors brings about feelings of inadequacy. As well it should. Indeed, "The truth is that the entrepreneurs and promoters display more intellectual faculties and intuition than the average writer and painter."
Academics condemn divergence of outcomes more than anything else and assess correctly that disparities are endemic to free markets. The unfairness [read: fairness] of it all causes them much consternation. Yet inequality of outcome is intrinsic to having equality of opportunity; a state of affairs which is only possible within a capitalist system.
Von Mises’ advice, should intellectuals ever encounter it, would undoubtedly infuriate them. He recommended that those who pine for opulence should resolve to listen to the public in the hopes of finding out what they like. Social strivers should then find a way to sell those cherished goods at a cheaper rate or create superior goods to sell. Sensible words and a prescription for ambition realization condensed as if it were a basket trade. Yet, by definition, intellectuals cannot and will not heed his counsel. Listening to the masses is something they simply cannot do. It would be beneath them. Treating barbarians as equals is as unpalatable as sitting though a football or hockey game.
The endemic transparency of capitalism is another cause for concern. In a society rooted in economic freedom, when a person fails to flourish the explanations for his floundering are generally evident. When his acquaintances and relations surpass him it never fails to rankle and there are few excuses which can be concocted. An entirely different fate awaits those trapped within a socialist system, however. The state’s domination of the economy produces no similar anxieties. The government’s eradication of opportunity yields equality as it results in poverty for everyone.
It is the common man who benefits most from capitalism. He profits from those who save, who invest, and who engage in entrepreneurial activities. These individuals expand the economy, elevate wages, and employ him directly. More importantly, there are no structural barriers which prevent him from joining the ranks of such persons. The free market automatically eradicates caste. Not everyone can rise from their birth station in America but plenty of people do, and some even manage to become fabulously rich.
What traits are intrinsic to the anti-capitalist mindset? Envy and ignorance are two of the more flagrant ones. The latter causes leftists to draw distinctions between communism and socialism even though no such dichotomies exist. The same can be said of central planning and the welfare state as both are directed by government bureaucrats and fueled by citizen-confiscated capital.
Those who understand economics to be a "what I make must be stolen from someone else" phenomenon will never appreciate the free market nor comprehend the nature of economic growth. Yet one of the few things these folks are able to do is to get elected to public office. Regrettably, the fomenting of jealousy and the perpetuation of a cult of blameology remain saleable characteristics in 2008. The law of unintended consequences may well be the only law that these opportunists do not wish to enforce.
The deleterious effect on art and literature is often cited by critics of capitalism. Granted, our culture is awash with voluminous amounts of low-grade materials. This would not be the case if the availability of artistic creations and publications were culled by Leviathan censors, but von Mises argues convincingly that the ubiquitousness of low-brow works does not preclude the creation of high-brow ones. The sea of schlock may confuse us but it is far preferable to the imposition of state-sponsored criteria such as "socialist realism" as a determinant of what the public should be allowed to appreciate.
In the final analysis, to hate capitalism is to hate liberty, as only within the framework of personal choice can one choose an education, a vocation, and course of life that suits them. The laissez-faire philosophy is what put an end to slavery and serfdom. Nobody born poor in a free society is destined to poverty. How ironic it is that so many anti-capitalists describe themselves as being "liberal" when there is nothing liberal about stealing the dreams and futures of those you regard as nothing more than wards or mascots.
Psychologizing proved a very elementary feat for Ludwig von Mises. His deconstruction and refutation of the anti-capitalist outlook was a noble undertaking. He flamboyantly paraded its irrationality for all to see over fifty years ago, but it is now up to us to popularize his forgotten, but exquisite, argumentation.

January 7, 2008

Bernard Chapin is a school psychologist and the author of Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island.

This Helped Me Feel Better

2008-01-29T21:43:00.000-07:00

The context of this clip is discussing government regulation of the securities industry, primarily the difference in a "public" offering of stock, and a "private offering." It's short. C'mon, listen to it.

The Government's definition of "public": (hahaha)

This next one is self-explanatory.

Democracy is unable protect the rights of the minority:

My Prediction For The Next President......Jimmy Carter!

2008-01-29T19:30:00.001-07:00

Economically, it's 1929, but politically we've just witnessed 1976.

Why? The Republican Party had two main candidates running: Gerald Ford, the wishy-washy moderate candidate, and Ronald Reagan, the solid conservative values candidate. Republicans chose the moderate. Democrats won the Presidency and put in office one of the worst Presidents we've ever had, Carter.

Tonight, we witnessed Republicans do the same thing and choose the semi-liberal, moderate candidate.

Prediction: Democrats win in November putting another horrible President in office. I can only hope it only lasts 4 years like Carter and we get so fed up we put in another Reagan.

I Am a Self-proclaimed Constitutionalist...

2008-01-25T08:18:00.000-07:00

...Should I be afraid? I knew we had legalized plunder in this country, but I hadn't read much about legalized kidnapping, yet.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59566

Autumn "Fun"

2008-01-13T08:27:00.000-07:00

Raking up the leaves this autumn, I was interrupted by cuteness wanting to play in said leaves.

"Wow" and "Ouch"

2008-01-06T15:57:00.000-07:00

Giving up what you have to get what you want...
I had never heard this scripture explained this way. My response was, "WOW."

Ideas have consequences...

The main reason I like this show, is that it helps me to examine my ideas in a different light, from a new angle. This show shatters my paradigms. Even when I don't always agree, it helps "turn my brain on."

Angel, The Puppet

2007-12-31T14:40:00.000-07:00

*Sighs.* *Wipes a tear.*
This makes me happy. Angel the Vampire gets turned into a puppet. Turn down the music at the bottom of the blog to watch.

Xmas 07

2007-12-25T18:50:00.000-07:00

Dracula, The Musical

2007-12-20T19:46:00.000-07:00

If anyone enjoyed the singer from Jane Eyre, James Barbour, here he is again in a concept album for Dracula, composed by the same guys who did Scarlet Pimpernel and Jekyll & Hyde. Don't let the video confuse you though. The scenes are from the film Dracula, it's the music from the musical I'm showcasing. Listen to the whole thing....it's gorgeous.

And here, of course, is a duet from the musical Jane Eyre, set to shots from the new film from Masterpiece Theatre which I highly recommend.

What do these singers look like in the act? Here's the recording session...They don't look like these sounds should be coming out of them...