Thursday, February 15, 2018

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE

You've heard this before and I'll say it.  Guns don't kill people.  People kill people with guns, knives, sticks, vehicles, poison and so on. 

That means it doesn't matter what the gun likes like.  Plenty of people use an AR-15 to hunt with, as it is a light efficient hunting tool. 

The rub comes with capacity.   I agree that bump stocks and high capacity magazines are not necessary both for the safety hunting and reduction of damage in an event like this school shooting.  Yet, one person killed is one too many and seventeen killed is seventeen too many.  That takes us back to the person.

We have a long list of people not able to own a gun.  The reasons are because they are felons and have lost the 'right' to own a firearm, and for mental health reasons that get documented and because of being a potential threat like a restraining order for a few.

The problem lies, not with the gun or its type, but the access to guns legally and illegally.  There is a big black market for illegal guns.  The reason is that felons mostly can't get a gun any other way.  There is also an undocumented source of guns not tracked and that is guns handed down and across family members and friends as gifts or simply loaned.  And then, there are thousands of guns stolen from homes and cars.  Those are certainly in the hands of criminals and if the thieves don't use them they sell them to bad people that do. 

We can't get a handle on opioids that kill more people in a week than one of these school shootings.  The difference is the addicts' simple pass away quietly in a corner somewhere.  Too bad, so sad.  Moving on.  But let someone shoot someone with a gun and the sky is falling.  Well, hell the sky has fallen for the poor person shot.  I got off point there a little.  Point is opioids aren't even protected by the constitution like guns.  Meaning we have way more control how to handle drugs killing people than we do people with guns and we don't. 

We as a people are smart.  There are guys that can set a Volkswagen size space vehicle on an asteroid traveling at thousands of feet per second millions of miles away and send back pictures of it.  So, why don't we put some thought into how to control the 'access' to guns. 

If I want an AR-15 to hang on my wall because resembles the type of gun used in Vietnam then there is no one to say I can't.  But, were I to start posting online how much I want to shot up the town with it, then it's all bets off and I should be blackballed and have it taken away from me if I already have one.  That's reasonable.  If my doctors say I'm psychotic and enters me into a database that says "Don't give this nut a gun", then I shouldn't have one until I can appeal with more evaluation from more doctors or don't ever get a gun, period.

Why is there so much push back from the right on these emotional knee-jerk declarations from the left?  It is just because of the tone.  Ban guns, ban types of guns - it's always the gun.  Perhaps a person ought not to have an AR-15, but it isn't because of the type of gun, it's because of the person that has or wants it.  I think a lot more progress can be made on controlling guns if the focus goes to the problem of the people getting these guns and forget about the gun.  As I said before it is reasonable to sensibly restrict peripheral stuff like bump stocks and high capacity magazines.   There is no difference in shooting a Browning 30 caliber deer rifle and an M1, except for the look.

So, let's all take a deep breath and turn our attention to the root of the problem, people.  How do we keep people that shouldn't have a gun from getting one?  There is where our ire needs to be directed.

Friday, January 5, 2018

My take on Scalia Dissents



For the past week, I've been listening to Scalia Dissents.  The thing that has struck me about his view on the Supreme Court rulings he hasn't gone along with is how aligned I think he is with the framers of the Constitution.  As he details his reasoning for a dissent, I keep thinking, of course, why doesn't everyone go along with that? 

The reasons an activist court doesn't go along with it is that they don't care about the rule of law or the constitutionality if it doesn't fit their liberal agenda or looks to be in line with the populist thinking at the time, which generally equates to the most vocal.   Antonin Scalia minced no words in denouncing his fellow supreme justices when they stray from the Constitution, historical precedent which is grounded in longstanding acceptance by the people, especially those that wrote the Constitution and bending interpretation of the law to include classes of people supposedly harmed that were never considered harmed before.

There is some argument that is if one person is harmed that there has to be five more like him that didn't have the resources to bring an argument all the way to the Supreme Court.  Then, to rule in that person's favor sets a precedent that millions have to suffer with for decades to come.  The Civil War came about partly because of a Supreme Court ruling by the Dred Scott decision.  Roe vs. Wade has killed millions.  A fact, regardless of which way a person falls on the issue of abortion.  I equate it to cutting off one's nose despite his face. I think because of untended consequences the Supreme Court has the right to refuse to hear certain cases. 

Scalia has often been accused of being a right-winger Justice.  Without going into a debate about what the difference is between a conservative and a liberal, I find Scalia's Constitutional basis decision making a proper way to rule on cases brought before them.  Scalia was a great proponent of the 14th Amendment where the Constitution doesn't address an issue specifically then the issue lies with the state to legislate.  That hasn't sat well with the liberal mindset where they want the Federal platform to control all behavior along with everyone's money.  If you sense a conservative bias here, you're right.  On that basis, perhaps that is why I relate so well to Scalia Dissents. 

One thing is certain.  The law can be argued, turned and twisted to fit almost anyone's notion of what they want the outcome to be.  The same can be said of the Bible.  Scalia was mostly immune to it and weighed the merits of a case on the Constitution.  An activist court embraces the turns and twists to codify a ruling contrary to the Constitution for the aforementioned reasons. 

From the founding of our nation, the Supreme Court has gotten it wrong fewer times than right.  Still, that doesn't justify the wrong ones.  It has always been an activist court to some degree.  That is why some much emphasis has been placed on the selection of the Justice by the President.  People want the bias to be in their favor, not the opposing party.  Yet, to the surprise of many, the judges appointed by Republican presidents rule in favor of the liberal mindset.  Most of those rulings are grounded in the Constitution.  So, there we have it, not everyone on both sides of the political divide gets their way all the time. Although, I would argue those rulings with the most import have been activist rulings and Scalia would be quick to tell you so and why.

Don't take my word for it.  Go to Audible.com and get the Scalia Dissents for yourself and listen to it.  A person may wrap their arms around it or go into a foot-stomping tirade.  I find most, not all, the logic irrefutable when measured by the way Scalia reasons the issue by Constitution

Wednesday, December 20, 2017

High School kids take the Knee.


Taking the Knee

Taking the knee during the National Anthem is bad behavior.  It is an affront to the men and women that have gone into harm's way to preserve and service the American way of life.  Be it the military, peace corps, fire brigade or law enforcement. 

A protest has its value.  We as a nation of people pride ourselves on the right to assemble and protest too.  That doesn't mean we always should.  And when we do, it should have an effect of pressuring powers to make a change - in the right direction.   Taking the knee is not the right venue, nor does it pressure power to change.  If there is change it is negative - the wrong direction. 

In fact, taking the knee drives a wedge between people.  Where I was color blind, a supporter of equal rights for everyone, now I'm less so.  I grow weary of all the rhetoric about how horrible I am because I'm white.  The news feeds on negativity.  It feeds on the few injustices that police affect on people of minority and ignores the tens of thousands of good men and women that put their lives on the line to protect and maintain order in our society.  These athletics protesting in this manner makes me sad.  Look at the irony of protesting a country and flag and it's national song that blood was shed for to give them the right to protest.  Go to North Korea or China or Iran and try that. 

I'm much more temperate in my response.  I understand those that are more passionate about the taking the knee and give out death threats and take some physical action like tire slashing.  They are wrong to do that.  Yet, is protesting in such a manner supposed to widen the rift of racism or close it?  If those that take the knee think it's going to make things better for them, narrow the divide between races; they are wrong.  They have become part of the problem, not the solution.

Kids are not in school to protest.  Public school is funded so they can learn skills and develop abilities that they can take to the world at large and not have to go on the public dole or have to live with mom and dad the rest of their lives.  Sport is an extracurricular component that develops working as a team, like a group of programmers developing a new operating system. Or, it might be so the entertainment industry will have a well of sports metaphors to use in their programming.  It has it value.  The kids are in school to learn about protesting, not do it.  Yet, a school like Garfield feeds on notoriety.  So, what do they teach their kids?  Seems it's thumb your nose at anything you don't like.  I don't blame the kids.  They are ignorant of patriotism, sacrifice, and selflessness.  Their mentors and teachers do them no good service by letting them act out and support them in it.  

"Thomas, a fit 37-year-old with an infectious grin, a charismatic command, and boyish charm, doesn’t have regrets."

From <https://thinkprogress.org/garfield-take-a-knee-8415e57a7a3e/>


He should have regrets because of the direction he and others are taking these kids one or more of them will accost the wrong people at the wrong time in the name of protest and get hurt or killed.  Although it shouldn't be that way - when you spit in someone's eye a nose is going to get bent.  Is taking the knee, protest, what you want your kids to have as their crowning achievement in life?  If so, you are part of the problem too. 

Thursday, October 19, 2017

Equality and Empowerment

Here is a post from Dave Higgins and my response.

Wondering if one of the reasons sex/gender/race/&c. equality doesn't get as much traction in the middle because so many activists talk about it within a zero-sum framework.

For example, the idea I came across earlier today that men can't be feminists because they benefit from male privilege so lack the ability to genuinely desire women's empowerment. Leaving aside the issue of whether humans are capable of giving up a benefit for the good of others, it assumes empowering someone necessarily requires someone else losing out.

Now, there might be some situations where that is true: if I have a sandwich and you don't, sharing that sandwich between us in any way requires that I lose some sandwich. However, many situations aren't a "there is a small finite number of sandwiches" situation: the idea of hiring practices meaning someone has to lose out on a job is an illusion caused by a belief (i.e. not a physical law) that money should come from work - after all, if benefits were treated as a neutral and sufficient way to be paid, mothers &c. wouldn't be driven into seeking work and some "average" people in work wouldn't seek it, so the number of people seeking jobs would reduce; and the worth of money itself is an illusion caused by the belief we shouldn't just share everything without expecting "fair" recompense.

The idea of work as a double illusion, a mirage seen in a fun-house mirror, is an example not a solution: building a better world requires more complex assessment than simply declaring a specific version of anarchy is perfect. But accepting the premise that giving some groups more than they have requires taking things away from white, cis men is alienating the people who, by the activists own words, have the most power; which might be as daft a strategy for gaining popular support and change as it seems.


~~#~~

I’m not entirely sure I agree with all you put forth as far as why the people in the middle (I'm assuming blue and white collar working class) don’t give equality much traction.

I think the reason the equality issue is ignored by those in the middle is they are busy getting on with life. Traditional roles of male and female are set as they have been since Adam and Eve. The women have the envious job of teaching their children to be God fearing people or at the least to be socially functional in the world of the majority. The men earn the resources to make that possible. Of course, then the lines blur over the centuries between the two, but the basic tenants still hold.

They don't pay much attention to LGBT, bigotry, or gender disparities until forced too. The forcing comes in the form of protests, law suits, and defamatory speech. Some of it is esoteric and some if it is tangible. The idea of someone has to give up something to bring about equality goes against the grain for most that have to be forced to think about it or actually do it.

The protest may shut down the freeway for a while, and a person has to give up some time at home because they can't get there. No big deal, yet if they can't get to the school play starring little darling or make it to the recreation center to sign up Bobby and Susy for Little League then it becomes a bit more serious. Hopefully, not to the point of someone getting run over. When it is over, it's back to life as usual - almost. There is a lingering resentment that lies as an ember in the soul waiting to be feed fuel and flare up. That flare could come in the form of voting no on an LGBT initiative giving same sex couples maternity leave for adopting a baby as an example. That would give them equality with the woman that undergoes natural child birth as far as hours at work are concerned. Gotta be fair - right (wrong).

Application of education, innovation in and out of the work place coupled with hard work, be that swinging an axe or punching a keyboard, has made Americans the best off of all the people in the world. To come to this point has been done predominately on the guidance of the white male. Thus, is the power. That power is shifting. Some through force like protestors and anarchist want, but mostly through demonstration of ability and will of those perceived to be not equal assuming leading position.

Empowerment in relation to women is demeaning by its nature. To be empowered means that someone is giving you the okay to do whatever within the bounds the empowerment dictates. Empowerment has its roots in business. I can empower the cashier to give a ten percent discount on a damaged good presented to checkout without calling me, the manager, to the front to approve it. Thereby, the liberal white male dominated power structure says we are going to empower you women means that the women can do what they want within the bounds the liberals set. That doesn't institute equality.

Your finish is astute. I would even go further and state there is no widespread support to be had for so many of the fringe issues because not all change is good.

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

The Colony



"Where are you?  What do you see?"  Doctor Ferris asked Joel.

Joel, lying in a contoured memory foam rack  had his eyes closed.  "Black - Nothing.  Wait, there are specks of white light, for an instant, then they streak by me."

Ferris glanced up at the observation dome overhead.  A hundred grim faces looked down on her from the circular stadium seating surrounding the dome.  She asked Joel, "Are you moving?"

The response was immediate.  "I don't know.  I might be, but I don't feel it."

"Joel, do you see any speck color other than white."

The pause took thirty seconds.  "Yes, I see a red one at 10:00 o'clock."

"Good, focus on it.  Concentrate on the red one.  What's happening?"

"It's growing in size.  Not streaking by like the others."

Ferris took a thermometer from the table at her elbow and wiped Joel's forehead with it and read the digital readout.  102.8 F.  1.2 degrees to go before withdrawal.

"Doctor Ferris?"

"Yes, Joel."

"I'm there.  I just landed.  It's beautiful."

"Describe it.  Is it habitable?"

"Yes."

The stadium observers broke out in a cheer, slapping high-fives and hugging one another.  Ferris raised her arm with an open hand and waved it gently.  The crowd immediately went silent.

Joel, as though he sensed the jubilation paused, then continued.  "I'm in a plain ringed with ruddy rocky outcrops.  Looks like the floor of a meteor strike millenniums old.  The sky has clouds and the color spectrum is right for oxygen.  Wait."  Joel turned the palm of his hand toward his feet.  Water began to bead on the back of it.  "Yes, I feel water.  Not to deep; maybe 18-20 thousand feet.  This will do.  Launch the environmental pod. I can do the rest."

Ferris looked up as a dozen men and women streamed from the stadium.   A few minutes later she heard a whirl of hydraulics as storage bay doors opened.  Seconds later a man reappeared and nodded.  But Ferris had already turned on the camera array and saw the geometric dome floating along the ship.

"Joel, it's out." 

"I'm going to send a cloud of dirt from the planet to cover and insulate it."  As he spoke Ferris and the others watched as red dust, then sheets began covering the dome.  In no less than five minutes it was obscured. 

Ferris wiped his forehead again. 103.4  "Joel, we are running out of time."

Joel's eyes whipped back and forth under his lids.  "No problem.  Is everyone ready for transfer to the dome?"

Ferris looked up and everyone was back in their seats.  "Yes."

Instantly, everyone disappeared.  Ferris looked at Joel.  "It's just me, now."  She wiped his forehead again. 103.9

"Joel…"

"It's okay.  I have them."  He raised his arm over his head as if holding something up. 

The camera display showed the red swirling cloud was gone. 

"Yes, they’re right over me.  I have to set them down before you bring me back." 


She could see the straining of his arm as he brought his empty hand back to level with his waist.

"It's done."  He dropped his arm.

Ferris drove the plunger on the hypodermic into the I.V. line and wiped his forehead again. 103.4.  She sighed.

Joel opened his eyes and looked at her.  "Well, is that all I had to do to get you alone?"  He grinned.


She hugged him.  "Let's head back."  Kissing him, she said, "Well, we don't have to go in suspense right away.  We can snitch a few months of a hundred-year trip for ourselves." 

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Flash Fiction



My name is Spindly Crabback.  I was skimming along the surface like any other day shaking up some delightful fish eggs,  in a pleasing fog of mud, that went down in a bite or two.  Looked like I was in a good spot for a change.  Of course, I had to dodge a number of fat stocks that seems to always be in pairs that kept shifting around in the atmosphere to plant themselves in the mud only to shift again.  You couldn't see the tops of them as they went up through the atmosphere to disappear beyond the transition showing a pinkish or black haze that seemed to float around in sync with the stocks; more pinks than blacks.  From curiosity, I had scrambled like the dickens one time to try and reach the top of the transition only to get buffeted back down by the churning of the atmosphere cause by the stocks moving.  Some friends that went with me made it to the top and I've never seen or heard from them again.  

Well, I wasn't going to let that bother me today.  I was in pincer heaven when I found a fresh sack of eggs.  I was so engrossed with digging into them that I didn't see it coming.  Squish… That dang stock pushed me a good hundred of my little feet into the mud.  


That really upset me, mad at myself for not watching better.  Not only did I lose my egg sack it's going to take me three days to dig myself out of here.  

Ego and Writers Groups

Roland Boykin, a Fantasy writer, blogged an article about Critique Groups: A Slice of Life that sparked my thinking on egos.  He looks to an even bigger picture by equating the small writers group as a reflection of society as a whole.  I'm not there quite yet, so I just want to shell out a few thoughts on ego.  Here is Roland's link:   https://rolandboykin.blogspot.com/2016/06/critique-groups-slice-of-life.html?showComment=1466694796209#c5816437649711390468


There is a difference between a overly large ego and being filled with confidence.  I think, that at first blush, it is hard to tell the difference.  With time and exposure, the large ego rears its ugly head or the confident person emerges.
 Image result for ego and writing
I suppose it could be argued that they go hand-in-hand where the ego and the confidence coincide.  Perhaps, that is true, but I think not.  I think they exist like the right and left arm; a part of the whole, but doing their own thing and come together occasionally to collaborate.  The ego tends to be fragile, easily offended and hurt.  It resists criticism which in a writers group setting comes in the form of critique. Confidence on the other hand is tough and resilient, where critique is considered against an existing base of knowledge and experiences and acted upon accordingly.

New aspiring writers have a low level of confidence, not a large ego.  I don't think that, as most arguments would have you believe, it takes a huge ego to be a writer.  If you wonder if your ego is unhealthy give yourself this test.  Do I get upset when that other person, the testy, cranky, insufferable person in the Writer's Group publishes a gosh awful work and you don't?  Do you secretly wish they would slip on the tire iron when changing a tire and break a finger?  Does the steam build In the back of your head when someone says about your perfectly crafted prose that they don't understand it, or it's preachy or telling or clique and you defend it, of course?  Answer yes to any of these and you probably have a overly large ego.  An over-sized ego breeds envy.

Image result for ego and writing

Ann Lamott wrote in her book on writing, Bird by Bird:
If you continue to write, you are probably going to have to deal with [envy] because some wonderful, dazzling successes are going to happen for some of the most awful, angry, undeserving writers you know—people who are, in other words, not you . . .You are going to feel awful beyond words. you are going to have a number of days in a row where you hate everyone and don’t believe in anything. if you do know the author whose turn it is, he or she will inevitably say that it will be your turn next, which is what the bride always says to you at each successive wedding, while you grow older and more decayed.
It can wreak just the tiniest bit of havoc with your self-esteem to find that you are hoping for small bad things to happen to this friend—for, say, her head to blow up.

From <https://killzoneblog.com/2012/09/a-writers-ego.html>

 That takes me as to why write if we are not confident and our ego isn't overly large.  I for one, like to express my thoughts and feelings in print.  It may be for myself, solely (which is actually rare) or for the convincing of  others as to my point of view or to be thought provoking by providing an interesting piece that someone would like to read.

If, as a writer, we want to provide work for people to read.  Then, I think that we have to be respectful of the audience.  We, over time, have a responsibility to write in such a manner as not to put off the reader.  Foremost, this comes in the form of good construction of the written word.  Now, on to content;  to present interesting material that draws in the reader and builds on the argument or plot, if you will. 

I think that there are very few of us that are looking for a place in history like Poe or Hemingway to be read, studied and remembered for all the rest of time.  I, for one, would like to spin a yarn that a reader would enjoy as much as I enjoyed writing it.  I don't care if Hemingway thinks writing, at its best, is a lonely life (as I sit here in the dark by myself, when everyone else in the household is in bed).  I am comfortable with myself, I'm my second best friend after my wife.  I would feel successful if my book was in the bottom of the barrel at Goodwill for Twenty-five cents.  But, I have to write it before it gets there.  Perhaps, the best validation of our writing is if someone gives us some money for it, from time to time, and we transition from amateur to professional.

Already, in the few sessions I've attended at the Kitsap's Writers Group, I like to think that my writing has grown and/or matured.  Insights given are spot-on.  The time and effort put into the depth of the critiques I have received is not to be under appreciated.  In times past I have had a series of epiphanies that brought me to the realization that I am flawed.  I don't always have the right answers to any given topic regardless of how passionate I am about it.  I think disjointedly and truncate my writing as though I'm doing an "Operators Manuel" rather than a robust descriptive piece with depth and emotion.  The aggravating thing is I can't see it until it is pointed out to me by the group. Then yippee… I can fix that. 

As I read posts by published authors(on Google+), I smile when they comment about a discussion or debate they've had with their critique group on, say, Point-of-view, or Tense, or author intrusion, or whatever.  I agree fully with those that feel a group is important; birds of a feather do flock together and everyone who writes would write better when swimming in the pool with other writers. 

Ego is okay if healthy.  Confidence is even better and if the confidence level is low, study, practice, and more practice will grow and strengthen it.  So much the better for building confidence when a group of like minded souls lovingly contribute their two-cents.  If you are a fledgling writer like I am, join a writers group.  If you are seasoned and at the top of your game, join a writers group and share. 

Thursday, June 9, 2016

The Princess and the Apprentice by Roland Boykin

I am not one for book reviews for several reasons; foremost, I don't think I'm really qualified to judge another persons writing.  I, generally, don't know the person that wrote it  and admire that their book was published for what skill they have and I like the book or not.  On my Kindle after reading a book it pops up with book review option - "Before you go - Say something about this book."  I might be inclined to do so, but I have a hard enough time at the keyboard composing my thoughts, so index fingering a response for a book review leaves me fatigued.  Oh, and by the way, the Kindle doesn't let you off easy; it is work to get by the review request.

That said.  I know Roland Boykin.  Not well, but better since hooking up on Google+.  You can get a measure of a person by what they post and pictures they show.  I really like cats too, by the way.  This I decided to write a review of Roland's book I finished a few weeks ago.

Here are a few things that strikes me as a good book. 

  1. Depth of characters:  Do they become real to me?
  2. Plot development:  Does it take me where it hints to with a twist here and there?
  3. Cleverness:  How original is it?  Of course, it is said that every human condition has been written about, so, thus, what neat clever way has it been approached in this book?
  4. Audience, is this book written for a genre in a particular age group or across a wide spectrum or readers?
  5. Finally, do I want to read more of this author?

Before I start my review.  I'll say I thoroughly enjoyed Roland Boykin's book.

These points above are not in any order of importance.  For Roland's book I'll start with the audience.

When I finished his book my wife asked me how did I like it.  First thing that came to mind was it is an easy read.  I finished it in two evenings.  The story seems targeted at high school/young adult.  Which may be why I liked it so well.  Language is clean, not sexually graphic, and the violence (have to have violence when dealing with monsters) is appropriately applied in this book.

 The Princess and the Apprentice is written in a well used and largely abused genre of fantasy.  That makes it difficult to get a original plot or theme going.  I think Roland knows this and employs a good bit of cleverness along with his character development to carry the day. 

The main characters are likable and although you don't overly worry about them you because know what outcomes there are going to be it is interesting to see how Roland gets them through their trials.  I especially like it when the heroes are in a tough spot and I can't see a way out and the author then saves them in a way I could not imagine.   Roland does that well.

The plot starts off straight forward enough for this type of book.  Then as Shelton on the "Big Bang Theory" says  -  Zingna;  or gotcha, bet you didn't see that twist coming.  I won't spoil it for you by telling what that is.

Finally,  Roland neatly ties up the end with a well worked out teaser for a follow-on book.  Which, I hope isn't to long in coming.


My recommendation is if you like fantasy and/or a cleverly written book that will take you away for a couple days then I say read  Princess and the Apprentice.


Monday, May 23, 2016

Love and Appreciation for Family

Love and Appreciation for Family

Opening: 
My talk assignment today is Love and Appreciation for family.
As you probably all know, the lord has restored the gospel to the earth to be exercised as a family.  As Heavenly Father is our Spiritual Father, Jesus Christ and literally everyone else are our brothers and sisters.  That makes for a really big family. Many may not believe that yet, and many suspect it, but we as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints know it.  We order life events and teachings in the home and in the church around family.   We have Family Home evening, chaperoned events like dances and outings, scouts, camping, pot lucks, sports and so on for the strengthening of our personal family, ward family, church family and rest of the world.
I have brought non-members, friends and family, to Sacrament meeting and afterwards almost to a fault their first comment was about how noisy they thought the service was.  So many children gurgling, laughing, crying, crawling under the pews, and climbing over their parents to visit with the folks in the next pew back.  I tell them, probably the same thing you have, we are a family oriented church, and Sacrament is sacred to us and the children learn as they age and get better behaved, that this is the one meeting not to miss if we can help it.  I’m not the least bit apologetic for our noisy kids and actually a bit proud of it.
One of the things I think that brings about appreciation is not taking our family for granted.  As I was growing up, my mom and dad were not LDS and all I knew about the Mormons was the story about the Sea Gulls eating up all the locus in that old 1950s movie.  I wish my parents had been LDS; perhaps I might have made some of my life decisions differently.  “I love you,” never passed the lips of my parents that I recall.  When visiting my mom sometime after having joined the church, on parting to go home I told her I loved her.  The effect was immediate, a double-take and a returned, “I love you too.”  It is true you don’t have hear you’re loved by your parents to know you are, but it means so much more when the endearment is given.
As a young man in my 20’s, I hadn’t given much thought and what little thought I did give about my mom and dad was shaded a little negative.  There are volumes written about raising a good family by just about every physiologist that ever put pen to paper.  There is plenty of good stuff in those words that helps us to raise socially responsible children.  As a kid and young man, I didn’t know any of that.  I held a grudge against my mom for making me go to bed early after telling me I could stay up and watch “Rebel without a Cause.”  I held that grudge for decades and I still haven’t seen the movie.
It truly wasn’t until I had a job as a Correctional Counselor in the Federal prison system in Texas that I came to realize what a wonderful, patient, long suffering pair of parents I had to have tolerated my shenanigans.   After joining the church that sense of appreciation for my parents was deepened and reinforced. 
The prophets and apostles pass on the Lord’s desire for us to understand this family unit all the time.  Because of the way of the world and our government leaders over the past decade, the turning away from gospel principles that have been traditionally recognized by all churches has brought Prophets and Apostles to feel the need to proclaim an open letter to the world concerning us and our family.
There are nine paragraphs.  I’ll go through this proclamation paragraph by paragraph.  





The Family


A Proclamation to the World
The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

Elder David A. Bednar explains:  The eternal nature and importance of marriage can be fully understood only within the overarching context of the Father’s plan for His children. “All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and … has a divine nature and destiny.” 3 The great plan of happiness enables the spirit sons and daughters of Heavenly Father to obtain physical bodies, to gain earthly experience, and to progress toward perfection.
“Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose” 4 and in large measure defines who we are, why we are here upon the earth, and what we are to do and become. For divine purposes, male and female spirits are different, distinctive, and complementary.

2. All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.
In Moses 6:8,9 “8 Now this prophecy Adam spake, as he was moved upon by the Holy Ghost, and a genealogy was kept of the children of God. And this was the book of the generations of Adam, saying: In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
 9 In the image of his own body, male and female, created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created and became living souls in the land upon the footstool of God.
For Issue of Gender -President Packer taught: “The plan of happiness requires the righteous union of male and female, man and woman, husband and wife. … A body patterned after the image of God was created for Adam, and he was introduced into the Garden. At first, Adam was alone. … But alone, he could not fulfill the purposes of his creation. No other man would do. Neither alone nor with other men could Adam progress. Nor could Eve with another woman. It was so then. It is so today. Eve, an help meet, was created. Marriage was instituted.”
3. In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.
Joseph Smith tells us in D&C Section 130 verse 2: 2 And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.
Although we will certainly rejoice in the eternal fellowship of close friends, the associations that will mean most to us are family relationships that have been sealed eternally in the house of the Lord through priesthood ordinances.
President Marion G. Romney (1897–1988), First Counselor in the First Presidency, taught: “In our upward climb, this mortal experience through which we are now passing is a necessary step. To obtain perfection, we had to leave our pre-earth home and come to earth. During the transfer, a veil was drawn over our spiritual eyes, and the memory of our premortal experiences was suspended. In the Garden of Eden, God endowed us with moral agency and, as it were, left us here on our own between the forces of good and evil to be proved—to see if, walking by faith, we would rise to our high potentiality by doing ‘all things whatsoever the Lord [our] God shall command [us]’ “
Thus we know that through these teachings of church leaders that the family is central to accomplishing these things.  We want to return to our Father in Heaven and live again with him there and more over we want our children, grandchildren and their children and so on nearly endlessly to join us there. Emphasis mine.
4. The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
Genesis 1:27,28: 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, …”
5. We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.
“Under the accepted plan,” explained President Boyd K. Packer, Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “Adam and Eve were sent to the earth as our first parents. They could prepare physical bodies for the first spirits to be introduced into this life.
“There was provided in our bodies—and this is sacred—a power of creation, a light, so to speak, that has the power to kindle other lights. This gift was to be used only within the sacred bonds of marriage. Through the exercise of this power of creation, a mortal body may be conceived, a spirit enter into it, and a new soul [be] born into this life.
“This power is good. It can create and sustain family life, and it is in family life that we find the fountains of happiness. It is given to virtually every individual who is born into mortality. It is a sacred and significant power. …
6. Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.
Elder O. Leslie Stone of the First Quorom of the Seventy taught: The home is where we learn what is right, what is good, and what is kind. It is the first school and the first church. The best way to prepare a child for a happy and righteous adult life is to strengthen him during his child life. And happy is the family where this most important trust—that of properly raising the children of that family—is their greatest concern.
Equal to the responsibility we have to provide food and shelter and the necessities of life is the responsibility to set the right example for our children in all that we do.
Let us remember that the parent in the home influences the behavior patterns, the habits, the opinions, and the beliefs of the children. Most behavior patterns are established early in life, and it is an extremely difficult, slow task to change them later in life.
Additionally, on the negative side he said that among delinquent parents are these:
Those who quarrel in the presence of their children;
Those who pollute the home atmosphere with vulgarity and profanity;
Those whose daily home life does not conform to their Church pretensions;
Those who fail to teach obedience to their children;
Those who neglect to teach their children religion by saying, “Let them grow up and choose for themselves,” thus failing in the discharge of a parental responsibility.   

7. The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.
There are a number of important points, some of which we have already discussed. Here is a short recap.
1.      First is the foundation: God prompts families.
2.     Marriage is between man and woman.
3.     Children are entitled to be born into a lawfully wedded and faithful family.
4.    Fathers are to preside over the family with the priesthood for protection and substance and shelter.
5.     Mothers nurture their children and reinforce the gospel principles in the home.
6.    And extended families and fellow church members have a responsibility to assist families when they suffer damage, be it death, illness or a falling away.  

8.     We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
By Elder Dennis B. Neuenschwander Of the Seventy:
“It is a frightful thought to be in a condition in which there is no choice and no personal accountability. Yet there are many who find this alternative attractive. For me, one of the most obvious characteristics of an anti-Christ is the teaching that one need not be accountable for his sins. Nehor falsely testified that “all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life” (Alma 1:4).
We know that to be false.
On my Google + account I follow a political group.  There are thousands of people in the group but it seems that there is a handful of people that continually post.  From what they say, I can see the eroding factor in the family, we call it a disintegration, but they look at under the mantle of equal rights.  They rationalize that within the confines of being “good” people that two men or two women can raise children to no ill affect.  I submit to you that is not true.
Many of them vilify Christians and the doctrine of family and marriage.  Many Christian religions cater to this perversion of God’s will.  Brenda and I had the opportunity to attend an alternative lifestyle marriage between two women after it became law in Illinois to do so.  It was held in this very old lovely cathedral style church in downtown Elgin.  It was officiated by two Ministers, a man and a woman that tag-teamed the ceremony.  The ministers motivation to practicing a ceremony so contrary to the scriptures, even only the Bible they profess to adhere to is beyond my understanding.
We were not there as a show of support for the marriage, but because one of the people getting married was a family member and went as a show of love for her.  In any case, it was painful to watch as our spirits were hurting at the outward display of God’s will being circumvented and lionized by the government of Illinois.   Which takes us to the last paragraph. Emphasis mine.

9.      We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.
Joseph Smith in a meeting said:  “There is one more thing I wish to speak about, and that is political economy. It is our duty to concentrate all our influence to make popular that which is sound and good, and unpopular that which is unsound. ’Tis right, politically, for a man who has influence to use it, as well as for a man who has no influence to use his. From henceforth I will maintain all the influence I can get. In relation to politics, I will speak as a man; but in relation to religion I will speak in authority.”

I had, early this month, the opportunity to have a gospel principled discussion with our daughter that lives in Pennsylvania.  She had just recently changed to a non-denominational church because the church she was attending was more than teaching politics, but mandating compliance to vote the preachers way on issues of the day.  He was vigorous in his sermons on the topics so much so by telling them they would go to hell if not in alignment with his views, which according to him were God’s view.
We as church members have been told over and over what is right in God’s eyes and to participate and vote our conscience.  No church leader will raise up here and tell you to vote for Trump or Sanders even though sometimes some of us might wish they would.  Away from the pulpit, I suspect that anyone would be happy to let you know how they feel about current events if asked.  Even as Joseph Smith strove to make the church understand that for the church he was the authority and for politics’ he was speaking for himself.
We know, as we have related in this Proclamation on the Family, what the Lord expects of us.  When we study the issues of the day and go to the ballot box or exercise our influence where it has effect we will align our thinking and actions in accordance to our knowledge of the restored gospel and how it relates to the family. 
In this is the way love and appreciation can be cultivated in the family.






Tuesday, March 1, 2016

Trump - 2016

Dear Friends and Followers (Yes, both of you);

From the beginning at Donald Trump's declaring he was running for the presidency I leaned his way.  I haven't now for a while.  In the early days and even in the past few months I have defended his stance on the border because of the misrepresentation of things he said by some of the media that then was repeated back to me.  That doesn't mean I support him.  I don't. 

I could cherry pick out all sorts of quotes and facts as to why I don't think he would not be right for the conservative movement.  I read them here on google + and CNN, Fox news and MSNBC and so forth.   You can too.   I like some of the ideas he puts forth and hate the way he puts them forth. 

Like so many others, I don't fully understand where his power lies.  He's been compared to tyrants of the past that do have a certain familiar ring to it as to how they came to power when compared to Trump.  I know to suggest that he would be like them is probably a stretch, yet… 

I was not put off by his characterization of "Illegal" Mexican's sneaking in to the U.S. I think he was partly right about that.  But, then it all goes downhill from there for me.  The first hit was when he denigrated Senator McCain as not being war hero.  Which McCain is.  I could overlook that for the sake of the rest of his package.  Then Trump declares there should be a hold on Muslims coming into the country.  I know what he is driving at, but all Muslims?  Too extreme in my view.  

Where my support for him went south fully is when he bowed out of the last Iowa debate because Megan Kelly was one of the moderators.  Really?   And then he hosted a veterans benefit where the money went to his general fund not to a VA group.  I'm sure he contributes plenty to such groups, but it was disingenuous of him.  From that point on, things he would say and the bully fashion in which he would say them has solidified my abandonment of him.  He says Planned Parenthood does wonderful things.  They slaughter hundreds of babies a day.  He accuses President Bush of lying to the country to go to war in Iraq.  That's been a far left liberal mantra for years.  He doesn't know who David Duke is?  He struggles to denounce the KKK.  I don't buy all that.  I think Trump is playing us.

Finally, Mitt Romney is not for him.  He hasn't come right out and said it.  He is not for Trump.  I am saddened by the mudslinging that  Trump has dragged the party down to.  Sure, there has been plenty in the past elections, but none like the tone we have now.  I think Trump is vindictive.  I think he would keep an enemies list like Nixon and wield his power of government agencies to make his enemies pay.  You think Obama has been bad.  I fear Obama would pale in the face of what Trump is capable of doing.  People argue that would be fine because he is conservative.  It wouldn't be fine if he was conservative which I don't think he is.  I think he is a clever liberal shrouded in a conservative cloak.  


I am for Cruz or Rubio.  I think one or the other would be just fine.  I lean a bit toward Cruz after listening to him often.  Rubio is smart too.  Both would be better picks than Trump.  I urge you not to support Trump.  The rest of the world doesn't respect the United States anymore because of Obama; I'm afraid the world would hate us because of Trump.