Saturday, December 31, 2011

Worth the read?

Still trying to get through Les Miserables.  I have read at least two other books since I started this.   Way more french history then I ever wanted to know.  Not a bad story but I wonder if its worth it.   This is a lot of work.  I have to read the book with my phone at hand so I can look up everything.  Any fans?  I have a lot of other books piling up with I trod slowly through this one.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

Thinking about a parable

There are several obvious messages from the parable of the 10 virgins.
First off, Jesus is the bridegroom and the virgins are the members of his church. The message is that they  need to prepared for his coming at all times.

My guess is that the wedding represents heaven.  That is the goal that everyone is trying to reach.
I understand some of the basic symbolism, but not all.   The more I think about the more worried I am.   

What is the oil in the lamps?  It can seen by others but not shared. The oil in the lamps is required for entry into the wedding.  The virgins are not able to enter the wedding without it. 
The simple answer is that the oil represents faith or testimony or spiritual strength.  That analogy presents a problem for the members of the church.  Half of the virgins did not have enough oil to last the night.  They knew they needed it and half of them made sure that they had extra.  The five virgins called foolish had oil and I am sure that they intended to have enough.   They didn't head out to the wedding without a full lamp.  The problem was that the waiting was longer than they expected.  The five foolish virgins knew that oil was needed for entry to the wedding and hurried to get more when theirs was gone. 

The faith or testimony or spiritual strength was not something that could be shared.  Even as they went to get more the bridegroom arrived and it was too late. They were left out.

What is the long night?  I think it must represent the trials in our lives as we wait for the return of the Savior.  I think the endurance required will necessitate preparation.

Can faith be used up by waiting?  Certainly in terms of rescue, one's hope diminishes as time goes by.  So I wonder - how long will the night be and how much oil do I have?  Where is the sensor and gauge?  Apparently half the people think they had enough and will come up short.
The conclusion of this parable makes me wonder -
What trials do I face that burn up or use up faith? I realize intellectually that people face trials and temptation in order to grow.  People need to learn to choose.  In detail it becomes very difficult.

We are required to endure to the end.  But we never know how long that will be. 

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Ridiculed when right Part II

Romney is still being ridiculed by the ignorant who are mocking his comment that "Corporations are people".  Comments on lefty blogs cheer on the lefty leaders and lefty pundits who make fun of the idiot who thinks that corporations are people. 
It is depressing to me to hear the uneducated gang up and congratulate each other on how clever they are while publicly displaying their own ignorance.  Who thinks that Mitt Romney doesn't know what he is talking about when discussing business and corporations?   That has been his whole life.   That's like mocking Chuck Norris talking about a roundhouse kick.
Let me be clear: Corporations are people.  That is the legal definition.

Maybe I will need to write a series of stupid comments that are repeated by the media rather than refuted.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Mormons at war

D&C 98:33
 33 And again, this is the alaw that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.

According to strict reading of this we can't fight anyone unless the Lord tell us.  Listening to the prophet counts, of course.  Did President Grant give the US permission to fight in World War II?  If not we have several apostles who fought in a bad war that was not authorized. 

I believe in the principles of this section but don't take it too far.

Neo Pacificism

aka Greg is a liberal
Ron Paul and his followers are not very attractive when they sound crazy.  I agree with 90% of what Ron Paul says so I don't mean to be unfair.  My biggest gripe is their neo-pacificism.  They want to end all war and go home.   Nice - if it would really work. 

America - the World's Policeman

In many ways the US is the world's policeman.  We help provide the globe with security.  We were dragged into wars around the world to kill bad guys.  The Great War was a disaster for everyone, except the United States.  One of the smartest of men and one of my least favorite presidents got us into Europe to support our allies in the fight.  We returned to isolationism again until the Nazis could not be ignored.   We killed them to support our allies.  We teamed up with Stalin to fight the greater enemy.  We could have kept fighting against the communists after the Nazis were beat but everyone was tired of death and destruction.  We left eastern Europe to be taken over in the betrayal at Yalta and Potsdam.  We wanted to go home again but the communists wanted to take over the world.  We killed them in Korea, Vietnam, and backed them down everywhere else.  Back to cars and rock and roll?  Yeah, if only the islamists would get a life.  So we fight on. 
 Empire?
We didn't intend to get an empire but we have one.  We dominate with our language, our culture, our economy and our military.   Oddly enough, we give all the land back.   Through the last hundred years we have conquered most of the world and given it back.   But we kept a few strategic bases.  We told people how to live and once they complied we left them alone.  We have a decent track record with Germany and Japan being our greatest successes but we helped Italy, Philipines, Cuba (before it was taken over again) etc.  In Germany and Japan specifically we told them they couldn't have an army and that we would protect them.  We gave them security against all threats but mainly the Soviets.  We promised to save our friends in Taiwan from the Chinese communists.  We keep the peace throughout the world.   The US Navy is one of the best insurances for peace and the best guarantee of trade.  They keep the sea clear and deliver help where ever it is needed. 
We fight the bad guys.  We build and buy and sell.  We have the most money, the biggest armies, the free-est people.   That puts us on top.  Our enemies have failed and our allies burn themselves down with socialism.   We are the world's policeman.   (For those that want peace, there are still some neighborhoods that we don't enter.)   We bring peace and democracy. 

Bad examples?
Is the policeman always right?  No.  Should we have invaded Iraq after 9/11?  The question assumes that one is the cause of the other but we were already in Iraq before 9/11.  We were there to enforce rules imposed on Saddam because he was killing people in Iraq rebelling against him.  They saw him as weak after we kicked his can when he invaded Kuwait.  Yes, we wanted Kuwait's oil and we promised them we would help keep them safe in exchange.  We can't have our own oil because of earth worshipping environmentalists but that is another story.  Saddam has been killing his own people and invading his neighbors since he came to power.  He bragged about training terrorists to kill us so we killed him.  I hope we can enforce some laws there and give freedom a chance to grow there like in Japan and Germany but we might fail because we are too nice. 
Libya invasion is a joke and Obama offers no explanation for that one.  I don't know why Congress allows him to violate all laws to bomb people there. 

If we don't want to be the policeman then we should give some notice so our friends can get ready.  We need to give our allies time to build up their armies.  Korea will have to beef up for the coming invasion from the North.  You can kiss Taiwan good bye at the first sign of weakness.  Japan and Germany will militarize.  It might be good for France to try to figure out how to hold a rifle again.  Russia will expand.  Pakistan and India will nuke each other.  Africa and middle east will go dark.  South America will go tribal, each warlord fighting over turf.  China and Russia will have to come to a truce to kill each other later as they attempt to play cop. 

Worried about Money?  We spend far more on welfare from the federal government than we do on the military.  That is where we need to cut the federal budget.  Social Security, medicare, and all the other twisted welfare ponzi schemes.

We need to end wars and be clear about our goals over seas but there is no reason for a retreat. We certainly shouldn't leave Guam and Diego Garcia as Ron Paul suggests. We are in the position of the leviathan.  We bring peace through strength like no else can.   If the Canadians or Australians want to take over I would welcome it but I don't see any good candidates for the job of world cop.  Hopefully I made it clear that we need one.  If we don't do it - there will be chaos or a new cop.   Thinking everyone will play nice if we put down our guns and go home is silly.  There are bad people in the world and they won't play nice just because the cop retires. 
Use our military to help people, to bring order and peace.  To deliver donated food in emergencies.  To set an example of freedom.  Kill bad people when necessary.  Leave when no longer needed.  But don't quit.  Especially when no one else can do the job.  We need to fight against evil.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Pro-Choice Mormons?

Pro-Choice means pro-abortion.  Denying is just playing games with words.  I am pro-life (or anti-abortion).  One may claim they are not in favor of abortion, but rather in favor of people deciding for themselves.  This is false doctrine to support an abomination. 
I am embarassed to have association with a caller to the Dennis Prager Show who claimed to be a Mormon who was pro-choice.  What a confused soul.  He was responding to Dennis talking about Hvistendahl's book, Unnatural Selection.  Dennis was making the case that abortion is morally wrong (regardless of legality).  People need to be educated and they would make better choices.  There is a difference between morality and legality. 
There is a silly argument floating around about "not legislating morality" and letting people make moral choices.  This caller tried to make that argument.  He said that he is against abortion morally but doesn't feel it is right to enforce his decisions on others through the law.  Dennis talked with him a few minutes and I think convinced him that he needed to rethink his position.  Dennis pointed out that the argument about legality and morality was only a question of where to draw the line.   We do not legislate our religious laws about what we eat and drink but we do make laws about not stealing or killing.  Both come from God through the Bible.  Why enforce one but not the other?  Where does abortion fall on that scale?  Should it be a law or a guideline?
Can we let people choose to have abortions? 
Dennis does not debate theology so he did address the theological argument that the caller made.  I think Dennis knows enough about the Church of Jesus Christ.  He was being polite or sticking to his policy about not debating religion.  But the point needs to be made that the man believes bad doctrine.  The point was clarified about the law but not about the doctrine of choice as known to mormons.   There are many rewards, gifts and blessing in this life and in the next.  The most important to a Latter-Day Saint are eternal life (to live with God), the Atonement of Jesus, the chance to get a body in this world and finally the gift of agency which means we get to choose what we do.  The gift of choice is everything.  We choose to follow God's commandments, we chose to come to earth to get a body, we choose to follow Jesus as our Savior and accept his will.  Choice is good and important.  Despite all that abortion is wrong, and although not murder, should be illegal.

People need to make the world better by enforcing law.  Law should reflect the morality of the people.  For a christian country like ours, the strictness of their law represents their adherence to God's law and aknowledgement of His wisdom and voluntary submission to His will.   All laws are moral.  Law reflects morality.   Our society has not improved as we have loosened all social norms and made immoral behavior legal.   Many are so confused as to equate the two, saying that if something is not against the law then it is not wrong.   We should restrain ourselves and punish wicked behavior. 

Life is more important than choice.  Agency is engaged in the choice to have sex. Consequences follow.  Abortion should be illegal and any mormon that thinks otherwise is a moral idiot and I think against the doctrine of the church.

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Slavery vs. Socialism

Slavery vs. Socialism
I think it is appropriate to make a comparison between the problems of solving Social Security and solving slavery.  Both are terrible but were thought to be beneficial when introduced.  Both are terribly difficult to get rid of, primarily because of the benefit provided to some.  They desire to see their benefits continue regardless of damage that might be caused to others.  Social Security, medicare and all other government entitlements do not benefit everyone.  There is a high cost in dollars and principles.  Many people become enslaved in the system, their futures determined by others. Generally by beauracracy.

Getting rid of social security will be painful.  As with slavery, many things have been tried to improve the system but the pain of reality is only delayed, with the problem actually getting worse.  Sides of the argument are chosen, with some expanding the practice while others struggle to end it.  Alternatives are offered on both sides.  Smart men with great ideas offer a multitude of suggestions which are rejected. 
Years pass with no solution.  The very passage of time makes the problem worse.  As with chattel slavery of the south, the mere passing of time guarantees that more victims are involved.  Also there is a certain legitimacy granted as the institutions age, a new generation rises that know no way to manage their affairs.   The plague becomes a part of the culture.  Soon it appears that the way things are is how it has always been and the way it will always be.  It takes less time than one might think.  The bill was passed in 1935.  And yet rebellion and revolution can also seem to occur quickly and surprise the tyrant when years of compromise and debate are disregarded. 
Slavery was considered an abomination at the time of our country's founding but even that group of gifted, inspired, brave, energetic, visionary men did not have a solution to the problem.  In what I believe to be a wise choice and an example to all, those that opposed slavery tempered their objections in favor of creating bonds that would establish a nation.  The oppression of the king was a greater evil to fight so they joined as brothers and established the greatest country the world has ever seen.   Slavery was thought to be contained and the problem was passed on to another generation.  Many of those greatest of men were also slave holders and yet remain great and we are blessed for their efforts. 
What do we do now?  Is it time to face this problem?  Is there a greater evil present that forces us to ignore the problem that massive debt, social security and other entitlements present to us?  Many focus on the frauds of global warming and second hand smoke.  Those are distractions of the bored elite.  Islamism presents a problem, along with our continual state of wasr.  I don't believe that our battle against those that wish to kill us would damaged by a struggle to restore our freedoms at home and reduce our debt.  It would help clarify our liberties and the many blessings of God on our country. 
Does the argument against Social Security need to be made again?  I am a committed abolitionist so I sometimes forget that some people actually want these entitlements.  These programs are socialism and socialism does not work.  Read Bastiat or Sowell.  How can we end socialism in the United States?  Can't make everyone move to Europe to enjoy the model they wish to impose on us.  I think education is the only answer.  There is little economic education in our schools however, and the government schools are corrupted by unions and liberals who have no interest in teaching people about the morality and superiority of capitalism over socialism.  In order to end socialism I think we need change our educational system.
Once there are enough people that understand the evils of socialism we can rely on the will of the people to end it.  Along with education, a sacrifice will be required.  It won't be easy to end social security and get people off the drug of spending other people's money.  A generation of people will need to pay into the system knowing they will receive no benefit.  Other wise it is difficult to break the cycle because every person feels entitled to receive benefits from a system that they have paid in to. 
While it would be proper, it would be cold hearted to simply stop all payments and end social secuity and all other entitlements.  The disruption would be too great.  This would be like releasing all slaves in the pre-war south.  The blacks required liberty but a workable realistic solution was necessary other wise the economy would be destroyed because the engine of labor was removed.  The south understood and feared the damage that would be caused by ending slavery and clearly expressed it.  Many ideas were debated but none was put into place.  The slaves, although free, would be in a worse position if simply cast out with no rights, no property, no income, no prospects, no education, no future.  Chaos would result.  Today we acknowledge the same sort of shock to our stability if we end social security but, like the slave holders, refuse to see the price paid for that stability and its coming doomsday. Many refuse to see the scope of the problem since it is difficult to imagine a trillion dollars.  The price paid in honor and liberty has no scale by which to measure. 
We need better education.  Retirement needs to be delayed beyond the artificial setpoint of 65 years for those that are capable. If people are living longer then they should work longer. A simple fix to the budget problems that Social Security is facing would be to raise the retirement age until income equals payments. Simply balance the budget of the systems based on the taxes collected from the workers and the payments written in checks to those that can't work. In the end this would fail also but at least it would clarify to all those involved that socialism cannot suceed in anything except destroying wealth and will end in failure sooner or later. It is doomed. 
The only way to win is to put an end to social security.  The long path will work I think.  My plan is  that no one currently under the age of 55 be allowed to draw any financial benefit from our current socialist system.  That will allow everyone within 10 years of retirement the time required to make arrangments to pay for their retirement.  Those that are eligible but do not want or need the money can opt out and thus speed the recovery and participate in the revolution. Once the current recepients have died, the tax can end, with the money saved enhacing the retirement of everyone no longer tied to a government system.   The system is a ponzi scheme with each generation pawing off the cost to the next.  Somebody has to pay the bill, in effect flushing money down the toilet so that their children can be free of chains.

Sunday, July 03, 2011

ridiculed when right

Gerorge Stephanopoulos:
"For example, earlier this year you said that the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Indepedence worked tirelessly to end slavery. Now with respect Congresswoman, that's just not true. "
It is true and George is wrong. Although Michele could have answered the question better.

Why was she invited on GMA? How many times have others been on?

George was wrong and yet was ridiculing Michele for her ignorance. Could he possibly have an argument with her expression "tirelessly"? Do leftists make fun of Michele because of the results achieved? Slavery was not abolished but progress was made. Good arguments laid the foundation for the end of slavery. More negotiation and debate would be needed. When debate failed to achieve the ends then battles began.

There is a benefit in this event that some people will review our history. It is sad that such things are forgotten. The founding fathers are revered for what they accomplished but also for what they set in motion. They started a country but set up a framework for the government of a people that has become the greatest that the world has ever known.

Liberty is the key to unlocking man's potential and the founders recognized it was important for all. They failed to achieve it in their lifetime.

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Mason etc were all opposed to slavery as documented recently in many columns but notably by Mark Levin on his facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-levin/george-stephanopolous-flake/10150221375725946

The frustrating part is that to so many people in America Michele Bachmann has lost the argument. Ignorant George wins because no one knows any better. So the less educated wins. That disturbs me. Even if some one were to point this out to George he would never make an apology to Bachmann nor educate the public of our country's history in restitution of his error. Just look at all of the comments at the end of the transcript. So many people admitting they hate Michele and calling her stupid.
She was right.

Friday, February 11, 2011

global warming believers?

Has this hoax finally died? Does anyone really believe in global warming anymore? The scientists are all frauds. The stories in the press are lies. AlGore is in hiding. I haven't heard any good arguments lately. Plus everyone is freezing. Remember that plants eat carbon dioxide and there is only 0.03% in the atmosphere so they are eating all they can. Start your engine and save a starving plant.

What is the next scare? I think we are going to go back to the old favorite of over population. The communists and big government monsters killed so many millions (over 120 million from 1939 to 1969) that this was a hard argument to make but we have had so many years of peace that I am sure it will come back. We need a credibility check. When the next scare starts the first question should be: Did you also believe in global warming?

The Obama train

Pres. Obama called for $8 billion to be spent on high speed trains. Why? Are there crowds of people on slow trains that will get relief from faster trains? The government doesn't build trains or railroads. (Ever heard of the despised rail barons?) Why should taxpayers pay for it? THERE IS NO MONEY! You didn't hear the tea party message? Stop spending, especially for things that no body wants. Get the EPA and the DOT to approve trains and people would build them and make money. The President is clueless. If he wants a train he would say - here is a permit for construction and a business license and a promise not to collect taxes on tickets for the first three years for any and all takers. Now just need to figure out to keep the unions and lawyers out of it.

Facebook stinks

Communication clarification
I don't really like facebook. Except I have some clever friends. And I have enjoyed talking to some people from long ago. I don't like what people put on facebook so I hate adding anything of my own. I can't respond to people without sounding like a monster. Should I unfriend them because they are idiots? Why would you tell me something so horrible without expecting a response. Do I write "REPENT SINNER!"? Plus most people are wrong about politics and economics. Just ask me and I will tell you. HA! And there are some really boring things that no one cares about. You actually took the time to type that? I started to write examples but I can't even do that without offending someone. So I ignore most of facebook. It's a waste. I am fond of the ignore settings. Besides I only ever write political stuff that nobody cares about so I decided to break the link between twitter and facebook. :) Just smile - no arguments here. I will be nice to my "friends" and only put my rants on twitter. If you want it, then follow me on twitter. Maybe I should make a list of things I do follow on facebook or twitter - Sorry if you aren't on the list.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Declarations

Pres. Bush was a better teleprompter reader than Pres. Obama.

How to begin to fix the economy: (some starters)
1. Get rid of the EPA and allow permits for new oil fields, refineries and mines.
2. Lower the debt ceiling by 5% for the next 20 years.
3. Raise the Social Security retirement age by 6 months every year until the account is balanced.
4. Disband the Department of Education, call it a budget reduction.

I hate that blogger restricts "cut and paste". So irritating and what is the point?

The Persuasive Essay:
I usually don't have the patience to finish something I am writing and be able to call it a persuasive essay. I tend to write only when I am mad at something. But I realize a rant is rarely persuasive. It never works well but I will try again. Most of the people that need convincing don't listen to me.
So I will make another attempt at analyzing the President's state of the union address. I still haven't listened to Paul Ryan's response, or not all of it. I heard a couple clips on the radio that were very good.

Analysis of President's Speech
It begins with congratulations to the 112th Congress. But congrats for what? He never says. Speech writers are terrible. How can this start this way. Is he congratulating them for getting elected? Odd, that opening should have been a welcome, not a congratulations. First line is bad. Next line is about Giffords. She and her family have my sympathy but the story is abused. The calls for civility after the shooting in Tucson are stupid. We have two parties because people disagree. If we all got along then we would have one party. If we were stupid like the rest of the world we would adopt their ruinous parliament system and then we would have two hundred parties because people always disagree. Our third vice president shot and killed the secretary of the treasury. We have always had angry political arguments. Imagine if Biden shot Geithner. That would be a story. Brooks nearly killed Sumner when he beat him in the Senate with his cane. We are more civil now, it's just that there is a wider gap in our values. Socialist don't want the same things I do.

Paragraph 4 - "We share common hopes and a common creed." I doubt it but its hard to argue when I don't know what he is talking about. What is our common creed? I don't like Pres. Obama or anything he does. Pres. Bush was a socialist and irritated me with all his garbage. Now it feels like the end of the world. When the socialist and thought police are trying to take over I am not interested in cooperation. I want gridlock among the lawmakers and argument among the people. Cooperation is capitulation. Anger is freedom.

I thought it was lame that the parties were mixed in Congress when the president gave his speech. It just makes it easy for people to hide. I want to see which party stands and applauds. "Work together", "get along" Blah, blah. Pres. Obama is trying to ruin the country and I don't want anyone to get along with him or work together with him. Any congressmen who don't fight to cut the budget will be taken out in primary challenges.

Enough for now. Pres. Obama needs better speech writers.