Apology for Prop 8

Elder Marlin Jensen apologized for Prop 8.

Interesting to say the least.

I'm sure it took a great deal of love and courage for him to say that... even if the apology was a personal one and not an institutional one. To seemingly step out of line with the opinion that the Church seems to be putting forward could cost him dearly, but I'm glad he did it. Even if all it accomplishes is showing people that holding your own opinion separate from the Church is not an indication that a person is "evil" in some way.

You may be surprised how many people are vilified, and their testimonies questioned (even if they are strong testimonies... I know a few liberal Mormons who are constantly having people question their faith) for being in disagreement on political issues.

Anyhow, thought some of the rest of you might be interested.

"...and Justice for all."

 I love my country. I love the people in it and the ideals it stands for. However I am really worried about it. Not because I think anyone specifically is taking us down the "wrong road" but more because I see ideological conflicts causing real damage.

My mom and I were talking the other morning about how being a citizen of this country should require your (the individuals) allegiance, not just happenstance. I understand the reason that the laws were made the way they were with having anyone born in the US be automatically a citizen. I almost wonder if the child should be required to have at least one of their parents be a documented citizen (not like that will ever happen) But I look at people protesting this immigration mess by turning the American Flag upside down (appropriately I might add, though they may not realize it as they do it... an upside down flag is a signal of distress).
 
This morning I was thinking about the Pledge of allegiance. You know, the one that I got to say in school every day growing up. It was written in 1982 and I think that what it stands for is admirable.

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which is stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"

 Unfortunately I think it may be antiquated. Sad as that may sound.

I once heard a good explanation of the thoughts behind it by Red Skelton. It goes like this:

"I me, an individual, a committee of one. 

Pledge dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self pity. 

Allegiance my love and my devotion. 

To the flag our standard, Old Glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever she waves, there's respect because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody's job! 

of the United that means that we have all come together. 

States individual communities that have united into 48 great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose; all divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that's love for country. 

(Of America) and to the republic a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people. 

For which it stands, one nation (under God) one nation, meaning "so blessed by God" 

Indivisible incapable of being divided. 

With liberty which is freedom -- the right of power to live one's own life without threats, fear or some sort of retaliation. 

And Justice the principle or quality of dealing fairly with others. 

For all which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine. 

Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance...UNDER GOD"

 I like the way he put that! It's very patriotic. Unfortunately I think we are becoming very confused about what our country stands for. Here are the problems as I see them now (which may very easily be wrong or slanted because I am human!):

 "I pledge allegiance to the flag ..."

I have no issue with this part :)

 "of the United States of America..."

hmmmm, I honestly don't think we are very united anymore. I think that much of the reason that the states don't go off on their own is because of fear of having the military sic'd on them.

"and to the republic for which it stands..."

 Is that the government? or the country? If it's the country and the people in it I can fully get behind that. If it's the government I don't think I can... mostly because I'm starting to think that the leaders have forgotten that the government is supposed to be by the people and for the people. I get the impression increasingly that it is slowly morphing into the dreaded "for the leaders and by the leaders"... 

"one nation, under God..."

I don't have too much issue with this part. I see no harm in believing in a higher power (whatever you want to call it) or in thinking that it protects us... as long as we are acting accordingly morally in order to try to stay in that beings favor. As a nation, I'm not so sure we are...

  "Indivisible,..."

Honestly, I really do think we are pretty divided right now. Our politicians are making sure of this... implying that anyone who doesn't agree with them is somehow inferior. I'm sure you have all heard me refer to the "I'm open-minded... but you don't agree with me so you must be stupid" attitude... that many people are catching from our politicians and their vilification of anyone who doesn't agree with them. This particular attitude is very, very dangerous. I would think that this kind of thing (making other people seem less than human) is what starts some civil wars.

"With liberty, and justice..."

I'm not terribly sure we are free anymore. I think that the conflict between liberty and justice has robbed both of their value. In the name of justice we take away liberty, in the name of liberty we take away justice.

"For all."

Unfortunately I have seen evidence (personally mind you) that only those with a lot of money get a whole lot of liberty, if you can pay someone enough it seems you can get a lot higher likelihood of having "liberty" and you can almost get away with anything (OJ anyone?). Same thing goes with getting any "real" justice anymore... The rich seem to be the only ones that the lawyers and the politicians will fight for because there is something to be gained (campaign contributions and legal fees).

How is this any different than paying the police officer to arrest someone? Oh wait, it's different because it's the lawyers that we are paying to make sure that justice is served.... Does it really matter who we are paying if the little guy can no longer expect to have the criminal who stole his retirement prosecuted because the little guy doesn't have the money (that the criminal stole btw) to pay their lawyers with?

And speaking of lawyers... in 2008 the percentage of congress that had law degrees as 41.6 %... are these some of the same people that will only seek justice for a price? Is that warped or what?

So in the end I know I sound rather cynical... I love my country, I really do!!! I lament what is happening to it! The fact that companies are now "too big to fail" instead of properly termed a "monopoly" and split up. This whole mess with BP is a prime example of money and power taking away justice and buying liberty. The biggest environmental mess ever (that I can think of) and what is our government doing??? Standing by and watching and telling the company that caused the mess that "they had better clean it up" ... but the thing is, this same company didn't learn last time. They were involved with the Exxon Valdez spill (you know, that one that WAS the biggest spill before THIS happened), and people were charged and fines were given, but they didn't learn... and our government still lets them operate in our waters. Why? Because BP is a major supplier to our military for it's fuel... it's (dare I say) "too big to fail". We have put too many of our eggs in one basket... And the sad thing is, it's not just the oil industry... this seems to be the way our country is run in general anymore.

It is really disheartening.

A different take on a political leader...

And yes, it's a democrat...


I like the way it is written and the incite into character and his family. To be clear, I'm not a Democrat, but I don't see anything wrong with trying to see people more clearly for their positive attributes.

Tired of People "Soiling" Religion.

Over the last week I have noticed something that greatly irritates me. I think I have finally been able to put into words why it irritates me.

This "something" is people using religious quotes to uphold their political opinions.

You may be someone that has done this at some point, maybe being unaware of the effects it has. Being culturally LDS I understand that by far the majority of LDS people are, in effect, Republican. I don't really have a problem with that per se, my issue has something to do with people assuming that all other people of a similar belief structure must agree with them politically because they share a belief system.

When people use religious quotes in such a nastily soiled area as politics if usually comes off as being condescending, somewhat like saying "I know better than you", or "you must not have a testimony if you don't agree". While I could in turn share with them quotes from the same sources... ei Book of Mormon, Bible, and Conference Talks... I do not, because what point is there in getting into a religious debate over political issues?

Not only does it come across really badly for the person quoting but it also makes the religious quote or person being quoted look like they too may be condescending... which often isn't the case. In effect soiling the quote and sometimes the religion.

So please remember as you go about discussing politics that if you put a $100 (something valuable to you, religion for instance) in a pile of cow poop (politics) it is going to get dirty.

Because it needs to be noted...

So, for anyone that was paying attention yesterday the Health Care Bill passed.

I'm the only person I know who is undecided on if this bill is a good thing or a bad thing.

While I feel that our politicians are mostly corrupt and mostly only out with only their own careers in mind I also feel that there are many unfortunate people that are dying because they can't afford the cost of medical care.

I do worry that the Health Care Bill is little more than a D.C. Power grab though...  a way for our politicians to make more money and have even more control over things that don't effect them. The fact that most high level politicians are lawyers is (in my mind) not a good thing. While I don't think all lawyers are bad people I do think that they have all been schooled in how to twist things, find loop holes, and sometimes put aside moral concerns to better do their jobs. Knowing how to "pull the wool over peoples eyes" in a politician can play out to be a very bad thing.

I worry that the pharmaceutical and insurance companies have effectively bought our elected officials. Why is nothing ever said about the price of what it take to make a pill vs the cost of that pill? Why don't we realize that insurance companies benefit from having everyone required to use them? Why is it that the supplies that are used in medicine are so outrageously expensive? These things aren't high priced because insurance is high priced... I believe these things are a big part of why insurance costs so much. Why is a plastic piece that costs pennies to make being sold to us for oh so much more?

Having a bill pass that is full of problems an loopholes pretty much guarantees that those problems and loopholes won't all be fixed...  if only because they benefit the politicians. Who has ever seen a bad government program dissolved? I haven't...

Besides the fact that our government is in over it's head as far as debt goes... and this isn't just our grandchildrens money we are talking about. Do you know who we borrow that debt from? That's right... China. A country that is the epitome of justice (can you feel the sarcasm?). What happens if we can no longer pay our debt? What happens if they decide NOT to be understanding when that happens? What is the collateral? This is a HUGE problem.

Now to the other side...

If you think that earlier when I said that people are dying because they can't pay for medical treatment that I'm exaggerating, think again. The poor in our country wait until things are to a dire state before they take  themselves to the Emergency Room and often by the time they get there it is too late to do anything... specifically when the "thing" that they were "waiting out" is diagnosed as cancer. It would cost us, the taxpayer, so much less if they went in to a regular doctors visit when they first noticed something is wrong and then we (the taxpayer) paid for that instead of the ER.

While I think that many social programs are too far reaching and that in many cases if the public was made directly responsible for taking care of their poor and downtrodden (no longer being able to just drive past that beggar on the corner thinking "he can go to a shelter" or "if she is really in that bad of shape then the government should be helping her all she has to do is fill out a couple of forms...") then they would give more, willingly, than what the taxes take by force. Just look at what happened with Hurricane Katrina with the amount the public willingly gave... just look at Haiti... when the public is made aware of major issues by the media they step up and help. The American people are some of the most caring people in the world as far as being willing to give of their time and their resources.

However, how does that work for medicine? I know that I, for one, don't know how to diagnose pneumonia, nor how to properly treat it... I don't know how to tell when someone is foregoing without medical treatment without them telling me. Why in this world does a child that is born to poor (or even middle class) parents and happens to need a tonsillectomy have to fight with the insurance company over if it was a "pre-existing" condition? Are you kidding me? btw, I have a friend who had exactly that happen to them.

The opposition to prioritizing who gets treatment based on need is a bit ridiculous in my book... be opposing it people are saying that their elderly terminally ill grandparent who is going to die of cancer anyway deserves a kidney transplant to live 2 months longer while the same cost and procedure could save a childs life... as of right now, the prioritization isn't by need... it's by social class. Those who see that as just... well, lets just say, they baffle me.

I have 2 sick kids at the moment... for me (with excellent insurance mind you) it will cost me $50 to take them both to see the pediatrician. $50 is minuscule compared to what the actual bill turns out to be... but it's still $50 that I need to go a buy Jer some shirts with...  And if I didn't have insurance? Ya... about $200 later....nope, the kids definitely wouldn't be going to the doctor until I was fearful for their lives or the long term effects of "whatever" upon them.

One side looks heartless and the other side looks careless... a choice between "the better of two evils".

So in the end something has to be done about all of it. As much as I hate to give more money to our smug and out of control politicians and hope it gets where it is needed... it looks like that is going to happen anyways. There is no way there is going to be anything bipartisan on this... I wish their were. The people that are for it, are for it, and the people that are against it are against it and they aren't going to vote for it even if it does have many of their ideas in it (which it wouldn't, because that would be like saying they supported it.)... because they are against the whole thing. There is no working together.

I guess it now becomes a "wait and see" situation... hopefully now that the thing has passed we will get some modifications to it from the people who were so dead set against it... because, lets face it, it's going to happen now... might as well tweak something you were against so that it isn't "so bad"... right?

Oh, how I wish there was a better solution.

Reflecting on 9/11 a little...

Yesterday on the CNN website they have some newly released pictures of the terror attacks on the World Trade Centers. As I was looking at them, These thoughts popped into my head:

Why don't we ever see these pictures anymore?

Is it because someone doesn't want us to remember?

Is it because it's heartbreaking and we don't want to feel that?

Why hasn't something been build there yet?

It has been almost nine years since it happened. And I don't know if any memorial has been completed. I know there were plans for one. Then I remember hearing that it fell through. Something with funding, or the company doing things wrong.

I suspect it probably had something to do with politics. Someone, or many someones feeling that THEY were the ones that needed to make it happen, that no one else should. So they cut down everyone else.

Too many people clamoring for political gain.

So many people willing to use others as stepping stones to "the top".

Even if those stepping stones are the dead or the memories of our dead.

What a shame it has all become.

Not only did the terrorists attack us, but many of our own continue to undermine us to gain "power" or "money".

Always the political mud-fight, felling anyone in their way.

The attitude of "I'm open-minded, but since you don't agree with me... you must be stupid (or bigoted, or any number of negative adjectives)."

Our nations competitiveness is having not so great consequences. Our political parties are calling each other all sorts of horrid things... and the saddest part?

It's bleeding down to the regular every day smo.

And what happens to those who truly stand in the middle, not claiming either parties stances? They are always seen as the "enemy" because their ideals don't fall into a neat little box. They are vilified by both sides of the battle.

Isn't the middle where we should all be standing? Willing to compromise to do what is best for all?

What is happening to the beautiful things our country should be standing for?
It's being divided.

Remember this next time you hear someone with a different point of view:

"United we stand, divided we fall."

---

P.S they are currently working on a memorial at Ground Zero. After scrapping the first plans for it they have agreed on another set. Hopefully these will be followed through to completion. We will see.

State of the Union....

I'll admit I didn't watch it. I refuse to anymore with the media pulling strings and the audience inturputions... however, I did read it. I suggest you do the same so that you can get a real feel for what was said and not just what the audience was reacting to.

here is a link to the full text on it.

What do you think? (That's NOT a question on what the pundits think or what the audience reaction was.)

I decided...

That I don't like our government. It is no longer "for the people", it's "for the politicians". That's a huge problem. Term limits people... there is something appealing about someone running for office with the idea that their stay in office is temporary and not something owed to them.

Yes, I'm opinionated...

and I will fully own that!

I'm especially opinionated about how our country should be run.

It's kinda funny, cause at least once a week my mom and I will have a discussion on the phone about how to fix the world. We usually agreed on the how, which is funny, cause we have different leanings politically. Isn't it funny how most people really do think similarly even when the world likes to scream and yell at them that they are SOOOOO different?

I find it amusing, if somewhat sad.

Why does everything have to be "yes" or "no"?

It interesting, have you noticed that most anything that is controversial has to have a "yes" or "no" answer? Well, at least as far as anyone invested in those issues feel. It's always a demand of "are you for it, or against it? Yes or no?"

I feel this prevents us from coming to any real solution on these matters, which is what, in turn, makes them controversial.

What got me thinking about this was when someone asked me my stance on Gay Marriage. "Yes or No"?

Me, I say neither. Here is my point of view, you don't have to agree with it, but this is my blog so I'm going to put it up anyways. :) This is a cut and paste of an email correspondence that I had recently and here is my explanation of my stance.

----

Basically I feel that Marriage was originally a religious institution and as time has passed governments have decided to sanction it for various reasons.

While Marriage is good in my opinion I feel that Government really has no place saying who can and who cannot be a part of it, being that it was originally (and still continues to be in many ways) a religious institution. Whereas if they wanted to sanction any legal union I would have no issue with that because legal unions are strictly legal and not religious in the least. I would have no problem with them declaring my marriage a "Legal Union" for their purposes and then leaving it up to me and my religion to decided if I wanted to then have a "marriage". Therefore making "Legal Unions" the legal and "Marriage" the religious.

I feel that this would resolve a lot of the conflict between the two. The Government and religion would be separate (as I feel they always should have been, the governments should never have had their legal terminology be "marriage", it's too much a religious term, I feel that was a mistake). The government would have it's term and the religious their term.

As far as homosexual relationships go the government could sanction all they want to, giving legal rights to those partnerships, religions would have no reason to have ANY say in the matter, and if that partnership wants to be "married" they can take it up with their individual congregations or religious leadership. Some religions would sanction it and some would not, As I'm sure that many religions are on various sides of any controversial subject.

I also feel that the government could then sanction relationships that are wholly platonic as well. Such as two widowed sisters who live together. If one sister dies why shouldn't the other have stake in that sisters assets? Such as the house that they share? If one sister becomes gravely ill shouldn't the other have some stake in decisions being made? Of course this would be a voluntary agreement that would only happen if those two sisters decided that that would be the best course of action.

Basically I advocate complete separation of church and state on this issue.

FYI

I detest Ron Paul. And yes I dare say this on the internet *gasp* Sue me.

FYI

There is a local Tea Party here in town and for those of you that may be interested I thought I would post the info here.

This is a protest about the amount of money the government is currently spending (perfect for tax day isn't it?). For me, it's about not only the amount they are spending, but about the lack of deliberate representation our officials are giving their constituents on not only taxes, but on everything else as well.

It seems that as soon as many politicians get into office (no matter which party they belong to, it happens in both) they decided it is then time to forget campaign promises and what is right for the people they represent, and that it is now time to only look out for #1 and their own political agendas and careers. I'm tired of it as I'm sure just about anyone that keeps up with politics is.

This protest is billed as nonpartisan. Though people do tend to get more riled up about current politicians than past.

Anyhow, if you are interested: It is on Memorial Drive between 6:30 and 8 pm. It includes activities (though I can remember the specifics at the moment, sorry).

Alrighty now, stepping down of the soapbox :)

How I Feel About Our Country Right Now....

This guy puts it into words.

I hope that those who don't like Glenn Beck can get past the fact that this is delivered by him, and see the picture that is being painted. Here is the clip, and yes it's from Fox News, again, if you don't like them please try to look past that.

Ewwwww Politics

Ok, so last night I watched the presidential debate. Interesting. I don't think anyone really hit it out of the park. There was a lot of facts without the whole story on both sides of the debate.

Example: Comments about Henry Kissinger and supporting communication between America and other less desirable countries. BOTH candidates were right. Obama said that Kissinger supported communication with countries like Iran (true), while McCain said Kissinger didn't support presidential communication without preconditions (true). Both of these statments can be true at the same time. Um what are we disagreeing about HERE? They seemed to agree on more things than they disagreed on, but put it in kind of a combative way. What is that all about?

While I've been keeping track of the political campaigning (which doesn't seem to focus on a lot of the issues) I've noticed that most of the bloggers I come across are for Obama. They seem to really focus on Palin and her drawbacks. Saying things like "this is why she scares me". Which is fine. They are allowed their opinion. As am I. So here is my two cents.

This is why he (Obama) scares me:

If you watched the debate did you notice that to almost every question he was asked his response included adding programs. Even when asked what things he would drop due to the economic crisis his answer involved programs we needed to add. (BTW neither candidate said much as to what they would drop, outside of McCain mentioning the possibility of considering a spending freeze on all non essential programs). The thing I don't get... as a fiscal conservative is this. How can he honestly pay for all of these programs without taxing the middle class more? Especially when the rich know all the loopholes. If you tax them more, they will just be more bent on finding loopholes to get out of it. And they will find them. Because our tax system is jacked up.

To sum it up +++programs canNOT = no increase in taxes to the middle class. And Adding increased taxes on just about everyone seems like it would be economic suicide in the current situation. Possibly leading to more serious issues, cause lets face it, the economy effects everything. It just doesn't make any sense to me. So if someone can explain how this could possibly work ... I'm all ears.

Er... eyes.

Er WHATEVER.

I'd be happy to read it and try to be open minded :)

My Favorite Late Night Comedian

And he was my favorite BEFORE this monologue. I adore Craig Ferguson. here is his thoughts on politics and voting. And GUESS WHAT? IT'S NOT AT ALL PARTISON! Yay for Craigypoo. This is about 9 min long but Sooo worth listening to the whole thing. This is SO how I feel.

Partisan?

Why is it that as soon as you happen to state what political party you are affiliated with suddenly you are one of two things: Heartless or Naive? Why is it that most Democrats automatically assume that just because you happen to vote Republican most of the time that you all the sudden don't give a crap about your fellow man or his struggles? And Why is it that as soon as Republicans find out you vote Democrat most of the time you are suddenly dumb as a doornail?

Oh how I wish there was a viable political party in this country that was moderate. Not one extreme or another. That understood that most things in life are not answered by extremes. Take the abortion debate for example: I don't think that abortion should be a free for all with no regulations. I don't think it should be taken lightly. And I do think it should be considered as a last resort... yes I am pro-life. BUT WAIT A MINUTE..... I'm also pro-choice. I think that in certain cases it should be allowable and not looked down upon (gasp). Such instances would be rape, incest, or the likelihood that either the mother and/or the child would die anyways. In these cases (and a couple that haven't occurred to me I'm sure) I think a women (and her partner if applicable) should have the option of abortion. So where does that leave me?

That's right, in neither political party... because they each want extremes. All or none. And only one set of opinions, you can't have half of one parties values and half the others aka pro Gay marriage and anti-abortion... doesn't work either. There has to be a better way. No wonder citizens in America are so frustrated with our political system. It makes polar opposites in parties... and seemingly allows for no middle ground. I think it supposed to force them to work towards the middle ground but all I see happening is them switching one extreme for another like some morbid game of Monopoly ("you can have this extreme if we can get this one!"). UGH.

Politics

Can I just say I love McCains choice for VP.

Wow...Politics

BEWARE BLATANT OPINIONS AHEAD

OK, up front, I'm a conservative ... so if you have an issue with that please stop reading now. If I thought the Democrats had a candidate with better solutions for our countries issues i would vote for them (and I am keeping an eye on them too, but already know who I would support for the DNC candidate between the three main already).

Anyways, I just finished watching the debates that were held last night for the GOP. I think that most of the runners were pretty level headed about how they would fix things... but I have to say...

RON PAUL IS LOONY

I understand that our country shouldn't be borrowing from China, but should we really turn our backs on the Mideast when most of them don't like us and probably wouldn't have any issues with attacking us if we were going to sit back and take it? At least get us on better terms with them before you do that. It was obvious that the man has no understanding of how our military works. I personally couldn't trust someone with no common sense (as far as foreign policy) to be our Commander and Chief. That he somehow believes that keeping all of our assets here at home would miraculously make the middle east love us and not WANT to bomb the bejeebers out of us. BTW being that isolationist is what helped cause and aggravated the world wars. If only we had jumped in sooner maybe such things as creating Iraq would not have been seen as necessary. The rest of the world would think we were a joke if we elected someone like Ron Paul.

The rest of the Candidates seamed to be mostly on the same page with minor differences on how to go about getting the same results (for the most part).

Political or Business?

Do you think that the statement "This is America, Speak English when ordering." in an eating establishment is racist or is it only about language?

Do you think it's worth sueing over?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316939,00.html

Speach on the role of religion in politics.

Can I say that I'm truely thankful that Mitt Romney did not go into what "Mormons" believe in his speach? If people truely want to know, it is easy to find out. All they have to do is ask a leader of their local ward/branch... or better yet, Got to the wesite! That way they will know they got it right from the source and got it right rather than getting a warped view of our beliefs.

Here is a link to his speach, I thought he did well... then again. I am a big supporter of people who don't shy away from there positions just because the wind of opinion blows the other way.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315486,00.html you can also watch the video of the speach there if you want.

Oh, and for those of you that don't know the official website for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It's http://www.lds.org/