"Good friend, I am building this bridge for him!"

One of my favorite poems is The Bridge Builder, by Will Allen Dromgoole. Her* poem resonates with me and can teach many valuable lessons. I first heard it standing with a troop of Boy Scouts I was leading through the honor trail as they were being taught about their duty to help other people at all times, it has never left me. The poem evokes powerful feelings of duty to others, others you may never meet, but that you know will face challenges that you could ease if you would be willing to put in effort on someone else's behalf. It speaks of supreme service, work that does nothing for you, but will ease the burdens of others. Like I said, i think about it often, and it means different things to me depending on what is on my mind at the time.

Recently I have read and heard people talking about how their ancestors worked hard and sacrificed to get to this land for freedom and safety. Some have talked about how they (or someone they know) recently worked and struggled through the current immigration roadblocks to finally, legally, become a permanent resident or citizen of this country. These comments are usually in regards to how everyone should just do it legally if they want to come here. Most recently it is in response to Pres. Trump announcing an end to DACA (deferred action for childhood arrivals), a program put in place during President Obama's administration to defer deportation of children brought here by their parents who are or have successfully completed their secondary education and have desires beyond. This post isn't really about DACA, because I think there are reasonable legal arguments about executive power and how things should be done. This is about the mindset of 'my ancestors' or 'my cousin' or 'I' came here legally, everyone else should do all the hard things I did.

I propose the following idea. Maybe instead of demanding that everyone go through the same struggles, and heartache, and roadblocks, and strife that we or those we love have been forced to go through. Maybe loving our neighbor includes working to remove stumbling blocks and hazards. Maybe loving our neighbor includes wanting his life to be better than the worst parts of ours. I think my ancestors who traveled to this land for religious freedom, or freedom from political persecution, or opportunity, or whatever they came for hoped with all their hearts that their descendants would enjoy the freedoms and safety and opportunity that they themselves were struggling for. I propose this last idea. I don't think any of them hoped that their descendants would fight to make sure that the next guy who wanted to be free, or safe, or have opportunity would be barred from coming to this same land. I wish that we could strive harder to build a bridge for the one who comes after.

The Bridge Builder
By Will Allen Dromgoole
An old man going a lone highway,
Came, at the evening cold and gray,
To a chasm vast and deep and wide.
Through which was flowing a sullen tide
The old man crossed in the twilight dim,
The sullen stream had no fear for him;
But he turned when safe on the other side
And built a bridge to span the tide.

“Old man,” said a fellow pilgrim near,
“You are wasting your strength with building here;
Your journey will end with the ending day,
You never again will pass this way;
You’ve crossed the chasm, deep and wide,
Why build this bridge at evening tide?”

The builder lifted his old gray head;
“Good friend, in the path I have come,” he said,
“There followed after me to-day
A youth whose feet must pass this way.
This chasm that has been as naught to me
To that fair-haired youth may a pitfall be;
He, too, must cross in the twilight dim;
Good friend, I am building this bridge for him!”





*not a typo, Will Allen Dromgoole was a woman, and to read about her, kind of an impressive one at that.

Who to vote for? Third Party?

It was a while ago, but a couple people asked me about my opinion of voting third party, so I thought I'd lay out what I think is the way to decide who you vote for. Of course, this is my opinion, I claim no 'eternal truth' to this one.

I have thought about this one a lot, particularly this election cycle. As I hear the claims that you 'have' to vote for one person or another, or it's your fault that someone wins, etc.. This is what I came up with. When a major election like this happens, I think the first hurdle is being qualified. Experience, previous positions or jobs held, education, intelligence, resume so to speak, etc.. I think someone can be a wonderful person and be uneducated, or have worked a blue collar type job, or any number of other things that the world or society may deem less successful. I don't believe those things speak to someone's inherent value, but I do think they speak to whether or not someone is qualified for certain jobs or positions. So, first step, is the candidate qualified. Now, at this level, it is rare that someone actually runs and is not qualified for the job, but it is possible. Ralph Nader, for instance, is someone I consider completely unqualified for the job. Once you pass the hurdle of being qualified, I think the next step is looking at any number of things that may override those qualifications. Demeanor, history, morality, ethics, etc.. This one does not require perfection. I believe we should try to find good men and women to vote for, but at the same time, we cannot demand perfection. There are things that people can do, in my opinion, that override their qualifications, for lack of a better term, I'll call that being overall qualified. To state the obvious, this variable is going to be different for different people. The hope is that people will base these off of facts as much as possible, and not just rumor.

If you have more than one candidate that after this calculus is 'overall qualified' then I think the candidates positions and their adherence to what you want to happen is a completely correct way to decide who to vote for. Personally, I don't think it is reasonable to vote for someone who agrees with your political stances, if they do not meet the standard of being overall qualified. Nor do I believe that it is reasonable to vote for someone who is not overall qualified even if the other guy is even less qualified (or to put it another way, if the opponent is more reprehensible). I don't think this only applies to the two main parties. To be clear, I kind of hate the two party system, and blame it for most of our current political problems. This blame, while directed at the two parties, really lies with us, because it is us who buys in to the system so much that we refuse to change it.

So, as to the question of voting for a third party candidate the final answer is this. I think it is right to vote for any candidate that is overall qualified. Whether they are one of the two major parties or not, I think it is a right choice for anyone to vote for anyone who is overall qualified. I may disagree with someone's decision on who is overall qualified, but like almost all things political the vast majority of those decisions are purely opinion based.

Why I'm voting for Hillary.

This post has been being formed for a long time. Some of you will disagree with it, some of you will shake your head and ignore it, and some won’t care. All of those responses are fine, but if any of you want to get into specifics, I am more than happy to discuss or defend any of it.

First, let me just say, after many, many months of assuming that I would not be casting a vote for President of the United States, I have now decided that I will be voting for Hilary Clinton. If that surprises you, believe me it surprises me as well. To get it out of the way, I don’t particularly care for Hilary. Given 20 names of people who were qualified to be the President, she would most likely be at or near the bottom of any such list. The last few months have made me very much step back and examine my opposition to Hilary becoming the next president, and those reasons have been refined in the fiery rhetoric of all those who desperately hate her and proclaim the fear and despair and doom that would befall this country should she win. As I parsed through the various arguments, I was able to more clearly define my own, and discover if my objections were enough to warrant a no vote on election day.

I will go through some of the main arguments against Hilary Clinton becoming the next president, and how important I think they are, and how I stand on each. Again, feel free to stick around, or leave, this is mostly for me to put this ideas and reasons down.

Honesty-

I, like most people I believe, want my elected officials to be honest. I do not believe it to be a naive hope of an idealist. I do think it is something that we should, with every effort, force onto our elected officials. I do not find Hilary to be particularly honest. That having been said, as I listen to the enormous amount of vitriol directed her way pertaining to her honesty, I don’t find it particularly honest itself. Opponents of hers have set up a false narrative, followed by a differing standard only to be applied to her. I have found myself many times arguing in defense of a person who I never planned on voting for, merely because the narrative on the attack was clearly disingenuous or outright untrue. Hilary isn’t someone, who if I met her in real life, I would come away thinking her honest. That having been said, neither are 95% of the people I have voted for in my entire life. Like it or not, politicians are not the most forthright people. They twist, bend, and manipulate the truth. Is she worse than most? I don’t particularly think so, because I haven’t seen evidence to show that she is. Does this mean I think she is honest, or that I’m going to vote for her because I find her to be honest, no.

Scandal-

There is another narrative out there about Hilary Clinton, and it has to do with her being embroiled in scandal. I’ll talk about three in particular. First, Benghazi. This one elicits the most vivid and emotional reactions, and rightly so, because it involves the deaths of Americans. If as Secretary of State, she were responsible for the deaths of Americans through horrible decision making, or incompetence, or a lack of caring, these would be serious blows to someone’s qualifications to be president. Fortunately, we have had multiple, in depth, copious, witch hunt level investigations dig into all the possible evidence surrounding Benghazi. If a republican house led investigation has to admit in its final report that she was not responsible, then I think no one can claim with any sort of foundation in fact or evidence that she is. Second, email server. This one has been hashed and rehashed and rehashed. It falls back under a differing standard, and a false narrative. First, many other government officials have done the same thing. Does it make it right? No, but I don’t see people excoriating those individuals or the FBI for not prosecuting them. I think her using a private server was stupid. I believe her when she says she did it out of expediency, I don’t think that is a good enough reason. Likewise, I don’t see this as something that raises to the level of a disqualifying act. I cannot ascribe to the level of conspiracy theory that suggests that the FBI’s findings are driven by fear and corruption. For me, I am willing to accept their findings as good, and if they believe the actions warrant no charges, then I consider the case resolved. Third, the clinton foundation. Do I believe there may have been influence peddling dealing with people who donated to the Clinton foundation. Absolutely. I further believe that the way in which our political donation system is currently set up, every single elected official at the federal level deals in influence peddling. It seems disingenuous to set up a different standard for Hilary.

Supreme Court-

This one is the most troubling, but not in the way you may think. While I firmly believe that Hilary will in all likelihood nominate people to the Supreme Court that I will disagree with politically, and perhaps even legally, I am neither worried nor fearful about the Supreme Court going forward. Let me explain why. First, the gridlock that plagues our Senate today would preclude almost all but the most bland moderate candidates from being nominated. We will see no more Scalias or Ginsburgs on the bench. The make up of the court might swing, as it is meant to, based on the makeup of the country. If the country were overwhelmingly conservative, the President would be such, and the court would likewise be. What I have full faith that she will do is nominate people who are intelligent. Even if I disagree with them, I believe she will nominate scholars of the law, and students of the Constitution. People who have studied out their positions, and can explain and defend them. This is what the Supreme Court needs. To the fears that are so often used as the last line, the final I have no choice, I must vote for Trump though I dislike him, because of the Supreme Court, I would say a few words. So called ‘liberal’ justices are not salivating to take away your guns. They are not wringing their hands waiting for the day they can make illegal your worship. The last time the court swung left we got Miranda, we got brown vs. the board, we got Griswold, we got Loving vs. Virginia. Many decried the end of civilization with those rulings, and yet almost across the board we look back on those as vital movements towards a more free and fair society.

Finally, when it comes to all of the things people decry and proclaim Hilary to be, her opponent is. Donald Trump is leagues more dishonest. He sets new bars for lack of integrity with almost every speech he gives. He is steeped in almost every kind of scandal there is, and is either proud or defensive about them all. He is not a moral man, he is not a family man, he is not an ethical man. He is a racist, he is a sexist, he is cruel, insulting, and derogatory. And, here’s the thing conservatives should really understand, he is not conservative either. He has stated he will order war crimes. He has proclaimed he will use the office of President to punish his business enemies. He has been clear in his stance that he will support and put into place policies which have already been dubbed unconstitutional.

The final thing, the last issue, which when I sat and though hard about it finally was the deciding factor for voting for Hilary Clinton comes down to who will join her in the White House. I believe if you look at those who Trump has surrounded himself with during his campaign, you can see who he would use as the foundation for his presidential team. He will not look for the best and brightest. Those who have spent a career becoming experts in policy and administrative law, those who will work to maintain the integrity of the agencies they are working for. He will put in yes men and rabble rousers. Breitbart executives and white supremacists. For all the disagreements I will have policy wise with a Clinton whitehouse, I know that professionals will work for and with her. Trump doesn’t want professionals, because he knows better than everyone else.

I can no longer pretend that this is a fight between two equally abhorrent choices (though I never really believed it was). It is a fight between a person I wouldn’t have chosen, and I wish we had someone better, and a person who will be disastrous, truly. An individual who is flawed, but qualified, and a person who shouldn’t be in charge of anything, ever.

I will be voting for Hilary.

Smart Phone

My old phone died a week or so ago, and so, against my will I moved into the realm of the smart phone. I will admit I am enjoying it. And I do feel like I'm living in the future when I can just talk to my phone, and it writes out a text. That having been said, it doesn't always get my text correct. Up until now I just go back and fix any problems, but I'm thinking that is the wrong way. This phone is smart, maybe it knows what I need to say better than I do. I think I will just let it decide what it is I'm trying to convey in the text, and send it out. Why second guess a phone that costs this much?

Oh the fallability.

So, I haven't been to my blog in quite some time. I put a new post out tonight, and was reading through some old posts for nostalgia purposes and came upon this one.

I have never been so completely, horribly, painfully wrong in an assumption as I was here. I sincerely hope that no one saw this movie on my recommendation, or that my excitement created excitement for them that led them to ever see this movie. I hope that nothing I have ever done or said ever encouraged, supported, or in any way paved the way for someone to watch this movie.

If so, I cannot apologize enough.

Searching for truth in all the wrong places.

I've had a lot of thoughts cascading through my mind lately, too long for a facebook status, or even a jumping off spot for a discussion in my debate society, so its back to the blog. Long time no see. I've been thinking a lot about where people go to get their information, and thus form their opinions. There are a couple of different types of information that I'm specifically referring to. The first is scientific information. Mostly this revolves around health and medicine.

For some reason there has sprung up in the last decade or so (at least that's the time frame that I have noticed), an entire subculture of people who inexplicably distrust any and all information that comes from established science in the fields of health and medicine. Now, I can understand a dose of healthy skepticism. Doctors are not infallible, and it has pretty much always been a part of our culture and the culture of medicine to seek a second opinion when one receives a particularly negative diagnosis. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. However, the new trend is to turn to anything and anyone who is not connected to healthcare, scientific research, or scholarly efforts in the fields of medicine, physiology, anatomy, chemistry, etc., for answers to doubts. Some of this, perhaps, is due to the fact that our medical breakthroughs have become so astounding that people expect that medicine should be able to fix everything without fail or foible. So that when an outlier happens, when a side effect occurs, when a mistake or a aberration happens people assume it is because of a systemic fault or a insidious conspiracy. There are two main areas that I see this happen. The first I find to be so nefarious as to be infuriating, the other while definitely misleading, is more frustrating than anger inducing.

The first is the realm of vaccines. I won't belabor the debate, frankly I shouldn't sully the title of debate because it isn't truly a debate. Suffice it to say, all science, all studies, all medical research points to the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. That isn't disputable. It isn't debatable. We can each have our own opinions, but we can't have our own facts. Anecdotes are not facts.

The one that only rises to the level of frustration is more in the realm of general health. In almost any of the many different types of health discussions from weight, to diabetes, to blood pressure, to cholesterol, there are a myriad of idea of how best to do it. People have their own 'home remedies'. Things their grandparents did, and their grandparents before them. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Because of plasticity, and differences in how people react to the environment around them, there are as many ways to aid your health as their are people on the earth. And, I don't believe that the only things that can help you be healthier come out of a bottle manufactured by Pfizer either. Nature is a miraculous thing, and, I believe, God created many things for Man that can be incredibly useful and beneficial. That all having been said. Just because someone said it on the internet, or because it is being sold by someone you know and like does not mean that any of the claims made about it are true. We live an an amazing age where there is a plethora of information available at our fingertips. But it seems that many times people don't want to know, or even sadder, refuse to believe verifiable claims about something and instead barrel forward head first in to what they hope is true. I have yet to see anything that has become the new 'healthiest food', or 'miracle food', or 'essential' nutrient that is borne out by science. Noni Juice doesn't cure everything that ails you, nothing does. Would it surprise people to know that the owner and head of one of the biggest most successful and popular 'essential oil' pyramid scams (lets call it what it is), was convicted of practicing medicine without a license in another state? An act that led to the death of his child? This is the guy who is hocking what is basically oil pressed out of some of the most common plants in the world for upwards of 100$ for a couple ounces. He puts the salesman on Pete's Dragon to shame, that guy only charged a dollar.

All of that pales in comparison to the thought that has been foremost on my mind. When a member of the Church comes across something that makes them doubt, something that makes them question those things that they had never questioned before, where do they turn? I haven't personally ever come to such a crisis of faith, I don't believe that is because of anything I personally did, it just is. I know those who have. Some were deep and powerful questions. I have one dear friend who struggled mightily with a question, and I gained such admiration and respect for him as he sought to find answers. Let's be perfectly and unequivocally clear, there is no sin in questioning. But what one does with those doubts and questions will make all the difference in their life. There is an amazing talk about that very thing by Elder Holland here.

There has been much in the news lately about a fairly well known questioner. I read a bit about his 'journey' to where he now is, and was constantly amazed. Several of the issues that had brought him such questions, that had rocked the faith he had had since a young age were not secret, or hard to come by bits of information. They were not hidden, or ignored. So my first thought was, how did he not hear about these aspects of the Church and Church History until after his mission. One reason, and there may be others I cannot think of, is just a lack of learning his own faith. Its a good reason to have Family Home Evening, I can tell you that. Rarely have I been surprised by an aspect of the Church or its History, and to a great part I give credit to wonderful parents who never stopped teaching us, or having Family Home Evening, and encouraging us to learn on our own as well. But, it happens as it did to this man, sometimes people may find themselves confronted by some information, its truth yet to be verified, but its effect profound. A bit of something that shakes the faith that they have relied on for so long. What then, does one do? There are many options. You can ignore it, and go forward pretending you never heard or saw it. I find this to be less than ideal. You can go out and research, turning to any and all who are more than happy to point to flaws and mistakes. Who wheedle themselves into any perceived inconsistency and spread wide their cynicism in an attempt to break the tiny crack in faith into a chasm of uncertainty. Many are willing to preach the philosophies of men, and to a questioning mind they may ring true. To someone who has decided that any question means that you cannot trust that which you have trusted up until now, this may seem the only route to go outside and find out what the naysayers say. This I find to be an even worse option. Who would go to Dodge and ask them what they think of the latest Chevy? But, don't take that to mean that you must just follow blindly, I don't remember anywhere the Lord ever asked any of us to do that. To the intellectual there are many avenues of information from inside the Church. On the particular piece I saw bandied about, the idea that all modern science had indisputably proven the Book of Abraham to be fraudulent, it took me but a few moments and I had in front of me on the screen an in depth work by a noted scholar. I am not one who is interested personally in an attempt to either prove or disprove my faith by science, I don't think that is science's aim, or place. No more do I use my faith to disprove science.

There is a label, one that has been given twice. Once lovingly, and once derisively. It is sheep. From the cynic a sheep is a stupid animal, easily misled, willing to follow anything without knowledge or understanding. Never questioning the path. To the Good Shepherd a sheep is one who knows Him, and trusts Him. One who hears His voice and follows, because of that trust and love. The sheep knows that the Shepherd would do anything for the sheep, because He already has done everything. He asks that we follow with our head up and our eyes open. A Shepherd in the true sense, He leads, and while we may at times question, we can turn to Him for answers, and trust in the faith we already have. Though many have attempted to change its meaning, to make it derogatory or something that we should turn from or be shamed of, I hope that I can live up to that title, and look to such powerful messages of strength as Elder Holland's talk.

Blogging

I read a blog post that was linked to a facebook status that my sister Karen commented on yesterday. It talked about the narcissism and other negative aspects of why we post what we post on facebook, and basically ended with the idea that 99% of everyone doesn't give a crap about what you really think or feel, so quit posting your inane and annoying status updates. I will admit that I found some of the examples quite amusing, and could see parallels to some of the things I have posted, but didn't agree with what the blogger felt was the impetus for people to post those things.

Then this morning I pulled up my blog for the first time in a long time. It was a little depressing. I suppose I could say that I'm just busy, or that I don't post because I can't think of anything, but neither of those would be true statements. I don't know how many times I have heard something on the radio, or read something from a news website, or just had a random thought, and I said to myself that I should blog about that, as I had so many ideas running through my mind. So why don't I? Its a good question. As most of the things I don't do in my life, I'm sure laziness plays a significant factor. However, after having come and read through a couple posts here and seeing the voluminous responses all of my many followers have posted in discussion (sarcasm thick here), I realized that maybe that other blog poster was more correct than I would like to admit. Maybe I started this blog in the beginning as a sort of desire for affirmation of myself. It makes a lot of sense. Here are my thoughts, come, discuss them. Maybe that is narcissistic.

I'd like to change my way of looking at it. I'd like to say it will become a place for me to just put down my thoughts, but lets be honest, that would be a journal.

Why do we do it?

I've been thinking recently of my time on Layton High's debate team. This was a team with a history of winning. I think by my Senior year we had won Region 9 straight years, and District 8 straight years. This had engendered some resentment from other schools coaches, and I was witness more than once to an angry coach doing their best to try to torture the scoring rules to 'dethrone' Layton from our apparent strangle hold on the trophies.

This kind of dominance wasn't permanent, such 'dynasties' never are. But at the end of 9 straight years of loss, it may have seemed so to others, perhaps especially students who only measure their time in the competition to three short years in school. I submit that while I have my own immodest reasons for thinking we were so dominant, it is in great part because of the coach of Layton High's team. We won because we were the best, but we were the best because we were required to be better.

In debate there are, I believe, more than one level of victory. There is of course confounding your opponent with arguments they are unable to either understand or adequately defend against until your dominance is obvious. There is yelling louder then the other guy. There is winning on a technicality or by twisting someone elses position until they have to defend something other than what they actually stand for. And of course, there is being right.

I can only speak to my experiences, which were in the realm of L.D. debate (short for Lincoln-Douglas). Purporting to be patterned after the great debates for which they were named, this was considered 'value' debate. A proposition was given, such as "It is better to have an oppressive government then no government at all.", and all participants were required to argue either side, depending on the draw. The goal was to provide for the judge what you believed was the ultimate societal value, in relation to the proposition, and how you could only achieve such a value through affirmation or rejection of said proposition. An example of such values one might use in the proposition given might be: 'Freedom', or 'Security', or 'Justice'. As you can see, this is anything but an exact science. One must use their own persuasive abilities to attempt to persuade the listener to their point of view. Again, victory was possible through many different avenues.

Those of us on the L.D. team didn't win every debate, but we won a lot more then we lost. And, I like to think, we did it because while we could achieve victory through all the aforementioned ways, usually we won because we tried to be right. One can always find an opponent who can yell louder than you, is more skilled at twisting your words, but its hard to lose (not impossible, but difficult), if your position is right.

Now, there is probably some hyperbole, or remembering things the way I want to remember them involved in that telling, but I recount it not for its accuracy, but as an example of my bigger point.

Why do we, as a people, fight more to win then to be right? Of course if we hold an opinion, we must at least believe it to be correct, otherwise we wouldn't hold it. But why is it that we feel we must ascribe to our opinions the status of eternal and universal truth. And, why when discussing that opinion do we have the tendency to be more worried about winning the argument, then finding the truth. Such that we seem to use all of the avenues of victory I listed above.

I'm guilty of it. I know it, so it may seem hypocritical that I decry it. That's okay, I'm not perfect. I have come to truly abhor the way in which people will twist and torture someone else's position in an attempt to cast their stance in a negative light. It becomes very easy to defeat someone's stance that way. At least outwardly. But we don't change minds. We don't convince someone they may be wrong (if they in fact are). Nor do we allow for the explanation of their belief such that we may see more truth than we previously had.

Years ago I heard a talk in LDS General Conference that really impacted me. I think it did so because I was very guilty of the shortcomings it talked about. But it has, ever since, made me try a lot harder when I am involved in the realm of politics or debating ideas. The talk was entitled, "Instruments of the Lord's Peace" you can find the text here.

A couple of the most significant quotes, for me.

Have we who have taken upon us the name of Christ slipped unknowingly into patterns of slander, evil speaking, and bitter stereotyping? Have personal or partisan or business or religious differences been translated into a kind of demonizing of those of different views? Do we pause to understand the seemingly different positions of others and seek, where possible, common ground?

. . . we need to raise the level of private and public discourse. We should avoid caricaturing the positions of others, constructing “straw men,” if you will, and casting unwarranted aspersions on their motivations and character.

It is far too easy sometimes to fall into a spirit of mockery and cynicism in dealing with those of contrary views. We demoralize or demean so as to bring others or their ideas in contempt.

And he is right. It is far, far too easy. I think people who know me, and have been involved in political discussions with me long enough have seen a change since then, at least, I hope they do. This is an area that I admit I fall short in, but one in which I feel we as a people have a real need to pay attention to, and give heed to the words given in this talk.

Anyway, that is my rant for the day, hopefully more of a musing then a rant. I'll close it off with a quote that I wish were displayed more, especially during the unfortunately increasing 'political season'.

Whenever your politics cause you to speak unkindly of your brethren, know this, that you are upon dangerous ground.
-President George Albert Smith

Catch-22 ***

Just finished Catch-22 by Joseph Heller. As I told Alisa to other night, I'm not 100% sure I know how I feel about this book, so I just went with my current opinion. Catch-22. I didn't know anything about this book before I got it from the library. Right before I read it, my brother told me it was the inspiration behind M*A*S*H*, which intrigued me. That was about all I had going into it. After having finished it, I'm not 100% sure I could tell you now what it was about. If you've seen MASH, then you'll probably understand when I say it was hilarious and tragic almost at the same time. There were incredibly deep, poignant moments in this book. But, this book (as books go) was nowhere near as good as MASH (as far as TV shows go). Here is my biggest critique of the book. The great parts were tied together with stuff that seemed like it was in a dream. And not a particularly good one. A lot of it made little to no sense, the timelines kept jumping in a ridiculous manner, and there was no really coherent flow to the narrative. Now, it is likely that all of that was purposeful, and in some aspects of the book it worked fine, and in some it really detracted in my opinion. Overall, I thought the book was quite good. It could have been so much more. And again I think that MASH provides a great juxtaposition. In early episodes of MASH, the humor came first, and if some plot or character development happened, okay. In later MASH, it was still very funny, but there was more of a connection to the characters, and a feeling of reality. This book didn't feel real, so when the tragic things happened, it still had that dreamy quality to it, as if it wasn't reality, and so it wasn't as impactful. Some of it just felt like the Stooges were trying to portray Schindler's List. (obviously hyperbole). Again, I'd probably recommend it, but with some caveats. As some of the others, I don't understand its prominence in literary circles/best of lists. But it was a good book. The next book on the list is Ulysess by James Joyce. I might end up skipping it, and coming back to it, or taking a bit of a break. Just looking at that book gives me shingles.

The Grapes of Wrath **** (out of five)

On Sunday I finished the second book in my book list challenge. As you can see from my rating, this one went much better than the last. "The Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck. I had of course heard of this book, and the resultant movie, and had always had the impression that it was supposed to be quite good. Though I don't think I had ever actually talked with anyone about the book who had actually read it. I have previously read "Of Mice and Men" by Steinbeck so I had an overall favorable impression of his writing. This book is set during the dust bowl era of American History, beginning with the mass migration of tenant farmers from the plains states as corporate/banking farming begins to be the norm. Hundreds of thousands of people were forced to uproot and move West, where the dream and hope of jobs and plenty had been advertised purposely to bring in many migrant workers and thus drive down the cost of labor.

This book was amazing. First, the writing is so good. Steinbeck filled this book with the same great prose that made me love "Of Mice and Men". So descriptive, not overly flowery, but enough to really pull you in to the world he is describing. Unfortunately, the world he usually describes is quite depressing. In more than one part of the book, tears came to my eyes as I read. It is hard to not imagine what it would be like to literally be unable to feed your children, and be helpless as they actually starved to death. That was the reality for some of these people, brought out through this book. I found Steinbeck's style in this book to be very interesting. He would intersperse short chapters that were descriptive of the time period generally, with the longer chapters that followed the main characters of the story. It kind of set up the world as it was, that you then followed the Joad family through as they attempted to find someplace to stay where they could work and feed themselves. As I read the book, and thought about the time period that it came out in, I was surprised that Steinbeck wasn't black listed. There would definitely be people who would read the book, and think Steinbeck was a communist (which incidentally, he kind of was personally). But I found one passage in the book particularly telling. As a land owner is shouting at a bunch of migrant workers, screaming about the *expletive* dirty reds, one of them stops him and asks what a red is. The land owner answers angrily that a red is someone who wants 30 cents, when they are paying 25. Befuddled, the man says, I guess I'm a red. That may be what makes it so that this book doesn't feel like a political propaganda piece. These people aren't interested in politics, they haven't read Das Kapital, or The Communist Manifesto, let alone espouse Marx. They just want to be able to find a job, work a full day and get paid a price, literally, that will be enough to buy food for that nights dinner. And many of them can't. This book came at an interesting time for me personally, as I just finished going to the Republican State Convention as a delegate. I couldn't help but see similarities between this book, and some extreme views in our day. The most obvious being the angry and sometimes violent reaction to migrant labor today (coming from south of the border). But interestingly enough, just two days ago I had an argument with some other State delegates about food stamps. They argued that the program should be ended in its entirety, immediately. That it was just not right to take 'my' money, and give it to my neighbor. I thought back to "The Grapes of Wrath", and the utter helplessness of the people who watched as their children died. Anyway. I loved this book, and would recommend it to everyone. The next book on the list is "Catch-22" by Joseph Heller.

The Catcher in the Rye (No Rating)

So, before I picked up The Catcher in the Rye, my only real knowledge of the book is that it is one of the most banned books of all time. It is also often a required book in High School, however, I wasn't ever asked to read it through school.

The Catcher in the Rye, J.D. Salinger. 1945. This book follows the life of a young man from prep school, to a trip to New York to....oh wait, I can't tell you where it goes because I chose not to finish the book. Now, it wasn't that I couldn't find the will to continue, it wasn't that bad. In fact, there were a couple of bright spots, particularly when the boy reminisces about his younger brother who has passed away. I got a little more than 100 pages into the book, and while I have to say I found the story uninteresting, the main character completely uncompelling, and the writing more than a bit lazy, every character was almost the exact same person, my real problem was the gratuitous use of profanity. No, not just the swearing, for good or ill I am fairly calloused to just bad language, I mean the actual definition of profanity. If you pop this book open, and two facing pages, I would bet that you will find at the very least 15 uses of the Lords name, minimum. Not only did I find this incredibly lazy writing, again every single character talked this way, but I couldn't continue, it grated so badly that I had to put the book down. I won't be finishing it.

Now, someone may say I have missed out on some grand conclusion, some wonderful character development, or brilliant insight into the American Experience. My only answer to that is, maybe Salinger should have done a dang sight better. While I clearly would not support the book banning, I can definitely see why so many people would rather their children not read this book.

I give it no rating, I can't truly judge the work in its entirety when I haven't read it.

New book challenge.

So, I have decided to try a challenge to read all of the novels on a top 100 list sent to me by a friend. I will be reading the ones that I haven't previously read, and then rating all of the books after I finish them. The promise I've made to myself is that I will finish all of them, even if I would rather dig my own eyes out with a melon baller. I will, however, reserve the right to skip a book for content. As such, I'm already planning on skipping #6 on the list, "Lolita". I plan on writing a quick review for each book, including what my thoughts, opinions of it were prior to reading, if I had any, and what I thought afterwards.

Feel free to disagree, or post your own thoughts on the book if you've read it.

#1 on the list is The Great Gatsby, I've already read it, so my first book would be the #2 on the list, The Catcher in the Rye.

What writing

So, I can only speak for myself, but when its been a while since I've read Tolkien, I seem to forget just how good a writer he is. Its easy to remember that his stories are awesome, but just how good the prose is, wow. I'll give you a couple examples I came across while reading The Two Towers on the train.

Dreadful as the Dead Marshes had been, and the arid moors of the Noman-lands, more loathsome far was the country that the crawling day now slowly unveiled to his shrinking eyes. Even to the Mere of Dead Faces some haggard phantom of green spring could come; but here neither spring nor summer would ever come again. Here nothing lived, not even the leprous growths that feed on rottenness. The gasping pools were choked with ash and crawling muds, sickly white and grey, as if the mountains had vomited the filth of their entrails upon the lands about. High mounds of crushed and powdered rock, great cones of earth fire-blasted and poison-stained, stood like an obscene graveyard in endless rows, slowly revealed in the reluctant light.

I particularly liked this one.

...like men on the edge of a sleep where nightmare lurks, holding it off, though they know that they can only come to morning through the shadows.

Anyway. There's a little Tolkien for you, what a great author. That is all.

When did compromise become a bad word.

Ever since the last election, I have been confused over the current stance (I'll use the right as my example because I spend more time in that crowd), that compromise is wrong, in all its forms. It seems that people don't understand that their stances shouldn't be taken completely and put into action. Why is it that Republicans (and Democrats, but currently its Republicans), cannot understand that losing the Presidential election means something. We lost, they won, how is it that we now think that our policies should be the ones put into effect? Why is it considered traitorous to enter into negotiations where give and take brings you to a middle ground?

To take it to its simplest, at least half the country disagrees with the Republicans, and the Democrats. Why is it that both parties on a given issue believe they have a mandate from the people to hold firm and refuse the bargaining table that will require giving up some of what they want to get a resolution?

The current debt crisis is a wonderful example of this problem. I am not going to claim the Democrats are blameless. Many things have led us up to this point, more politicians than statesman. More rhetoric than desire to solve problems. However, as we sit right now, it seems that the Republicans must shoulder the lion's share of the blame. They have drawn a line in the sand on any and all revenue increases via changes to the tax code. And to be clear we're not talking about raising tax rates. We're talking about doing away with loopholes and tax breaks that bring the richest in America's taxes down.

I know, I benefit from tax breaks as well. I have, in my time, benefited from child tax credits, EIC, mortgage interest deduction, tuition deduction, student loan interest deductions, etc.. The tax code, rather than being a right and wrong, and a good vs. evil proposition, is one of opinion. However, when you don't bring in enough revenue for all the things you have to pay for, it becomes a problem.

I believe in the proposition that lowering taxes on the wealthy stimulates the economy, but I do not believe it is a constant. When the tax rates were up somewhere around 70% pre reagan, and then they were dropped significantly, I do believe that helped stimulate job growth and the economy. However, I do not believe that it is a 1 for 1, if taxes are lowered, things get bettered. There is a point of diminishing returns. Our current tax rates are very, very low. The highest rate is currently lower than at any time during Reagan's presidency. And many tea party candidates are pushing for it to be even lower. This makes no sense to me. We clearly are not bringing in enough revenue, and we are spending too much. Any argument that it is only one, or only the other to me seems absurd. The idea that the problem can be fixed merely by raising taxes, or that it would all be better if we cut spending is in my opinion ludicrous. Of course, neither idea is as asinine to me as the idea that the real fix is cutting taxes. That, to me, seems pure pandering with absolutely no care to whether or not it causes incredible harm.

Do Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid need massive changes, I think so. Do we spend to much money on all sorts of things, in my opinion, yes. But I do not think taxes are too high, in fact, I do not really have any opposition to the top bracket being raised by a percent or two. If we want to look to data, if 38%~ helped bring us one of the best economies under Reagan, why is it imperative that it be 35% now, or heaven forbid, even lower?

The main point I wish to make is this. To draw a line in the sand and take any and all talk of taxes off of the table with the current debt crisis is immature and irresponsible. I look to George Bush I, and see a very good president, who when he realized how wrong headed his "read my lips" stance was, raised taxes for the good of the country. When partisan hacks decide that the will draw a line over each and every issue, as if their opinion has descended from Sinai, they hurt the country. Hopefully, this standoff will not continue much longer. But already, I find myself blaming the tea party for the vast majority of this debacle.

The Bridge Builder

The Bridge Builder

by Will Allen Dromgoole (1860-1934)

An old man, going a lone highway,
Came at the evening cold and gray
To a chasm vast and deep and wide
Through which was flowing a sullen tide.
The old man crossed in the twilight dim;
The rapids held no fears for him.
But he turned when safe on the other side
And built a bridge to span the tide.

“Old man,” cried a fellow pilgrim near,
“You’re wasting your time in building here.
Your journey will end with the closing day;
You never again will pass this way.
You have crossed the chasm deep and wide;
Why build you this bridge at even-tide?”

The builder lifted his old gray head.
“Good friend, in the path I have come,” he said,
“There follows after me today
A youth whose feet must pass this way.
This stream, which has been as naught to me,
To that fair youth may a pitfall be.
He too must cross in the twilight dim —
Good friend, I am building this bridge for him.”

I first heard this poem while working at Boy Scout camp. It was used by one of the staff members who manned one of the stops on the Honor Trail. For those who don't know, the Honor Trail was a short hike at night that had several stops talking about portions of the Scout Oath, and its continued relevance and importance. I loved this poem, as I always enjoyed the Honor Trail.

As it is often lately, my mind is often consumed by the ideas and state of our society today as it deals with the idea of immigration. Now, I know, seeing that I may be talking about immigration, some will probably automatically leave. My ideas and stances are fairly well known I think, but it fills my mind, and my heart so often I cannot help but at least let these ideas out here.

I have been confused in the past as I hear some who have navigated the convoluted immigration system successfully. Some speak very strongly against amnesty, or easier options for those already here, or those still wishing to come. How unfair it would be for them to not have to go through the same time, money, and effort that they did to come out the other side. On some level, I can understand the frustration with having to jump through so many useless and punitive hoops, and then see others not have to do the same. However, I would suggest that the frustration and dissappointment with the needless complexities of the system would better be aimed at the system itself. Who better knows the heartache and anger of trying to get through that labyrinth than those who have managed to come out the other side. On some level, I guess I can understand directing the frustration in the direction of the next one to come, but I don't think thats where it should go.

Infinitely more baffling to me, however, are those to whom there were no obstacles, to whom their were no fences or roadblocks. Whose ancestors came here and besides perhaps a stop to make sure there were no infectious diseases, had the gates of the country opened to them. No extra fees, no endless paperwork, no confusing and pointless rules and regulations. Nobody standing in England on the dock saying, okay, fill out this paperwork, and if you are lucky, we'll get around to looking at it within the next decade, and we'll let you know. I can never understand why those who enjoy all of the multitude blessings of this amazing country want it to be difficult, and in some cases impossible for anyone new to come here. It seems that in those cases, when the old man got to the other side of the ravine that had been spanned by a very nice bridge, he turned around, set charges, and blew it up.

We have an opportunity in my generation to build the bridge. And I believe it to be not just a worthwhile endeavor, but one that will help return this country to a state that I believe it was meant to be in.

Beautiful place.

So, I love Camp Loll. Not only is it, in my opinion, the very pinnacle of scout camps in the U.S., but I finally caught Alisa there, and drove back in there at the beginning of November after camp to propose. Anyway, here is a link to a blog of the guy who runs that camp, this post that I am linking has some incredible pictures of when they tried to get in to camp just a week or so ago. Here.

Is Anybody There.

I highly doubt anyone comes to this blog anymore, I mean, why would you when I don't even come here much anymore. Unfortunately it lost a lot of appeal when some random dude found the blog and reported something I had written to my superiors at work. I guess its not a good idea to bag on the legislature when you work for the government. I hear things all the time that interest me, and that I would like to talk about, but somehow it never gets written down on the blog. Maybe my expectations were just too high, thinking I needed some long in depth post in order to blog. I think perhaps I will begin blogging again with shorter posts about stuff I just happen to be thinking about at the time. Again, it will probably just be for me, but who knows, maybe I will be reaching some random nosy people who want to make sure I don't say anything inappropriate.

"Skin in the Game"

(Forgive the length of the post, but I found it all necessary to discuss the topic)

I've never liked this phrase. Perhaps, I will admit, because I don't like the political ideology that it is currently used to describe, but we'll get into that in a minute. As anyone who knows me is aware, I have been more and more disillusioned by the political landscape of late. Will has pointed out that he feels bad for me, as my side of the political spectrum over the last ten years has moved further from what I stand for, his has moved closer to what he stands for. But I guess thats what you get when you are a communist (Will, not me), but I digress.

I decided this last year, that it was wrong of me to sit on the sidelines and complain about this migration that the party most closely aligned with my beliefs is experiencing, and I should get active. So, as the time for political activity approached, I studied up on the various Republican candidates for Senate in Utah. I read everything I could find that the various candidates themselves said or printed. I then studied the various stances they espoused. I did everything that I could to prepare myself for the upcoming local meeting where we would pick a delegate. I had never before registered with a political party, and had never before attended one of their meetings, but being a spectator no longer seemed like an option, so I got ready and went to the local caucus. I would have loved to be a delegate, but didn't feel comfortable nominating myself, so I ended up being an alternate. To the credit of the delegates that represented our district, my voice and opinions were always very sincerely listened to, and sought after, though in the end my delegates and I did not at all see eye to eye, this is not a commentary on them, as I believe them to be sincere, and wonderful people as I know them personally. This is all back story, because the true point of this post is to point out the multitudinous problems with a phrase that became popular as it was championed by the likes of Mike Lee, and portions of the current political movement on the right. Skin in the Game.

Now, what is actually meant by this. As far as everything I can gather from reading and discussions with the proponents of this ideology, it means that we need to have everyone, every single adult, paying taxes. The basic theory is that if everyone, no matter how poor, paid taxes, they would be less likely to support candidates and legislation that spent more money. I don't find fault with the goal, to encourage the government and our representatives to be more fiscally responsible, I too would champion such an outcome. I will, however, through this post, lay out the reasons for my very strong opposition to this idea, and line of thinking.

Poor people don't pay taxes. Its an oft used phrase, one I have myself used. Though it is not wholely accurate. While it is true that up to a certain income, people don't pay income tax (by the way, its not just the poor, with my number of children and the amount of money I make, I don't pay federal income tax either), its not accurate to say that they don't pay any taxes. Property tax, sales tax, and the payroll taxes are not income discriminate. Anyone that lives in anything pays property tax, anyone that buys anything pays sales tax, and anyone that has a job pays payroll tax. So, to set the foundation for the discussion, lets just clarify. There is a segment of the populace, that pay no income tax. It is wide ranging, as I pointed out, in my current situation that includes me. However, even the poorest do already pay some taxes.

Taxes are, by their very nature, unfair. It was the first thing my Basic Income Tax professor told us the first day of that class in Law School. You can waste your time arguing it if you want, but I believe it to be indisputable. We (the government) are taking your money, and you get nothing assured in return. Now of course in practice there are a multitude of things that everyone gets in return from the taxes taken, but bear in mind that those aren't guaranteed, whoever happens to be in office decides how much of your stuff to take, and what to spend it on. People, I think, really need to understand that. There isn't a 'fair' level of taxation and an 'unfair' level of taxation. All taxation is unfair, but some taxes or kinds of taxes, or taxing paradigms may be more palatable to one person or another.

So, lets get to it. Skin in the game, the idea that everyone should pay taxes, or rather, the idea that everyone should pay taxes, the way Mike Lee (using Mike Lee as an archtype, as I know he stands for this, and I can't really say 'Republicans' or 'Tea Partiers' as I don't think all of any one group has this stance) thinks is the fairest. The most common proposal I have seen is for a 'fair tax' (I hate this term, but they came up with it, not me). This is usually denotes a complete repeal of income tax as it is now, and institution of a consumption or national sales tax, estimates I have seen put the national sales tax in the range of 26%. Lets talk about that for a second. You don't pay your income tax, but everything you purchase costs 26% more. To put that in real world situations.

When I was going to Law School, I didn't have a job, Alisa worked. We made very little money, had our first child 7 months into Law school, and lived frugally in the old married student housing at the U. For the first year, Alisa was also finishing her degree, to say we had little money is accurate. We didn't buy much, but there is, of course, a basic level of stuff that has to be purchased. Earned income credits, child tax credits, and college tuition credits were incredible blessings every February, I grew to love doing my taxes. Now, I imagine losing all of that money, and my expenses going up by 26%, and I don't think I could have done it. Our options would have been Alisa or I getting a second job, moving in with my parents, dropping out of Law School, or going into even more student debt than I did. Now, while all of those are things we could have done, what is the benefit? Bear that question in mind as I continue.

Someone who makes minimum wage grosses 1260 per month (believe me, I deal with incomes constantly in my job). Lets take a single mom with two kids. She works full time, but only makes minimum wage. She lives in a government subsidised apartment, so that rent is low, and she is on food stamps already. She is on medicaid, because of course her minimum wage doesn't have benefits. She pays no income tax, obviously, but of course she does pay payroll taxes, so after all her fixed expenses her take home from a minimum wage job is only a few hundred dollars. She has utilities, and a car payment, school supplies, clothes for her and her kids, cleaning supplies, basic household neccesities and any unforseen expenses. Maybe, if she is lucky, she has enough for some Christmas, and Birthday stuff, and an occasional fun activity or extra curricular for one of her kids. All in all, stuff is tight. Now, say we take away all the Earned income credits and child tax credits, and on top of that, we make everything she buys 26% more expensive. So, her buying power is now 26% less. She obviously can't buy as much stuff, so stores sell less stuff to her, her quality of life, and that of her kids goes down further. Lets say she spends 400 dollars a month on various things, 26% of that is 104 dollars. She doesn't just magically get that much money more per month, so she really only is able to purchase 296 dollars worth of stuff now, but still spends 400, 104 of that goes to the federal government. So, what is our benefit. We have made her have 'skin in the game'. She now pays 104 dollars per month in taxes to the government. We'll be out of debt before you know it. Sales drop by 26% to the segment of the society that have no extra disposable income in their monthly budgets. But we do get 104 dollars per month from a single mom who makes minimum wage. So surely, with all these new tax payers on the rolls, the budget problems will be more balanced, right? Well, bear in mind, you've also lost all the income tax of people who make more than 7.25 per hour.

You see, there is a finite amount of stuff that most people will purchase in a given month. Everyone needs a certain amount of stuff, now, some of us buy an amount more than we need, but at a given point, you can just only purchase and consume so much. So a national sales tax has a break off point. A person making minimum wage, 7.25 per hour, may spend 400 dollars per month and pay of that 104 dollars in taxes. Making their relative tax burden 8.25%. But in order for that to actually be 'fair' or even, a person making 120.19$ per hour, or 250k a year, would have to pay $1718.75per month in this national sales tax spending roughly 6610.57 every month on purchases. It strains credulity to claim that there is not a natural cut off on how much people actually spend each month, to believe that everyone that makes 250k per year will spend six and a half thousand dollars a month on taxable purchases, does not ring true to me.

Taking all of that into account, what is the benefit to the nation of taxing the minimum wage earner 26% on all purchases? Does it make them go get a degree, so they can earn more? Does it relieve the national budget burden, and bring in enough money to pay the bills? Does it force congress to spend less? I would say the answer to all of these questions is a resounding no.

There is only one thing that, in my opinon, this tax system would do, only one, and that is lower the tax burden exponentially the more money you make. Thats right, it would lower the taxes on people who make more money. I would ask anyone who cares to, to explain how raising the taxes on the poor, while lowering the taxes on the more well off solves any problem?

A Modest Proposal (but no baby eating)

So, I was asked what I would do about Illegal Immigration so I'll lay it out here. I'm more than happy to entertain suggestions, but from all of the thought I have given it, I've come up with the following. (In the spirit of disclosure, not all of the ideas are mine, but I take what I like and run with it).

First, to get some basic foundational things out of the way. I do think illegal immigration is a problem. I do think our society would be better off with 0 illegal immigration. There are obvious problems with tax implications, working under the table, and most importantly in my mind, id theft. Plus, the influx of people coming over the border makes enforcement nearly impossible, which I also believe is very problematic. I see those as the main problems, and I do believe that they need to be fixed. Here is my basic plan for what to do.

First, to be perfectly clear, I think trying to deal with only half of this problem at a time is just ridiculous. To compare it to say, the oil leak in the gulf, makes absolutely no sense, you do not have to 'plug the leak' before any 'clean up' takes place. If the system to get here legally, and the system for dealing with people already here is not fixed at the same time the border is fixed, the border fix will not work. They must go hand in hand.

Okay, here we go. There are 3 basic problems that need to be dealt with. First, the border. Second, the system of entering the country legally. Third, what to do with the millions of undocumented people already here.

First, the border. Having a secure border is absolutely necessary for national security. Immigration proponents that do not believe that, in my opinion, are just as self-deluded as immigration opponents who think all we need to do is enforce harshly and the rest cares for itself. I will forego a giant list of reasons for enforcing border security, the necessity is a given. I believe in a multi prong approach. I believe that there needs to be a combination of physical barriers, increased border patrol presence (i.e. more agents), and a high reliance on advanced technology. Currently, our best weapon, the advanced technology, is basically crippled. So many people come across that it is hard to use the technology to its utmost, to pinpoint spots that bad guys are crossing. This is fixed with dealing with the second basic problem, but we'll get there. Once there is a way for those who want to come here for work/school/medical care/freedom etc. legally, then those who are sneaking across, and are caught with the technology, we know they are the bad guys. All of these things, in my opinion, will be very successful, but only if we drastically cut the number of people crossing the border everywhere.

(to be clear though, no matter how much security at the border is stepped up, there will always be ways to cross the border illegally. But if we can expend the resources to stop drugs, criminals, and all around bad people from coming in, instead of the good guys, we'll be much more effective)

Second, we need to fix the system of entering the country legally. Currently, for someone to enter the country legally requires a lot of money, time, and luck. The system imposes burdensome fees at almost every crossroads of legal entry and residence and citizenship. The fees themselves are a giant fence keeping out the poor. Then there is the beauracracy. Paperwork, and waiting periods. The yearly alotment of guest worker visas is routinely gone by January or February. People's requests for entry into the country can take literally (and its very important that that is understood, this is not hyperbole) years. YEARS. However, if you have luck on your side it might work. A labyrinth of rules on which people we want to let in and who we don't make it so that there are some (professional athletes, maybe someone a big corporation wants to come in and work, basically someone that a very wealthy person/corporation is interested in), are able to get through the system fairly quickly, while someone unskilled or 'less desireable' may for all intents and purposes be barred from entry.

It would be my proposal that we simplify the process. People wishing to come here could. A criminal background check would be used. And everyone entering would be fingerprinted, and obviously have to go through a search for drugs etc.. There would be a few specific entry points, anyone entering at any other spot would be assumed to be a criminal. We could have two separate systems, one for those who just want to come work (guest worker program) and another for those who want a path to citizenship.

Third, what to do with those that are here. Honestly, I have no problem with the word amnesty. I think its a great word, and I embrace it fully. If estimates are to be believed, there are between 12-20 million undocumented people here. In my opinion, the only workable option is to provide a plan to let these people make themselves right with the law. A system whereby individuals need to come forward, pay a fine, and register. They then can enter one of the two systems, guest worker, or path to citizenship. I don't care if we put them at the end of the line (I actually don't think it matters, since we are blowing up the line anyway), but those that are here that want to become citizens should have that opportunity.

This takes care of all of the problems I have heard associated with illegal immigration. Taxes are now paid, they pay into the system that they benefit from, and most importantly, identity theft is left to the tweakers. Immediately the demand for false/stolen ids plummets, which cuts into the money of criminal elements.

On top of this, once these problems are taken care of, I have no problem with huge penalties for those who employ anyone illegally. Giant fines, and possible criminal penalties for knowingly employing someone here illegaly.

Any thoughts?

Tone of Discourse

I was asked to speak in church this last week based on a comment I made in Bishopric meeting. Thats what I get for opening my mouth right? Who am I kidding, I enjoy speaking in church. But, I have to admit, I was more nervous about this talk than any before. I actually wrote the whole thing out, instead of just having an outline. I wanted to make sure that the things I was saying were not just my opinions, but that they were doctrine. So, I reined in some of the things I wanted to say, and kept it very specifically from conference talks, and the scriptures. After two youth speakers and an intermediate hymn, I still had 30-35 minutes to talk. So, what was my talk about? It was about working towards Zion, with a particular focus on being unified. It all blossomed from thoughts I have had about the level of political discourse, on all levels of society today.

I have been very disappointed over the last few months as I have watched this new wave of angry citizens use their collective political might. Its not so much their political stances (which I don't particularly agree with), its more in the tone. And don't for a second think that I believe that the tea partiers, or any specific group is solely responsible for political tone, I don't, but the current atmosphere is just a great example of where we have come to. And where we are is a place I am uncomfortable with.

In a talk entitled, "Instruments of the Lord's Peace" Elder Robert Wood of the Seventy asked the following,

"Have we who have taken upon us the name of Christ slipped unknowingly into patterns of slander, evil speaking, and bitter stereotyping? Have personal or partisan or business or religious differences been translated into a kind of demonizing of those of different views? Do we pause to understand the seemingly different positions of others and seek, where possible, common ground?"

How often do we get email forwards filled with jokes about those who disagree with us, and not really funny ha ha jokes, but jokes that are filled with cruel stereotypes or vicious denunciations? How often do we assume and attribute the worst motives of human nature to those on the other side of an issue, instead of giving the benefit of the doubt that though we disagree, others motives are as sincere as our own?

Elder Wood went on to say,

"We should avoid caricaturing the positions of others, constructing “straw men,” if you will, and casting unwarranted aspersions on their motivations and character. We need, as the Lord counseled, to uphold honest, wise, and good men and women wherever they are found and to recognize that there are “among all sects, parties, and denominations” those who are “kept from the truth [of the gospel] because they know not where to find it.” Would we hide that light because we have entered into the culture of slander, of stereotyping, of giving and seeking offense?"

Those of us in the church hear ever election season the letter from the First Presidency stating that the Church does not support or endorse any candidate, party, or platform, and that we should support good men and women, and that they can be found in all parties. Do we believe it? I'm serious, how many people tune out when that letter is read, because they have heard it before. I think it may contain some of the most important counsel for us today we could have. It is too easy to assume that because our personal opinions coincide with one political party or another, that that is the party where truth and right are, that these are the good stances, and the other side is bad, wrong, and evil.

For those of us that are members of the church, it may be instructive to go to lds.org and look at the church's political stances. There aren't many, which should be incredibly telling. It is easy to slip into the idea that because the church is conservative on several major social issues, that conservatism is the way of the church. It is not. The gospel of Christ is not bound by such man made labels. It deals in eternal principles, not these things. Examples, do I think that taxes should be low, and that a more free market system is better for a country and an economy? Yes, does the gospel require, or suggest that? Not anywhere I can see. Embryonic stem cell research? Thats a hot button topic for a lot of people. Surely it is a moral question, right? Well, check out the website, the church is neutral on it.

It may seem that I am picking on more republican leaning people, and that is probably because members are usually right leaning, but it can go both ways. How about when the church has come out with a stance, and it disagrees with what we have come to believe? Gay marriage, abortion, mothers staying home to care for their children?

The problem that we must watch for is when our political beliefs, those temporary temporal subjects that hold little to no eternal value become so important in our lives that they overshadow those things that are eternally important. One such eternal value is unity. The Lord said in Doctrine and Covenants 38:27 ". . .be one; and if ye are not one, ye are not mind."

We can't be unified if our hearts are filled with animosity towards those who think differently politically. Elder Wood counseled in his talk,

"President George Albert Smith observed, “Whenever your politics cause you to speak unkindly of your brethren, know this, that you are upon dangerous ground.” Speaking of the great mission of the latter-day kingdom, he counseled: “This is not a militant church to which we belong. This is a church that holds out peace to the world. It is not our duty to go into the world and find fault with others, neither to criticize men because they do not understand. But it is our privilege, in kindness and love, to go among them and divide with them the truth that the Lord has revealed in this latter day.”"

Also, quoting President Hinckley,

“Now, there is much that we can and must do in these perilous times. We can give our opinions on the merit of the situation as we see it, but never let us become a party to words or works of evil concerning our brothers and sisters in various nations on one side or the other. Political differences never justify hatred or ill will. I hope that the Lord’s people may be at peace one with another during times of trouble, regardless of what loyalties they may have to different governments or parties.”

I used to be so interested in politics. I was kind of a junkie, and constantly read and kept up on everything, and consequently, had very strong opinions that I would argue tooth and nail. I can't do it anymore. Politics, for the most part, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I am grateful for any good man/woman who can get involved and serve with integrity, but so much of it has become so distasteful. And I don't think we have anyone to blame but ourselves. Conservative or liberal, both sides inject so much vitriol to gain ground, to one up the other. We must learn to do differently if we are to be one.