Why do I write? I alternate feeling confident and talented with being a directionless lost soul. Oddly, the opposite of "what's the point?" doesn't seem to be a point. It's rather being in a state of not caring if there is a point, or in being so arrogant as to believe that I have something to say that has the prospect of having value to some unknown future reader.

This has always been my biggest obstacle in maintaining a journal. I can seldom, even in my most egocentric state, wholly believe that what I write is going to be of any significance in the whole scheme of human life on this planet.

And it isn't. This whole realm of existence is no more significant than fingerpaintings on a fogged up window. One swipe, and it's all gone, along with everthing that we thought was so important. There's only one thing that lasts; that is eternal; that really matters. I bet you think you know what it is. Maybe you're right. I'll let you think so.

Just me

I posted the following as my profile on a singles website. I realize that it pretty much kills my chances of ever having a relationship with any woman on that website, but it was still liberating to publish a true and honest manifesto of who I am and what I want, or don't want. Being that it is so informative in that regard, I decided to post it here as well, if only for the benefit of one or two people that I know read this once in a while. As usual, sorry about the length, and in this case perhaps TMI:

It would be nice to meet women that just want to go do things. I am willing to try new things, or old things, within reason. I have standards, so there are some things that are not going to happen, such as sex outside of marriage. I've approached this topic casually in the past, because I was under the impression that if I didn't bring it up it would never be an issue. Apparently not, so pardon my bluntness. I'm not saying I only want someone to marry. It seems to me that there should be plenty of things a man and a woman can do together even if sex is off limits.

We could hike to see some breathtakingly beautiful vista (it's just pointless, and even painful, alone). We could play frisbee in the park, go to a play, visit a gallery, window shop, cook a meal together (or just let me cook for you, then clean up the dishes together). We could talk. I like talking. I like being talked to. I even try to listen sometimes. You learn things that way. I like to learn things. I like to talk in short sentences. For effect.

All of that said, I have recently had experiences that indicate I might be asking too much. It seems that the only non-Mormons that can stand Mormons are the ones that don't care about religion. Or my standards, for that matter. Not that I judge them or reject them because they are "not good enough." It's just too difficult to find common ground (at least on that topic) with someone that simply doesn't comprehend my motivation. I just want to hang out, and they think that is clothing optional.

So, it may be that I am wasting my time on singles sites. I'm LDS. We prefer that to the word Mormon, since the term has virtually no meaning in describing who we are and what we believe. It was just a convenient slang used by opponents of our religion that stuck, and we chose not to be bothered by it for many years. Recently, it has become more bothersome because many people hear it and don't realize (or accept) that we are Christian. Let me put it on record: I accept Jesus Christ as my personal Savior. There. That should be enough for most of you.

I can't be perfect, and I can't make myself perfect, or save myself a place in Heaven (another myth, hopefully dispelled), but religion aside, I feel some obligation to be a decent human as much as I am able. Maybe there's some unnecessary burden of guilt attached to that, but I'll take that over spending my life trying to pretend that my actions never have any consequences.

What it comes down to is that the non-LDS Christian women seem to think I am following a false religion down to Hell; the secular women think my religion (and all of its rules) is stupid; and since I am not the best Mormon lad, the LDS women don't care much for me either. And yet, I am not a bad guy. I say with complete confidence that any woman of quality who is looking for a man of quality would find that I can make her life blissful. I have all the right standards and values to satisfy all but the most discriminating Temple-bound daughter of Zion, and I am ridiculously talented as well. I've even been told (mostly by my patients who are 70+) that I'm not bad to look at, but maybe they are just seeing my compassion and caring and getting it confused with handsomeness. Women do that, I hear. I can fix things, too. Almost anything I set my mind to.

The only place I won't go to attract a woman is to be an insensitive jerk, i.e. a bad boy. I don't know what sick obsession makes so many women fall for, and STAY with these sorry excuses for manhood. The story I hear is that you see the good man inside and hope you can bring it out. Very admirable. I applaud you, but if that's what you want, get to work and stop complaining about it. I'm talking to most of my coworkers, BTW. Sorry for the distraction.

Here's me in a nutshell: (Help let me out of this thing! It's too small!) I kid! I kidddd! Because I love, I kid!

Anyway, being as honest as I can be here:

-I work night shift, so I am necessarily a night/morning owl.

-I spend a lot of time on the computer/internet out of sheer boredom and lack of alternatives in the middle of the night. I don't always go to websites that I should. I have played MMORPG's, but not currently.

-I quit smoking, drinking, drugs and extramarital sex, etc. in 1986 on the day I was married. I have no desire to resume any of those habits.

-I was married a little over 15 years, divorced a little over 8. No marriages or even vaguely serious relationships since, except with my 4 (1 of each) amazing children.

-I was voted most talented in my high school graduating class because I do it all: drawing, painting, making cool things out of mundane objects; guitar, piano, tuba, trombone and various other instruments, singer with a high B range (barely, for now); write songs, poems, commentary, memos; anything else creative at any moment, in any activity.

-I am a father first and foremost. Even trolling around on singles sites is as much for my children as myself. No, they don't need a mother, but they need a father who isn't going mad from loneliness.

-I am a registered nurse. Yes, I get asked a lot why I'm not "an artist," or "a writer," or "a musician," usually when I am doing one of those things for patients, coworkers, family or my congregation. My talents are worthless if they are not being used for others. That's why I am a nurse.

-I like cooking, shopping, having a clean house, folding laundry (usually while listening to right-wing talk radio), romantic comedies (nothing beats Pride and Prejudice [A&E version]) and doing whatever a righteous and considerate woman needs me to do (but it's been a while, so maybe I just miss that out of nostalgia).

-I love women. I like looking at them, talking to them, laughing, watching movies, and especially...aw, you know... There is no activity I can think of that isn't made better by having a woman (willingly) involved.

There's more, but those are the things that come to mind and are, therefore, relevant. I have saved anyone who is curious a lot of small talk, and hopefully presented myself in as honest a manner as I can. It's a lot to read, but if you got here, either it was interesting, or you are a bit of a masochist. I'm not really interested in masochists. Sorry, if that hurts your feelings...or, um...you're welcome? Now I have to proofread it, so what does that make me?

Okay, I feel I should make this clear: I like sex with a woman. I want to find the right woman, marry her, preferably for Eternity, and have lots and lots of sex with her. That will happen when and if it does, but it's not my obsession. I have plenty of other things to do for now.

(I just thought it would be a good idea to point out that I am not gay, after all of that.)

Where Now?

I have indulged in political and religious commentary and even came out and expressed a bit of hyperbole toward people opposite of my political views. I sort of regret that a little. On the other hand, I am very angry about the direction this nation is going, both politically and regarding morality and religion. I can't really help lashing out at those who either are pushing that change or who are just letting it happen.

So, what do I want to do with my little blog here? I can't help but take some consideration of the possibility of being read. Though my readership thus far has been pretty scant, the few of you that have read and are, of course, reading this now deserve better from me than to whine and rant petulantly.

There is something to be said for writing whether I feel like it or not, but not necessarily for public consumption. This is the only sort of journaling I have done with any degree of regularity, and I would like to become more disciplined with it, but as long as there is some possibility that others with read it, I feel that I should keep myself reined in and not take unfair pokes at people who might disagree with me, but are otherwise decent folks. I probably should try and be interesting as well, but doing it at the expense of others seems a bit cheap.

Okay, so I have resolved I guess to tone down the rhetoric, but I still feel the need to try and intelligently express my opinion, and if that offends anyone, they are welcome to debate. I will accord them what respect is due the quality of their argument. Hey, that's as fair as I can be. If you disagree, but can't back it up, you have no right to be offended.

Point in case, while I read a number of political blogs and articles, I have refrained from commenting on them lately because of the general lack of civility and the nearly absolute lack of actual discourse. It's pretty much all name-calling and accusation without substantive support for the opposing views.

Opinion is fine and does not require any references or verification. It's how someone feels about something and whether their perceptions are accurate or based in fact, they're entitled to it. I read some comments today appended to an article with a conservative slant. Several of the commenters were supportive and simply echoed the gist of the article.

The dissenting commenters, on the other hand, didn't even refer to the content of the article and instead attacked the people in support. They were called stupid and liars without any explanation of what lies they were supposedly telling. I believe this is what so many Liberals I have debated like to call ad hominem: an attack on the person that is irrelevant to the argument. What's more, they use that label incorrectly themselves because they fling it at you when you simply express disagreement, even if your argument is valid.

For example: stating that Bill Clinton could not be trusted after displaying beyond question that he had broken his marriage vows was considered by many Liberals I knew at the time to be a personal attack on Bill Clinton. It is not even necessarily a comment on Clinton's character to say that if he broke one presumably sacred oath, it could be expected that he held other oaths as breakable. To call him a scumbag or some other such invective is a bit more editorial, however. It is valid to debate a character flaw, but to attach derogatory opinions is not.

To typify the Liberal version of argument, comments on articles in such sites as Pres. Obama's beloved Huffington Post often follow the pattern of "What would Rush Limbaugh know about oil spills? He's just a fat drug addict." Besides the fact that Rush rehabilitated his drug habit and has his weight very much under control, what do those things have to do with his ability to comment on current events?

Yes, these are character flaws that are well known about Mr. Limbaugh, but they are only relevant if the topic involves criticism of people who are overweight or who have drug habits. Bill Clinton's trustworthiness is just as irrelevant if the topic is his knowledge of foreign affairs, or even of military strategy. Just because he is a proven liar that doesn't say anything about his incompetence as a Commander in Chief.

That is the essence of ad hominem. Whatever the person has said, factual or not, the opponent attempts to denigrate them, as if to say "I don't have to address their argument, because they're stupid." That would be tantamount to a Conservative saying that Obama's Health Care proposal (not that he ever actually made one) was bound to be flawed since he is black. I haven't ever heard anyone say anything like that, but the charge of racism is being thrown about more than the shurikens in a stadium full of ninjas. The Health Care Bill is easy enough to attack on its own lack of merits, but it would certainly be ad hominem, and wrong, to condemn it because it may or may not have had an author of any particular sex or ethnic group.

What is especially infuriating about this abuse of logic is that this very accusation is the Liberals' currently favorite bit of ad hominem. Without ever making any mention of race in my criticisms of the Obama Administration's policies, I get called a racist for disagreeing. Again, this is meant to demonize me and imply that nothing I say is of any merit regardless of intellectual or factual content because I must be deriving it from a position of racial bias.

It comes down to this: I am not sure that I can stand to keep fighting for the truth in an environment where people are content to let reasoned debate be shredded by the simple device of attacking the speaker's personal, and irrelevant, characteristics. If history matters to you at all, go back and read what passed for debate just prior to the Civil War and see if we aren't in the same atmosphere.

Despite a clear victory of thought by Lincoln in the Lincoln/Douglas debates, his position (and campaign) was defeated merely by insulting Lincoln's appearance and unsophisticated demeanor. Does anyone today have any question about Lincoln's greatness? In his time Abraham Lincoln was widely hated and despised as stupid and incompetent, even in the Union states. Over 600,000 Americans, including Lincoln, died as a result of that sort of blind hatred when the U.S. population (including slaves) was approximately 31 million. We have ten times that population today. Will it take 6 million dead Americans to resolve our differences this time around?

You think it's not the same thing? They were fighting over slaves and we are just having a political disagreement, right? You didn't actually go back and read the debates, did you? The difference that caused the Civil War was the two very disparate views of the nature of American government. It wasn't slavery, it was the right to enslave and discriminate based on the circumstances of a person's birth that the Confederacy fought for. It was written into their constitution. Theirs would have been a government of some people, by some people and for a lot of other people whether they liked it or not.

We have had several pieces of legislation pass our legislature this past year and a half despite the lack of a majority of popular support. This is no government of the people, by the people or even for the people. This is a small group of elitists who think they are better at deciding our fate than we are. It is their opinion that we aren't capable of doing the right thing if left to ourselves- precisely the argument made by the Confederacy in their constitution about the black race, and it's an even bigger indictment that their constitution wasn't likely even the opinion of the majority of southerners, as is often pointed out regarding the percentage of slave owners in the South and serving in their armies.

The Confederate constitution did not just call for a perpetuation of black slavery; it set up a system in which people of all races would be subject to rule by a portion of Anglo-Saxon white aristocracy. Not only was it a rejection of the American Experiment, it was a step back beyond the Revolution entirely to a notion that an "enlightened" and "genetically superior" minority should control the lives of an inferior majority. It is a premise that seems justified to those who establish it by the very fact of being able to. If this minority were not superior, how could they impose their will on the others?

This being the precise attitude of the current Administration and the party in control of the national legislature, it represents a very real and imminent threat to the governmental system and way of life that was established by the U.S. Constitution and preserved by the bloodshed of the Civil War. They may have a majority of party members in Congress, but they are still collectively a very small group of decision makers who have chosen, despite the understanding that they were elected based on the principles they espoused in their election campaigns to represent that constituency in regard to those principles, to abandon the will of the electorate and do whatever they want to.

That they are not truly representing those who elected them is undeniably demonstrated in the primary election results across the country that have seen overwhelming rejections of incumbents who voted contrary to the desires of the people that sent them to Congress. This is not an across-the-board rejection of incumbents in general, but has been specific to those who supported the socialist agenda of this administration.

The actual elections in the fall will tell whether the people of this nation prefer direct representation, or if they are going to accept the abandonment of the basic constitutional principles of the past 222 years in favor of an oligarchical socialist regime that they will have to trust is benevolent, competent and incorruptible. The Founders did not trust that any such government could exist and they set up the type of government they did because they wanted to protect the United States from being tricked into that kind of farce.

It might be reasonable to gamble that mankind has evolved enough since 1789 that such a government is possible now if there was any shred of evidence to that effect. One needn't look any further than the very people who claim to be such evolved beings to demonstrate the lack of character, ability and yes, compassion, that would be minimally required for it to succeed. Benevolent? Competent? Incorruptible? Are you kidding me?

Have A Day

You can have this one, for all I care. I'm just posting so that I have something posted for June. I blew most of my steam for today in a comment for the last post. I may have more steam later, but right now I have kids who always seem to be bored when I am doing something that I don't want interrupted.

At My Most Cynical

I'm pretty fed up with a lot of things, mostly my family. They don't call, they don't write. They can't even be bothered to read my blog. I email, and they don't email back. The word family has become irrelevant.

I'm fed up with being told I should be a writer. I write. I don't do it for money, which I suppose is what they mean. That's about the same as people telling me I should "be an artist." Once in a while I have been told I should be a musician, which is the one thing I seem to be able to do regularly, only maybe not so well as the other two. In any case, to do any of those things for a living, someone has to be willing to pay you. Next topic...

Liars. Everywhere you turn. Most notably, of course, are the politicians, but they hardly have a monopoly. They want you to think that every group of two or more people (corporations, apparently) that produce something are evil because they want you to pay for it. Liberals, you are morons, or you are liars. Mostly morons, I think. You're stupid enough to believe that proven incompetents and thieves, i.e. government, can be trusted with everything in your life , when they have shown that you can't trust them with anything, Seriously, rebut that one.

I know, you're thinking, "What about conservatives? They're more stupid, and brainwashed, too." Whatever. You guys spend enough time expounding that notion, so why should I address it? It's patently against all logic and since you are probably upset that I am stereotyping liberals, look at the beam in your own eye (that's a Biblical reference, so I will explain it to you, and I will use big words, so that you can pretend you understand: don't complain about my ad hominem attacks by making an ad hominem attack, you imbecilic hypocrites).

Women. I think you ladies are great and all, but why do you talk so big about what you want in a man and act as if you won't settle for less, then fall for the next jerk that flashes some jewelry at you and then put up with all the crap, and worse, that you claimed you never would? Yes, yes, there are a lot of exceptions, and you are all married or live too far away from here. Distance matters because of the primary woman I have to endure: my ex. She has control of my kids and therefore controls me. My children are all that make this excrement existence worth it for me.

That's all I can stomach for now. There's plenty more that I am pissed about, but I'm just wasting my time posting here anyway. At least I can vent here on a public site that can be accessed by anyone in the world (except maybe the Chinese that aren't hackers, so about 3 people) and not have to worry that anyone will ever be offended by it.

Defense of Marriage

The current debate about the nature of marriage keeps getting caught up in distractions. The question of someone's right to be married is being waved about like a banner of freedom and liberation by the very people that in the 60's and 70's were avid opponents of the whole concept of marriage. Back then, they portrayed marriage as a sort of slavery, particularly for women, and declared it an antiquated notion of the past and a symbol of Victorian religious oppression.

For some reason, now that GLBT&T-S&M-ETC's are claiming the prerogative of "expressing their love" in a marital commitment, the people that championed free love, not needing a "piece of paper" to prove their love and who turned divorce into a proceeding no more significant than paying a traffic fine are howling about the unfairness of denying that previously distasteful union to a group of people who have no real need for the ceremony other than the legitimacy they think it will give to their proclivities.

Funny thing, legitimacy. They think marriage will give them legitimacy, but totally discount the value of legitimacy in the life of the average child today. Really, who needs it? So a mother has to raise a child alone because the father is not held responsible for his libidinous pursuits? No problem, the state will take care of them. Let the father go about in his randy way and procreate to his heart's content. There are plenty of rich fat cats out there that can have their wealth confiscated to pay for the unwanted offspring, and when that money runs out, we'll just abort the rest of them.

The sad thing is that there are way too many people out there that don't see anything outrageous in what I just said. Their attitude, at least superficially, is that people should be allowed to do anything they feel like and not face any consequences. Dig a little deeper, though, and you will find that they have to admit that there is a limit to that. They know that eventually some limits will have to be made. There will be people who are considered too stupid or brainwashed to manage their own affairs: or who are too educated in the "wrong" things to be trusted to allow their seditious ideas to propagate.

Again, enter the State. As far as they are concerned, everything can and should be regulated. There is no activity that they aren't willing to force on people to follow their notion of what is right and proper, including tolerance of all lifestyles and sexual orientations. How is that different from a state religion doing the exact same thing, somewhat in reverse? I don't think they care about that hypocrisy, because it's all about getting back at the people that "put them down, " so turnabout is fairplay.

They cannot deny their secularist imperative and still insist that they only want the "rights" of marriage, rather than the sanction of any religion. They would never want that, they assure us, though I recall that in my youth, some 30-odd years ago, as various other "rights" were demanded for the same-sex oriented, when the issue of the slippery slope was brought up, e.g. if you get this, the next thing you will want is same-sex marriage, there was adamant denial- "That's ridiculous! We would never ask for that!"

Now, it's looked at as ridiculous that they wouldn't ask for it. So, let's suppose that all they want is the rights of marriage. What rights of marriage don't they have or that they couldn't have with another stroke of Pres. Obama's pen? There's really only one thing that they can't get until they subvert religion and that is religious sanction. Some religions say that they will never submit to that even if it's government mandated. The result would eventually amount to that religion being outlawed, and their opponents are just fine with that, because that's all they are really after.

As they like to point out, marriage is not necessarily a religious institution. In fact, with their current argument, it has to NOT be a religious institution for it to be a universal right for anyone to marry anything that they want to. Well, how about that? What societal purpose does marriage serve if it's not to keep sexual relations within the sanctity of a dogmatic obligation? Since that purpose is entirely based on belief in divinity of some sort, what other use could marriage have?

Why should the state value and endorse marriage themselves? Remember, it can't be something insidious like controlling sexuality and freedom of expression, or it wouldn't be of any value to people that want to act completely outside of the conventional mores.

The fact is, there is a perfectly good reason for marriage both historically and in the present day that, while compatible with religions prerogatives, does not require any religious views to justify it for state endorsement, and I have already pointed it out. Quite simply, the protection and support of those who are unable to provide for themselves.

Men are, by nature, an extremely libidinous lot. Lacking societal or institutional restraint, some men would be having sex with most anything that offered the opportunity, including women. There is a certain inevitability to conception happening in an environment of unrestrained copulation, of course, only when there is at least one man and one woman involved. Oddly, that is the only condition in which it IS a possibility. As long as men and women continue to engage in sex, and I don't hear anyone on the liberal side arguing against that, there will be offspring, even if there were state-mandated birth control and abortion of any zygotes that managed to circumvent it; and yes, zygotes do circumvent it (actually gametes do, before becoming zygotes).

What is to be done with those that make it to live birth? So far, at least, Western society has not gone so far as to promote the euthanization of unwanted births (despite some attempts). Historically, the solution was pretty simple: a thing called a shotgun wedding. Men who played around were held responsible for the consequences. Women who were unable to work because of pregnancy and then having a child to raise had the security of knowing that society would make the man who contributed to it provide the support. Children could be guaranteed a maintenance beyond a mother on government hand-outs if we just went back to the notion that men who did the deed must live up to it.

That's not a concept that could only come from religion, but in a really odd irony (to those who don't believe in religion) it's a core tenet of every world religion. At its heart, marriage is only important if there is someone that could be left destitute if that bond is not enforced by government or society. For the religious, it is that and more, but it is never less than that for anyone.

To imply that two adults that have their own careers and means of support, and who will never naturally acquire any offspring to require the support of one or the other, have any need for marriage is the most ludicrous falsehood ever to be uttered. There is no right there to be given or denied, so the whole argument is just a pathetic pointless distraction designed to take our eyes off of their real goal: the stripping away of the rights afforded to religious practice in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America- one of the core principles upon which this nation was founded, and after that, the complete abolition of religion.

I'd suggest we keep our eyes on the real issue.

Social Justice Is Just Socialism

People in this country can get so bent out of shape over words. Most of the time there is at least some basis for the offense given or taken, but even then, what's the big deal? People have called me all sorts of vile and terrible things. At least, they would be terrible if I bothered to let them bother me. My impression is that people get the most upset when the label is either a bit too close to the truth, or they don't really know what it means. They just know it must be bad if you're calling them that, even if it turns out to be true.

Seriously, in the public arena, who is really annoyed by the type of moron that has to use an epithet to defend their viewpoint? Most of those type of people are just wacko nutcases (yeah, I'm name-calling), who no one really pays any attention to unless they think they can use them to demonize an opponent.

Albeit, some words have earned a bit of a reputation for cruelty and insensitivity, and only a bigot with no motive other than to hurt would use them. But, so what? Do you win by protesting, since you are just giving them the power to manipulate your emotions? (If you didn't get it, that would be NO.)

The truth is that the people who generally make the most noise about an "offensive" word are not really offended at all. They just know they can stir up public outrage by acting offended. Though some politicians and activists are better at pulling this off than others, there is no political ideology that isn't willing to give it a try.

However, conservatives, especially the so-called Religious Right, tend to be a bit more vulnerable to accusations of meanness since they actually claim that they are supposed to be nice. When they slip up, all the opposition has to do is call them hypocrites and the apology tour is on the road. Never mind that being called a hypocrite is another form of name-calling. If you let it bother you, you've already lost the word battle. If you really are a hypocrite, then I'm okay with that, but if you really have beliefs to stand up for, STAND UP!

The point is that there are people out there who don't care what words really mean, they just use them to disguise, misdirect, confuse, enrage and otherwise manipulate the population. They never mean what they say, and they never admit what they are really about. If one label gets discredited, they quickly grab another. The game is to never get pinned down on silly things like values, or core beliefs. They have them. They just know you wouldn't really like them.

So, now along comes Social Justice to masquerade as Christian charity. Socialist has become a dirty word, oddly enough, because of the people who actually stood for it once. Not many socialists want to be known as a socialist right now. That doesn't mean they aren't in favor of the ideology that word used to represent. They just know they can't sell it.

If you ask them what Social Justice means- and they actually tell you- then look in one of the older reference books (you remember books, don't you?) You will find that it is just socialism, or close enough that it doesn't matter. Taking something from one person and giving it to another person is not charity; which requires that the giver actually have a choice. It is the Marxist philosophy (meaning that Karl Marx would agree...you know who Karl Marx was, right?) of wealth redistribution. Interestly, socialism doesn't mean what it used to. It's more of what communism said it was, and now communism is...wait...I'm getting confused.

See, anymore, if you get caught up in trying to define who someone is by the name they call themselves, you're ready to be fooled. Ask them what they stand for. If they won't say, or they spout empty rhetoric to dumbfound you, that's all you need to know. Whatever they want you to call them, call them a cab, and get them the heck away from you.

The Opposite of Pride is Joy

The greatest personal struggle I have in this life is overcoming pride. I used to think there was such a thing as good pride; righteous pride, which is the pride in keeping myself fit and clean, and in keeping my home up to repair and pleasant in appearance. Or such things as being "humbly" proud of my accomplishments, such as writing something meaningful that touches souls, for instance.

I mean, surely I could take pride in accomplishing things, as long as I remembered that God gave me the gifts to use them for good, so what good I did was to my merit. How else could I have any self-esteem if I never thought that anything I did was of value, and praiseworthy? I just had to make sure that I gave the glory to God, right?

I've had many discussions with others about this and we decided that there was a pride with a big "P" and one with a little "p," with them being the evil type that causes whole societies to crumble, and the type that is the pride in yourself that makes you want to do good things, respectively. That's entirely wrong.

After being knocked down pretty hard again recently, as usual, by pride, but not of any sort that could be called good (yet didn't merit a capital P either), I had to rethink this concept. I was at a point in my life that I thought all I was capable of having was "pride," because I certainly didn't think much of myself at all, so "Pride "was out of the question. How could I be "high and mighty" and due to be knocked down when I was already as low as I thought I could be.

Thinking it would make me humble, I had gotten wrapped up in trying to do good things for everyone around me. Sure, it felt good to do things for people, but it still left me empty and hating myself when I wasn't actively involved in service. Furthermore, I wasn't doing anything for myself- nothing good anyway.

There were a number of selfish behaviors, but eating a whole package of cookies isn't doing something for yourself. It's trying to escape yourself, and is a denial that you have any worth. I wouldn't hesitate to warn someone else how bad that was, but I excused myself because "those people want to live," and I didn't.

Ironically, I thought I had no pride of any sort, but I had the worst kind of Pride: the kind that tells you that you know better than anyone, including God, both what you can do to/for yourself, and what you are worth. Pride is not the opposite of pride. Come on, it's the same word already. Maybe there's some difference in the two concepts of big and little, but there's a lot of overlap; therefore not opposites.

Humility, and especially humiliation, alone is not the opposite of Pride either. Both are steps toward the truth, however. Think about it, we've all known someone who was proud of how humble they were. As funny as that is, it's a much bigger stumbling block than Pride itself. It makes you think you are conquering pride, but you are just disguising it.

There is only one way to be free of pride: you must becomne aware of how insignificant you really are. You must know that you are nothing. That is, that you are nothing, of yourself. There is not one thing you do in this entire existence that you could do entirely by yourself. Without the power of God, even the very molecules that make up your body would lose the bonds that hold them together, and disorganized and without cohesion, you would simple dissolve away.

Once you become aware of that and then recognize that, at the same time, you are divinely created and of infinite worth, you are on your way to being free of pride. I am a son of God, whose power is infinite, and He saw fit to create me, exactly as I am. While that is enough to feel that I have greatness, if only in my creation, I can take no pride in it. It is not my doing. I may take this form that He has given me and try to do what I want with it and think that I have done either great things, or evil things, but I could do none of it if He just withdrew His power from me completely.

Having reached this point of awareness of being entirely helpless and dependent on God for everything, I give my will to Him, to do with me as He will, and every moment becomes a miracle. Each breath is a testament to His Glory, every step forward a celebration of His greatness. If I stumble, it is because He allows it for my wisdom. If I do evil, it is only because He stills permits me life, and is patient to let the fire burn me, so I will know to respect it.

Now, I am almost there. As I learn to trust Him, and He sees fit to lead me to do anything of greatness, of any size, I finally learn the truth. I see what has been done, and I know that only by His power that it could be done, but He allowed my hand to do it, so that I could feel His power and know His glory. Then, and only then, I have joy. Joy in the goodness of the thing that has been done, and joy in the love He has for me that He will lend me his power to do good. I can feel both worthy and worthwhile, yet insignificant unless I am a tool in the Master's hand.

I am saved by my God and through the blood of Christ, no matter what I do. There is nothing I can do to accomplish that on my own. I can win nothing by the strength of my arm, but I can do anything when supported by the arm of God, and when I trust Him in all things.

It's not a fairy tale

Now, I'm not ready to say that I don't believe that "true love conquers all." That's not something that can really be assessed while you're still alive, and it's not happily ever after until the fat princess sings. In our very real world, we know a few stories of romantic connections that turned out well in the end, but we know endless stories of star-crossed lovers whose initial romantic bliss ended tragically.

Not all ends are necessarily tragic. They are dreadfully painful, but not tragic. These are the ones in which, despite finding true love and all the heady delights it promises, duty and honor are more important. Throughout history, many people have married for convenience, or to serve a familial responsibility, or sometimes to avert wars through the alliance that is formed, even though their hearts were desperately, gloriously and irrevocably given to another.

In the fairy tale version, the two lovers are separated, but stay true to each other in some manner until whatever magical, mystical thing occurs to reunite them in an eternal state of joy. Westley comes for Buttercup disguised as the Dread Pirate Roberts, because thanks to true love, even being dead a couple of times isn't enough to keep them apart. Does this never happen (except for the being dead part) in the real world? Are there no real happy endings? It probably happens far more than we realize, but the key is the remaining true part.

Once in a while, two people choose to shirk their responsibilities, run off together and it actually works out. Most of the time- not really. People who are that impetuous and undisciplined usually find the magic wearing off as soon as hunger and other facts of day-to-day existence make themselves felt. Prince Charming on his gleaming snow-white steed is much less appealing after you have to eat the horse because he didn't happen to have put in the time to learn a trade. Having a few babies on your hip and still having to go to the convenience store job while he "looks for work," is a pretty sure romance killer.

What is more likely is that the person who marries for duty, knowing their obligations, will devote themselves to making the best of things. They may carry the love of that person they feel "true love" with in their hearts, never really abandoning hope, but still determined to serve in the place where they are appointed. Who knows what will occur in this life, or the next? It is their belief in the next life, or their sense of duty to society that obligates them to stay in their situation as long as it is just rather than give in to their emotions.

The people that want to believe in fairy tales would say that it's a shame; that it's a waste to spend a life in that way rather than to fulfil their love. I recall a line in a mediocre song from the 70's: "It's so sad to belong to someone else when the right one comes along." Poppycock. What is sad is to throw away a family, or a kingdom, or your eternal soul for a mere selfish gratification.

To quote Miracle Max, "True love is the greatest thing in the world..." We are supposed to be in the world, but not of the world. True love IS the greatest thing, and some people never know it in this life, because it must be a mutual feeling of respect, charity, unselfishness and desire for the other's happiness, not for their body. Adultery is not true love. Fornication is not true love. True lovers are willing to sacrifice any earthly pleasure, property or emotion for each other. Too many are willing to give up what could be a wonderful exaltation of the relationship that is possible between a man and a woman for a mere moment's pleasure.

The portrayal of true love in the movie "The Princess Bride" is the ideal. The young man a woman put off the consummation of their love, because the man is going to earn a living so he can support a family. When he is thought dead, Buttercup remains chaste and faithful for ten years, and only agrees to marry the Prince when it seems certain that Westley will never come back, and because the Prince is deceiving her anyway.

Likewise, Westley can be assumed to have been celibate for his time in the crew of the Revenge, or else he is a phenomenal hypocrite for condemning Buttercup for "only" waiting ten years. The couple's virture is also implied to remain intact (or else be inconsistent) throughout the rest of the movie, and even makes a point of the marriage to Prince Humperdinck being not legal, and void, rather than just having Westley kill the Prince and take his bride, like most movies these days would.

Of course it's fiction and some would imply, outrageously unrealistic. So, why do we have such stories? Don't we want to emulate these ideals rather than the notion that love that isn't immediately fulfilled sexually is tragic. It may not be the popular view in today's hedonistic society to believe that we can live up to those standards, but we still want our heroines to be virtuous, and our heroes to be honorable.

Why do we sell ourselves short? If we keep teaching that true marital fidelity is impossible, we will raise a generation that sees no purpose in marriage, and soon afterward the family will be an outdated concept, rather than the basic building block of society, without which there will be no society.

Sure we fall short of the standard, but that's no reason pull it down lower. We should rather aspire to live a higher law. Changing your goals to be easier is not the same as achieving them. I think we do want to believe that virtue is possible, and that's why we keep telling the stories. I believe in true love, but unless it is chaste, unselfish, humble and honorable it can't conquer anything.

Which Christ is the real Christ?

One of the latest attacks I have experienced from people who want me damned for my beliefs as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the claim I follow a false Jesus. As a logical debate, there are numerous fallacies with anyone making such an accusation, but religion is not often required to fit the requirements of logic.

I believe that faith is first and foremost, and that some things must be believed that don't appear to fit logic, but I also have found that those things cannot be discounted only on the basis of a logical argument. Most of what I believe is also entirely logical as well as meeting the requirements of faith. Maybe the only belief I have that cannot be supported logically, is the simple belief in God. I know God lives, but I can't prove it to anyone. That requires faith entirely.

Beyond logic and faith, there remains only scriptural verification. For the sake of those who do not accept all the scriptures I recognize as divine canon, I will amend that as Biblical verification. Not all things can be verified by the Bible, of course, no matter what version of Judeo-Christian theology one espouses. The only recourse then, is to use the process of elimination. If something is clearly and unequivocally eliminated by the Bible, it must be rejected.

The Bible is an exceptionally ambiguous document at times, and so that standard can rarely be met. In the abscence of certainty, logic and faith should be relied on as well, with faith being the last word.

It is not my intent to apply that rigor to the question of: whose Christ is the right Christ (or for that matter, whose Messiah?)? I both question anyone's ability to prove that their version is true to the exclusion of all others, and that the details are even that critical. As far as I have been able to discern, no one challenges these type of beliefs to facilitate the salvation of anyone else, but only does so in an attempt to condemn them. I am not interested in condemning anyone.

I am just as capable of throwing doubt on someone else's version as they are mine. I may even choose to look at some comparisons in a future post. At this time, I am only trying to establish that no person on this earth, unless they claim to be a prophet, has the right, the authority, or the justification to dictate to all others the definative description, origin or mission of Jesus Christ, much less the nature and purpose of God, in general.

I have seen numerous scriptural passages that supposedly prove one point or another, or that claim to disprove my beliefs, but none of them really establish either of those premises. I don't propose to produce a list of my own verses to try and prove or disprove anything. I believe the scriptures contain the information we need to understand God's plan for us, but to try and discern or dispense truth without the guidance of the Spirit is hopeless and foolish.

The real Christ knows who He is and He knows who His sheep are. I have beliefs about the answers to those questions, and I am satisfied with those answers. I follow those beliefs and allow all others to worship as they see fit. I feel the evangelical spirit to share my beliefs, but I am not about to try and dictate where anyone is going after this life based on any set of rules. That is not for me or any living human to decide.

Divine Inspiration

It amazes me when someone is offended or wants to argue with me when I say I believe this nation and its laws were divinely inspired. I'm not exactly sure how it is harming anyone for me to believe that. I don't assert that the United States is a "Christian nation," but it does respect all religions, including Christianity, and to deny that the founders and framers of the U.S. Constitution considered Christian values is asinine.

So maybe a few of the Founders were Deists, or even Atheists, or whatever religion. That fact is a better evidence and testimony of their determination to make this a nation where all religions or no religions could be practiced freely with no interference from the state. Do you want to argue whether there was an establishment clause calling for separation of church and state? Okay, fine, have it your way- the Founders DID want separation of church and state: they wanted the state to stay completely out of questions of religion and religious practice.

The assertion that what I believe is offensive to someone simply because I am allowed to practice it is ludicrous...sticks and stones. To go further and allow litigation, and especially legislation to accomodate the individual who is so thin-skinned that they can't maintain their disbelief without eliminating everything that might make them doubt it, is a complete denial of the principles on which this nation is founded.

Not Christian principles, not Deist, Atheist, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or any other specific belief system. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The enemies of God get us hung on the first part which is highly debatable and open to multiple interpretations, when we should be hammering on the second part "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

That is completely plain and unambiguous. That is an absolute statement. No law prohibiting free exercise of religion means NO LAWS. It is clearly unconstitutional for Congress to make any law that concerns (or should I says respects?) religion. None. Because any law that even addresses any aspect of religion is going to either show favoritism (respect and establish) to one belief system or prohibit the free exercise of another, or more likely, both.

You too, Atheists, yours is belief system: you believe there is no God. Until you can prove there is no God, it is only a belief. No one else should be made subject to your belief system, and you should not be subject to ours. You may seek legal redress if you feel that you have had your rights and your freedom violated, but you CAN'T. MAKE. LAWS....unless you eliminate (which is the same as ignore) the United States Constitution.

Those words "United States Constitution" are sacred to me. I believe that the Founders were inspired in creating it, to preserve the rights and the freedoms of all beliefs, and all creeds, ethnicites, etc. I would fight and die to protect your right to belief nothing, or anything, so how about you quit trying to take my rights?

Are Jesus and the devil brothers?

Worded that way, I can easily say, "No, they are not." However, they were brothers, even as Jesus Christ is the eldest brother, and greatest of all of the children of God, which children we are as well. We compare to Him somewhere less than the size of the Earth compares to a blue giant star like Antares YouTube - Size of Earth, yet He is our brother, nonetheless. The devil, Satan, who once was Lucifer, a son of the morning (Isaiah 14:12), who rebelled against God and all those other fallen angels who are now demons to Satan are so much less than we are as to be as close to nothing as can exist.

They are cast out completely from the presence of God and though they have a time during our mortal existence to be allowed to try us, their ultimate fate is complete oblivion. To comprehend such a tragedy is beyond our ability, despite our attempts in theater and literature to try and imagine the worst possible scenarios our minds can concoct through some strange compulsion. Tragedy it is, but one of their own choosing. It is plain: they rebelled.

Now, consider what that means. Can one rebel against a body of which they were never a part? There are many things which God created, in His wisdom, that do not live up to the divinity of their creation, yet they are still God's creations, because there is nothing which was created that He did not create. How can Lucifer not be one of God's creations?

Could he create himself? Would that not make him greater than Jesus Christ who was created by God? Wouldn't that place him equal to God as a creator himself? Which is the more logical? Which is the more blasphemous? Yes, we of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe, as Isaiah said, that Satan was created by God as a brother of all living and dead, but he forsook that birthright and was thrown down. He is no prodigal son. He will not return to his Father in Heaven. He is not of us and no brother of our Savior Jesus Christ, nor will he or any who followed him partake of the grace and redemption of He who died for those of us who chose to follow our Father's plan.

Therefore, however you choose to word the question, I definitively answer: No, Jesus and the devil are not brothers.

Who has the best health care?

One of the key tactics in the battle of health care reform has been to make certain claims and accusations about the merits or deficiencies of various health delivery systems in the U.S. and abroad. Proponents of the constantly morphing behemoth making its way through the convolutions of the American legislative process are quick to cite the advantages of the European, Cuban and Canadian versions and tout examples of satisfied participants as proof that those systems work since, if they didn't, how could anyone have a good story to tell about their experiences with them?

The opponents have sadly chosen to just be reactionary and claim there is nothing so bad about the current American system that it requires such draconian transformations, and simultaneously denying horror stories from our own shores, while relating the ills of those other nations' health services.

As is often the case, the truth is not strongly on either side.

It's shameful that we always fall for the punditry that extremists of any ilk use to inflame us into following their viewpoints and rejecting any others without so much as hearing them. Here in the land of trying to find tolerance for everything and avoiding stereotypes at all costs, we are still easily tricked into divisive regional, racial, cultural and ideological prejudices that are then used to support that "theirs could never be as good as ours" or "vulgar America needs to aspire to the cultural superiority and enlightenment of other nations" in order to manipulate our emotions before our common sense has a chance to kick in.

Here's a bold statement: You can get excellent health care anywhere in the world that has a system for delivering health care. It's true. You can get great care in England, or Canada, or Australia, or Germany, China or Cuba; heck, even in the United States in a V. A. hospital. There may be better odds of it in some than others, but then that's still pretty subjective to each person's view of great care.

What's more, it's pretty much a certainty that anyone in any of those places that is really in need of medical attention will get it regardless of their ability to pay. None of them are able to do it without lines, or limitations of some sort, and they do generally tend to treat the sickest first, meaning that the rest are not going to get what they want as fast as they want unless they grease a few palms.

No matter how free a system is, there will always be those with affluence that can move ahead in the line or be plucked out of it entirely to get preferential treatment, but due to the inherent ethics of health care workers, this is far less prevalent than in any related industry. One of the issues that have been discussed in the wake of the Haitian earthquakes is whether American citizens who are victims there should get preferential treatment by American aid workers on the ground there.

It's a strictly academic debate, because the reality is that the type of people that are there doing that job are not the type that are going to care what anyone tells them about whom to help first. They are going to focus on who has the greatest immediate need. It is in their training; it is in their character, and it is endemic to the profession as a whole. Profiteers and bigots exist, but they are pushed to the fringes and ostracized wherever they are recognized.

The reason you can get great care anywhere is because that's what care-givers do. They do the best they can for everyone that comes into their care regardless of the resources at their disposal. Obviously, there are factors such as moral judgments; racial, sexual and cultural bigotry; greed, burn-out and elitism that affect the individual health care worker's quality of care, but those are so secondary to the primary imperative of those who choose this work that the desire to ease suffering is the great equalizer, not only between individuals, but between nations and their health care systems.

This is not at all to say that the American system or any other in the world does not need improvement or that access issues can be comparatively better in other nations than in the U. S. There is a definite need for reform, but the reform should not only be made based in the reality that the issue is getting the infirm and the healers together, but that once that is done the care will be delivered as compassionately, efficiently and as fairly as can be done, wherever in the world it happens. Anecdotes of good care anywhere are irrelevant because they are the rule, not the exception.

Critical Mass

It would actually have been a better pun before the election when some of us viewed the outcome as critical to the survival of the republic. Now that Scott Brown is the winner, the Senate election in Massachusetts is not the critical juncture anymore, but the situation is still approaching crisis.

For all the denial of Obama Administration officials and supporters that Senator Brown's victory was in any way a referendum on anything but local politics in the state of Massachusetts, or at worst, a protest vote against the failure of the party in power to accomplish their stated objectives, polling among Brown supporters indicates exactly the message that voters were making a statement to the federal government that they are opposed to the health care reform bill, and more particularly to the tactics being used by the current administration and Congress to push it and other changes through.

The merits of that or any other bit of legislation are no longer important or even worth consideration. The methods of our Congress are so similar to the behavior of the Parliament of Great Britain toward the American colonies that it is unthinkable that revolution of some sort will not take place unless we are not the same sort of people that inhabited this continent in the 1770's. How fitting it is that the first shots in this revolution were fired in the same state as the one that led to the formation of this republic.

One could go back to the fall victories in Virginia and New Jersey and point to them as indicators of the direction of the electorate away from the policies of the Progressives, but it wasn't until the shock of Massachusetts that the will of the people was felt as strongly as the stand of the Minutemen on Lexington Green that resulted in the "shot heard 'round the world."

The comparison is not overly dramatic. The repercussions are likely to be every bit as transformative as those of the American Revolution, particularly if the powers in D.C. react in the same manner to this uprising as the Crown did following Lexington/Concord; not in the sense of an armed put-down, but rather in failing to recognize that the majority of the populace are not content to be meek subjects to their wills- accepting the supposedly benevolent dictates of the Great Fathers in Washington without the checks and balances that the Founders built into the Constitution for this very purpose.

Just as the colonists evolved an awareness that foreign rule was no longer in their best interest, the people of the today's United States are slowly waking up to the recognition that a bloated government serves its own ends first and has become an entity unto itself- separate and alien from the common American and viewing us as indifferently as the Lords of Parliament across a gulf wider than the Atlantic Ocean.

We've had our tea parties and exchanged political salvoes. Right now, the Progressive leaders are holed up in Washington like the redcoats in Boston pondering their next moves, while militia arrive daily to oppose them. They'd better pay attention to the sounds of axes and shovels on "Bunker Hill" as they consider their own critical decisions. To paraphrase Rahm Emmanuel, crisis can sometimes be a useful thing.