Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Tonight, My Thoughts on the Eternities

   There is no question that the universe has always existed. Rather, the question is whether something has always been in it.
   Are there sub-universes? Since the universe extends indefinitely, it is possible to have an infinite number of universes, each stretching infinitely in every direction and not reaching each other.
   One question often asked of creationists, of believers in God, is how it would be possible for God to have created everything if nothing existed to begin with, for if nothing were there, God wasn't there, either.
   But, if there are infinite universes, God could exist, go next door and create a new universe. You could have a starting point for the universe, and still have a God who was already there to create it.
   The scriptures speak of God creating the heaven and the earth. The Bible begins by saying, "In the beginning," as if there might, indeed, have been a beginning, I do not know that believing in God and believing in science have to be seen as being at odds with each other.

Monday, May 30, 2016

I Salute Those Who have Died in War, both Here and Abroad

   I honor the fallen dead, not the wars, on this Memorial Day. I honor the cause that brought our great nation to war, but not the wars, themselves.
   I seek both for freedom, which is the cause for which we went to war, and for peace, which would have kept us from war.
   And, I honor not only the fallen dead of America, but those who have fallen in other countries, even the countries we have fought against. I think of their loyalty to their nations, and think it not wrong, in most cases. Oh, for those who took up their guns relishing the opportunity of oppressing others, or opposing America -- they I do not honor (though I still lament their deaths). But to all the soldiers conscripted into duty, forced to fight, yes, I truly honor them, as well as those who willingly signed up, to support their countries, though deluded to thinking their cause was just. I honor them not for believing in a wrong cause, but for being brave enough to fight for that that they did think was good. There is honor in giving your life for that which you think is right.
  As much as any, I honor the 90,000 -- 146,000 who died in Hiroshima, and the 39,000 -- 80,000 who died in Nagasaki. These were the innocent, largely. They died that peace could be grasped, really. We administered death to them in hopes of ending the war and bringing peace to the world. Many of them perhaps did not overly support the cause of either side. They were but pawns and bystanders. They went to their deaths that peace would have birth.
   I think it not wrong to salute them, as part of my Memorial Day observation.
   I salute the 700 or however many refugees who perished in the Mediterranean Sea the past week. They died fleeing the ravages of war. They sought freedom with a sail instead of a sword, but they sought freedom. They, too, should I honor.

Sunday, May 29, 2016

It Shouldn't be Our Choice to Decide if Another Person Dies

  It's called pro-choice.
   I think of the deaths caused by abortion, and they are, indeed, deaths of choice. They are avoidable.  These deaths are not like car fatalities, wherein they come by accident. They are not like those from disease, where we save those we can. No, abortion is death by design. As much or more so than any other of the deaths in our society, these are deaths of our choosing. If we, as society, were to choose to let the unborn live, they would live. These deaths come of our choice and are supported by those who announce themselves as pro-choice.
  The death of one person should not be the choice of another. We should not feel it our choice to decide if another person dies.

He Who Condemns His Neighbor, Fails the Test of Love

   Love does not come with judgment. He who condemns his neighbor is not loving his neighbor. I think of the Savior, saying (in John 12:47), "I came not to judge the world , but to save the world." ( I  think of the Savior extending love to the woman caught in adultery, telling her (in John 8:11), "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."
   Love is not judgment; Love is forgiveness. Love does not take another man's weaknesses, and flog him with them. It does not demand punishment, but rather seeks to console, to care for, and to comfort. 
   Love provides a way back without judging where one has been.

Saturday, May 28, 2016

Would a Weak Magnet Transport as Well as a Strong One?

    Upon further review. I have thought more on my theory of teleportation.
   When I say teleportation is possible, I use the term very loosely. I mean only to say that unlimited speed can be achieved. The actual meaning of the term, however, calls for the transfer of matter from one point to another without traversing the space in between.
   I closed my blog two days ago by saying that the possibility of teleportation might depend on whether a strong enough magnet could be developed.
    Then, it occurred to me, that that is wrong -- depending on what we refer to when we say strength. The magnetic pull  would need to be strong enough that it could travel all the way to the person who is being transported. Can the pull from magnet still be present, say, 500 miles away?
   But the magnet would not need to be a powerful magnet in terms of how much pull it had. If there is no resistance in a vacuum, then a weak pull will achieve as much speed as a strong pull. That's my theory. When I ran this thought by my brother, who is learned in all the physics that school offered us, he said, yes, unlimited speed can be achieved by a weak pull as well as by a strong pull, but the strong magnet would result in faster acceleration. I'm still trying to think that thought through.
   I google, and Newton's three laws of motion come up. I will have to think on them some other time, for it is getting close to bed time.
   For now, my thought is, if there is no resistance, then a weak force equals a strong force. In terms of what this means for what I would endeavor to do, if we were to create a vacuum tunnel, and stick a magnet at one end to attract a person (who would be in a metal-laced suit) or vehicle we wished to transport, we would not need a powerful magnet, so long as the pull of the magnet could be felt all the way from its source.
   I've had other thoughts on the theory of teleportation. What if magnetic fields are like radio waves, in that they have different frequencies? Perhaps we could refer to this as magnetic DNA. What if all things (or a good number of them) have magnetic presence, but each has its own magnetic code, or DNA? Then, teleportation would be possible without sticking a person in a metal-laced suit. Instead, we would need to have a receiver that plugged into the magnetic pull of that person or object that we wanted to go to. And, we would need a vacuum conduit, a vacuum tunnel to travel through.

'Support Them, Don't Abort Them'

   Ah, me thinks this a worthy line, a rally call, to use in the fight against abortion. "Support them, don't abort them," writes a Salt Lake Tribune headline writer above a letter to the editor.
   I think of the calls to support our military, our law enforcement officers, our families, and our leaders. Such calls do not go unheeded. So, support the unborn children, as well.
   If ever someone needed support, they do. Millions are aborted every year. These are avoidable deaths. If we, as society, decided to let them live, they would live. These deaths are not like those from car accidents, that the deaths are accidental. They are not like the deaths that come from disease, for we save most all that we can who fall victim to disease. No, these deaths are of our choosing. These deaths are avoidable. So, public support can make a difference. Since the unborn cannot speak out for themselves, our speaking out on their behalf becomes necessary.
   So, support them, don't abort them. It can make a difference.

Friday, May 27, 2016

De-Activate the Driver's License When Drinks are Poured

  How about using electronic driver's licenses as the keys for our cars? If your car was not registered, or you didn't have insurance, or your license expired, the car would not start.
   Oh, and if you were in a bar in the last few hours, the car wouldn't start then, either, for every time you visited the bar, as you purchased a drink, they would scan the information onto your license.
   This is not an original idea, but comes from a friend of mine. I like it. I especially like the part about de-activating the driver's license when you purchase alcohol at a bar. Impaired driving is credited with causing one-third of our traffic fatalities. I don't know what share of that comes after exiting bars, but obviously a fair portion.
   I wonder, if this were done on a state level, how expensive it would be to have cars fitted with such keying mechanisms. Could we required auto dealers to install the keying, or would that be too expensive? I'm hoping the changes could be made for under $100 and do not think that too expensive.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

The Age of Teleportation Might be but a Magnet Away

    Teleportation. Is it possible? I started wondering a week ago, and wondered much today. My theory is this: There is no resistance in space (although I might be wrong), so speed should be unlimited if the force dictates arriving at the destination immediately.
   And, magnetic attraction might provide that.
   Place a small piece of metal in front of a magnet, and watch it snap to the magnet, this in an environment where air provides resistance. My theory goes, that if a magnet can be made strong enough, it will demand that the object be there all but immediately.
   This is a theory that could be tested, and I have heard of no such test. So, I wonder if what I am suggesting is new. It seems there would at least be tests determining what can be done with permanent magnets, as far as transportation, if someone already had arrived at this theory. In discussing this with someone I ran into who has invention aspirations using electromagnetic energy, Jake Lewis, I was told this would not be new, that Nikola Tesla already conceived it.
   Dang. And I wanted to be the discoverer.
   Still, I wonder, because, as I said, it seems we should have heard about testing.
   Now, initially, you would have to transport in vacuum tunnels, in order to keep the vacuum separated from the air. However, it seems we would eventually find a way to keep the air separated out without having to have a physical divider. When I mentioned this to a friend at the gym, Bennion Spencer, he suggested a magnetic field, dividing the air from the vacuum.
  So, you would have a column, a shaft, a pillar of vacuum to travel through. In discussing my thoughts with Bennion, I used the word, "conduit." Then, it occurred to me, Joseph Smith used that  term in describing a visit from a heavenly being: "When, instantly I saw, as it were, a conduit open right up into heaven."
   Anyway, I have stated my theory and will restate it: If a vacuum conduit can be created for the person or vehicle to travel through, we might be able to achieve a state of no resistance. If there is no resistance, then you might be able to achieve unlimited speed. Current objects in space are largely slung on their way by gravitational forces. The man-made things we have in space have been thrust to their speeds. Those forces are limited in how much speed they provide. But, if you have a magnetic force attracting the object, it might be able to produce unlimited speed, if the magnetic power is strong enough. Unlike being thrust, where the speed achieved cannot exceed that thrust, magnetic forces might have no such limits. The pull is such that it is as if saying, "I am here at this point, and I would have you also be here this very moment."
   If there is anything at all to my theory, it remains that a magnet must be created that is strong enough to make this happen. Maybe that isn't possible.

Someone Wants a Photocopy, so We Call in a Lawyer?

  Wish I could have been at the UTA meeting Wednesday when UTA announced it was upping the fee for getting documents from $5 to $15. Within the last couple weeks, UTA annnounced it was closing a meeting to the public. Then, yesterday, I believe it was, UTA said it was reversing that and the meetings would again be open.
   Then, in the space of about a day, this.
   Wish I could have been there. It is amazing to me that they should do this. The news story says lawyers are involved in the records requests. I wonder if that is necessary. Someone wants a photocopy, so we call in a lawyer? My thought is: Just run over to copy machine and make a copy and be done with it. That's not $15 of work. In discussing this with someone, they reminded me liability is involved. Forgive, but I still say just copy the document and give it to the person without calling in a lawyer or doing any prep work. These should be public records, not records that need to be sanitized before the public can see them.  

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Let Mono-Mono Magnetic Vacuum Travel Whisk You Across the State

   Whisk across Utah in the blink of an eye (well, maybe not that fast, but still incredibly quick). As you pull up to the border, your car is fitted into a pod, slipped onto a monorail, and sent sailing through a vacuumed tunnel the length of the state.
   Utah could build such a futuristic transportation system.
   Let me tell you why it should. Technology is such that we could switch from carbon-powered transportation to something else, if only we would. Unfortunately, the momentum of society is stuck on carbon. The principle of momentum applies here, so we continue down the road we are on.
  But, if a system such as this were cast before our eyes -- on display in all its glory and available each time someone pulled up to the Utah border -- the excitement of changing to other forms of fuel would sweep the nation in no time.
  Cover the tunnel with solar panels. Collect the energy, and funnel it into the tunnel. I will be frank: Though I would have the cars powered electromagnetically, I do not know much about the creation of electromagnetic power. If the solar panels would provide it, use them.
   Maybe call it mono-mono magnetic vacuum travel, the two monos referring to monorail and mono vehicle, meaning one car at a time, as opposed to being  mass transit.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

What if We Could Vote for None of the Above?

   A friend came up with a good proposal. If I thought he wouldn't mind mentioning him by name, I'd give him credit, for I like giving credit when ideas aren't my own.
   On the ballot, have the option of voting for none of the above.
   As much as ever, such an option would give voice to many of us this election year. Instead of searching for an alternative candidate, we could simply express our discontent by voting against all of the candidates.
   Such a vote would be meaningful. Hmm, and I wonder how we would transfer the votes to the Electoral College. If they were committed to voting for none of the candidates, that would make it possible that no one would be elected president, at least not by the Electoral College. The vote would then go to the House. I wish they, too, would be committed to voting for none of the above, but no such luck.
   But, just for fun, what would happen if no majority could be obtained when the House voted, nor when it went to the Senate? Now what would we do then? Put in the speaker of the House? Paul Ryan? I like that.

Buyer's Remorse: There Ought to be a Way to Shed the Candidate

   Trump appeal seems to be swelling, not diminishing. Still, it seems there should be a way to shed a candidate if you reach a point of buyer's remorse before the election.
  As in: No. We've changed our mind, We don't want this guy for our candidate.
   If a person is an office-holder, often there are ways of impeaching him. We need a way to impeach our candidates, as well.
   Now, since the primaries are being used to nominate the candidate, it makes sense to call an emergency election to renounce him as your candidate, all states voting the same day. Then, the question becomes one of mechanics: Do you have a vote of no confidence, first, with only your current nominee on the ballot, and follow a week later with all the candidates poured back onto the ballot?
   However you do it, I suppose I like the idea of being able to give your second thoughts a route of action. I like there being of standing him up, of leaving your fiance at the alter, so to speak. If you're shuttering at the thought of electing someone, if you can see it isn't going to be a good thing, if you fear the nation is going to crash if he is elected, you ought to be able to divert course and save the ship.

Are We Comfortable with this in Our President?

   "I get the news I need on the weather report.
   "I can gather all the news I need on the weather report."
   --- Simon and Garfunkel song, "The Only Living Boy in New York"

   Are we comfortable electing as president someone who gets some of the news he needs from the National Enquirer? It has been scarcely weeks since Donald Trump parroted a National Enquirer story, discussing Ted Cruz's father-in-law being with Lee Harvey Oswald not long before the Kennedy assassination, indicating he might have been involved in the murder.
   Now, we have Trump bringing up the possibility the Clintons were involved in the death of former Clinton staffer Vince Foster, which is another story out of the pages of the National Enquirer.
   "I get the news I need on the weather report."
   I wonder at all this. Is this character assassination at its worst, trying to tie your political opponents to murders? On the other hand, if the accusations are true, they should be things we discuss.
   So, we find ourselves wondering if we must become learned in the Enquirer articles just to better determine whether Donald Trump is justified in what he says.
   And, Trump lives on. His campaign continues to flourish. He is news more than anyone else is news. From New York, he is, in a manner of speaking, the only living boy in New York.

Monday, May 23, 2016

Inventors over Investors: A Move Towards Income Equality

   If you want income equality, one place to start is with the inventors. The way we are set up now, small inventors lack the capital and end up parting with their inventions when the investors come calling.
   We should protect our inventors better. We should protect our small inventors from being taken advantage of by investors.
   Make it so the inventors can file online, simply placing in a description of what they are inventing. Leave it to the patent office to verify whether someone else has already filed for a similar invention.
   And -- here's what we'll do different -- rather than saying no one can copy the product for the patent time, let anyone who wants to copy it. . . .
   For a price. For a royalty.
   Say, maybe 10 percent of the profits go to the inventor. Or, maybe go even further than that, and say no individual can make more off the product than what is made by the inventor.
   Now, since the idea is to make things simple and easy for the common person, don't leave it to the inventor to have to look for patent violators. Let the patent office have investigators who search for the copycats.
   If all a person has to do is come up with an idea, sit down and write a description of it, and then sit back and reap the results, we are encouraging an inventive spirit among the populace, and we are protecting the creative minds from being taken advantage of by the rich.

Sunday, May 22, 2016

What did Christ Mean when He said His Disciples would Fast?

   I don't know whether I have ever before considered this scripture in this way, but tonight, I wonder if Jesus was speaking of an apostasy and restoration in Mark 2:17-22. I have thought of verses 21 and 22 possibly referring to a restoration, but I do not know that I have thought of verses 19 and 20 as referring to an apostasy.
   I think it not wrong to ponder on the scriptures, to wonder what they mean. To do that, you have to say, Could it mean this? Or, Could it mean that? Your conjecture might be correct or it might be incorrect, but it is not wrong to ask, to wonder. Nor does it mean you are putting forth something as gospel when you tell of it? No. You are simply wondering.
  So, read verses 19 and 20.
   "And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.
   "But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days."
   Jesus  might not have been speaking of physical fasting. He might have been speaking of going without the word of God. While He was with them, they could not fast, they could not go without the word of God, for they would have it simply by His being there.
   But, once He left, then would they fast, then would the word of God be taken away, then would there be an apostasy.
   Verses 21 and 22 speak of patches being put on new garments instead of old ones, and new wine being put in new bottles, instead of old ones. Even so, when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was established, it was not sewn into or placed in an existing church.
   Would be interesting to read Bible commentaries to see what they say. Alas, it is bedtime.

Saturday, May 21, 2016

Those Fooled into Believing They are Doing Right, do the Most Wrong

  Ahh, the things we can learn from history. Tonight, I think to tell you of a lesson to be learned from the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Perhaps, you've heard of that event. Perhaps you've heard 100-140 people were killed. Perhaps, you've wondered what would ever possess good, church-going folks to slaughter so many innocent people.
  Remember that yesterday, as I  called for a course covering the lessons to be learned from history, I suggested we always won't agree on which are the lessons. Well, you might disagree with me on whether this lesson I find in Mountain Meadows is valid.  You might disagree as to whether my conclusions are right.
  So, Mountain Meadows, for me? I learn there is a danger in teaching that there are times when we should kill, times when we should exact vengeance, times when we should take the law into our own hands, and times that we should condemn the whole of a group for what is done by perhaps only one or two.
   I look at what the folks who did the killing were going through, and realize they must have felt very justified. Their cause was just, in their eyes. So, the point is that it becomes easy to persuade ourselves that murder is justified, and we must guard against such feelings.
  The lesson to be learned applies to us, because we, also, sometimes are persuaded that killing would be right. Some say they would kill certain criminals -- child abusers or whoever. They say they would kill anyone who breaks into their home, regardless if that person was displaying a weapon or acting threatening.
    I do not say there cannot be rationale for killing another person. I do not say self-defense and protecting one's family are not reasons for doing so. But . . .
   I worry that we take it too far. I think we leave the window open too wide. For example, would we kill anyone who broke into our home? Anyone? Do we reason that the very presence of an intruder is threat enough against our family? If we think that way, if we come to justify killing and think of the situation and prepare for it that way, the day may come when we will live it out and kill someone.
   Only to rue that we did it, just as those who committed the Mountain Meadows Massacre lived to rue what they did.
  Mountain Meadows was one of the vilest of acts, we say. But, we should stop. If we consider the mindset the perpetrators allowed themselves to arrive at, we might realize they felt what they were doing was quite the right thing to do.
   Even as we, today, rationalize our way into thinking killing can be right.
   What possessed good people to do such a thing as Mountain Meadows?
   I have learned that they might have been taught that if they ever ran across those who killed the prophet Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum, or killed LDS apostle David W. Patton, or killed . .  apostle Parley P. Pratt, they were to avenge those deaths. I don't know how such a teaching was distributed among them, whether it was taught from the pulpit or whether they just uttered it from one to another, as in, "If any of those varmints come around here, I'm going to plug 'em with a bullet."
   Pratt was killed in Arkansas. Now, the Baker-Fancher wagon train that was on its way to California was from Arkansas. Pratt's wife reportedly said she recognized some of the people as being the murderers of her husband.
   Now, we are reaching the point where you can see why they felt justified. Add some more factors. How about the Baker-Fancher party having reportedly poisoned a spring, killing 18 head of cattle?
   How about a teaching that vengeance is the Lord's? Some might have felt they were only exacting the Lord's vengeance when they killed those in the Baker-Fancher party. Indeed, an inscription carved into the wooden cross placed at the mass graves reflects this, it reading, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay saith the Lord."
   They felt they were but doing the Lord's bidding.
   Even so, today, we can get ourselves worked up, concluding that certain acts of murder would be acts of patriotism, or acts of serving the Lord. Looking back at Mountain Meadows, we can see how dangerous such thinking can be.
   Justifying our wickedness is the bridge that brings us to doing something that is wrong. If we never cross that bridge, we never get to the point of committing the crime. Sometimes, it is not the most wicked people who commit the most wicked acts, but those who have been fooled into thinking that what they are doing is right.

Lack of Stress and Lots of Love Keep Our Stars Alive

  News comes that Alan Young, who starred in the television sitcom Mr. Ed, passed away. He was 96. I will just throw this out there as a thought on why many of our actors and actresses seem to live long lives:
   Lack of stress and lots of love.
   I wonder if some of them live less stressful lives than many of the rest of us. Their physical wants are taken care of. They are held in high regard by those they see each day. . . . They live with little stress. They are loved, honored and adored.
   We marveled when George Burns lived to 100, living on-and-on, even even though he was a cigar-smoker. Luise Rainer lived to within about a dozen days of being 105. Juanita Moore, one of the first African-Americans to be nominated for an Academy Award, lived to 99.
   Among the still-living? Kirk Douglas will be 100 this December, and Zsa Zsa Gabor is 99. Betty White is still up and active at 94, and, I believe, occasionally still acting. Angela Lansbury and Dick Van Dyke, each at 89, are still going strong, I believe.
   Joan Fontaine, Al Molinaro from Happy Days, Abe Vigoda from the Godfather, Louis Jourdan  from Octopussy, Christopher Lee from Lord of the Rings, and  Maureen O'Hara all lived well into their 90s.
   These are people we honor and respect. I am not in-the-know enough to tell whether they evaded deep controversy in their lives, but I wonder. I do believe lack of stress and lots of love contribute heavily to long life, and I wonder if we cannot see this in the long lives of some of our actors and actresses.
   Musicians? I do not know that as many of them as long. I wonder if they are more inclined to less peaceful lives, lives with more controversy, and thus less stress. They might also be prone to more detrimental lifestyles.

Friday, May 20, 2016

The Lessons of History is not a School Course, but Should be

   Sometimes, it is more important to learn the lessons of history than to learn the history. I don't know that such a course exists anywhere in our schools, but perhaps there should be such a class. one that takes the greatest lessons to be learned from history, a class that focuses not on the events themselves, but on what can be learned from those events.
   I suppose, if I were in charge of our schools, I would create such a class. If you ask what I would do to reform our education system, this would be one thing I would do. 
   "We learn from history that we learn nothing from history," said George Bernard Shaw. If we can see that he was correct, we should change that. We should start teaching the lessons of history, so that they will be learned.
   There would be two ways of going about this. First, you could take some of the lessons of history and specify them in the textbook. The second way would be rather than specifying particular lessons to be learned, to let the teachers and students come up with them. That would encourage critical thinking. It would also provide opportunity for the students to practice tolerance of each other, for what one person perceived as a lesson that should be learned, would often be something that another person would object to.
   Critical thinking one of the most important things to inject in our education system, so I like offering this as we teach the lessons of history. Tolerance for the viewpoints of others is also something we should teach our people.
   So, I would have a textbook that offered up some specific lessons of history, but I would leave it to the teachers and students to come up with other things we might learn.
  Also, it occurs to me that involving the students this way is a good teaching practice, for they will learn more through active participation than they will through passive listening.

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Join Magnetic Travel with Vacuum Travel and bring the Future to Us

  I would propose magnetic travel . . . in vacuum tunnels. This would create the world's fastest and most futuristic transportation system. Propulsion by magnetics is not new. Such transit systems are called maglev (mag for magnetic and lev for levitation). Magnets are used to create both lift and propulsion. The world's fastest commercial train is a maglev train in Shanghai (China leads the world in so many things, so this should not surprise us) that goes 270 mph. The energy to lift the train is not great, but the energy to overcome drag is significant.
   So, why not take away the drag? I don't even know if total evacuation of air can be achieved in a tunnel, but it seems we should be able to come close.
   Now, we have further advanced the creation I suggested yesterday. I suggested vacuum tunnels crisscrossing the state. We could have one reaching from Logan to St. George, another from Tremonton to Blanding, another from Wendover to Vernal, and another from St. George to Green River.
   Vacuum tunnels. Vacuum travel.
  And, I'm not talking trains. Magnetic travel may not be new, what with the maglev trains, but I do not know that it has been applied to the everyday automobile.
   As the cars pulled up to one of our border locations, each would be sealed airtight into a pod, slipped into the vacuum tunnel, and sent sailing across the state. Of all the journeying across our great nation, no portion of the journey would be so exciting as the trip across Utah.
   People would come to our state just for the experience of traveling across it.
   If we are to create the fastest transportation system possible, vacuum travel must be utilized. And, a magnetic system seems the best choice of propulsion.


Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Let Utah Usher in the Future of Transportation

  Why not Utah beat Elon Musk. or follow right after him, creating a fast-shooting transit system that crisscrosses the state?
   Musk's "Hyperloop" is to run from Los Angeles to where, Sacramento? As I understand it -- if I do understand it correctly -- most of the air will be vacuumed out of the tube, leaving little resistance and enabling the train to achieve extremely high speeds.
   Why not do this in Utah? Why wait? Why not have one transit run the length of the state, from Logan to St. George? And, another crossing from Vernal to Wendover. And, another from St. George to Blanding (or Green River). And one from Provo to Blanding. And, a final one from Tremonton to Ogden.
   Here's another thought: What about vacuum tubes that could accommodate cars? Could the cars be sealed tightly as they entered the tunnels? There are two frictions cars face, one being the wind and the other the road. Having vacuum tunnels would take away most of the wind (depending on how airless you could make them), but that would leave the friction of the road. As the cars were placed in the tunnels, could they they be fitted with steel wheels over the existing rubber tires, and ran on rails? Would that cut down on the friction?
   More: Could the rails feed electricity into a small motor mechanism that could be attached to the wheels, thus, converting the car to electricity for the trip through the hypertunnel? I think of the small electric slot cars and electric trains we all once got for Christmas. Would such cars work if large-as-life and how fast could they shoot if placed in vacuum tubes?
  Or, would we have to refit the cars with something other than wheels, and the surface be made of something other than tracks if we are to properly cut down of friction? However we do it, I believe we could create a fast-flying car. When you came to the Utah border, you could get your car fitted for the high-speed chase across the state.
  Why wait for Elon Musk and others to create the transportation of the future? Why not step ahead of everyone and ahead of every other place in the nation?
  Elon Musk is proving that these type of things can be done. I see no reason for us to sit, waiting for others to do these things. Bring the future to Utah. Bring the future to us.  Indeed, let us be the future.
  People would come to Utah, just for the experience of traveling across it.

361 Deaths? If We Want to Know if it is True, We Must Investigate

   I'd call for an investigation, if I could.
  Protesters gathered on the lawn at the Utah State Capitol in October, posting 361 crosses, each representing a life supposedly lost for lack of health insurance in the previous two plus years.
  Three-hundred-sixty-one. While the Utah Legislature failed to act, they died. This calls for an investigation. It cries for one. The claim of so many deaths comes from a study by Harvard and City University of New York.
   Now, when a claim like that is made, we should wonder if it is true. If 361 people died, we should be concerned. We should want to know if it is true.
   We should investigate.
   Though it has been eight months since the claim was made, it still rings in my mind. Now, I realize it would take a pretty introspective Legislature to agree to investigate. After all, the underlying reason for the deaths is that the Legislature had failed to act.
   What type of Legislature investigates itself?
   Still, it should. It should, with the attitude of, Hey, are we making a mistake here? Are people dying? Must we act, to save lives?
   Well, news broke today that the law the Legislature finally did pass is only going to get 10,000 added to Medicaid, not 16,000 as originally thought. How many are still being left out? How many will still be dying if we do not act to include them? These are things the Legislature should be investigating, if it is to weigh how far it should go with Medicaid expansion.
  If I could, I'd call for an investigation. The gravity of concern should be so high as to demand no less. If we are to know how far Medicaid expansion should go, we must know whether lives are, as claimed, being lost.

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

This Puts Me in League with Bernie Sanders

    Maybe Bernie Sanders isn't the only socialist around these parts. Some might see me as keeping him company. If you think back long enough (it was April 25), I contemplated whether we should place a limit on how much company executives can make.
   That's right, place a cap on their earnings.
   Well, by definition, socialism is where the company is owned and operated by the community as a whole. This idea doesn't quite go that far. So, calling me a socialist might be a little much. Still, some would say otherwise. Some would say this easily places me in within the boundaries of being a socialist.
   First, note I am not fully ready to endorse this idea, though I am giving it serious, serious consideration.
   The heart of the program would be in its exception: If you were the creator or the provider of the product, there would be no limit to how much you could earn as the company executive. There would be no capping the salaries of Henry Ford, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. I noted in my April 25 blog that the creative geniuses are at the top of the companies when industries are new. Thus, the inventor of the Ford automobile, Henry Ford, was the company executive when the automobile industry was young. And, even so, as the computer age came in, the creative geniuses, including Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, were the company executives. By comparison, look at today's automobile industry, or today's most-any-other industry. The creative minds -- the product development people -- are not usually the executives. They rank reasonably well down the scale. The idea is, they might know how to create something, but it takes a business person to grow the company and make it a financial success. As the logic goes, being a financial success is a completely different matter.
  Then, along comes my plan. Suddenly, the financial genius is outlawed . . . unless he or she is also the creative genius. You no longer have a non-productive layer at the top of the business, not in the situations where the creative geniuses remain in charge. And, in cases where the financial exploiters do take over, you have limited them, capping how much money they can drain off the company.
   Now, some businesses are service businesses. A person who mows lawns is the person providing the product. My economic model allows him or her to make however much they will. But, if an executive is placed over them, he or she is not allowed to make a large check off the other person's work.
   That would be strictly against the rules, against the law. Very socialistic, you say, very Bernie Sanders.
   Fine. But, for all his ideas, I don't think Bernie has had one quite like this. This idea steps forth as a new and revolutionary economic model. It borrows from both socialism and capitalism and mixes them. Well have to think about it, but maybe it captures the best of both.

Monday, May 16, 2016

Make it Illegal to Ask for Money at the Same Time You Ask for Advice

   There's more to this bone than the picking of it. I speak of the stories about Gov. Gary Herbert's taking money from lobbyists at the same time he asks them what they would like to see done.
   Don't just pick at Gov. Herbert. Don't just pick at that bone.
   Nooo. If something is wrong, change it. It would seem some legislation should come out of this. If we are saying it is wrong to mix the asking of money with the asking of what you want done -- if that is the underlying reason for the news, in the first place -- then shouldn't a law be fashioned to make such a practice illegal?
   If it is headline news that someone might be doing it, and there doesn't exist a law against it, clearly a law ought to be proposed to clean up the practice. If we can see something is wrong, we should seek to prevent it. That is the purpose for laws: to correct wrongs. So, how about a law? We've got a lot of politicians running for office right now. I wonder if any of them would consider running such a bill.
   We speak of campaign reform. This certainly would be that. And, if proposed, it might be difficult for anyone to vote against it. It simply seems to be a law that ought to be on the books.

    Did 'Available Jones' Mean no More than being Available to Campaign?

       So, the news stories are tumbling out about Gov. Gary Herbert's meeting with lobbyists, and asking for money at the same time he asks them what they would like to see done.  I don't know that I fault the governor too much, at least at this point. It seems he was not thinking in terms of what the Li'l Abner character represented, but just throwing out a phrase that crossed his mind at the moment. He apparently used the phrase, "Available Jones," without considering what it meant, and was just trying to say he was available. The question becomes, Available for what? Available to campaign and meet with those who could help the campaign? Or available to hear their concerns whenever they wanted since they were his campaign contributors?

    Saturday, May 14, 2016

    A Nation Built on Freedom Should not Imprison Those Who Seek it

       They run for freedom, and, for it, are rewarded by being tossed in jail.
       I read today's news story, quoting a 7-year-old girl in an immigrant detention center as asking, "If we are running away from evil in our country, why is it that (when) we get here, we are in this jail?"
       Wisdom from a child, who can see what many adults cannot.
       I think how America should perhaps quit thinking of itself as the world's champion of liberty. If we punish people for seeking refuge from oppression, what kind of country are we? If we place children in jails where the water is so poor they get sick, what kind of people are we?
       Why would we do this thing? We are a noble people, or should be. We are better than this. How have we sunk to this point? Is it that we don't look long enough to see what we are doing? Are we so blind it takes a 7-year-old to point out that what we are doing is wrong?
       Perhaps we could differentiate between a refugee camp and a refugee prison. A camp is a place where you care for the needs of the immigrant, a place where services are provided without freedom being taken away. Our very attitude toward these people dictates that ours will not be refugee camps, but rather they will be prisons, for we believe these people are not worthy of freedom so long as they remain on our soil. We believe they belong in holding jails until we can force them to return to their homelands. Ours are not refugee camps, not in the nature of being places of refuge. Our are prisons. Properly stated, perhaps, we should call them immigrant jails.
       It should not be so. A nation that champions freedom should offer it. A nation built on the principle of freedom should not be punishing those who seek it. A nation of freedom should not imprison those who flee from the hands of evil. The crime lords in such places as Mexico and Guatemala often rule as much as the governments. To suppose that people there are not fleeing for freedom because their governments are free is an inaccuracy. As a nation born of freedom, and founded on it, let us not reject those who are seeking it in our day.
       And, let us cease imprisoning them.

    Friday, May 13, 2016

    In the Name of Returning them, do We become Smugglers?

       How should we fashion our deportation programs? Put them on planes, and send them back to their home countries by going through the customs agencies of the countries they are returning to? I assume that is what we are doing.
       Or, should we just take them back to the border they crossed to get here, and dump them back where they came from, no permission asked for from their home countries? I believe we already are doing that, when they are freshly caught having just come across from Mexico. But, is it also okay to do that when they have wandered deeper into the U.S. and been here for months or years?
       While I give thought to the second idea, at the moment, at least, I think against it.. For one thing, it opens us up to being accused of being smugglers and human traffickers, ourselves.

    Let the Prisoner Pay his Own Way in Life, Even When He's in Prison

       Prisoners should work off the expense we face in incarcerating them. It doesn't make sense, to me, to run up a bill incarcerating prisoners when one of the skills you want them to develop is work. If work is one of the characteristics you want them to engender in them, let them work for their keep. Whenever possible, let the work produce enough money to pay their way.
       It makes sense to me to do this, and I don't understand why we don't.

    Donald Trump is No Worse a Fellow in this than the Lot of Us

       I don't know that I find so great an evil in Donald Trump's once having presented himself as John Miller, an alter ego. My first impulse is to be more upset over his indicating the report wasn't true. The guy who paints other as liars ("Lyin' Ted"), lying, himself?
       Then, I soften.
       Trump was embarrassed by his having used the alter ego. That's normal. In his embarrassment, he sought a way out -- not an uncommon reaction. Bless him in his moment of embarrassment. I understand he abruptly hung up on one news team when they brought up the topic. That, too, shows he was embarrassed, and was not knowing how to handle it. I would guess we've all been in such situations, and we ought not take too much glee in the trials of others, in the trial Trump is going through.
       So, how do I balance this? I continue to feel it wasn't good, what he did today. But, I also realize his was a very normal reaction. I suppose I find the balance I'm seeking with just that: recognizing both the fault and the normality of it. Bless him in his moment of trial. He's no worse a fellow in this than the lot of us.

    Thursday, May 12, 2016

    The Criminals? It Seems We Should Prepare to Keep Them

       Try this on for a problem: Almost 20,000 immigrants convicted of crimes were released to our streets in budget year 2015. They were targeted for deportation. How many of them failed to get deported because their home countries wouldn't take them back, I don't know, but the news report leads me to believe it was a sizable portion of them, maybe all.
       And, that makes sense. Why would a country want to take in known criminals? And, if the crimes were committed on our soil, why should they?
        Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz believes the solution is simple: If the home countries don't take them back, then reduce the number of visas allowed for those countries. Maybe that will work. Maybe it won't. My thought is, your policy shouldn't be dependent on whether the other country will respond the way you want it to. And, I wonder if such diplomacy by intimidation is what we ought to be about, anyway. Seems to me, we should say, We've both got a problem. You don't want them, and we don't want them. What shall we do? and work it out with them, not force our way on them by threatening them.
       One idea is to have the convictions from the U.S. be recognized in the other countries and imprison them there, if the other countries would agree to that. But, the other countries might ask that we foot the prison bills, even though the criminals are back in their home countries. I don't know that I like paying for their incarcerations if they are filled outside the U.S.
       Now, even if we do send them back home for their prison sentences, that would only be a partial solution. Other countries would still have the option of rejecting the prisoners. As I said, our policy should not be dependent on what the other countries will do.
       So, it would seem we should be prepared to keep them.
       That's not an enjoyable thought. It is one, though, that underscores the need for a better prison system, one that rehabilitates as many as possible, and one that pays its own way as much as possible. Prisoners should work at least enough to pay for the expense of incarcerating them.
       Before you criticize me for saying we should prepare to keep these criminals, consider that we already are keeping them. I'm only suggesting we should have a plan in place for dealing with them. To me, part of that plan should be successful rehabilitation and financial responsibility.

    Wednesday, May 11, 2016

    Sometimes, to Stop a Movement, You Have to Start One

       A few days ago, Paul Edwards, editor of the Deseret News, wrote a lighthearted piece suggesting Lin-Manuel Miranda as a candidate for the presidency.
      I took the suggestion seriously.
      Miranda is the writer-actor-creator of Alexander Hamilton, the Broadway smash hit. One would not think that qualifies him to be president. Me? I do not greatly oppose our electing a person unseasoned in politics. I wonder but what such a person couldn't do the job just as well as a person from the political realm.
       Yes, I will confess that if I am willing to consider Miranda, I am desperate to find someone other than Donald Trump. We would have to look into Miranda first: Where does he stand on the issues and what is his character? But, I can see he has one characteristic that could make a difference:
       Populist appeal.
       Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump both fit into this category of candidates with populist appeal. I wonder but what any candidate to stop Trump would have to possess this characteristic.
       Sometimes, to stop a movement, you have to start another one.

    Put a Little Showbiz into Conventions? Trump Might have a Good Idea

       Perhaps Donald Trump has a wonderful idea. He suggested we jazz up political conventions, put a little showbiz in them. Bringing in some bands, for one thing, certainly would make things more entertaining.
       I pause, though, wondering if there isn't a lot of unsavory entertainment, and wondering if that would be the entertainment selected.

    Taxes can be Amended; So Let the Donald Release them Quickly

        As time passes, it is possible Donald Trump could refile his taxes. How long has it been since Mitt Romney called on the Donald to release his taxes? And, now he is reiterating the call. I only know you can refile your taxes, amending them.

    Trump on Ted Cruz's Father being Linked to Lee Harvey Oswald

       Tonight is the night of the Trump blogs, as I have four. Blog one:
       Read the other night how Trump tied Ted Cruz's father to the Kennedy assassination, saying Cruz's father was with Lee Harvey Oswald before the shooting. Turns out, Trump was parroting a story from the National Enquirer.
       What do we make of this? I do wonder at whether a person so close to the presidency should be giving such quick credence to a National Enquirer story. But, I suppose I also wonder if the mainstream media should not be looking into such stories, to determine if there, indeed, is anything to them.

    Tuesday, May 10, 2016

    May the Day Come When We Rise Above Petty Politics

      Bless you all for being involved in the democratic process, but I have something to suggest to those of you who are 100 percent republican or 100 percent democrat.
      Bless you, indeed, but, yes, I wonder about you, if you only vote for republicans, or only vote for democrats. Oh, I believe we ought to be able to vote on whatever basis we want, and if that criterion is that you just want those of your own party, so be it. But . . .
       But, it seems voting could be more meaningful if we considered the candidates each individually, not just on which camp they come out of.
       And, even more importantly, if we considered the issues individually. I have said it before, and I say it again: I do not understand the phenomenon of how all those who believe in abortion (the bulk of them) also (the bulk of them) believe in climate change. It is an unexplained mystery, isn't it? And, then, to think this divide extends as we add issue after issue: immigration, welfare, and on and on. Even on the birther issue -- whether President Obama was born in America -- finds most of its proponents in the republican camp, while few democrats adhere to the belief  he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii.
       If a people did not have backgrounds in being republican or democrat, they would not pick the same sides time after time. I said it is an unexplained issue, but there is an explanation:We choose the side of our party.
      We take our stands on issues not based on reason, but on what our party dictates. Oh, don't get me wrong. There are arguments behind each side of each issue. What stands we adopt do not come without reason. We can cite reasons for all our stands.
       So, if we are not basing our stands on reason, I just think the whole thing cheapens our country, cheapens the American system, cheapens democracy. I believe in a noble America, but I do not find this noble. I do not find it the sign of a great country. To divide based not on logic, but on whether someone or something is in our camp, that does not make for a noble system.
       Bless America towards a day it rises above petty politics, and I am not speaking to the politicians. I'm speaking to us all.

    Monday, May 9, 2016

    Is the Computer Age about to be Followed by the Glass Age?

        Is the Computer Age about to be followed by the Glass Age?
        I wonder but what we could be on the verge of a breakout in solar panel sales. An industry currently only commanding maybe 1 percent of energy production is about to bolt for the skies.
        Well, I'd like to think, but probably not. Still, there are reasons for hope, not the least of which is that prices have plummeted perhaps 70 percent since 2009.
      Not the least of which, we, as a society might be recognizing that with solar energy now competitively priced, we have the opportunity to do something about pollution and global warming,
       Will the Computer Age be followed by the Glass Age? Maybe wind power and hydropower will also be big. Maybe, we'll call it the Green Age, although that doesn't sound as nice.

    Saturday, May 7, 2016

    Would this Reduce Carbon Energy to the Point of Solving the Problem?

       So, here's where I'm sitting on global warming today, and I need your help to figure it out. I'm not understanding what the problem is. Earlier this week, I had learned that we could all go out and buy solar panels, and install them probably without experiencing any initial outlay nor any more in monthly payments than what we are already paying.
       What? Is this a secret? Because it seems if this is true, there certainly would be a lot of us doing it, what with us wanting to be good people and having opportunity to cut down on pollution. If it isn't going to cost us, and we can do it, wouldn't we all, pretty much, jump to do it?
       What am I missing?
       Anyway, it took a few days for this to sink in, a few days before I realized just what it meant, in terms how much it would affect global warming. Then, this morning, I woke up (okay, truth be told, I'd been awake a few hours; it might have even been noontime) thinking, "Wait! If solar energy is this inexpensive, if we all can do it, then that means virtually every building all across the nation can be turned to solar power.
      And, that means the problem of global warming is solved, doesn't it?
      Oh, I realize a lot of the pollution is coming from large industrial concerns. But, even if we only fix the homes and the stores, it still is a large chunk. Now, if we do demand that the large industrial manufacturers also have large solar panels (and we should), and at least get a part of their energy that way, we are going to be cutting extremely deep into our use of carbon fuels. Add some wind farms, some hydro plants, and it would seem we would need few coal-fired plants at all.
      So, what am I missing? Tell me.

    Friday, May 6, 2016

    If the Electric Car is to be Fully Green, the Manufacturing Must be Green

       As the argument goes, electric cars are not so green, after all. What with all the energy it takes to produce the batteries -- especially the batteries -- and all the other parts in a car, the emissions for an electric car are not so far less those for a conventional car.
       If we just take the creation of the car, emissions from carbon dioxide are actually greater. They pull out this statistics: It takes 25,000 pounds of CO2 to produce an electric car, only 16,000 for a conventional car.
       I am not so blind that I cannot see through this argument. If the mining and manufacturing processes remain a problem -- because they also use fossil fuels -- then you simply need to take away the fossil fuels at that point, as well. Rather than throwing out the electric car, throw out the fossil fuels used to make the electric car.
       Perhaps we can't, altogether. It takes massive amounts of energy to mine and refine metals. It takes great amounts to mold,shape and fashion everything to the point of becoming a car. But, just as the electrics car are often hybrids, perhaps manufacturing plants will need to be hybrids.
       I do not know whether solar- and wind- and hydro-powered manufacturing plants are used much at all. I do not know how gigantic the solar panels would have to be, or how large or how many wind mills would be needed. I don't know if a manufacturing plant could locate right next to a river, and produce all the energy it needs for its own purposes. But, I can see that wind, solar, and hydro are answers to those who argue that the electric car is not so green.

    If Principles Matter, We should not Simply Fall in and Salute

        Party over principle. This is what we are seeing. As the Republican Party folds in behind the presumptive nominee, I cannot help but think it should not be so. We should not support someone simply because they belong to the same neighborhood as us, or the same social club,
       Or, the same political party.
       If you have principles, you support for office those who have principles. There are those who like Trump's principles, who find no fault with them. Let them support Trump. That is fine. But, if you have languished against Trump, feeling his values do not match yours, do not sign on with him now, simply because he belongs to your party.
       That is party over principle. It is party over country.
       Bless Paul Ryan for not being quick too sign on with Trump. As a leader of the party, he is expected to do so. He is expected to fall in and salute, so to speak. I would like to think otherwise, but, unfortunately, he probably will.

    Thursday, May 5, 2016

    What is the Innate Relation between Climate Change and Abortion?

         How does this happen? How does one set of people all the line up the same on one side of all the issues and another set of people line up on the opposite side?
        I mean, climate change and abortion: It would seem how you stand on climate change has nothing to do with how you feel about abortion. But, strangely enough, all the people who believe in climate change also believe in abortion. Isn't that incredible? And this phenomenon gets even stranger: Add immigration to the mix: Believe it or not, all the people who believe in climate change and abortion also just happen to all believe in more liberal immigration policies.
       Strange, indeed. Is a twilight zone setting in?
       Is there something innate about all these issues that brings one set of people to all believe the same, issue after issue after issue, and another set of people to just happen to each agree on the opposite side, issue after issue after issue?
       Perhaps, you will conclude that all these issues do have intangible connections. You can't put your finger on why, but, yes, a person who believes in climate change is naturally going to also believe in abortion.
       I am not so sure. I rather think we divide ourselves. We feel allegiance to being "conservative" or to being "liberal," and rather than basing our stands solely on reason, we simply adopt whatever stand our political party dictates.

    If They are the Authorities on the Matter, We are Fools not to Listen

       I'm not fully converted to believing in climate change, but I've moved rapidly that direction the past couple of weeks. It has long been an issue I've thought I should study. It has long been an issue of which I didn't know who was right. I still don't. But I do know this: If there is even just a good chance that they are right, that there is global warming, then we are fools not to do something.
       If the considered opinion of most in the scientific community is that there is climate change, and it is man-caused, and it will reap dire consequences, are we not to listen? If they are the authorities on the matter, should we not heed their warnings?

    Wednesday, May 4, 2016

    The Wise will Listen when Warned of Global Warming

       Those who are wise listen to warnings. I think of a scripture that expresses this. Proverb 17:20. "A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool."
       And, I cannot help but wonder if this applies to whether we accept that there is global warming, and that it is caused by our own doing. A wise man will listen to the warning.

    What if We Could Find Someone Better than Hillary or Donald

        I don't know whether there is a viable candidate in the bunch, but if there is, it would be neat if we, as Americans, sought through the independent and third-party candidates, and united behind one. I would not that we vote for an independent just to be voting for someone other than Hillary or Donald. But, if we could find someone  better than Hillary or Donald.
         It would be neat. And, perhaps among them all, there is a good candidate. Maybe. Maybe not.

    Tuesday, May 3, 2016

    In a Write-in Election, We Seek Leaders, Instead of of Them Seeking Us

       Never has there been a write-in election, has there? No, at least not since early times, and not in any substantial race in any of our 50 states. This is a new idea. And, I like it.
       No one's name is listed on the ballot. Every vote is a write-in vote.
       This would reap a shift towards drafting people into office. We could vote for those even though they weren't offering themselves as candidates. We would be more inclined to vote that way. It would be (more so) our call on whether they were to be our leader, not theirs. We would be seeking our leaders (more so), not them seeking us.
       I've often wondered if the folks who set up the Constitution, when they created the Electoral College, weren't trying to create this type of a system, one in which good people were drafted for the presidency. It seems, the way it was envisioned, the duty of the members of the Electoral College was to go out and find someone fit for the office, not from a list of those announcing for they wanted it, but just from a list compiled by the electors, themselves, of people who ought to be in that high position.
       I like the idea of a write-in election, I do.

    If I Were the Man Named John Kasich, I'd Blow on the Embers

       If I were John Kasich, I'd blow on the embers. If he wants to capitalize on Ted Cruz's dropping out of the race, if he wants his own staying in the race to have any chance at all, he should move while the coals are still hot.
       Call a press conference. Offer a speech. Offer himself as remaining hope to put a last-minute stop to the Trump freight train. Go to California, and say, "You can stop Trump. You can be the state that saved the nation from Donald."
       If you haven't noticed, that is the kind of pitch Trump has made. Wisconsin can be the state that made the difference, he said. Indiana can be the state that ended it, he said.
       It does appear that all is over but the crying, but take what wee little bit of light remains, and try to stop this freight train called Donald Trump.
       Say, "Now. I am your hope to stop the Donald. If you find offence to what he said about women, or how he treated Megyn Kelly, or how he mocked the disabled journalist -- if how we treat people is important to you, if you see the character of a nation being reflected in the leaders we elect, then vote for me. You can be the state that said, 'No,' to Donald Trump. California can make a stand for America, for goodness, Don't accept change just for change's sake. Make the change be good, or refuse to be a part of it."

    Monday, May 2, 2016

    What if There Were Such a Thing as a Write-in Election?

       What if there were such a thing as a write-in election? You know, an election in which no one's name was on the ballot, and every candidate was a write-in candidate, an election where you had to write in a name if you were to vote at all?

    Sunday, May 1, 2016

    He that has Truth Shall be Given More

       "For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not,from him shall be taken even that which he hath." -- Mark 4:25
       As I read the Book of Mark today -- an act I should do more on Sundays than I do -- I found myself being somewhat in awe that so many of you do not believe in the Christ. I suppose I cannot explain my feelings, fully, that you should understand. And, I realize you feel the same of me. You look at evolution and the Big Bang and other things, and are amazed that I should believe in a God.
       Bless you. Bless us both. We search for truth, and go different directions.
       I think of this scripture, of how he that has, shall be given more, and from him that has not, shall be taken even that which he has. So it is with truth: He that has truth, shall be given more. And, from him that resists truth, shall be taken truth. There is something about the open mind. The mind that accepts truth, opens itself to more, while the mind that closes itself against truth sets up a pattern of denying truth..
       I think of another scripture, Mark 18:8, wherein the Savior asks, "Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not?" If eyes and ears are closed against truth, truth cannot reach them.
       The question becomes, of course, which of us is rejecting truth? Which of us is closing his mind? While I felt, as I read the scriptures today, so sure that a Savior -- even Jesus Christ -- once walked the face of this earth, I know you are as assured in your belief as I am in mine.
       So, as I said, bless us both.