2 Nephi 28:2-3 is Fulfilled in Your Ears

Tell me, then, just how is that the Book of Mormon prophecy I think so often about being fulfilled?

It is a prophecy, you know, and it appears to be about our day. So, shouldn't we be able to look around and see it being fulfilled?

"Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die." (2 Nephi 28:7)

The verbage I hear, equating to what is in the scripture, is, "Oh, come on. Live a little."

I think of all the many who think of drinking, and taking marijuana, and viewing pornography, who insist there is nothing wrong with those things. Enjoy them, they say, for there is no harm in them. (In the 2 Nephi 28 scripture, Nephi does prophecy they would say, "There is no harm in this," but Nephi might have been saying that in regard to taking advantage of a neighbor and digging a pit for the neighbor, solely, as opposed to also referring to eating, drinking, and being merry.

When I was a teenager, and having 2 Nephi 28:2-3 quoted to me, there was a Schlitz beer advertisement out. It seemed to captured exactly the sentiment of "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die".

"You only go around once in life, so you've got to grab for all the gusto you can," said the ad. I think every time that commercial played, I reflected on how it was living fulfillment of the Book of Mormon prophecy.

That such things might be fulfillment of 2 Nephi 28:2-3 is just my thought, not something I've heard from church leaders, so I could be wrong. But, view that old Schlitz beer commercial, and tell me what you think.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leKu2vEPvGw

Drought and Bad Economy: Two Miseries Traveling Together

They say misery loves company, and what could be more miserable than the Great Depression and the the Dust Bowl? So, no surprise the two were traveling companions,  the Great Depression lasting from 1929 to 1940 while the Dust Bowl was 1931 to 1939.

Well, as I lay down Friday's paper, it occurs to me a bad economy and a terrible drought are once-again traveling together. How bad is the drought? The paper (Trib) says about half the nation has been flagged for disaster relief. There are 1016 counties in 26 states that have been declared natural disaster areas by the U.S. Agriculture Department, more than at any time since the USDA started declaring natural disaster areas.

Hope and pray this is just a one-year thing.

Before Prohibition, There was Whiskey Rebellion

Oh, those of you who love to say if we are to learn from history, then the Prohibition taught us quite clearly alcohol should never be banned again. Consider the Whiskey Rebellion, as well, for it is an interesting parallel. Before there was the Prohibition, you might say, there was the Whiskey Rebellion, and a few of the lessons to be learned are the same.

Grant it, the Prohibition brought an outrage against the tearing away of alcohol from our bosoms, while the outrage against the whiskey tax was an outrage against taxation -- two different things.

But, similarities remain. Back in those days, they didn't ban drugs and such. But, a tax is another matter. They did think to tax the stuff -- intoxicating spirits, anyway. So, along came the whiskey tax of 1791. The response was quick. People were outraged. Remember the Boston Tea Party, they said, and they patterned their protests after the American Revolution.

Give me liberty or give me death. 

Now, a lot of people think alcohol is a liberty, same as having the "right" not to have a tax on whiskey.

Well,  as people refused to pay it, the whiskey tax made criminals out of them all, same as the Prohibition made criminals out of those who resisted it. Among other incidences, on Sept. 11, 1791, they tarred and feathered a tax collector named Robert Johnson. I just mention that because the date is fun, what with it being 200 years to the day before 9-11.

Well, eventually it escalated to an armed rebellion, people upset with a government they thought had no right to be doing what it was doing, same as people would later say the government had no right to ban liquor during the Prohibition. Washington responded two ways. First, he sent an army to quell the rebellion. Second, he sent emissaries to try to talk to the rebels. I like to liken that second approach to those who say we should have education, not legislation against alcohol.

Eventually, a vote was taken, coming on Sept. 11, 1794 (there's that interesting date, again). I don't know if it the referendum was just in Pennsylvania, but I think that was the case (and I don't know whether it was even in all of Pennsylvania). The referendum vote came back mixed, some communities voting one way, others voting the other way.

War proceeded, and after federal troops suppressed the whiskey rebels, public opinion sided with the government. That public opinion favored the government might not sound at all like a parallel for the Prohibition, where voting eventually led to the 21st Amendment, overturning the 18th Amendment and ending the Prohibition.

But, it is often overlooked that the resistance continued. Even after the war, people kept right on refusing to pay the tax until the tax was repealed. Yes, the tax was repealed, same as the 18th Amendment was. The resisters lost the war, but they won their cause.

. . . But, Musk No Personal Hero

But, Elon Musk is not a hero of mine. No, it is not because, to some, he is a tax-funded billionaire.

I laud him for who he is and what he has done for our world, but a personal hero, no. Musk showed up at a party in Florida last month dressed as Marquis de Sade (1740-1815), a French writer best known for his erotic tales. Musk joked that the costume was popular with women who had read Fifty Shades of Grey, a book known for its explicitly erotic scenes.

That one choice of costumes does not sit well with me, as it does seem it probably reflects on his values.

One of the Giants of Our Times: Elon Musk

One of the most influential persons of our time, this Elon Musk, in advancing the world scientifically.

PayPal? He was a founder. SpaceX? He founded it, and it is bringing us space transport. Tesla Motors? He co-founded it, and the company came up with the Tesla Roadster, the first production car of the modern era. SolarCity? He the largest shareholder and chairman of the board of that company, which is the largest solar provider in the United States.

A giant in our times.

Wiretapping: Is This Example of Bush Legislating?

Should police be allowed to track where cell phones are, and to get the records of who calls are made to, all without a court warrant?

'Tis a common practice these days. I am not weighing in with an opinion right now, as I haven't given it enough thought.

And, what of a related issue -- and maybe a bigger one: Should authorities be allowed to wiretap, and are they? After 9-11, George W. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to wiretap suspected terrorists.

Stop right there. Did the article (New York Times article) say Bush AUTHORIZED this? The article does say legislation followed, broadening the power, but if the initial authorization came from President Bush, isn't that another case of legislating by the executive branch, the likes of which we castigated President Obama for just weeks ago?

You might suggest it all falls under the war powers authority the president has. I, though, am not sure the war powers extend that far.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/us/police-tracking-of-cellphones-raises-privacy-fears.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

On John Roberts' Decision

I still haven't found enough time to study the Supreme Court decision on health care.

But, I do take a moment to state what probably has been obvious to some. The ruling was that the Affordable Health Act's Individual Mandate was Constitutional under the taxing powers. But, in offering the majority opinion, Justice John Roberts said the Individual Mandate was not justified by the Commerce Clause.

I say, just because you have the right to tax does not give you the right to create the program for which taxes are to be collected. If that logic is used, any program or policy can be created, as long as there is a tax for it. You might argue that the Individual Mandate wasn't the whole of the program, but it was just the taxing part. I say otherwise. The Individual Mandate was a requirement that people have insurance. Requiring insurance requires a program to administer the policy. How taxes are collected for it is a separate matter. The Affordable Care Act provided for both. It provides the Individual Mandate and it provides the "tax" upon people who do not comply. That the Mandate exists on its own merit, even without the tax, means you cannot say the Constitution's giving taxing power to Congress means the Individual Mandate program can be created.