tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67360847035506421632024-02-06T20:13:47.210-08:00Stallion Cornell's Moist BlogElder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.comBlogger510125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-89962006160053687902010-05-17T17:21:00.001-07:002010-05-17T17:21:15.631-07:00TestetElder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-81176874795021082882010-02-18T10:58:00.000-08:002010-02-18T11:29:54.910-08:00Another Unqualified Global Warming DebateI try to stay apolitical on Facebook. I really try. But the whole global warming thing gets my dander up, and once my dander is vertical, all bets are off.<br /><br />The most recent dustup concerned <a href="http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/02/2009-global-warming-causing-more-foggy-days-in-san-francisco-2010-global-warming-causing-fog-less-days-in-san-francisco/">this link</a>, which demonstrates the blatant hypocrisy of the global warming folks. If you’re too lazy to click, then allow me to summarize. Apparently, global warming is simultaneously reducing and increasing the amount of fog in San Francisco, which is bad either way. (If it weren’t for fossil fuels, the fog would be just right.) We’re also told that <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExlvbOcLLOg">a lack of snowfall is a sign of global warming</a>, and that <a href="http://www.breitbart.tv/flashback-clips-snow-levels-cause-democrats-to-demand-urgent-action/">heavy snowfall is another clear sign of global warming.<br /></a><br />Heads, I win. Tails, you lose. This is loony tunes stuff.<br /><br />So my links have provoked a number of interesting conversations, and the latest is, I think, too lengthy to keep on Facebook. So, in a brief attempt to lift this moribund blog back into activity, I took it outside and brought it here for you. Jeff’s words are in green, because he’s green, you know.<br /><br />Jeff says:<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">Jim, you are too smart to buy into this idea that if a few of the numbers are wrong the whole thing must be a hoax. That's a very specious logic chain to follow and wholly unscientific. Come on, what was the point of getting a 1540 on your sat's if you're going to interpret logic and syllogism thusly.</span><br /><br />First of all, Jeff, you’ve made a number of assumptions here at the outset that I don’t accept. I’ve never said that “if a few of the numbers are wrong the whole thing must be a hoax.” That would be specious logic, indeed. This isn’t an issue of minor mathematical errors. What’s becoming apparent is that there is a pattern of deception, shoddy science, and political agendas that have undermined the credibility of those who are demanding that we remake the industrialized world because of humanity’s effect on the climate at large. Tales of the increasing/disappearing fog in San Francisco are not the centerpiece of my objections; they’re merely illustrations of the fact that the Powers that Be on global warming don’t have their story straight.<br /><br />And I only got a 1370 on the SAT. But I did get a 31 on the ACT and a 660 on the GMAT.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">You conservatives keep using this anti science tact to try to force in your own policy ideas. But seriously, why do you have to invalidate the truth to get what you want?</span><br /><br />Tact? Do you mean “tack” or “tactic?”<br /><br />Again, it’s difficult to discuss this when we don’t share a foundation of common assumptions. Where do I advocate invalidating truth?<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">Why don't you be honest and say you don't like regulation and you don't care if the earth is warming because a higher power will set things straight in the long run.</span><br /><br />Because that isn’t what I believe. This has nothing to do with God coming in with his Deux Ex Machina and setting things straight. The earth may very well be warming. The climate has been changing for millions of years, long before human beings showed up to screw things up. The earth has warmed before, more drastically than it may be warming now. But even the head of the IPCC concedes that there has been no significant warming for 15 years.<br /><br />I don’t believe that we have the power to raise or lower the earth’s temperature as if we had a global thermostat. I also don’t believe that this temperature is the optimum temperature that must be preserved, or that any warming wouldn’t reverse itself as part of a natural cycle. I have far more confidence in the resilience of the earth’s climate than I do in the alarmists who were wrong three decades ago as they warned of the coming Ice Age. Sure, they may be right this time, but you can only cry wolf so many times.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">You want unfettered trade and cheap energy to help you compete globally and you're not concerned about the consequences.</span><br /><br />It’s always astonishing to me how quick the Left is to define my motives for me. With all due respect, who are you to tell me what I want? I am the arbitrary, sole, and final authority on what I believe. It’s disheartening that you are so quick to not only read my mind, but to also assign me the worst possible reasons for thinking what I think. I’m not concerned about the consequences? Of course I’m concerned about the consequences! Do you really believe that conservatives have no interest in anything but greed? That makes things easier for you to demagogue the issue if you’re dealing with pure evil, but it’s beyond intellectually lazy, and I deserve better.<br /><br />The consequences of “fighting” global warming using the methods currently on the table – Cap and Trade energy taxes and penalties – will have far-reaching effects on just about everything except the climate. Even the most ardent Al Gore alarmists concede that the US Cap and Trade measure on the table will, in a best case scenario, slow man-made global warming by a fraction of a degree. It will, however, make it next to impossible for developing nations to industrialize and rise out of poverty, which means more people will die of starvation and neglect as a result. It will massively increase energy costs and cost jobs and productivity in the United States, which, in a time of economic distress, will be a huge and unnecessary kick in the nation’s financial gut.<br /><br />Aren’t you concerned about those consequences?<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">Trying to refute the science just makes you look dumb.</span><br /><br />Well, sure. It's one of my many methods to achieve the same end.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">Because overwhelmingly, the scientific community knows it's a fact.</span><br /><br />That’s an extraordinarily dumb statement. What’s a fact? That the earth is warming? That it’s all our fault? How much of it is our fault? How much is natural? Can we reverse it with Cap and Trade? Is it worth reversing with Cap and Trade?<br /><br />The fact is, a good scientist will concede that there’s many more facts to uncover on all those points. And those scientists who are supposed to be the oracles of fact are in the process of discrediting themselves by hiding or destroying their data and relying on nonsense – melting Himalayan glaciers, for instance - to paint the most dire picture possible.<br /><br />There are facts, and there are facts. This is the one that rankles me the most: Even if you alarmists are 100% accurate, your solutions stink and will cause far more poverty and suffering than inaction will. That’s a fact.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">It's like arguing against evolution.</span><br /><br />Oh, goodie. This should be fun.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">You can easily see that evolution is solid science and believe in god as well.</span><br /><br />Of course you can. I do. The problem is on your side of this issue, not mine. <a href="http://www.stallioncornell.com/2008/10/evolutionary-heresy.html">What you can’t do is question evolution and remain an atheist.</a> So legitimate questions that evolution is unable to answer – how do you create complex systems like an eye by means of natural selection, for instance – are treated like heresies rather than rational inquiries. With both evolution and global warming, it’s those playing defense who have the most invested and the most to lose, so the effort is directed at silencing the questioner instead of answering the question.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">Faith is by nature irrational (and that's not a negative connotation). So Evolution certainly does not have to invalidate faith in a high power.</span><br /><br />Again, you’re making assumptions for me that I don’t find helpful. Where do I maintain that evolution invalidates faith?<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">So stop try to poke holes in things that you're not even qualified to debate (for lack of higher degrees or any valuable degrees at all-- James Inhofe, Rick Perry?) and just say hey it's happening but screw it, it shouldn't be a national priority.</span><br /><br />Are you qualified to debate this, then? Is Al Gore? Is Leonardo DiCaprio? Where does one go to get the necessary credentials to question the radical overhaul of industrialized civilization? This is elitism gone mad. If those who are “qualified” expect us to remake society in the image of their theories, then everyone is fully qualified to raise questions.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">I think that might be refreshing for voters. At least it would be honest. And while you're at it, admit the war in Iraq was for oil and not about wmd's.</span><br /><br />Well, since we seized the Iraqi oil fields upon arrival and turned the nation into an American colony, then you’re absolutely right.<br /><br />Oh, wait…Elder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-24149195433486364272010-01-27T08:20:00.000-08:002010-01-27T09:29:34.642-08:00Response to an Old FriendYes, this blog is neglected. Facebook is essentially consuming any recreational Internet time I have, and I'm professionally busy writing a bunch of stuff that's appearing all over the Internet, but not under my own name. (Actually, this isn't my own name, either, but you know what I mean.) Anyway, look for me elsewhere as I start blogging about dogs at the end of the month. I'll give you the link when it's live.<br /><br />But I came back to this blog and found several comments from friends on old posts, one of which is heartfelt, compelling and damning all at the same time. It was a response to <a href="http://www.stallioncornell.com/2008/11/stallions-special-comment-on-keith.html">my article about Keith Olbermann's special comment on Prop. 8.</a> It was written thoughtfully, and it deserves a thoughtful response.<br /><br />Her comments are in blue; my responses are in black.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">I should be going home, but am going to stay to say one thing, J:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">How does this alleged "required" daddy have to be one that is married to the mother? I, for one, was raised by three daddies and for a good portion of my upbringing by only one mommy. Yet, I turned out relatively well. In fact, many would say they think rather highly of me as an individual.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />I think rather highly of you as an individual, too. I think you misunderstand the intent of my original post. It was not to denigrate any individuals raised in any circumstances. My best friend growing up lost his father to cancer at 16, and he and his four brothers were raised by a single mother. He turned out pretty well, too.<br /><br />The point of my post was to define standards, not judge individuals, especially for circumstances beyond their control.<br /><br />This may seem like a semantic distinction, but it's an important one. It's inconsistent to say, on the one hand, that marriage is irrelevant and superfluous, but, on the other hand, it's a violation of civil rights not to allow people to define marriage however they want. Either marriage matters, or it doesn't. And if marriage can be defined as anything anybody wants, then it doesn't.<br /><br />To quote Harry Nilsson, "</span>A point in every direction is the same as no point at all<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">."<br /></span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">You say that research has shown that children need both a mommy and a daddy and that children have said as much, but how does one know unless they've experienced it first hand?</span><br /><br />That's a question for the sociologists. All you and I have is anecdotal evidence, which, as far as I can tell, strongly suggests a universal desire for a mommy and a daddy. In my experience, children of divorce or children where one parent passes away are quick to acknowledge that the absence of one parent leaves a gaping hole in their lives, one which is never adequately filled by anyone else.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">I'm betting you grew up in a family with a mommy and a daddy and they never divorced. Some would count you lucky. I just count you as a statistic. There are many children who grow up in amazingly loving homes and learn to become valuable members of society without such an upbringing as I'm assuming you've had.</span><br /><br />Of course there are. There are also real jerks like me who are raised by two-parent households. But again, we're dealing anecdotally, not empirically. Does the ideal of the mommy and daddy family matter? The sociological data on that point is compelling, indeed. Among other things, the likelihood of a child being raised in poverty increases by 700% when the parents aren't married.<br /><br />http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/403/Illegitimacy_is_the_Major_Cause_of_Child_Poverty.html<br /><br />The fact that you and thousands of others raised in nontraditional circumstances were still able to succeed spectacularly is a testament to your character and fortitude, as well as that of the rest of your family. It does not erase the societal need for marriage.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">You're defining this issue purely on what YOU believe makes a family and limiting your beliefs to only that definition. And that makes me incredibly sad for you.</span><br /><br />If it helps, it makes me sad that you're sad for me. I don't mean that facetiously. This is such an emotionally charged issue, and it's almost impossible to discuss without getting personal. I'm amazed at how many people will talk to me about this and, previously thinking I was a decent human being, they suddenly discover I'm secretly demonic and discount all the good they've ever seen in me. I would hope you'd be willing to think there's another explanation for my stand on this rather than the fact that I'm the devil.<br /><br />For what it's worth, I think you're misrepresenting my position. I don't believe your family isn't a family, nor do I believe children with gay parents or divorced parents or unmarried, cohabitating parents or widowed parents or polygamous parents aren't in families. I'm not limiting the definition of the family at all. I'm saying that, all else being equal, the ideal circumstances for raising children is with a married mommy and a daddy.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">And it also makes me think that your views somehow devalue my life and upbringing. It makes me think that because you are raising children in a family with a man and woman as husband and wife that anyone else raising a child without that construct is somehow less a valuable human. And that too makes me incredibly sad.</span><br /><br />It would make me sad, too, if it were true. I think all human life is precious, and that, no matter what circumstances you are raised in, you are a child of God, who loves everyone infinitely, and no one more or less than anyone else. I really don't think anything I've said on this subject can be logically construed as a rejection of the value of any individual based on their family circumstances.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">I have to stop now because just thinking about this is giving me a headache. And my heart hurts (literally) in my chest right now from the quote you shared too:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">My mom had me out of wedlock. She had me on her own. And looking back I'm so glad she did.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 0, 0);">As am I. </span></span>The world is a better place with you in it.Elder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-55218962060424334112010-01-11T16:12:00.000-08:002010-01-11T16:15:55.785-08:00Harry Reid and the Standard of Doubleness<div>Harry Reid referred to President Obama's light-skinned blackness and his lack of a "Negro" accent. Trent Lott, on the other hand, said nice things about a 100-year-old Strom Thurmond at his final birthday party without mentioning race at all. </div><div><br /></div><div>"I Don't Know How In The World I Could Condone, Support Or Understand His Statements." </div><div><br /></div><div>"'As closely as I've worked with him, I don't know how in the world I could condone, support or understand his statements,' said Reid, the Senate Democratic whip. 'I think what he said is not good for America; it's repugnant what he said.' 'If Republicans think it's best for Democrats to keep him there, maybe they'll get rid of him,' Reid said." (Tony Batt and Jane Ann Morriso, "Ensign Continues To Back Lott As Majority Leader," Las Vegas Review-Journal, 12/17/02)</div><div><br /></div><div>Reid: Lott Had "No Alternative" But To Resign. "Sen. Harry Reid said Republican Senate leader Trent Lott's decision to relinquish his post Friday came as no surprise. 'He had no alternative,' the Nevada Democrat and Senate minority leader said. 'Senator Lott dug himself a hole and he didn't dig it all in one setting. He dug it over the years. And he couldn't figure out a way to get out of it.'" ("Nevada Lawmakers Not Surprised By Lott Resignation," The Associated Press, 12/20/02)</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Congressional Black Caucus Called For Formal Censure On Lott. "In the days since, Democrats have heaped criticism on Lott. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Senate Democrats were considering whether to call for a formal censure vote of the GOP leader, a suggestion first made Thursday by the Congressional Black Caucus and renewed after Lott spoke." (David Espo, "Lott Apologizes Again, Denounces Racism," The Associated Press, 12/13/02)</div><div><br /></div><div>Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): Lott Should Not Be Renominated. "'My first hope is that he is not renominated,' Mr. Schumer said in an interview. 'The remarks that Senator Lott made come from the same type of insensitivity that we found in Judge Pickering and led us to the conclusion that he didn't merit promotion to a higher court. If anything, the reaction to Lott's comments reinforce that view.' If Judge Pickering is renominated, Mr. Schumer said, a rich Senate floor debate on race will be inevitable." (Neil A. Lewis, "Divisive Words: Judicial Appointments," The New York Times, 12/18/02)</div><div><br /></div><div>Then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE): "You Cannot Be Insensitive To Race Issues From Positions Of Leadership." Biden: "Well, I--I think the Republicans have to come to the milk and decide what they want to do. Look, one thing we should have all learned by now, you cannot be insensitive to race issues from positions of leadership. And unfortunately for Trent, his comments are not measured just in the context of the incident where he made them but in the context of his whole record. ... They've got to define for themselves what kind of face they want to put on their party. And my guess is out of their self-interest, they may very well decide that--that Trent has to go." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 12/15/02)</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) On Lott: We Need Healers, Not Dividers. "'We need political leaders who are healers, not dividers,' Durbin said. 'I hope that Senator Lott's apology will translate into action and that he will advance policies that bring us together as a nation rather than pull us apart.'" (Dori Meinert, "Fitzgerald, Simon Support Lott In Racial Controversy," Copley News Services, 12/13/02)</div><div><br /></div><div>Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Called On Lott To Resign. "Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, urged Mr. Lott to resign as party leader because the remark would 'place a cloud over his leadership.'" (Stephen Dinan, "GOP Defends Lott's Intent," The Washington Times, 12/12/02)</div><div><br /></div><div>Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA): If A Democrat Leader Made Racial Comments, They Would Not Be Allowed To Keep Their Position. "'I can tell you, if a Democratic leader said such a thing, they would not be allowed to keep their position,' Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat, said of Mr. Lott in 2002." (Joseph Curl, "Democrats Close Ranks Around Reid," The Washington Times, 1/11/10)... See More</div><div><br /></div><div>Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR): Lott Is Out Of Touch With The Senate. "'The sentiments expressed by Senator Lott's words last week have no place in today's America,' Sen. Blanche Lincoln, a Democrat, said in a statement. 'If he truly believes a Strom Thurmond presidency would have been good for the country, then he is out of touch with the U.S. Senate and certainly with a great majority of Americans. Senator Lott owes the nation a thorough explanation of his words recorded in 1980 and again last week. Racism and bigotry once divided America and we cannot tolerate words that might send us back there.'" (Paul Barton, "Lott's Remarks Draw Arkansas Reproach," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 12/12/02)</div><div><br /></div><div>Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA): His Apology Doesn't Take Away The Sting Of His Remarks. Boxer: "His apology does not take away the sting of his divisive words, nor the pain inflicted on millions of African Americans under segregation." (Edward Epstein, "Bush Calls Lott's Remark 'Wrong'," San Francisco Chronicle, 12/13/02)</div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div>Elder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-86455133076013358082010-01-04T16:25:00.000-08:002010-01-04T16:29:50.663-08:00Dialogue Part II: Responding to apspitzerFor apspitzer's original comments in their original form, see the previous post.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-style: italic;">I have much to say and little time today, but this one point I cannot let go: We did not go into Iraq to liberate anyone.</span><br /><br />It was one of many reasons that Bush outlined for the Iraqi invasion from the outset. I quote from his October, 2002 speech in Cincinnati, in which he outlined the rationale for war with Iraq:<br /><blockquote><br />The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban.<br /><br />The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army and even within his own family.<br /><br />On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents had been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents had been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners had been forced to watch their own children being tortured.<br /><br />America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity.<br /><br />People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery, prosperity to squalor, self-government to the rule of terror and torture.<br /><br />America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomen, Shia, Sunnis and others will be lifted, the long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.</blockquote><blockquote></blockquote>If you take Bush at his word, and I do, then you concede that the liberation of the Iraqi people was on his mind well before the invasion.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-style: italic;">We went in to gain a strategic position in the middle east. </span><br /><br />Yes, we did. But that’s not the only reason. In humanitarian terms, Iraq was a greater success than, say, the aerial war against Bosnia, which was conducted with no congressional or UN approval. America had no strategic interest there other than to stop bloodshed. Just because Iraq is strategically more important than Bosnia, it doesn’t minimize the humanitarian benefits of eliminating Saddam.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-style: italic;">Ousting Saddam was just substituting one form of mass murder for another. </span><br /><br />That’s powerful rhetoric but factual nonsense. Coalition forces go to tremendous lengths to avoid civilian casualties.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Few in our military give a hoot about the Iraqi people. </span><br /><br />The people I know in the military who have risked their lives to conduct this war have said otherwise. It’s all anecdotal, I suppose, but I’m far more likely to trust the word of a soldier than a critic.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-style: italic;">All you have to do is watch a few of the hundreds of videos of our boys singing "burn motherfucker burn!" as they torch a house. They are not doing this because they are idealists. They are doing this because they can. </span><br /><br />I suppose I should watch these videos, as this strikes me as a libelous assertion. Certainly it is not representative of the integrity of the military as a whole, which I continue to respect.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">It is not true that conservatives are more likely to enlist. </span><br /><br />Yes, it is – at least as of May, 2009 in the latest Gallup poll.<br /><br />http://www.gallup.com/poll/118684/military-veterans-ages-tend-republican.aspx<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-style: italic;">The people that are most likely to enlist are poor and feel they have little other options, or come from families with a tradition of military service--It is just what they know. </span><br /><br />That’s incorrect, too.<br /><br />http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/cda05-08.cfm<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-style: italic;">The just cause rationalization come after the fact. If the issue was WMDs, then we would have pulled out after the first few weeks when it became obvious that they had none. </span><br /><br />It didn’t become obvious for at least a year after the war began, and at that point, pulling out would have been disastrous for everyone, especially the Iraqi people.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-style: italic;">The WMD line was a scare tactic to sell the war to congress and the American people. </span><br /><br />By “scare tactic,” are you suggesting that Bush didn’t believe it? Because all evidence suggests that he did. For more detail on this, I suggest Bush at War by Bob Woodward, hardly a Bush partisan.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-style: italic;">The reason France and other countries were unwilling to act was because they were unconvinced. Accusing France of unwillingness to act (translated: cowardice) is an old propaganda based canard which does not hold up to real scrutiny. </span><br /><br />“Although the French intelligence services were convinced WMD remained in Iraq, [French president Jacques] Chirac recognised that the intelligence services "sometimes intoxicate each other". His thinking "seemed to be dominated by the conviction that Iraq did not pose a threat that justified armed intervention".<br /><br />http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd77/77iraq.htm<br /><br />That’s according to UN weapons inspector Hans Blix – again, hardly a Bush partisan.<br /><br />Yes, they were unconvinced – not that Iraq wasn’t harboring WMDs, but rather whether that justified military action.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-style: italic;">This is part (I believe) of what Gok is saying about drinking the koolaid. And there is plenty more koolaid to go around.</span><br /><br />I like Hawaiian Punch.Elder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-43642677442785260332010-01-04T08:59:00.000-08:002010-01-04T09:04:54.516-08:00A Dialogue re: Conservatives v. LiberalsA carry-over of a debate in another place. I won’t provide any more context than that, but I think you’ll get the hang of it pretty quickly.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">Over the last decade, one has heard repeated cries of bafflement from conservatives on why liberals are not willing to keep the debate civil. Although it's incredulous how out-of-touch with brutal reality such a statement is, the repeated earnestness of the question makes me believe it is real and requires some addressing.</span><br /><br />I can see we’re already off to a good start! It may seem magnanimous to respond to a question that is “out-of-touch with brutal reality,” but at the same time, it demonstrates an unwillingness to empathize with the other point of view. Essentially, you’re saying I’m nuts, but you’re willing to debate me anyway. Small comfort indeed.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-style: italic;">One main difference between liberals and conservatives is empathy. Conservatives tend to reserve their empathy for their own family and personal circle, while liberals extend their empathy well beyond that.</span><br /><br />Abject nonsense. This is the core of the problem. You’re unwilling to concede anything but base motives to those with whom you differ, whereas conservatives are happy to concede that liberal motives are pure, but the results of their behavior are not.<br /><br />Ronald Reagan provides a great case in point. Reagan repeatedly said that he was trying to create a world where neither Russian nor American nor anyone else lived in fear of nuclear annihilation. Liberals refused to take him at his word and called him a warmonger, a dunce, a crazy zealot. They advocated a nuclear freeze and “détente” with a regime that had brutally slaughtered tens of millions of its own people. Reagan’s actions resulted in the end of the Cold War and the liberation of hundreds of millions of people living under totalitarianism. Yet he’s somehow not empathetic, whereas those who advocated looking the other way are?<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-style: italic;">For a conservative, to discuss injustices or atrocities outside their personal circle doesn't tend to hit very deep in terms of their personal feelings. Thus, they cannot understand when liberals get so impassioned about events outside their personal circle.</span><br /><br />What you’re outlining is not factual, but rather your theory as to how someone like me could be so monstrous. It demonstrates a fundamental inability or unwillingness to see things from my point of view and accept me at face value.<br /><br />In contrast, I don’t question your motives. I question your methods. During the Cold War, your pure motives and questionable methods advocated leaving hundreds of millions of people in bondage to a totalitarian nightmare. Why should you be applauded and I be vilified for that?<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-style: italic;">On the other hand, liberals often deeply and painfully feel the suffering of others, often to the point where it can feel like it is happening to them personally. For such a person, dispassionately discussing the issue is out of the question, because anyone who is advocating a position of atrocity or injustice is advocating more pain.</span><br /><br />Other than comic book supervillains, who advocates a position of atrocity or injustice? Even Satan himself, Dick Cheney, has never stated that he took us to war to spread injustice and commit atrocities. Has it crossed your mind that, possibly, his intentions were not to spread the will of Beelzebub?<br /><br />The position you’ve taken here, which is ostensibly tolerant and understanding, is actually remarkably rigid. It assumes absolute definitions for “atrocity” and “injustice” which fail to account for all circumstances. Pacifism in the face of Saddam’s unwillingness to disarm would have meant millions more Iraqi people would have died in mass graves, and millions more would leave in the shadow of tyranny. It would have meant that a murderous dictator could flout the will of the international community, destabilize the Middle East, and arm and aid terrorism with impunity. How is that a more just and less atrocious outcome?<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-style: italic;">I think it would help liberals if they framed their debates with conservatives in terms of the conservative's own family. You have to bring it back home. Make them imagine that these things are happening to their own neighborhood, their house, their children, their grandparents, and see how they feel. </span><br /><br />What’s interesting about this is that conservatives are far more likely to enlist in the military than liberals are, which means that the things that are happening abroad <span style="font-style: italic;">are</span> happening to them and their families. Conservatives are dying for these ideals, and the families they leave behind continue to support the war effort.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">Engage empathy in that way. Things take on a different tone when you imagine them happening to the people you love. Conservatives need to be reminded that these are not academic questions. It's not logical to expect that people can "reach across the aisle" when that side of the aisle is perpetrating injustice, slashing rights, invading other countries, and massacring people. It's no longer an academic debate.</span><br /><br />No, it’s not. The real-world consequences matter, and inaction means death, too. It’s stunning that we’re accused of “massacring people” when the evidence demonstrates that we’re doing everything in our power to protect and save lives. If we wanted to massacre Iraqis, Afghanis, or whatever else, we have a nuclear arsenal that could take care of that pretty quickly.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-style: italic;">If someone publicly says, "I think it's ok for hundreds of thousands of people to be killed", when such events are presently happening, is it even reasonable for them to expect civil discussion? The question itself is not reasonable.</span><br /><br />Who says that? By that logic, I could equally accuse you of saying “It’s OK for Saddam to murder millions of his own people.” But I wouldn’t, because, certainly, you don’t believe that.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-style: italic;">I don't want to hear debates. I want to see engagement with the pain. I want to see real, visceral connection to the pain. I want to see immersion in the effects of the atrocities : the screams, the mourning, the crying. </span><br /><br />There’s a very easy way to do this. Enlist.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-style: italic;">Y'know, unpleasant stuff. Stuff no one wants to engage. But if you're going to justify pain, doesn't it make sense to feel at least some of that pain? Because, y'know, feeling it might change your perspective on it. It takes a little risk to step into the shoes of someone else, while justification is cheap.</span><br /><br />Again, enlist.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-style: italic;">So that difference in empathy and the degree of its extension I think to a great degree addresses the question.</span><br /><br />Not at all. What it demonstrates is your unwillingness to empathize with our point of view. You provide an alternative explanation instead. That’s condescension, not empathy.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-style: italic;">There is another point, and I just am at wit's end to be able to say it politely. It has to do with reality checks. And in that regard, for some time now, conservatives have --- well, how to put this? --- been swallowing the kool-aid. Meaning buying propaganda that is nothing but lies. And then putting forth those lies as if they were truths that are worthy of discussion. I know it hurts to be told that you're out of touch with reality, but if conservatives really, really want a worthwhile discussion with liberals, they're going to have to commit to losing some of their delusional connection to the world, and come back into the real world which lies outside the propaganda machine. I know that sounds insulting to conservatives, but there comes a point where you can't pull punches just to avoid insulting someone if you want to get the truth across.</span><br /><br />There’s nothing but empty accusation in this paragraph. Indeed, Glenn Beck can – and does – say exactly the same thing, only he swaps out the word “liberal” for “conservative.” If there’s something factual I’m missing, let’s address it specifically. If not, then the libelous generalizations aren’t helpful when they’re employed by either side.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-style: italic;">And when it comes to the truth, I'm sorry, but there's some things I'm just not going to debate. They're not up for discussion. Just as I don't sit on street corners trying to refute the propaganda of KKK members, I simply don't have the time nor energy nor desire to refute all the propaganda that has come out of the right wing in the last ten years. </span><br /><br />That’s an easy dodge. To equate the Republican Party with KKK propaganda is intellectually lazy. Again, swap it out. If I were to say, “Just as I don't sit on street corners trying to refute the propaganda of Stalinistic communists and socialists, I simply don't have the time nor energy nor desire to refute all the propaganda that has come out of the left wing in the last ten years,” I haven’t said anything objectively useful, other than the fact that I equate all Democrats with Stalin, which says far more about me than it does about Democrats.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-style: italic;">So we're not going to have a reasonable discussion about whether the Bush Administration thought there were WMD's in Iraq. Sorry, no. They knew, as all intelligent people knew, that there weren't any, it was a blatant lie, and an excuse to go to war to consolidate geopolitical strategy. </span><br /><br />See, this is where this leads. By smearing us with generalities, you now feel justified in making a provably false statement. Every industrialized nation in the world had intelligence that Saddam had WMDs. So did the United Nations. Saddam was under obligation as part of his terms of surrender to demonstrate what he’d done with his stockpiles, and he refused to do so. George W. Bush drew the same conclusion about WMDs that France did, but Bush chose to act when France would not.<br /><br />If the Bush administration was mendacious enough to lie us into war, then why didn’t they plant the weapons once they got there? We’ve been destroying America’s chemical weapons arsenal in Tooele, Utah for the past decade – why not take some mustard gas, fly it over, and stick it in a warehouse somewhere to be “discovered?”<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-style: italic;">I'm not going to have a discussion about its sincerity. There was never anything sincere about it. And if you think there was, no insult, but I mean this seriously --- you may want to talk to your therapist about it. </span><br /><br />How can that be taken in any way but an insult? Who lacks empathy here? You’re saying it is impossible for anyone to view these facts and not reach the same conclusions you have without being insane.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-style: italic;">Because that's the level of seriousness I'm going to give it. And if that makes it difficult for us to dialogue, c'lest la vie. Reasonable, intelligent conservation requires some footing in consensus reality.</span><br /><br />Perhaps it does. If it’s helpful, I don’t think you live outside reality. It’s painful to accept that you think at least half of our nation does.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-style: italic;">So that's my attempt to address this question. Conservatives who wish greater civility from their opponents need to demonstrate : 1) More empathy, and 2) More connection with actual reality.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-style: italic;">Hope this was helpful.</span><br /><br />It was, but likely not in the way you anticipated.Elder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-80026637414476938472009-12-26T10:24:00.001-08:002009-12-26T10:47:47.288-08:00Christmas Report/Movie Reviews<div>I'm at an Internet cafe in Port Angeles, Washington, home of all manner of Twilight <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">paraphernalia</span>. (The town is much dumpier than it is in the books.) The lovely Mrs. Cornell is using my computer, so I have some time to kill, and what better way to kill time than blogging?</div><div> </div><br /><div>This blog featured prominently in one aspect of our Christmas. It seems that, growing up, Mrs. Cornell's family always opened one present on Christmas Eve, something that was <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">verboten</span> in the Cornell clan. However, Santa Claus always left us pajamas to wear on Christmas morning. So, as a compromise, we now open a present from our cats every Christmas Eve - and it's always pajamas.<br /><br />This year, Mrs. Cornell decided to sew up a pair of pajama bottoms for everyone from scratch. I was put in charge of the pajama tops, and I got everyone a T-shirt printed with the code names I use for this blog. I now have a shirt that says "Stallion," and Mrs. Cornell has one that says "Mrs. Cornell," and so forth. Turns out the only kid who thought that was clever was Chloe. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Cleta</span> was absolutely disgusted.<br /><br />"Everyone hates your blog!" she said. "You post gross things on there!"<br /><br />We got her a cell phone for Christmas in a blatant attempt to buy her love. She turns 13 next week, and it seems teenager love is very, very expensive.<br /><br />Driving 18 hours from Salt Lake to Port Angeles with five kids in tow is pretty brutal, and we were joined up here by Mrs. Cornell's sister's family, which also includes five kids. Ten kids and seven adults - Mrs. Cornell's brother came by, too - in one 1,500 square-foot home tends to make time spent in an Internet cafe very precious, indeed.<br /><br />It also means more time at the movies.<br /><br />Two days ago, I took the kids to see <span style="font-style: italic;">The Princess and the Frog</span> at the Port Angeles downtown theater, but it turned out that <span style="font-style: italic;">Alvin and the Chipmunks</span> sequel - "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">squeakuel</span>" - was playing at the same time, and they wanted to see that. Yikes. So we did, sort of. That is to say, the dumpy PA movie theatre refused to turn off the lights or focus the projector, so what we saw was a bright, blurry mess. Which is not to say that it would have been better had it been more readily visible. I tried to fall asleep, but that's hard to do with the lights on. There's no point in reviewing the movie in any substantive way - it's exactly what you'd expect. If that floats your boat, then yippee turtles for you. For me, it was like getting a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">swirlie</span> in an electrified toilet.<br /><br />Much better was Avatar, which we sort of saw last night. I say "sort of" again because the picture wasn't blurry, although it wasn't in 3D. ("The 2D doesn't detract from the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">epicness</span>!" the ticket seller told us. Swell.) The projector broke during the last twenty minutes, which was fine by me, because I got my money back, and I was going to see it in 3D again anyway. And it's not as if I don't know what's going to happen.<br /><br />James Cameron is a great director. He can put together an action sequence like <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">nobody's</span> business. And the visuals in this movie, even in 2D, were breathtaking. This movie is <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">definitely</span> a game changer. Well done.<br /><br />So why can't the guy learn how to write?<br /><br />The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">plotline</span> is Dances with Blue Wolves, only less subtle. The juvenile politics were tiresome. And the clunky little anti-Bush shout-outs - "Let's fight terror with terror! Shock and awe! Let's win hearts and minds!" - seem as dated as Lewinsky jokes.<br /><br />Avatar is a prime example of earth worship. If only those pesky humans would get out of the way, things would revert to their <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Edenic</span> state! I worship earth's Creator, not His creations. I'm getting used to Hollywood demonizing me for that, but it's still kind of annoying.<br /><br />I have to go now. Back to the tiny house with no Internet access. Weep for me.<br /><br /><br /><br /></div>Elder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-86257422455921287332009-12-18T08:16:00.001-08:002009-12-18T09:33:18.741-08:00So Close to Greatness...So if you haven't seen this, watch it. You'll need it as background for today's post.<br /><br /><object height="296" width="512"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/rGfB3ZwheBUp7fTY2E05dA"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/rGfB3ZwheBUp7fTY2E05dA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" height="296" width="512"></embed></object><br /><br />Actually, I thought that was far gentler and funnier than it could have been. All in all, it was very much a positive.<br /><br />I wasn't the only one who thought so.<br /><br />One of my friends works for the Mormon Tabernacle Choir - not to be confused with Conan's Mormon Tapper-nacle Choir. The day after this aired, he called Conan's people to suggest that the Mormon Tabernacles would be interested in responding. Very quickly, he was speaking to Conan O'Brien's executive producer, who said that they'd be very interested.<br /><br />Then he called me.<br /><br />He had about twenty minutes before he was going to go in and pitch this idea to the powers that be. He wanted to go in armed with something the Choir could sing that would be an appropriate response - funny and cutting edge without being cruel or embarrassing. And he needed it pretty much in about ten minutes.<br /><br />So I churned out the following three verses, sung to the tune of "O Tannenbaum." I include it with annotated explanations for the Conan uninitiated:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">We really liked</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Your Mormon song</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The one that Max was singing </span>[I kind of liked "the one the Jew was singing," but that was too nasty.]<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">On drums, we know</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">He’s apropos</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">On vocals, he’s no Springsteen</span> [Max Weinberg was and is the drummer for Springsteen's E Street Band.]<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Now we reply in harmony</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Bill Shatner sings there; why can’t we? </span>[Reference to the very popular Shatner/Palin sketches.]<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">So here’s our new Tonight Show song</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Enjoy the payback, Andy.</span> [Andy Richter, Conan's sidekick who claimed you can find out about Mormons by watching Children of the Corn.]<br />____________<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Los Angeles seems good for you</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">And much of what you’re doing</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">We’re glad you dropped those characters</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Unfit for family viewing </span>[This is the closest I could come to directly referencing the Masturbating Bear.]<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">We offer you a yule log</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">To lose that insult comic dog</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">We dug those puppies dressed as cats</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">That’s really worth pursuing</span> [A fun sketch that Conan does regularly]<br /><br />____________<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">We hope you’ll come and visit us</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">If you get further inland</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">All of us can’t wait to meet</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Prime Minister of Finland </span>[Reference to long-running Conan gag about the fact that he looks exactly like the Prime Minister of Finland - who is female.]<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">We think that you’re the better man</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">We’d never go on Letterman</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">So Merry Christmas one and all</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Nothing rhymes with Finland. </span><br /><br />____________<br /><br />That's it. I think it's mildly clever on its own but would be riotously funny if the entire choir were to sing it. My friend agreed, and I waited to hear back as he ran it up the flagpole with the powers that be.<br /><br />I spent about two or three hours reveling in the idea that I had just written something that would be performed by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir on the Tonight Show. I imagined my inevitable new career as the Tonight Show's new head writer, and I was wondering where I would live upon my triumphant return to Los Angeles and show biz stardom.<br /><br />Alas, it was not to be.<br /><br />It's a no go. The Choir, it seems, doesn't do comedy of any stripe. They are considered official representatives of the Church, and to get permission to do this, they'd have to get direct approval from the First Presidency. Which is about as likely as me flapping my arms and flying to the moon.<br /><br />Still, I had a good time. And it makes for an above average blog entry.Elder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-67410672087422552382009-12-13T13:32:00.001-08:002009-12-13T13:32:55.688-08:00Cleta's First Talk in Sacrament MeetingMy talk is about Jesus Christ, the prince of peace. This title for Christ comes from the scripture in Isaiah 9:6. It says: ‘For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.’<br /><br />Many of the Jewish people believed that this meant that Christ would be a powerful military leader that would bring peace to the Jews. However, that isn’t the kind of peace Christ gives. In John 14:26, it says: ‘But the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will sent in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.’<br /><br />The peace that Christ promises isn’t world peace. In fact, more wars have been fought in Christ’s name than any other person. The peace that Christ promises is peace within us. This kind of peace only comes if we pray and have faith.<br /><br />My mom discovered this while she was serving a mission in Chile. The first Christmas she was there, she was homesick and miserable. But the second Christmas, she loved it. She loved the people she was teaching and she had found the kind of peace that Christ promised.<br /><br />Another example of finding peace comes from a book title, My Parents Married on a Dare by Carlfred Broderick. He was a stake president at the time when this story was taking place. A lady in the stake had just had a new baby daughter. While her husband was at the hospital with her visiting the baby, the lady’s two year old daughter drowned while being babysat. The two year old was in the hospital for two months breathing on life support while everyone in his ward fasted and prayed for him constantly. He was given many priesthood blessings, but soon it became clear that the child was dying. They finally decided to let him go back to his father in heaven, and took him off the life support. Just a week before the two year old died, the lady’s newborn was diagnosed with spinal meningitis. The babies were both placed in the same hospital room. When the two year old finally died, his mother bore her testimony at his grave. This is what she said. <br /><br />“I am content that God be God. I will not try to instruct him on his duties or on his obligations toward me or toward any of his children. I know he lives and loves me, that he is God. He’s not unmindful of us. We do not suffer out of his view. He does not inflict pain upon us, but he sustains us in our pain. I am his daughter; my son is also his son; we belong to him, and we are safe with him. I used to think we were safe from grief and pain here because of our faith. I know now that is not true, but we are safe in his love We are protected in the most ultimate sense of all-we have a safe home forever. That is my witness.”<br /><br />This lady truly found the kind of peace that Christ gives. And that is why Christ is truly called the Prince of Peace.Elder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-56357397185060962262009-12-09T10:40:00.000-08:002009-12-09T10:42:30.678-08:00A Very Bad DecisionI know, I know. Climategate. It's huge! I have much to say, but I'm waiting for the story to unravel just a bit more. <br /><br />I want to talk, instead, about what may well be the worst decision of Barack Obama's presidency. <br /><br />I recognize that that’s a very high threshold. His bloated, wasteful stimulus package, his ill-conceived government-run health care plans, and his constant stream of apologies for America being America all qualify as products of terrible decisions. But this past month, he may well have outdone himself. <br /><br />It is a colossal mistake to bring 9/11 hijackers onto American soil to try them in civilian courts. <br /><br />Khalid Sheik Mohammed is the admitted mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. His actions resulted in the slaughter of thousands of American innocents in the worst act of domestic terrorism in our nation’s history. For this, he was not arrested; he was captured out in the field of battle. <br /><br />He didn’t commit a crime; he committed an act of war. <br /><br />Our nation has a mechanism of dealing with people who are captured in battle. These peoples are tried away from the media circus in military tribunals that reflect the difference between domestic felons and international terrorists. Military tribunals have a long and respected history, and they’ve been employed by Republicans and Democrats alike. <br /><br />Why, then, do President Obama and his Attorney General feel it necessary to abandon precedent and drag this enemy of the state into a civilian court? <br /><br />Left-wing pundits scoff at the claim that this is somehow a threat to our national security, since American prisons are just as secure as Guantanamo Bay. They miss the point entirely. The problem isn’t that the prison system will let him escape; it’s that a judge, applying the precedents of liberal jurisprudence, might very well be persuaded to let him go. <br /><br />Consider this. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was never read his Miranda rights. He was never indicted by a grand jury; he never had a bail hearing; he wasn’t allowed one phone call. That’s entirely appropriate in an international wartime setting, but domestically, it’s enough to get a case thrown out of a civilian court. <br /><br />Why would the President subject the nation to this?<br /><br />This circus of a trial will provide an opportunity to paint the Bush administration in the worst possible light. Mr. Mohammed will undoubtedly use his soapbox to tell lurid and wildly exaggerated tales of torture and malfeasance and attempt to indict the War on Terror as the real source of evil in the world. It will also ensure that classified information used to fight the war will come to light as a result of the trial discovery process. <br /><br />It demonstrates that President Obama is more interested in scoring cheap political points then he is in treating this war as a war. <br /><br />You can see evidence of that in the recent terrorist incident in Ft. Hood, when an Islamic extremist slaughtered American soldiers on American soil. Even now, we’re told to “withhold judgment” and avoid “jumping to conclusions,” despite the clear evidence that demonstrates the murderer’s terrorist sympathies. Should we continue to treat terrorism lightly, we will only serve to weaken our national resolve and undermine the successes that we have had in fighting terror since that dreadful day in 2001. <br /><br />We are at war. This terrible decision is a profoundly unserious way to deal with a very serious threat.Elder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-31318580873169161852009-12-04T06:02:00.001-08:002009-12-04T06:34:22.948-08:00The Third Floor Wallpaper BirdsOne night in my apartment, I, Jake, was on my bed. I was sleeping when I heard stomp stomp stomp. I heard a creeeaaak. My door was opening. It was... It was? Boom! I was hit with a magic spell and went right back to sleep. <br /><br />That morning, I woke up. I was looking around and I saw it. A bird on my wallpaper was missing! This could not be happening, I thought. I could not let my brother Josh or my mom and dad find out. I went through the day but couldn't find out anything about a wizard, so that night I stayed awake, but nothing happened. That morning, I didn't eat breakfast. I juts grabbed my lunch and left. On the way to school, I was thinking was it a wrathmonk like in <span style="font-style:italic;">Measle and the Wrathmonk</span> who did it?<br /><br />I was going to solve this mystery once and for all. That night I heard stomp stomp stomp again, so I put on my night vision goggles but I was hit by the same spell and fell asleep. That morning I found drool on my night vision goggles. It was disgusting. I was thinking again. I thought it was a monster now. I just know it. That night, I saw it - a creepy drooling monster. And then I fainted. I was thinking that morning. <br /><br />Could the monster ship-shape? <br /><br />At school, I asked my friends if monsters could ship-shape. They laughed at me, but my friend Max didn't laugh. he had a sleepover to see the creature. That night I and Max folded out the couch . Then we got in bed. Then we heard stomp stomp stomp. The creature was muttering, "My real form is a wrathmonk that can ship-shape." Max heard it, too. <br /><br />The wrathmonk broke the door!<br /><br />I put on my night vision goggles. Two birds were missing, and three birds were turning 3-d! We had to stop the wrathmonk! Me and Max jumped at him and tackled him. Then we were being controlled! I figured out my arms weren't controlled. So I picked up a bat and threw it. The bat hit the wrathmonk like a monkey that had a banana gun and shot it. I jumped at him like I was a leopard pouncing on a bird. I told him to change the spell, but he said no. I picked up a bat, but he shot a spell and the bat turned two-d. <br /><br />I went to get a mirror. When I got back, Max was asleep. The wrathmonk shot a spell. It hit the mirror and made a sound like a howler monkey and a blue whale screaming together, and the spell bounced back. The wrathmonk dived like a bullet firing and dodged the spell. <br /><br />The spell hit me and I fell asleep. When Max and I woke up, we saw another bird gone! <br /><br />We had to stop the wrathmonk. <br /><br />That night, Max had another sleepover and when we got in bed we heard stomp stomp stomp. Out of nowhere - AAAAAA AAAA! Max was tooken by the wrathmonk! He was screaming like a howler monkey was yelling as loud as it can. My front door opened and Max was gone with the wrathmonk. <br /><br />That morning at school, I decided to follow the wrathmonk and get Max back. <br /><br />That night, I followed the wrathmonk to his base. I looked in and saw Max. The wrathmonk was playing darts with Max as the target, but the darts kept missing and he saw me with the corner of his eye and fired a ball of fire at me. <br /><br />KABLOOIE! It missed me by an inch! Few. <br /><br />I was relieved I wasn't dead. Then he said blstastlamdechoo! That was weird, but the wrathmonk shot a tornado of fire at me. BAM BOOM EEEK! That hurt my ears. I was lucky it didn't hit me. Boom! We were being pulled into a black hole! I ripped the rope off. Max got a parachute and jumped out the window. The wrathmonk followed us. We kept running until we lost the wrathmonk. We were panting so I hard I felt like I was going to die. <br /><br />I, Jake, would stop the wrathmonk. <br /><br />Max went home so I would watch for the wrathmonk. BOOM BOOOOOOOOOM! I got my dad's sword ready to fight, but I fainted. <br /><br />"Where am I," I said?<br /><br />I looked down. AAAAA! I was 2,000 feet off the ground! The thing I know I fainted. I woke up in strange clothes. The wrathmonk was here. Boom! There stood the wrathmonk. <br /><br />This was it. I would fight until death. <br /><br />We were fighting. I grabbed a suit, put it on, and had powers! I took off teh suit and still had powers! It was amazing! I and the wrathmonk were fighting, and, out of nowhere, I shot a power with fire water and grass in it. <br /><br />"This battle ends here," I said. <br /><br />"Never," said the wrathmonk. <br /><br />Blam Boom Kaboom! I dived and kept dodging the wrathmonk's shots. I picked up a black bomb and threw it. Out of the bomb, a black hole appeared and sucked up the wrathmonk and disappeared!<br /><br />I went home and hoped nobody noticed how messy my room is. I looked at the door. I saw there in the doorway - my mom. She wanted an explanation. I told her I guess I'm crazy. <br /><br />"You're a goofball", she said and walked out. <br /><br />But I thought, "I'm not a goofball. I'm a hero." I looked at my wall. The birds were back on my wallpaper. I looked down. My bat was 3-D again. Everything was back to normal. <br /><br />Well, most everything. The wrathmonk is still there. At school we were supposed to write what happened on our 5 day weekend. I, Jake, knew exactly what to write. My beginning. it all happened when someone left the window open. It was a great week. See ya.Elder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-4330442541884581732009-12-03T10:28:00.001-08:002009-12-03T10:31:20.552-08:00Obama and AfghanistanOn a side note, I keep getting spammed by some Russian mail order bride company. I don't know why. Most of them show up on the "Call Me Ishmael" post. So I've changed the comment moderation settings - for posts over two weeks old, your comments will be moderated. I think that will cut off teh flow of Call Me Ishmael mail order crap. If you want a Russian mail order bride, I have no interest in providing any assistance in the process. <br /><br />My eight-year-old son Corbin is disturbed very much by war. For as long as he’s had memory, this nation has been at war in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Not long ago, he asked his parents whether or not wars ever end.<br /><br />That’s a question that President Obama inappropriately answered the other night. <br /><br />It’s been said before, and it needs to be said again: no one wants war. But simply pulling troops out before the job is done doesn’t bring peace. All it does is return us to a time when the other side was the only one fighting. Afghanistan, for years, was a failed state ruled by a brutal regime that aided and harbored the terrorists who struck us on 9/11. If we leave Afghanistan now, we’ll allow it to return to that condition and create a breeding ground for more assaults on America. <br /><br />We can’t let that happen. <br /><br />For part of President Obama’s speech, it seemed as if he understood that. He was making the case for committing additional troops to the area, which is a hard sell to a war-weary nation. But his commitment was halfhearted, because he promised to have all the troops out of Afghanistan by 2013. <br /><br />This is the worst of all possible worlds. <br /><br />The deadline sends a terrible message to our enemies. It lets them know that all they have to do is wait us out for the next three years, and then, it’s business as usual. It says that America can be outlasted, and that our commitment to freedom only goes so far. <br /><br />Of course, many Democrats are upset that he’s willing to continue military action at all. So, in order to appease them, he’s set a deadline for the war to be over, whether or not it actually is. I can’t judge the president’s motives, but I think it would be abhorrent to make life-and-death decisions about putting our troops in harms way based on political calculation. Rightly or wrongly, this deadline for troop withdrawal creates that impression, and it does nothing to boost the morale and confidence of those brave men and women who stand ready to make the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf. <br /><br />Still, President Obama is our Commander-in-Chief, and I consider it my duty to support him on this. I have every confidence that we can win this conflict if we have the political will to do so. <br /><br />It’s a good thing nobody set a deadline for the end of World War II.Elder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-90238672401982265502009-11-26T14:26:00.000-08:002009-11-26T14:30:01.788-08:00Happy Thanksgiving!We ran a family 5K today, and Corbin, Cornelius, and Cleta each ran it in under a half an hour. I pretty much walked the whole way, as I was pushing Stalliondo in a stroller. Quite cold. But fun. Chloe walked with me, and Stalliondo cried a lot. Still fun. <br /><br />No freshly killed turkey this year - we're celebrating here in Utah with Mrs. Cornell's brothers. We brined the turkey overnight, and it smells good. We'll be eating in an hour or so. <br /><br />Watched the Star Trek movie with my twins and fast forwarded past the sex scene with the green chick. They loved it, as did I. I've seen it four times now, and I like it more each time. <br /><br />That is all. I am thankful for a great family and a great life. Happy Thanksgiving.Elder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-68823923700558753962009-11-23T12:58:00.001-08:002009-11-23T12:58:48.028-08:00Ex NihiloGiven the frenetic pace of my life at the moment, I’m not sure how it was that I ended up watching about twenty minutes of CrossTV, an evangelical Christian television network, which was broadcasting an episode to warn most of the world that they’re going straight to hell. They cited Revelation 21:8, about how all liars will be cast into a lake of fire on Judgment Day. “You can look it up!” the guy said cheerfully. (I haven’t looked it up, but I’ll take his word for it.) <br /><br />Since all of us, at one time or another, have told a lie, all of us are guilty. The show had a preacher asking people on the street whether they’d ever told a lie, whether they’d ever stolen something, whether they’d ever lusted after anyone in their heart. They read another scripture that implied that if you’re guilty of even the smallest offense, you’re guilty of breaking the whole law. It doesn’t matter if you’re Adolf Hitler or you canned peaches on the Sabbath once – both will earn you the same eternal trip to the lake of fire. <br /><br />I found this disturbing on many levels, not the least of which was the solution. Say this little ten-second prayer, the guy said, and invite Jesus into your life. Once you do that, the law has no hold on you, and it’s heaven all the way! Isn’t that great? Except if you’re born in outer Borneo and never get a chance to hear about the magic words you have to say, then I hope you enjoy bathing in lava. And someone who’s lived perfectly besides their penchant for Sabbath peach canning can expect an endless lava bath, too, whereas someone who says the little prayer can pretty much go into the Jedi temple and slaughter all the younglings and still be OK, because the prayer is a ticket to a free ride past the pearly gates. <br /><br />I like to think I’m tolerant and somewhat ecumenical, and I flinch when evangelicals start saying we Mormons don’t believe in the same God or Jesus that they do. I still don’t think that’s entirely true, but when I get close enough to their doctrines to take a look at them, I start to wonder. <br /><br />Having pondered this over the weekend, I have decided there are three doctrines that are embraced by the sectarian world that I fully reject. <br /><br />1) Ex Nihilo Creation<br />2) Static Hell<br />3) Cheap Grace<br /><br />I’ll address each in turn. Today, I’ll stick with Ex Nihilo Creation and broach the other subjects later in the week. <br /><br />The doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo, or Creation Out of Nothing, is central to much of the Christian world. As I understand it, the idea is that there was nothing in the universe, or even no universe itself. There was only God. And at one point, God decided He wanted there to be Something instead of Nothing. And so, out of Nothing, he made Something, and voila! Here we are!<br /><br />This idea is the source of much mischief. <br /><br />Those who propose it think that any other explanation diminishes God’s omnipotence. Take the Mormon view, for instance. It claims that the elements are eternal, and that intelligence is eternal, too. In some form or another, each of us is a unique, eternal Intelligence, co-existent with God, and God has designed the universe and organized matter and intelligence to create a circumstance by which we can become more like Him. Ex Nihilists insist that the Mormon God, therefore, is not omnipotent, because he can’t create matter or intelligence out of nothing. <br /><br />It’s because of this tension that there are some very pointless arguments to be had as to what the definition of omnipotence is. The most famous is the question, “Can God create a rock so large that He can’t move it?” Or, in other words, can God do something he can’t do? Answers to questions like these end up serving the same purpose as imponderables like, “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” Or “what would happen if everyone on earth flushed their toilet at exactly the same time?” (OK, that second one isn’t very profound. But it’s something to think about!) <br /><br />I would define omnipotence, therefore, as the capability to do everything that can be done. <br /><br />Ex Nihilists reject this. They say there is nothing that cannot be done, because God can do everything. OK, fine. Then you have to answer questions that don’t make God look like a very pleasant guy. <br /><br />For example: You, Mr. Ex Nihilist, you believe God can do anything? Then why didn’t he create a universe free of evil, pain, and suffering? Why did make us capable of sin? Why did he create a circumstance where a great deal of his supreme creations are doomed to spend an eternity in a lake of fire? What’s the point? <br /><br />The famous literary figure Dr. Pangloss in Voltaire’s Candide concludes that since this is the only world we’ve got, and God is perfect, then this is, by definition, the best of all possible worlds, so stop complaining. The problem, of course, is that this places certain limits on God, too. If this is the best he could do, and even us flawed humans can see there are significant problems, then he isn’t as omnipotent as Ex Nihilists think he is, is he?<br /><br />Mormons don’t have all the answers about suffering and evil, but they do have a context for it that the rest of the world doesn’t have. What’s happening in this life was colored by what happened in the eternity before it, and it will be mitigated by what happens in the eternity after. Many people use this truth to make rash assumptions about this life’s inequities. Clearly, if I’m stronger, happier, richer, or better looking than you, then I must have been a better guy before I got here, no? Well, no. We don’t know that. Maybe you were too big a wimp to be able to handle the rough life of someone else. We haven’t been given the information, but just knowing that there is more to the story helps us understand why some things don’t seem to gibe with what we ought to expect. <br /><br />The point is that Ex Nihilo creation makes good squarely responsible for all the rotgut in the universe, and it’s no use saying otherwise. My understanding of a merciful and omnipotent deity doesn’t allow for that kind of nonsense.Elder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-50196304070630176552009-11-19T15:56:00.000-08:002009-11-19T15:58:26.024-08:00Things More Fun To Read Than Glen A. Larson's Daily SpamGlen A. Larson (Arthur, Stallion_Cornell, MrPostModernist, Schnorkenschneider) posts alot of daily crap both here on Frakheads and his daily exlax inducing blog. Here are things more fun to read than anything Larson posts on the Internet.<br /><br /><br />I. Glen A. Larson's divorce papers from Janet Curtis.<br /><br />II. Salt Lake City's zoning laws for Glen A. Larson's beer belly.<br /><br />III. Glen A. Larson's first draft "Manimal" scripts. (They suck just as much as the final shooting scripts did.)<br /><br />IV. Glen A. Larson's 500 gallon recipe for Pterodactyl egg pancakes. (Each egg is a half mile in circumference. 50 eggs per 500 gallon serving.) Makes one breakfast serving for Glen A. Larson.<br /><br />V. Glen A. Larson's second season proposal for "Battlestar Galactica" that never materialized. (Hint: It sucks worse than the worst "Galactica: 1980" scripts.<br /><br />VI. Transcripts from every Glen A. Larson convention appearance going back 16 years. (Hint: He says the exact same thing at every convention spanning 15 years......"A Battlestar Galactica" revival is just around the corner!!" If you've read one transcript.....you've read them all!!)<br /><br />VII. Glen A. Larson's "Star" on the "Hollywood Walk of Fame." It has to be read to be believed.<br /><br />VIII. Glen A. Larson's scene by scene replacements (in script form) for the perfectly good footage Richard A. Colla had already shot for "Saga of a Star World." They have to be read to be believed. (Hint: THEY SUCK!!)<br /><br />IX. Glen A. Larson's contract with ABC-TV and Universal Studios for "Battlestar Galactica." Larson got paid that much money?? Really?? Hacks can make it in this world after all. (Mary Tyler Moore tosses her hat up into the air during the opening title sequence of "The Mary Tyler Moore" Show.)<br /><br />X. Glen A. Larson's clothing receipts from the Salt Lake City "Big & Tall" clothing store. (Hint: The "Thing" from the "Fantastic Four" also shops there.)<br />_________________<br />THE BOOBS ABOVE GLEN A. LARSON'S HEAD ARE HIS PSYCHOLOGICAL SPEED BUMPS.<br /><br />UNIVERSAL STUDIOS/SCI-FI CHANNEL HAS ORDERED ALL OF ITS STEALTH MARKETING EMPLOYEES TO CONTINUE CYBER ATTACKS ON THE GENERAL PUBLIC ON INTERNET BULLETIN BOARDS.<br /><br />UNIVERSAL STUDIOS / SCI-FI CHANNEL'S CYBER ATTACKS HAVE INTENSIFIED TO CORRESPOND WITH THE BROADCAST OF GINO'S FINAL SEASON.<br /><br />UNIVERSAL STUDIOS/SCI-FI CHANNEL IS THE MOST UNSUCCESSFUL CORPORATION IN HISTORY.Elder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-6187547862520474702009-11-18T11:47:00.000-08:002009-11-18T11:52:09.909-08:00HypocrisyThe hypocrisy in Tuesday’s Salt Lake Tribune was truly stunning to me.<br /><br />On the one hand, they ran a <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/columnists/ci_13802154">very thoughtful column by Peg McEntee</a>, which rightfully decried the rhetorical excesses of an extremist right-wing group. Specifically, McEntee was disgusted with a video that showed a man in a rubber Barack Obama mask engaging in all sorts of vile behavior – strangling elderly people, stabbing pregnant women, and other reprehensible nonsense.<br /><br />I think McEntee’s analysis was spot-on. That kind of childish and offensive demonization of a political opponent is beneath the standard of rational political discourse. I only wished she would have directed her ire to the Pat Bagley cartoon that ran in the paper on the same day.<br /><br />Bagley’s cartoon has two panels under the headline, “The Right Winger’s Guide to Political Etiquette.” In the first panel, President Obama is shown bowing obsequiously as he greets the Japanese emperor. The caption above reads, “Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!” In the next panel, Dick Cheney replaces Barack Obama, and he’s scowling as he holds a smoking rifle over the bloody corpse of the Japanese emperor. The caption reads, “Right.” (I dont't want to embed the thing in my post, as I find it offensive, but if you must, you can view the cartoon <a href="http://extras.sltrib.com/bagley/content/11172009.jpg">here</a>.)<br /><br />Does anyone else recognize the double standard here?<br /><br />I disagree with Barack Obama on just about every front, but I don’t have to hate him personally to do that. Crass depictions of the President as Adolf Hitler or some other demonic figure are rightfully decried by many reasonable people on the Left who recognize how inappropriate that is. But when Pat Bagley depicts the former Vice President as a cold-blooded assassin who would love to shoot an international ally in the head, the same people refuse to bat an eye.<br /><br />The only lesson that can be learned from this is that demonization of the opposition is a terrible thing, unless, of course, the person being demonized has an R next to their name.<br /><br />Much has been made about the divisiveness and incivility of American politics, and I think that often those concerns fail to take into account a wider historical perspective. Politics today can be brutish and nasty, but there have been many times in our history when it’s been far, far worse. If you doubt that, spend a moment studying the Civil War and send up a silent prayer that we now settle our domestic disagreements with words, not bullets. These are trying times, yes, but we’ve been through trying times before, and we’ve managed to come through them intact.<br /><br />But I get very depressed by incidents like these. Until we can start to recognize the decency in those who oppose us, we're never going to get close to anything resembling rational discussion.<br /><br />And I'm as much a hypocrite as anyone, because I think Bill Clinton is a morally bankrupt turd.Elder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-10096235618632397492009-11-17T09:47:00.000-08:002009-11-17T09:48:06.035-08:00Call Him IshmaelMy first dog was named for the narrator of Moby-Dick, a wandering soul who boards Captain Ahab’s ship and chronicles his deadly obsession with the white whale. I’ve never read Moby-Dick, and, as near as I can tell, neither has anyone else. But it’s the only book I know of, apart from scripture, that has the name Ishmael in it. In my eyes, that alone is enough to make it cool – although not enough to get me to read it.<br /><br />My Ishmael wasn’t any kind of a sailor. He hated water and the cleanliness that came with it. He was something of a wanderer, though, more like his Biblical namesake than the dude on the boat. In Genesis, Ishmael, firstborn son of Abraham, was cast off into the desert, unwanted and alone, much like the sad stray dog that my mother took in a couple of years before I was born. Mom was fond of taking in stray dogs and stray people over the years, but none of them captured my imagination like Ishmael – or Ish for short.<br /><br />I was devoted to that unkempt, scrawny black lab mutt. I didn’t realize until many years after he died that Ish didn’t really like us very much.<br /><br />Oh, I’m not sure if that’s entirely true, but there was no other way to explain his desire to bolt whenever he saw an open door. He was pleasant enough when the doors were closed, especially if there was food involved, but he never really took to the simple life. When freedom presented itself, Ish made a run for it.<br /><br />Then came the call to arms.<br /><br />“Ish is out!” someone would scream, and then the entire house would mobilize for the rescue mission. Mom would drag us into the station wagon, and we would patrol the streets, following the trail of destruction in Ish’s wake as he ran furiously to escape the little kids who loved him too much to let him go. Eventually, he would be cornered or exhausted, and we’d haul him back into the car and back home, where he moped and shlumped his way through the indignity of domesticity. Sometimes, though, we would fail to catch him, and Ish would be seemingly gone forever.<br /><br />It was in those moments, then, when Ish showed his true colors.<br /><br />An hour or two after his disappearance, Ish would return of his own free will, bearing a peace offering – a dead bird, a dead rabbit, or perhaps even a dead cat, which did not endear Ish to any of our feline-loving neighbors. Mom was aghast, but I was glad to know that, underneath it all, Ish really did like us. Either that, or he was hungry after a few hours alone and liked to be fed. Either way was fine with me.<br /><br />Comedian George Carlin once noted that, because of the relatively short life span of domestic pets compared to their owners, every dog or cat is a built-in childhood tragedy waiting to happen. Ish lived a long and healthy life, I suppose, but he died before I was a teenager. I was embarrassed by how much I cried when I found out, and I never thought I could love again. That changed drastically when I discovered girls a few years later, most of whom liked me even less than Ish did, but you never forget your connection to the first beast to barge into your life. And his veterinary-induced departure left a hole in my life that has mostly healed by now, but it still stings if I fiddle with it.<br /><br />After all, what became of Captain Ahab after the white whale was dead? (Seriously, what became of him? I haven’t read the book. I don’t know.)Elder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-77558939601569909212009-11-16T10:04:00.001-08:002009-11-16T10:16:44.679-08:00Why Glen A. Larson And Mormonism Don't MixOf no real note, this is my 500th blog post. Huzzah!<br /><br />As you can tell, I'm having a hard time keeping up my previous frenetic pace on this blog - I'm actually a busy guy these days - so I've asked my good friend Languatron to pinch hit for me today. More than just a fringe lunatic in Chicago, our pal Langy now labels himself an "Internet corporation." This is one of his more inspired pieces of stupidity, and it's aimed largely at me and this blog, so I thought I would give it a wider audience than the 4 or 5 people who have seen it over at the Frakheads bulletin board.<br /><br />The title of this post is his, as is the excrement reproduced below, unedited, unexpurgated, and unhinged. Enjoy!<br /><br />(All right, I edited one word - I'm not willing to drop F bombs on this blog. But you'll get the gist of it.)<br /><br />________<br /><br /><span class="postbody">Glen A. Larson (Stallion_Cornell, Arthur, Schnorkenschneider, MrPostModernist) has always fancied himself a devoted Mormon. Yet, if his personal conduct on Internet bboards during the past 10 years is any indication, Glen A. Larson is a habitual Mormon and nothing more. He prides himself as being one, yet he is unable to demonstrate Mormonism in his personal life in any way. Surely the Mormon God he habitually worships would have made him more successful in fighting me in the past 10 years if he truly believed in this Mormon God. Yet, here Glen A. Larson is a decade later....still fighting me.....still making no progress in fighting me.....still unsuccessful in censoring me. I post freely on four boards. Three of them are mine plus Frakheads. My three boards remain open to anyone to join, but Glen A. Larson has repeatedly demonstrated his cowardice in being unwilling to join. A decade later, I have grown in strength and am now an Internet corporation. The exact opposite has happened to Glen A. Larson. Instead of successfully getting ride of me, he has unsuccessfully and helplessly watched me grow during the past 10 years.<br /><br />Psychologically, Glen A. Larson is a 12 year old child and he's a coward. At no point during the past 10 years has he ever tried to refute my blunt facts against Universal Studios. Instead, he has engaged in juvenile stabs at censorship tactics no doubt taught to him by some out of touch flame war consultant who unsuccessfully attempted to instruct Larson and the other Universal Studios stealth marketers on how to fight me.<br /><br />Surely this Mormon God of Glen A. Larson's should have given him the wisdom and intelligence to fight me during the past 10 years, if Larson knew how to call on him for help. And that's the key. He doesn't. And Glen A. Larson can't call on his Mormon God for help because he takes his Mormon God about as seriously as he takes anything else. Glen A. Larson believes that any of his problems can be solved by being a self believing smart ass on Internet bulletin boards. Glen A. Larson worships his double decker keyboard laptop more than he does this Mormon God. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this has made Glen A. Larson an outcast of his Mormon church. Lord knows Glen A. Larson is on Frakheads bright and early every Sunday morning spamming the hell out of it instead of attending church with his Mormon brethren.<br /><br />Like anything else, Glen A. Larson uses Mormonism as a punch line if it suits me. But is he serious about the faith? I doubt it. He makes references to Mormonism on his Stallion_Cornell blog, but the manner in which he makes reference to it makes him sound like he is an outsider looking in on the faith and never successfully mastered the art of worship within the faith. He comments on it, he objectifies it, he distances himself from it. I think the status of his life during the past 10 years has been a sad reflection on his apparent snarky attitude towards Mormonism. He's been a literal shut in for the past 10 years, isolated from the real world. His only world has been his double decker keyboard laptop in front of him. What sane Mormon would waste away 10 years of his life fighting someone on Internet bulletin boards over the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series? And it was never really fighting. It was just repeatedly posting juvenile spam messages because he couldn't face up to the reality that I was and am completely right.....Universal Studios sucks ass as a corporation and has royally f----d over "Battlestar Galactica" again and again.<br /><br />Glen A. Larson's Mormon God has probably long since given up on him, not even giving Larson loving family members or children to put their hands on his shoulder and say......"You know what Glen? It's extremely abnormal and weird to have wasted away 10 years of your life fighting someone on Internet bulletin boards because that person has an blunt and honest assessment of Universal Studios. Why don't you shut down your laptop for good and become a member of our family again?" No, Glen A. Larson (Stallion_Cornell, Arthur, MrPostModernist, Schnorkenschneider) doesn't have that. All he has is his laptop, fighting battles he will always lose, and wasting away on the Internet while I continue to succeed at what I've been doing during the past 10 years.<br />_________________</span>Elder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-39221617809018182442009-11-10T10:32:00.001-08:002009-11-10T10:40:20.898-08:00Of Muslims and MurderersPresident Obama recently urged the nation not to “jump to any conclusions” about a mass murderer with an Arabic name who shouted “Allahu Akbar!” before mowing down over a dozen U.S. soldiers at a military base.<br /><br />Today, the DC sniper, a Muslim extremist and sympathizer with al Qaeda, is being put to death. I remember vividly that it was weeks after the man was caught before the press was willing to acknowledge the man’s religion and the role it played in his murderous rampage. Apparently, we weren’t supposed to jump to any conclusions then, either.<br /><br />But when Timothy McVeigh blew up the Federal Building in Oklahama in 1995, it was clearly Rush Limbaugh’s fault. At least, that’s what President Clinton suggested when he decried the “angry voices” on talk radio that created a “climate of violence” leading to the Oklahoma City bombing.<br /><br />It was about a year later when I remember having a conversation with an actress in Jackson Hole about Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber who killed people in order to get his left-wing manifesto published in the New York Times. We were referencing the Oklahoma City incident, and she was complaining that right-wingers were inherently violent. I pointed out that extremism in any ideology was equally dangerous, citing the aforementioned Mr. K as an example. She refused to concede that Mr. K was even a left-winger, or that one could assign any ideological motivation to his actions.<br /><br />Anyone see a pattern here?<br /><br />It would be nice to live in a world where Muslims and left-wingers and abortion activists were never violent. Heck, it would be nice to live in a world where NO ONE was violent, including right-wingers like McVeigh.<br /><br />But we don’t live in that world. And we don’t make that world by ignoring facts that we find embarrassing or unpleasant. And the fact, brought home by the shooting this past week, is that some Muslims are violent.<br /><br />Now this Muslim doesn’t represent all Muslims any more than Glenn Beck represents all Mormons – and thank heaven he doesn’t. But if a man at a military base had started shouting, “All hail Joseph Smith!” as he gunned down his fellow soldiers, do you think the media would be so circumspect about avoiding mention of his faith?<br /><br />How do we do anyone a service by ignoring facts?<br /><br />The thing that is so confusing about this is that even non-violent Islam holds tenets that are antithetical to the American Left. The subjugation of women; the shunning of homosexuals, and intolerance of other faiths are all inherent to Sharia law. I can understand left-wingers who are reluctant to acknowledge the extremist tendencies of their own ideological brethren, but why the reluctance to stand up and acknowledge the failings of a religion that runs counter to much of what they believe?<br /><br />And please don’t try to tell me it’s because they “respect all faiths” or some such nonsense. They don’t. Leftists despise my faith, and they say so publicly. When a Mormon apostle recently described the oppression the LDS Church has encountered since Proposition 8, he was greeted with howls of derision from the Left. Nobody was worried about hurting our feelings.<br /><br />Maybe it’s fear, then. Maybe the Left just doesn’t want to poke an angry tiger with a stick. They can beat up on Mormons all they want with no repercussions, but they know if they draw cartoons with Muhammed in them, they’ll start a riot, so they wear kid gloves and “avoid jumping to conclusions.”<br /><br />I can understand that, I guess, even if I don’t respect it.<br /><br />This over-sensitivity and/or fear leads us to really strange places. Again, on Facebook, I posted a link to an article about a movie being made by faithful Muslims about the life of Muhammed. The problem is that Muslims believe the prophet is too sacred to depict in person – no likeness, either visual or auditory – of Muhammed will appear in the film. My comment was that it seemed strange to make a movie about someone if that someone can’t be in it.<br /><br />To which another of my Facebook friends replied that I was “narrow-minded” and “hateful.” He de-friended me as a result.<br /><br />Pardon?<br /><br />If a Mormon tried to make a movie all about the Mormon temple ceremony but, true to his faith, refused to include any footage or excerpts of that ceremony, I would consider that a very odd and difficult thing to do. And I would say so. Would that make me a Mormon hater? And can’t I respect Islam’s insistence that Muhammed not be portrayed on screen and note that making a movie about someone who can’t be in your movie is problematic at best?<br /><br />As for me, I’m sick of walking on eggshells. The world doesn’t fit into anyone’s neat little preconceptions, and wearing blinders makes it all worse, not better.Elder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-60454242567143397522009-11-02T10:09:00.001-08:002009-11-02T10:09:59.519-08:00A Soupy StoryIn every religious group, it’s far easier to pharisaically focus on sins that people can see and smell than it is to follow the Savior’s admonition to avoid judgment of others.<br /><br />I remember, back in the 1970s, that the standard of all righteousness among the LDS Pharisees was whether or not you drank Coca-Cola. I can remember going over to a (Mormon) friend’s house and opening up his fridge and discovering large, two-liter bottles of Coke and gasping at their audacious display of wickedness. This has since declined as the standard of righteousness, the decline coinciding almost perfectly with the rise of Diet Coke in the ‘80s. Nowadays, it’s been said that you can gauge the faithfulness of a Mormon by the temperature of their caffeine.<br /><br />For those outside the faith, the question is obvious: what’s the big deal, anyway? Can Mormons drink Coke or can’t they? That’s a question that Mormons don’t fully understand themselves a lot of the time.<br /><br />The answer boils down to two simple words: “hot drinks.”<br /><br />Those are the words that appear in Section 80 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the health code for Mormons that was given as a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith back in the early 19th century. The revelation said that this was not to be observed “by commandment or constraint,” but rather as good advice, or a “Word of Wisdom.” It also said to avoid “tobacco” and “strong drinks,” as well as to eat meat sparingly and enjoy grains and wholesome foods. The Word of Wisdom, as it has come to be called, was observed sporadically by the church membership at large until the 1930s, when then-LDS Church President Heber J. Grant made it mandatory for all Mormons wishing to attend the temple to live the Word of Wisdom, especially the explicit taboo on tobacco, booze, coffee, and tea.<br /><br />Of course, the Word of Wisdom never says “coffee and tea.” It says “hot drinks.” Now at the time the revelation was given, Joseph Smith made it clear that “hot drinks” was a euphemism for coffee and tea, and given the 19th century context, that makes perfect sense. But for the pharisaical, this poses a number of problems. For instance, is the temperature the issue? What about cold coffee or iced tea? And what about, say, hot chocolate?<br /><br />At one point, that last question was not just academic.<br /><br />The story I’m about to recount is told in family circles and may well be apocryphal, but it’s worth telling, nonetheless. It involves the previously mentioned Heber J. Grant, although it takes place long before he assumed the mantle of the church presidency. In this story, Heber J. Grant is a young man in his twenties, called to serve as the junior member in the church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.<br /><br />At one of his first meetings with his eleven brethren, Heber J. is asked to consider whether or not hot chocolate should be included in the Word of Wisdom prohibition, given the fact that it, too, is a hot drink.<br /><br />This is a major problem for Heber J. As the junior member, he will be the first polled on the issue, and he worries that if he says yes when everyone else says no, he will look like a zealot. If he says no and everyone else says yes, he will look faithless. He looks to church president Wilford Woodruff for some kind of guidance, but President Woodruff is a very old man, considerably frailer than he once was, and he’s sitting unobtrusively in a far corner of the room, very likely asleep.<br /><br />Heber J. looks to the heavens for inspiration and receives none. So he considers the issue and, using his best judgment, decides to vote yes. Yes, Heber J. says – hot chocolate should be against the Word of Wisdom.<br /><br />They poll each apostle in succession. Each time, the answer comes back in the affirmative. To a man, each of the twelve apostles agrees with Heber J. They unanimously affirm that hot chocolate, as a hot drink, should be prohibited.<br /><br />Then President Woodruff stirs, and, with his eyes closed, mutters under his breath, “Ugh… next time it’ll be soup.”<br /><br />And that’s it.<br /><br />Discussion ends; the vote is ignored, and the whole matter is dropped.<br /><br />Inspiration works in remarkable ways.<br /><br />So to answer the earlier question – is Coke prohibited by the Mormon’s code of health? The short answer is no – according to the official interpretation of Section 89, only coffee and tea are prohibited. But anyone with any intelligence can look at the reasons for that prohibition and extrapolate that caffeine probably isn’t good for you. So with that mindset, they can reasonably decide to incorporate that principle into their dietary habits and shun Coke, too. Which is fine by me. But what’s not fine is to look down your nose at me if I hold to the letter of the law rather than your interpretation of the spirit thereof. <br /><br />Take that kind of nonsense too far, and next time, it’ll be soup.Elder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-1154380504695370662009-10-30T15:40:00.001-07:002009-10-30T15:45:23.870-07:00The Plan: My Final GINO ReviewWriting a host of reviews of bad shows you don’t like requires a certain amount of creativity. How do you moan, complain, and whine without sounding like you’re moaning, complaining, and whining?<br /><br />With GINO, the simplest way to do that was to highlight the absurdity of the series’ central claim, reiterated at the beginning of the first two seasons’ spate of episodes:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">They have a plan…</span><br /><br />Over at the SciFi.com bulletin board, my avatar has a graphic that reads, “The Cylon Plan Explained: 1. Blow everything up. 2. Breed with the radioactive leftovers. 3. Make them love you and/or steal their ovaries. 4. Admit you made a mistake. 5. Find Earth. Repeat."<br /><br />It was such an easy target. With each episode, it became clear that there was no plan, either for the Cylons or the series. The sense of betrayal among hardcore GINOids is widespread, due to the fact that many still believed until the final turd floated across their screens earlier this year. But many held out hope that <span style="font-style: italic;">The Plan</span>, Jane Espensen’s attempt to retcon coherence onto the manifestly slipshod series, would somehow redeem the abject failure of the finale, whose smell still lingers.<br /><br />You be the judge.<br /><br />Here’s the Cylon plan explained:<br /><br />Step 1. Kill everybody.<br /><br />That’s it. One stop shop. Kill, kill, kill. My plan is far more complex - and interesting, too. Why didn't they hire me? Jerks.<br /><br />Everyone who enjoyed this show - and even those of us who didn't - expected much, much more. We all imagined wild, Machiavellian behind-the-scenes schemes that would make sense out of nonsense. Because if The Plan of the GINO Cylons was identical to that of the TOS Cylons - KILL EVERYONE! - then you have to account for the Cylons’ complete incompetence in fulfilling the plan.<br /><br />And that’s what this show is about – Cylon incompetence.<br /><br />Two separate Quantum Leap Cylons spend two hours showing up between clips of old episodes whining about how inept their footsoldiers are. The goal was to kill all humans, and the footage showing the destruction of the Colonies showed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of basestars in a truly eye-popping effects sequence showing the assault on the colonies. Apparently, only a couple of those bastestars could ever be bothered to be deployed against the fleet at any given time. But not to worry: a handful of slutty, conflicted Cylons are in the fleet, and each botches their jobs worse than the one before.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The Plan</span> is a retcon, all right: it retcons the Cylons as unmasked Imperial Stormtroopers incapable of shooting in a straight line.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The Plan</span> also answers questions that no one was asking. How did the Cylon 6/Shelley Godfry get off Galactica in Season 1? Well, in the original episode, it was mysterious and evocative that she disappeared just as Baltar’s in-head #6 reappeared. The two seemed mystically linked, and it implied there was a grand scheme at work.<br /><br />With <span style="font-style: italic;">The Plan</span>, we already know that Shelley Godfry had nothing to do with the in-head Six, so we discover that she escaped by being shoved out of an airlock by Quantum Leap Guy while a different Six ran up ahead in a bleached wig.<br /><br />Neat. (Is this a revelation to anyone?)<br /><br />We learn nothing of substance, and close to 50% of this show is old footage. We do see some topless waitresses, though. THAT’S something they clearly wanted to show on broadcast television but couldn’t. I’d rather have had consistency instead of porn, but I’m just an old prude that way.<br /><br />I didn’t think it possible, but this movie actually makes GINO even less appealing, less interesting, and less lamented.<br /><br />Rest in peace, GINO. Or not. Just rest. Rest forever.<br /><br />You’re done.Elder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-19979464495829102212009-10-26T16:40:00.000-07:002009-10-26T16:46:44.227-07:00Galactica and GINO - The Stallion SummationTomorrow,<span style="font-style: italic;"> The Plan</span>, the final piece of the pile that is GINO - i.e. Galactica In Name Only, will be released to the public. For whatever reason, I decided to watch the entire series from beginning to end.<br /><br />It wasn't very good.<br /><br />I will very likely watch<span style="font-style: italic;"> The Plan,</span> too, as I'm a completist, and I want to have, on record, my review of the entire wretched project. In addition, nasty review are more fun to write than nice ones.<br /><br />In the meantime, I reproduce my review of the entire Galactica experience, which I wrote up for the initial article for Richard Bushman's<a href="http://timesandseasons.org/mormonreview/wordpress/"> Mormon Review. </a>It;s a great site, and I hope to write more for it in the future. I was honored to be asked, and even more honored to be the first article published.<br /><br />The subject of my article? Battlestar Galactica.<br /><br />Naturally, I lifted a good chunk of what I wrote over there from what I'd written here. But I think that piece gives perhaps the broadest, most complete sense of where I stand re: Galactica, and how I've wasted my time in the past decade or so.<br /><br />So take a look. You can read this on the Mormon Review site <a href="http://timesandseasons.org/mormonreview/wordpress/?p=59">here</a>, or you can jsut keep reading what's written below.<br /><br />__________<br /><h1>From Kolob to Kobol</h1> <p>A telltale sign that the day’s lesson will be doctrinally suspect is when the instructor begins, as one did at the University of Utah Institute in the fall of 1989, with the bald assertion that the lost tribes of Israel are “not on this earth.” But what makes for lousy CES instruction can be the stuff of great television, at least in theory. In practice, the TV show was <em>Battlestar Galactica</em>, and the greatness thereof depends entirely on your point of view.<span id="more-59"></span></p> <p>The series debuted on September 11, 1978, hot on the heels of <em>Star Wars</em> mania, and critics were quick to dismiss this new space opera as a pale imitation of George Lucas’s original, which prompted Lucas himself to bring suit against the producers of the series for copyright infringement. He lost, but that doesn’t mean <em>Galactica</em> wasn’t lifting a good chunk of its material from other sources.</p> <p>Consider the show’s premise, created by a Latter-day Saint: The human race, descended from the Lords of Kobol, is divided into twelve tribes, led by a Quorum of the Twelve, in search of the lost thirteenth tribe which settled “a shining planet known as Earth.” These people don’t get married; they are “sealed for all the eternities.” Along their journey, they meet a race of glowing, angelic super beings. “As you are, we once were,” they tell the show’s heroes. “As we are, you may become.”</p> <p>Plus there are lots of killer robots and things that blow up. (Which, come to think of it, would have made the initial institute class much more interesting.)</p> <p>As space opera goes, the show holds up better than its critics would have you believe. The special effects work was as good or better than anything on the big screen at the time. Even today, the practical models used look more realistic than much of the computer-generated stuff that modern audiences have come to expect. The problem was that much of the footage was recycled to save cash, so that later in the series, every ship that is shot down explodes in exactly the same manner as all previous explosions.</p> <p>As far as pulp television goes, the show is a lot of fun. The cast is led by a sturdy, post-<em>Bonanza</em> Lorne Greene, and the performances hold up well, even if the 1970s hairstyles do not. Some of the episodes are outstanding, notably the pilot, the ones with the Lorenzo Snow-quoting angels, and a two-parter with Lloyd Bridges as an interstellar Captain Ahab. Some are mediocre, and some, like the one with Oz scarecrow Ray Bolger as an alien robot doing a soft shoe number, are just plain awful. But overall, its track record is impressive, and the show has a resonance it doesn’t earn, due largely to its theological underpinnings.</p> <p>Theologically, of course, the show is embarrassing, due to its tendency to sensationalize and distort LDS doctrines that are easily sensationalized and distorted. Years later, when <em>The Godmakers</em> presented the “Mormon Jesus” beaming down from “Starbase Kolob,” you could see <em>Galactica</em> as the likely source material. Producer Glen A. Larson, himself a Latter-day Saint, had no problem with borrowing LDS concepts and giving them a scientological spin.</p> <p>Yet, in large part, this is why the show, which was ignominiously cancelled after a single season, still survives in the public memory. The show was overtly religious, and, like few television presentations before or since, treated matters of faith with genuine respect. In addition, the show was politically conservative. It depicted a military with more common sense than the weak, pacifist leader that ultimately doomed the human race to destruction. Like <em>Star Trek</em> before it, <em>Galactica</em> used a fantastic, surreal backdrop to wrestle with some heady philosophical issues. Yet unlike <em>Star Trek</em>, <em>Galactica</em> came out siding with the sacred, not the secular.</p> <p>There has been no other series like it, before or since. That includes the second series titled <em>Battlestar Galactica</em>, which debuted in 2003.</p> <p>The new <em>Battlestar Galactica</em>, reimagined from the old, was built on a foundation of contempt for what had gone before.</p> <p>Ron Moore, the new producer, wrote a treatise about the new show claiming that it would essentially redefine the nature of televised science fiction. Where the old show was bright, fun, and optimistic, this show would be dark, gritty, and filled with in-your-face despair. As the show unfolded, you could almost smell the reflexive disdain for its source material in the comments of those who followed its hype but not its story. It’s impossible to read an overview of Moore’s series without a ritualistic genuflection to the idea that the original series was hokey and trite and silly and filled with all manner of limburger. So even when the new show fell woefully short, which it did often, apologists took cover behind Dirk Benedict’s dated hairstyle. At least the new show didn’t have the cornball clothes! Or the goofy backdrops! Or Lords of Kobol!</p> <p>Oh, wait…</p> <p>See, the dirty secret was that much of the original show’s basic mythology actually did survive into the new incarnation. And when the new show shined – and it did, on occasion, have its moments – it was following in the footsteps of its predecessor. Unfortunately, it always refused to acknowledge that that was what it was doing. It showed a military that was oppressive and corrupt, led by leaders who sounded an awful lot like George W. Bush. They showed an Iraq-like occupation perpetrated by the killer robots, with the noble humans leading a righteous insurgence. Religion was for the dumb and the demented.</p> <p>The producers were demonstrably embarrassed by where they had come from. They were ever lamenting the fact that they were forced to labor under the leaden weight of the cheesy title Battlestar Galactica, which was holding them back.</p> <p>That last is a provably false assertion.</p> <p>The only information people who tuned in to watch the initial miniseries had was that the show was named <em>Battlestar Galactica</em>. That was a name with a history and not-insignificant brand equity. So the miniseries was a ratings smash. Yet when the show went to series, it lost a third of that original audience.</p> <p>So who were the people who abandoned this show after the miniseries?<br />Wouldn’t it make sense to assume that a good chunk of them were people who liked <em>Battlestar Galactica</em> but recognized that this series bore scant resemblance to its namesake? As the show wore on, the ratings steadily eroded to the point where first run episodes were lower-rated than syndicated <em>Star Trek: Enterprise</em> reruns. Based solely on the ratings data, the show should have been cancelled after the second season, yet it endured. Why? Because the network and the producers and the intelligentsia were proud of it. They were proud of the audience they were alienating. The rubes and hicks that couldn’t see how nihilistic gloom was infinitely more sophisticated than the heroic optimism of the original series weren’t welcome. The new show mocked their religion, their politics, their morality, and wallowed in the despair that marks the absence of the things they hold dear.</p> <p>The irony was that, in the end, God did it all.</p> <p>Ron Moore began the series without having any understanding of where he was going. Consequently, he spent four seasons digging himself into so many deep plot holes that the only way to dig himself out was to provide the ultimate <em>Deus ex Machina</em> – it turns out that everything was being orchestrated by an unseen and unexplained deity figure, a god who, it turns out, “doesn’t like to be called that.” It was a cheap, shoddy end to a sour, miasmic series.</p> <p>The word on the street now is that original series producer, Glen A. Larson, is attempting to bring the classic version of <em>Galactica</em> to the big screen. Will Mormons find it embarrassing? Probably. But if it manages to restore the basic principles that made the first show so endearing, it’ll be worth watching.</p> <p>At the very least, it will give institute teachers something else to talk about.</p>Elder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-51239742238256549082009-10-23T12:09:00.001-07:002009-10-23T12:09:26.291-07:00Surf IslandThe first people to use surfboards had big, long rough boards, but no one knew what surfing was really about until Big J. did it. Big J’s real name is Jack. People liked watching him go inside the wave and come out on his back soaking wet with cold salty water.<br /><br />One day I’m going to be just like him. My name is Cody White. I live in Hawaii. I’ve been surfing since I was six. I’m fifteen years old now. I’ve taken on some very big waves. I can do a lot of three-sixties in the warm breeze.<br /><br />One day, I was amazed when Mikey was here on the steamship looking for people with good talent for surfing. He brings them to Surf Island. He chose me to show him how good I am. The waves weren’t coming and I hate sitting on my board in the cold waters.<br /><br />Mikey said, “Come on, kid. This is the last place I have to go. This is taking all day.” He walked back to the boat and said, “I haven’t won anything in my life.”<br /><br />I started running over to the boat on the warm , powdery sand. I dove into the water and paddled over in my cold, drenched wetsuit. I started surfing in the little waves that the golden steamship was making. I yelled at them, saying, “I don’t care what you say! I’m coming to Surf Island!”<br /><br />“No, you aren’t! This is a place for big wave surfers!”<br /><br />Anyway, he did think it was entertaining, so he let down the rope ladder, and I brought up my smooth, striped wood board. The steamship’s warm floor felt good on my feet.<br /><br />When we got to Surf Island, I remembered about my Big J. necklace. I got it when Jack came to Hawaii. He could just glide on the waves like the waves weren’t big.<br /><br />Surf Island was awesome. There was crab, all kinds of food, and surfers. I liked the 20-foot waves. The best surfers get wiped out at Surfer Island.<br /><br />Then I saw Blaze, the number one surfer.<br /><br />He was throwing rough, sharp rocks at the board Jack took his final wave on. Jack took his final wave at Surf Island.<br /><br />I ran up to Blaze and punched him in the back. He turned around and said, “Hey, guys, it’s Jack’s last man.” All the surfers came over to see. Then out of nowhere, I said, “I’ll take you anywhere anytime.”<br /><br />Then Joe came over to me and said, “Well then, who wants to see the little guy take on the champ?” Everyone started shouting and cheering.! Joe said, “Whoever takes on the biggest wave wins!”<br /><br />We went out into the cold, salty ocean. I wiped out on my first try and Blaze was surfing to the beach on the smooth waves. I paddled back to the hot, sandy beach. When I go there, I fainted. I hit a rock in the ocean when I wiped out. It felt like steel.<br /><br />Mikey was the lifeguard. He took me up to his house. His cousin J. was sleeping on his bed.<br /><br />“Get up, you sleepyhead! This guy is hurt!”<br /><br />“What happened? Did he hit a rock?”<br /><br />“I don’t know, but I know he hit his head, because there’s a big scrape on his head.”<br /><br />“Yep, he hit a rock, all right.”<br /><br />Then suddenly I woke up in this strange place. I saw Mikey and I asked, “Who is that person over there?”<br /><br />“He’s my cousin. I call him ‘J’”.<br /><br />“Where’s my board?”<br /><br />“It’s over by the soft, fuzzy couch.”<br /><br />I remembered that face. It was Jack. I started screaming and yelled, “You’re Jack, right? Yes, you are! That’s awesome! Can you come watch me ride at the contest?”<br /><br />Jack said, “I’ll ride with you, but not watch you.”<br /><br />“Why not? Why didn’t you come back after that wave hit you?”<br /><br />“I didn’t want to come back because all my fans would be booing at me. They only thought I was dead because my board broke and I didn’t come back.”<br /><br />The next day was the contest. I was in the finals. I was stunned. I’ve never seen such a big wave in my entire life. I went into the ice cold wave and came back out with salty water all over me. Blaze tried to squirt water in my face, but he swerved right into the wave and wiped out.<br /><br />“I won! I won!” The trophy shone in the sun so brightly it almost blinded me. Jack came out of the bushes and patted me on the back. I gave him the trophy and said,” Jack deserves this trophy. He could look up to anyone.”<br /><br />Everyone was starting at him. They kept on asking him questions. We all gave our boards back to Joe and walked off. I can’t think of a better day. Finally, I went home and hugged my family. I had such a good time at Surf Island.<br /><br />THE ENDElder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-57490728343039035422009-10-22T11:07:00.000-07:002009-10-22T13:22:46.311-07:00More Fun with Andrew S.<span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Andrew's original is in green; my responses are in black. </span><br /><br />Let's look at Alma 32.</span><br /><br />OK.<br /><br /> <span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">Start with 17 & 18 to find out that faith isn't knowledge. Faith isn't to know something. Faith isn't having a sign.</span><br /><br />Correct. "Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it."<br /><br /> <span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">But here's the deal in verse 22. 22 gives us two 'conclusions' that the proper LDS person should come to. 1) Believe in God. 2) Believe (or desire to believe) on his word.</span><br /><br />Not exactly. It says that <span style="font-style: italic;">God</span> wants us to believe and is merciful to those who do. But I'll go with it. <br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);"> How do we get there?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);"> verse 27...But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);"> So, faith is what you use from the beginning. When you have 0 successes. When you don't know.</span><br /><br />How is this different from the scientific method? When you have a hypothesis, you have 0 successes - you're trying to prove something you don't know. Science is riddled with faulty hypotheses that have been disproven. <br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);"> If we go to 28, he compares the word to a seed...a seed that you had to plant by faith to check if it is true. If it is a good seed, it should check out. You might say that if it is a bad seed, it should not check out (verse 32). BUT 28 (as well as 38-39) has the loophole...by simply not having faith, you can cast the seed out by your unbelief!. So faith (even if it is a mere desire to believe) ACHIEVES the conclusion that faith wants.</span><br /><br />Nonsense. If you "cast out the seed with your unbelief," you cut off the experiment before you get any results. Verses 38-39 talk about people who "neglect the tree and take no thought for its nourishment." In scientific terms, you can't tell if something is a seed or a pebble if you don't bother to water it. <br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);"> Let's check out 34. This is the clincher. When you gain KNOWLEDGE, your FAITH is dormant. But doesn't that make sense?</span><br /><br />Yes, but look closer at verse 34. Your knowledge is perfect <span style="font-style: italic;">"in that thing</span>." What thing? Do you have a perfect knowledge of God, his methods and purposes? Not at all. Your knowledge is perfect that, in verse 33, "<span style="font-style: italic;">the seed is good</span>." As verse 36 says, "neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good." In other words, you have perfect knowledge that your faith is a good thing, so you have the necessary encouragement to continue to rely on it and help it to grow.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);"> Again, I am not saying that religion is irrational. Rather, it is subjective. See, the about Alma 32 is that it is predicated on subjective response...what happens to *you*. Does *your* heart swell? Do *you* find the seed grows? Do *you* find your soul to enlarge? And this is why so many people believe. Because indeed, they do have such subjective responses.</span><br /><br />I agree to the extent that it is impossible to measure subjective responses. I don't agree that this experiment only works for some and not for others because it's simply a reflection of your own personal preferences. Varied results, I believe, are the product of other elements being interjected into the experiment. <br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);"> But the thing about subjectivity is that it differs by person...different people have different reactions. So, whereas one person might feel a swelling from the Alma 32 experiment, another might not. One might feel a "confirmation" from the Quran, or from completely different text. These spiritual confirmations are meaningful to the individual, but they do not say anything about the objective truth or falsity of the texts they espouse.</span><br /><br />Subjectivity does not preclude truth, nor does it make it relative. Our criminal justice system goes to great lengths to ferret out the truth in the subjective, and they punish people accordingly. (Did he kill her in a frenzied moment of fury, or had he cold-bloodedly planned this out?) Subjectivity makes discerning truth difficult, because only God can perfectly know our hearts, but it doesn't mean that there's no truth to be found. The fact that I can't conclusively determine why you and I respond differently to one text or another doesn't make every text equally valid.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);"> The issue is...where do these subjective experiences come from? Faith concludes that they are from God (whichever kind you believe in...) But we don't have evidence of this. We have evidence that mental experiences comes from the brain. Now, whether these brain patterns still come from God is certainly possible, but since most religious people insist that we have no way of *naturally* studying and "testing" God scientifically, they by default make God inaccessible.</span><br /><br />No, they don't. If God were inaccessible, then no one would believe. God has set the parameters as to how access is granted, and they currently don't include brainwave analysis. We've determined in this discussion that you can't prove a negative, so the fact that you can't measure God by means of scientific instruments proves nothing and suggests nothing. You can't use any scientific instrument to prove how I feel about my cats unless I'm willing to tell you. (I don't like them, BTW.) And you can't prove anything about God unless He's willing to tell you. (Which, I subjectively submit, He is, if you follow Alma's experiment.) <span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);"></span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);"> I can guarantee you that no one seriously says, "transition species don't fossilize."</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);"><br /></span><br />I don't know whether they're serious or not, but it's a relatively common excuse, particularly with reference to the Cambrian explosion. See <a href="http://skepticcon.wordpress.com/tag/fossil-record/">here</a> -<span style="font-style: italic;">"Perhaps there was no real 'explosion,' and the answer is simple that most of the Precambrian ancestors didn’t fossilize"</span> - for starters. I could dig up more, I suppose, but I'm lazy.<br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);"><br />No, the real problem is the environmental conditions for fossilization -- it's not the species, but where (in time and in location) they have lived that determines things. And even that isn't said with no evidence. That is said with clear evidence of the chemical composition of various substrata of soil and the effects on fossilization.</span><br /><br />I don't really know what this means or how it's relevant.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);"> Why does the fossil record feature quick disappearances and appearances? That's because evolution does NOT work via phyletic gradualism, which you seem to believe in and seem to think is what is "expected" of natural selection. This gradualism has been falsified. Natural selection and evolution works in a punctuated equilibrium. You can read more here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html</span><br /><br />I read that, and I'm familiar with "punctuated equilibrium." All it does is acknowledge the fact that the fossil record has been brutal to Darwin's initial concept of phyletic gradualism. The fossil record shows complex species appearing and disappearing suddenly with little to no variation. "Punctuated equilibrium" acknowledges this but provides no explanation for it, other than, "it must happen more quickly than we thought."<br /><br />Belief in "punctuated equilibrium" is an exercise in faith. <br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);"> Remember that some photoreceptivity is better than none in most environments (even if rudimentary)...that is why we *do* have evidence of rudimentary photocells in more primitive species (e.g., euglenas, which you can study in HS biology). From photoreceptivity, there are plenty of places to go that provide natural advantage...for example, ability to tell direction of light. One *cannot* assume that an eye is only 1:0 in usefulness...either is or is not. That is not the case.</span><br /><br />Even basic photoreceptivity requires a massive amount of microbiological complexity. A single cell is irreducibly complex, and natural selection and/or punctuated equilibrium provides no explanation as to how these moving parts could come together as a result of a series of accidents. <br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);"> Similarly, one cannot assume that during an evolutionary process, something must be useful for the *same* thing and just progress more of the same.</span><br /><br />Granted. <br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);"> The question really is...how do we put the pieces together.</span><br /><br />Yes. How you do it is determined by where you place your faith. <span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);"></span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);"> Here's how you falsify evolution. Show a modern human in the same strata as the earliest bacteria. Find the fossil. Go.</span><br /><br />What would that prove? What would that disprove? You can't find a fossil with both a gopher and a toilet, either. So what? How does the absence of anything prove anything?<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);"> Falsification is showing how the explanation goes *against* the evidence. So, we know that transition species *do* fossilize (because every species is a transition species...any fossils we have are of transition species!) So, we know this is false. However, what we can say is that under certain environments, chemical composition will reduce chance to fossilize. The way to falsify this is show how these environments actually *don't* reduce chance to fossilize (e.g., find as many fossils here as elsewhere).</span><br /><br />This is backpedalling. You dismiss earlier the idea that anyone could seriously claim that transitional species don't fossilize, and now you're offering an explanation as to why transitional species don't fossilize. <br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);"> But you really have to do reading on what the theories actually say, instead of what you just think they say. A lot of this message was just correcting for the inaccuracy of your understanding of evolution.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Neat. </span><br /></span>Elder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6736084703550642163.post-19063442034593803442009-10-21T16:57:00.000-07:002009-10-21T17:01:44.956-07:00Blog ReportSo I broke down and opened up a Twitter account. If you want to follow me, I’m at twitter.com/stallioncornell. I don’t know how or why I’ll use it, but there it is. The first few days, my updates consisted of such one-word entries as “poop” and “Clytemnestra.” If that turns you on, then sign up to see what other nonsense I’ll come up with next.<br /><br />I’m quite enamored of Facebook – I enjoy connecting with people I know and seeing what they’re doing. Twitter, I don’t really get as of yet. Near as I can figure, it’s just like this blog, except every entry has to be 140 characters or less, and there are no real long-term discussions. Is there an advantage to this that I’m missing?<br /><br />One thing I like, though, is I can post Twitter updates via text message. That’s so easy! Now if only there were something worthy of posting. And if anyone cared. Because I don’t. But I now have the option open. Perhaps I’ll use it effectively. (And I didn’t want Languatron to register my name over there.)<br /><br />The entire Internet seems to be moving in a Facebooky direction. That is to say, every news article now allows you to “comment,” which usually means people get to facelessly rant and insult people. Blogs like this one feel like they’re a dying breed, which led me to reconsider whether I wanted to restart this at all or just focus on my Facebook page instead.<br /><br />Part of the impetus for revisiting this blog was the discovery, by the lovely Mrs. Cornell, of my personal journal, which extensively covers a time period from Christmas of 1980 to May 28, 1985, with a depressed, angst-ridden rant written as a postscript in October of 1986. (I’d tear that page out if I could, but that would destroy the preceding 1985 page.)<br /><br />Rereading the journal is painful in the extreme. It’s saturated with adolescent melodrama, and one would get the impression that I spent my entire adolescence well nigh unto suicidal, when such was not the case. But I didn’t write in the journal when I was feeling cheerful; I wrote when I had some drama to expunge, which makes for very turgid reading.<br /><br />Some representative excerpts:<br /><br />“I am not particularly attractive, and my constant stupidity is the main factor in prolonging my agony.” – August 19, 1982<br /><br />“I tend to be obnoxious. I also feel like I’ve accomplished nothing. I’m extremely lazy, and everything I do is mediocre.” – October 21, 1983<br /><br />“All the way home on that abominable car ride I fantasized about jumping out the door and splattering all over the freeway.” – December 24, 1983<br /><br />You get the idea.<br /><br />But even in the midst of that grunge, there are wonderful people and events that I had forgotten that are now recorded forever. Some more pleasant excerpts:<br /><br />“We heard the Gay Men’s Choir of LA sing. They were all gay, but they sang well.” – January 23, 1983 [Note: I know this is not politically correct. I was only 14, and attitudes were quite different back then. I think it's impressive that, while I had to derogatorily note their sexual orientation, I gave them kudos for their talent.]<br /><br />“Our current hobby is harassing a radio pastor [Dr. Gene Scott] over his toll-free hotline.” – October 21, 1983<br /><br />“I got two detentions from my English teacher for harassing a substitute. Brett told me to break dance, so I sat and spun on the floor in the middle of the class.” – December 1, 1983<br /><br />“The Summer Olympics have begun, and the entire city is caught up in the magic of the Olympic year. My brother and cousin Steve (as well as his friend Rob A.) are taking an active part. They have signed on as official security guards for the XXIIIrd Olympiad. It keeps them off the streets.” – August 6, 1984<br /><br />“The next day was my birthday. At 8:00 AM in the morning, I went to the DMV to take my driving test. Much to my paranoid mother’s chagrin, who broke into tears once while I drove the car to McDonalds, I passed with flying colors.” – August 22, 1984<br /><br />“I told an overblown story of how I bumped into a stoner, was chased by the narcs, grabbed and frisked, and implicated in a drug deal due to the stoner’s small bag of marijuana in his sock. I escaped in the nick of time after lying about my name (Mike Jeffries) and what my wallet was doing in my crotch. I told the narc ‘that’s my d---, and I’d advise you not to touch it again.’ “ – Feb. 4, 1985<br /><br />Perhaps not the stuff that will appear in the next Mormon Journal in the Ensign, but fun to remember.<br /><br />Which is why I’m going to keep going with this blog. This has become an online journal, and its public nature will keep me from indulging in the more adolescent, embarrassing stories that make my teenage journal such a chore to read. I can’t count the number of times that I have referred back to an entry of this blog to clarify or explain my thinking.<br /><br />So I’m going to press forward, undaunted. I’m game if you are.<br /><br />We put our German Shephered to sleep on my birthday in 1983.Elder Samuel Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11693549213767747968noreply@blogger.com8